- This topic is empty.
- Posts
This is amazing…
I reported two posts for abuse, one from SF and one from Mikeboll only to find that the reports go to Mikeboll for moderating … No wonder Mikeboll never gets tiled and others don't get tiled…
How can a Moderator who is partial be a moderator of his own abusive posts – will he give himself a tile?
What kind of place is this where prisoners are their own jailers!!
Quote (Istari @ April 17 2011,15:33) Kathi, I was not stating that there were no verses saying 'Honor the Father' for Honor is embodied in Worship: one cannot Worship without also first honouring.
The verse was there but it seemed you deliberately 'Missed it' so you did not have to answer it.
Here it is again:
Phil 3:3 'We..worship God in the Spirit [And] rejoice in Christ Jesus…''
'Honor the Son, Worship God'
Istari,Thanks for giving me the reference which was NOT there when you asked me your question. I looked up the Greek and this is a more accurate translation:
Phil 3:3
for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh,So, the verse says that those who worship in the Spirit of God would naturally rejoice/glory/boast in Christ Jesus. Worshipping in truth leads to believing and rejoicing in Jesus.
you said:
Quote The verse was there but it seemed you deliberately 'Missed it' so you did not have to answer it. Istari,
1. I know that your statement is a false assumption and therefore I know that you did not sense my spirit in why I did not answer it. You missed that opportunity to 'get it' and made your wrong assumption obvious to me. I wonder why because it completely showed your lack of understanding my simple desire to just be shown a verse reference before I answered you.
2. There was no reference in your first post, i.e. Phil 3:3, where you asked me to give you an answer about a verse was there?
3. You should have just given me the benefit of the doubt because I did not ignore your post, I asked you to clarify so that should have shown you that I needed more information before I addressed your concern.
Be nice, give people the benefit of the doubt.
Kathi
Also,
Mikeboll defends SF's abusive posts showing that he is not impartial even to those who post against him.
Can anyone tell me what qualities they imagine a MODERATOR should have?
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 17 2011,12:37) It says “everything” which wouldnt inlcude God because they are one and the same.
If they were seperate entities, than i wouldnt know how you would fit that in your theology.
No, read it more carefully:
27 For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.It does not include WHO? “GOD HIMSELF”. What does “HIMSELF” imply to YOU? Does it imply ONE?
And this ONE who is not included as being under the OTHER ONE Jesus, is the ONE who put everything under the OTHER ONE, Jesus.
See? TWO are mentioned, and ONE of those TWO is “GOD HIMSELF”.
mike
Kathi,
I'm sorry for that… I posted before I looked it up. Then all this nonsense with Mikeboll and SF kicked off so I didn't get back.
However, the essence of what I wrote was there : Worship God; glorify the Son.
The text does not say 'worship in the Spirit of God'.
Kathi, what does that mean? Worship in the Spirit of God ? There is no [person/Subject]…
Worship [God] in Spirit…
For God is a Spirit and they that Worship Him must worship in Spirit and Truth.
Here, the subject is mentioned and gives a complete sentence.Kathi, just saying 'Worship in the Spirit of God' has no target subject to which the Worship is directed.
This waters down the full verse by leaving out God and targets Jesus only – which I suspect is the purpose of your desire to go back to the Greek.
Kathi, was it necessary to go to the Greek to understand this line.
The point was : Only God is to be worshipped (In Spirit and truth)
Jesus must be 'Honored, Glorified and Praised'
He who glorifies the Son, glorifies the Father also
But do you not read elsewhere: Glorify God – and God IS the Father.Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 17 2011,12:45) Mike Now that you Finally Understand the Crux of the matter, And now that you acknowledge that the NT writers have demonstrated the Idea of a particular group called Angels. Is Jesus Christ Our Lord and Saviour part of the Particular Group that are not technically defined as simple “messengers”?
And if So what Scripture do you have to prove that Jesus is part of this particular group.
Hi D,Well, I've learned new things on this thread, just like every thread I'm involved with.
I thought it was cut and dry (that phrase is MINE, don't use it!) that Jesus was an angel of God. And he IS in the respect that he is a messenger of his God.
