- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 04 2011,00:00) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 03 2011,12:05) Did God call me his begotten son???
No. So apparently the answer to Paul's question about which one of the angels is the begotten Son of God is not “Dennison”.
mike
Awww Great! im glad we agree on something or else i would make you kiss my feet.Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 04 2011,00:09) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 03 2011,12:08) What Angels in Heaven Mike??? does that include moses??? Angel only means “Messenger” mike
D, you are going to that place now where I distance myself from the conversation?Do you ACKNOWLEDGE that “angel” means “messenger”? I say “ACKNOWLEDGE”, because there's really nothing to agree with or to disagree with. It is a FACT, and I want to know if you ACKNOWLEDGE that FACT?
Once you acknowledge that fact, then you must also acknowledge the fact that there are HUMAN angels mentioned in scripture, and HEAVENLY SPIRIT angels mentioned in scripture. So if I say “angels in heaven“, do you think I'm speaking of HUMAN angels like Moses? Are there HUMANS in heaven?
Stick to comprehensible points D. Or I'll bail from this discussion like I've bailed from past ones where you got stuck and just started posting stupid stuff like this Moses question and the one about whether YOU'RE the begotten Son of God.
mike
blah blah blah, you are always bailing out.
You can if you want to,Im going to speak however i want to speak because im a D-linquent.
anyways, ARe there HUMANS IN HEAVEN?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 04 2011,00:12) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 03 2011,12:11) I thought that meant KING?
“Melek” is “king” in Hebrew. This is the Hebrew word for “angel”:mal'ak
1) messenger, representative
1a) messenger
1b) angel
1c) the theophanic angelmike
huh.. thats news to me.time to put my nose into a book.
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 03 2011,13:12)
Here are several questions that i need you to answer.1. Does God have a body? Yes or No?
2. Does God have a literal right hand? Yes or no?3. Jesus is also Human, so therefore that cant also be true?
These are all off topic, so don't let the discussion linger on my answers to them, okay?
1. Yes. See my post today in the “Bodies” thread.
2. Doesn't matter really. Because whether the right hand and throne of God are real or metaphorical, the teaching is still the same. God sitting on His throne still means God is ruling. And Jesus sitting at the right hand of God still means Jesus has been exalted by his God to an esteemed position of power and honor next to his God.
3. Jesus WAS human. He is not anymore.Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 03 2011,13:12)
Again, how am I wrong, when you CANT prove that he is An Angel?
Not only have I proved it, but I've proved it using scripture.Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 03 2011,13:12)
The only logical conclusion you can say, is that the Son of God is the most IMPORTANT, worthy of the honor to be called the Son of God.
But you COULDNT conclude that Jesus was an Angel, or that the writer was trying to IMPLY that.
D, if Jesus is the most IMPORTANT of the angels, the one who is worthy of the honor of being called the Only Begotten Son of God, then the conclusion writes itself. There's not really that much thinking involved.Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 03 2011,13:12)
Than why would you assume that Jesus who commands the Angels, who is made a lil lower than the angels (for a time) is part of these angels?
The same way I would assume that King David, who commanded humans, is part of the humans. Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 03 2011,13:12)
1. Heb says that he was made a lil lower than the angels. So therefore, what does that mean? Does that mean that Jesus was made a lil lower than “messengers”
What do YOU think, D? Do you think this particular use of angel referred to the heavenly spirit kind, or the human being kind?
And it's funny for me that you think Jesus is the Father God, and that the Father God could have been “made a little lower than the angels”. This is what I was saying in the other thread: You must align your doctrine with ALL scriptures…………not just one scripture that you think should be taken literally, even though that makes it contradict a hundred other scriptures.Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 03 2011,13:12)
I already conceded that point, but to me, the word “angel” should be replaced with “messenger” because the context and everything else Paul says has nothing to do with angelic beings.
Well if you've conceded that point, then what else is there to say? Because the KJV translators obviously knew Gal 4:14 was calling Jesus an angel, and wanted to prevent anyone from understanding this teaching.You are doing the same thing, but in a different way. You are saying it should be “messenger”, but that doesn't really follow. Look at verse 13:
13Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel unto you at the first.