See the last post on page 26. I've summed up my understanding of the issue in that post. Read it and let me know if you have anything to rebut or add.
mike
Quote (Lightenup @ April 17 2011,13:22) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 17 2011,13:45) Mike Said: Quote It seems to me that Dennison was right about this point. Although “aggelos” does simply mean “messenger”, and was used of human beings as well as heavenly spirit beings, the NT writers do seem to distinguish a group of beings called “aggelos” from mankind in this verse. There's also Hebrews 1:14, although that mention of “aggelos” could refer to either spirit beings or human beings I suppose. mike
Mike Now that you Finally Understand the Crux of the matter, And now that you acknowledge that the NT writers have demonstrated the Idea of a particular group called Angels.
Is Jesus Christ Our Lord and Saviour part of the Particular Group that are not technically defined as simple “messengers”?
And if So what Scripture do you have to prove that Jesus is part of this particular group.
Good question Dennison!
Oh crap! I spaced off D's DIRECT and BOLDED question in my last response! Sorry!D, there seem to be scriptures that CLEARLY list him among that group. And there are one or two that might be understood to mean he is NOT a part of that group.
I've answered to all of those scriptures in the aforementioned post on page 26.
mike
Quote (Lightenup @ April 17 2011,13:36) Col 1 15 tells us that the Son was creator not the created. No one can be a 'firstBORN' and also the first of a kind. He was the second of His kind…the God natured kind.
Kathi,God has brought forth many “first of their kinds”.
Quote (Istari @ April 17 2011,16:09) Mikeboll, I answered your question but because it showed you were wrong you resort to revenge!
Istari,The following is from page 27:
Quote Hey Istari, This is the point of my last point to you:
You have stated this claim, and showed the scripture to support your claim. That is how things should be done here. But why then when I point out that John the Baptist also heard and did the works of God would you have to change the requirements to “also sinless”?
It seems to me like I made my point, and you don't like it, so now you're adding things into your claim that AREN'T supported by scripture. See? You started off right, but are willing to change scripture in order to be “right” on this issue.
Please address this point instead of running off at the mouth with insults that no one here really even cares about.
mike
Do you see that many posts ago, I was already asking for scriptural support to your claim that one must be sinless in order to be a son of God. I ask because I don't know of such a scripture. On the other hand, I DO know of scripture that calls the Israelites during the exodus “sons of God”, and they were anything but sinless.So you see, you have NOT actually addressed the point because you have NOT actually posted a scripture that says being sinless is a requirement to being a son of God.
This all started because I wanted to know how Jesus was “THE Son of God” instead of “A son of God”. I wanted to know what distinguished him from say, John the Baptist, while he was on earth.
mike
Quote (Istari @ April 17 2011,18:28) Then all this nonsense with Mikeboll and SF kicked off so I didn't get back.
Oh I see. It's “nonsense” when someone finally gives it back to you in the same measure with which you give it out daily?Istari, I will make a final plea to you as Moderator:
PLEASE just stick to discussing the scriptural matters that are on topic with the thread. Look back through the last few pages of this thread. There are probably over 100 personal insults to me because I've asked you to show scriptural proof for a claim you've made. Since when does asking for a scripture become a reason to slam people? You've done the same to Kathi because SHE asked for a scripture. If you're not trying to hide anything, then just offer the scripture when asked. What is so hard about that? After all, scripture is what we're here to discuss, right?
Final warning: This site is for adults who want to discuss scriptural things. We did not join HN to be insulted many times a day by you. Either act like a respectful adult, or find another forum. I do not say you must be “perfect” and always be “Mr. Politeness”. I do not say that you can't have a heated discussion about things you're passionate about. I do not say that you are forbidden to call a spade a spade. I only ask that you keep in mind the reason for the forum. It is not to belittle or insult others, but for people to discuss similarities and differences in their scriptural understandings.
From this post on is a fresh start for everyone. Please focus your comments on the issues at hand, and refrain from personal insults the best that you can.
Moderator
Quote (Istari @ April 18 2011,04:03) Is this guy (sf) for real: who is this person? SF, what is yOur problem. Who are you,,, no, what are you!you and mike make perfect companions
Whats your beef dude?
Lol Ja,
Am I getting to you???
Did it really take 3 posts to respond to my one critical post i made about you?
are are are are you StuTtErInG???AM i striking your nerves?
?are you cracking???
come on dude! bring it! respond the way you TRUELY want to! dont hold back those nasty thoughts of yours!
I know slowely the venemous things that defile you are on the tip of your tongue, Just say it so you can get another colorful tiles added to your collection!
Bring out that beast inside you!
Mike,
Whoopps, I didnt see that post, So ill let it go from here.
sorry!
“From this post on is a fresh start for everyone. Please focus your comments on the issues at hand, and refrain from personal insults the best that you can.“O-M-G Im trying so hard…..
Mike,
My response that you ignored asked for clarification on 'Son of God' because there are three occasions for Son of God.
I am amazed that you cannot yet understand this and the only conclusion is that you do so to try and retain your Only Begotten stance.
I enumerated three occasions yet to ask an open One!
I reply stating How but you ignore the answer claiming I never replied. You cannot pin scriptural truth to an EXACT SCRIPTURE VERSE. this is what elongated your debates with WJ where you play games with each other doing the same – it's pointless!
Even if I showed you a verse you would only deny it. See what I showed to Kathi (Ok, I did make a rendering error) what did she do: Go to the Greeks ( Someone should make that a saying!) and came back with a changed version that spoke what she wanted it to say: see – pointless. Let's all do that then! Then this place is all just hot air!!
Mike, you take things too literally. Sonship is dependent on situation and occasion.
– Spirit Creations of God in the first instance are Sons of God. They are Sinless. God gave them life.
If they sin they are no longer Sons of God – their FAther is NOW Satan… So did Satan give them life?(Go on – ask me for Chapter and verse!)On earth, mankind, God's special creation, the first Man born Sinless – A Son of God made in the Image of God in the flesh – different Sonship to the Spirit Angels.
Human Sonship is closer to God than Angels – an angel that sins is doomed. For he does not give aid to Angels but to the seed of Abraham alone.
This is why God sent his Only Son in the form of man to redeem his fallen Sons of the Flesh.
Finally, the redeem Sons, begotten, reborn, raised up back to sinlesness through Christ and by Christ.So, your question: Yes, the third Sonship, the true Sonship, demands, by the blood of Christ, that they be Sinless…
There: and did I need to quote a Scripture verse? No!
And before you ask: no, until you confess your sins to God and are redeemed by grace, you are NOT A SON OF GOD…and even those who are baptised are only Sons in waiting seeing tha they can still transgress before the adoption.
This is a question asked many times: once saved always saved? – many say yes- but how? If I kill, murder, fornication, lie, steal, deny God or Christ, am I STILL SAVED (O happy days for Saved Criminals, then)Remember, I asked which Sonship you were referring to!
Kathi,
Why is it that Scriptures only says explicitly that Angels are to Worship Jesus Christ?
Why were the Angels instructed to Worship Jesus Christ?
Kathi, is Jesus an Angel or a Man NOW?If Angel, how does Angel worship Angel? Oh and doesn't Scriptures that God(!!) placed him high above all powers, principalities, ANGELS, and all names ever before mentioned?
If Man, is this not Idolotrous?Kathi, I can see this will cause you much confusion now so I won't demand an answer.
Although you will no doubt say a third option (Actially it's not an option but all the same) that Jesus is God… But then you still have confusion because God (!!) said There is no other God beside him – and Jesus is AT HIS RIGHT HAND SIDE… hmm… Interesting dilemma!Good post, Istari.
I don't agree with you, so let's Go to the Greeks!
Yeah, I LIKE that saying.Seriously, if there is not one particular scripture that says being sinless is a requirement of being a son of God, then show me the scriptures that imply this is the case.
Because you can talk on and on for hours about how YOU PERSONALLY understand the scriptures as a whole, but that doesn't really amount to a hill of beans. I could do the same thing………….would you just then BELIEVE because I said so?
Adam sinned, yet was still called “son of God” in Luke 3:38. Why would Luke call him that after he sinned and was no longer a son of God? Adam had sinned long before he begot Seth right? But Luke says “Seth, son of Adam, son of God”.
This leads me to believe that Adam remained a son of God even after he sinned, and was therefore a son of God when he begot Seth.
I'll just accept that you don't actually have any scripture or combination of scriptures that teach being sinless is a requirement of being a son of God, so we can move on. But just so you know, asking about the different “Sonships” is not the same as posting a scripture to support your claim. So in reality, you did NOT address my point, and shouldn't claim that you did.
I'm still wanting to know why Jesus was “THE Son of God” on earth, instead of “A son of God”. We know that being sinless is not scripturally the reason. So what was?
Also, feel free to tell me what you want to tell me about the various “Sonships” if you'd like. I'm not sure what you're asking, so please explain it to me. But please back any understandings you have with actual scriptures. (At the very least, be PREPARED to back your claims with scripture if asked.)
mike
These are following clarifications about my behavior in HN, just to clear things up because some of the Things Istari/Ja says are a exageration though i know i can be “dennis the menace” at times.
Quote I am reporting your posts to Heaven as abusive…
If this is how T8 wants his forum run – by a childish ignoramus who feels he alone has all Scriotures
1. I have never claimed to have all scriptures to myself, there is a copyrighted distrubited copy of the Bible in your nearest bookstore or go to http://www.bible.com or bible gateway or netnotes
Quote who says Jesus is God and argues against those who say Jesus is God!!
2. I do say that Jesus is God, but im am not the only one
3. I havent argued agaisnt the Trinitarians yet because an Issue hasnt brought up to argue about. They believe in a Trinity of 3 persons in one, where I believe that the Lord is solely one.Quote But can't stand up to rigorous debate because he lost a point – oh poor him!
4. I have stood against every debate until the bitter end where it just got tiredsome and we both bail.
5. And when have i ever lost a point yet? all these threads are about one Resolve: Is Jesus God or not, and all these threads are simple contentions whether to Affirm or negate that resolution.Quote And SF, your childish trick of throwing back whatever someone throws at you is just that – childish – but then again you say yourself that you are just that …
6. Im Glad you noticed my humor, i was hoping it could help others realize the “immatureity” in most of your posts as well as others.Quote You are learning from your venomous pals here –
7. Yes I am adapting to the enviroment in HN only to change it. My humor as hints of truth about each and everyone of you that you cannot deny Ja.Quote I don't try to stop you because it is obvious that your childishness finds ignorance amusing – it even makes you look clever in the eyes of ignorance ones.
8. We all cliam to be wise, but God chooses the foolish things to confound the self-proclaimed wisemen as yourself.Quote I see your posts and I also see you are only posting for a joke. You don't actually believe what you post – all is just for a laugh…
9. I always believe in what I post or I wouldnt post it. Where is your discernment???Quote No matter what is posted to you you always have a synical comeback because it is how you cover yourself for your ignorance.
10. Yes I have a awesome funny synical come back. Im proud of it. But its never to cover for any ignorance, in fact my syncial comebacks if you observe correctly are personal and direct about the person's theology or behavior or personality.
Thats why its a “comeback” because its a response to someone elses comments that were just as synical.
Your not very observant.examples of my synical nicknames: Like “Mike is Old”, and “Roo-Syndrome”, and “Numbers”
You have alot to learn about me.
“Mr. Tiles” Quote For mike to be debating with you and not know that it is futile says a lot about his judgement. – but then Debating is all about never ending arguments so the two of you are perfect: perfect 'bed fellows'!
11. You are right we are different in almost everyway, I am young and he is old, though im quicker to get enraged, we still engage in constant debates in hope to reach a understanding.Mike,
Your first quote is not valid. I was posting to Kathi concerning the issues as to why I didn't get back to her for my (half) mistake.
You cannot quote that as personal for it is FACT.And in what way did I insult Kathi – did Kathi report an insult?
You cannot take it upon yourself to judge for others : A crime is not a crime until it is reported as such!And a moderator 'returning like for like'…?
Well here is a return: The laws says an eye for an eye but I say if your opponent smite thee on one cheek, turn the other so he may strike thee there, too!Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 18 2011,05:20) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 17 2011,12:37) It says “everything” which wouldnt inlcude God because they are one and the same.
If they were seperate entities, than i wouldnt know how you would fit that in your theology.
No, read it more carefully:
27 For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.It does not include WHO? “GOD HIMSELF”. What does “HIMSELF” imply to YOU? Does it imply ONE?
And this ONE who is not included as being under the OTHER ONE Jesus, is the ONE who put everything under the OTHER ONE, Jesus.
See? TWO are mentioned, and ONE of those TWO is “GOD HIMSELF”.
mike
Lets talk about this in the other thread because It quickly getting untopical.Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 18 2011,05:32) I've answered to all of those scriptures in the aforementioned post on page 26.-mike
Ill Respond to it than.Quote (Istari @ April 17 2011,19:28) Kathi, I'm sorry for that… I posted before I looked it up. Then all this nonsense with Mikeboll and SF kicked off so I didn't get back.
However, the essence of what I wrote was there : Worship God; glorify the Son.
The text does not say 'worship in the Spirit of God'.
Kathi, what does that mean? Worship in the Spirit of God ? There is no [person/Subject]…
Worship [God] in Spirit…
For God is a Spirit and they that Worship Him must worship in Spirit and Truth.
Here, the subject is mentioned and gives a complete sentence.Kathi, just saying 'Worship in the Spirit of God' has no target subject to which the Worship is directed.
This waters down the full verse by leaving out God and targets Jesus only – which I suspect is the purpose of your desire to go back to the Greek.
Kathi, was it necessary to go to the Greek to understand this line.
The point was : Only God is to be worshipped (In Spirit and truth)
Jesus must be 'Honored, Glorified and Praised'
He who glorifies the Son, glorifies the Father also
But do you not read elsewhere: Glorify God – and God IS the Father.
Istari,
That's cool, I understand that you are kinda distracted right now. If you want me to discuss Phil 3:3 look at the different variations. I didn't just pick my favorite translation, first I looked at the Greek and saw that the word for 'spirit' is in the Greek and it is in the genitive construction which means that it is showing that it is a possession and the word 'of' should be in the translation. Do you understand this? Do you disagree with this? I will list the translations here and also try to put the interlinear with the Greek and English so that you can see. I am not just picking my favorite translation, I saw that there were variations and I wanted to see what was the most accurate as far as I can tell. Why would you have a problem with looking at the Greek?New International Version (©1984)
For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh–
New Living Translation (©2007)
For we who worship by the Spirit of God are the ones who are truly circumcised. We rely on what Christ Jesus has done for us. We put no confidence in human effort,English Standard Version (©2001)
For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh—New American Standard Bible (©1995)
for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh,International Standard Version (©2008)
For it is we who are the circumcision-we who worship in the Spirit of God and find our joy in the Messiah Jesus. We have not placed any confidence in the flesh,GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
We are the [true] circumcised people [of God] because we serve God's Spirit and take pride in Christ Jesus. We don't place any confidence in physical things,King James Bible
For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.American King James Version
For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.American Standard Version
for we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God, and glory in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh:Bible in Basic English
For we are the circumcision, who give worship to God and have glory in Jesus Christ, and have no faith in the flesh:Douay-Rheims Bible
For we are the circumcision, who in spirit serve God; and glory in Christ Jesus, not having confidence in the flesh.Darby Bible Translation
For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God, and boast in Christ Jesus, and do not trust in flesh.English Revised Version
for we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God, and glory in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh:Webster's Bible Translation
For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.Weymouth New Testament
For we are the true circumcision–we who render to God a spiritual worship and make our boast in Christ Jesus and have no confidence in outward ceremonies:World English Bible
For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh;Young's Literal Translation
for we are the circumcision, who by the Spirit are serving God, and glorying in Christ Jesus, and in flesh having no trust,Quote Book of Philippians 3:3 for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh,
hmeiv gar esmen (5748) h peritomh, oi pneumati qeou latreuontev (5723) kai kauxwmenoi (5740) en Xristw Ihsou kai ouk en sarki pepoiqotev, (5756)
The part I bolded you can see that pneumati (Spirit) is listed. You can go to this link and study the words if you want to:
http://www.studylight.org/isb….=1&l=enWhen we worship the Father in spirit and truth, we will be led to give the same honor to the Son that we give the Father.
I think that you have more questions. With this post, I just wanted to explain why looking at the Greek is very helpful to distinguish which variation of translation is closest to the intent of the original language. I haven't the faintest idea why you would have a problem with that…it is a good thing, Istari.
Kathi
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