Paul obviously IS a HUMAN ANGEL of God, so why would he use the word “hos”, which makes the sentence say “like an angel”, or “as an angel”?
But I hope you can see that you and the KJV scholars have both attempted the same thing: Trying to take a scripture that lists Jesus as an angel of God, and make it say something other than what it says.
mike
Hi MIke,
Quote These are all off topic, so don't let the discussion linger on my answers to them, okay?
1. Yes. See my post today in the “Bodies” thread.
2. Doesn't matter really. Because whether the right hand and throne of God are real or metaphorical, the teaching is still the same. God sitting on His throne still means God is ruling. And Jesus sitting at the right hand of God still means Jesus has been exalted by his God to an esteemed position of power and honor next to his God.
3. Jesus WAS human. He is not anymore.
No, it was nessary for Clarity in what you believe.Quote Not only have I proved it, but I've proved it using scripture.
Actually you havent. You used one scripture, where it shoud be translated literally as messenger, and not the (being) angel.
You said it yourself in the previous posts.
So your first point is a moot point.
But you can now continue to provide more scriptures.Quote D, if Jesus is the most IMPORTANT of the angels, the one who is worthy of the honor of being called the Only Begotten Son of God, then the conclusion writes itself. There's not really that much thinking involved.
No Mike, YOUR stating he is the most important of all the angels. But please prove that claim, because you havent.
Actually you had to IMAGINE that because no where does it literally state that “Jesus is the most important angels amoung the angels”So you would have to prove that as well.
Quote The same way I would assume that King David, who commanded humans, is part of the humans.
Lol, that has nothing to do with it? Did David become less human???? or a little lower than humans???
Either way, this is a moot points, lets not linger, provide biblical evidence.Quote What do YOU think, D? Do you think this particular use of angel referred to the heavenly spirit kind, or the human being kind?
Why would you answer a question with another question unless your trying be a jerk about it?
Seriously I asked you a question, why cant you simply answer it?Quote And it's funny for me that you think Jesus is the Father God, and that the Father God could have been “made a little lower than the angels”. This is what I was saying in the other thread: You must align your doctrine with ALL scriptures…………not just one scripture that you think should be taken literally, even though that makes it contradict a hundred other scriptures.
You know, i havent made that Claim. I have always said that the Father and Jesus are the one and the same God, I have also stated that the Father is in Jesus, and that Jesus is in the Father, but I have not stated that Jesus is the Father.
(anyways your changing the SUBJECT once again, are you getting scared and trying to use diversive tactics and “red herrings” to take the spotlight off of you Mike??)
Maybe you should pay attention to what I really say.Dude take your own advice mr. Jesus is an Angel.
Quote Well if you've conceded that point, then what else is there to say? Because the KJV translators obviously knew Gal 4:14 was calling Jesus an angel, and wanted to prevent anyone from understanding this teaching.
Actually, looking at the greek and context it should be translated as Messenger and not as a literal Angelic being.Dude, lol because of vs 13 is why I believe the context rules provide a better definition as the word should be rendered as solely a “messenger” but not an angelic being.
I have attempted nothing? Is it not grammtically possible to render “angel” as solely messenger Mr. Elohim rendering God as Ruler?
I could say the same thing about you when you render God meaning something else than what its suppose to say.
Lol…
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 04 2011,05:00) When God talked about the Angels in Heb1, did that INCLUDE MOSES, THE SPYS OF JEREICO, JACOB, PAUL, PETER? YES OR NO??
Perhaps not specifically, but Jesus, John the Baptist, and other men are called angels in scripture.Malachi the prophet was obviously a messenger of God and look at his name.
Quote Of course you like the KJV. They doctored the verse to change the meaning by adding their own word “even”, that is not in the Greek text. Let's keep it without “even”, since “even” isn't in the original, okay?
You welcomed me as if I were a billionaire, as if I were Bill Gates himself.
Dennison, does this statement mean that Bill Gates IS a billionaire, or IS NOT a billionaire?
mike
Galatians 4:14 (Young's Literal Translation)14 and my trial that [is] in my flesh ye did not despise nor reject, but as a messenger of God ye did receive me — as Christ Jesus;It is a second emphasis of an even higher status to stress the point.
My opinion – Wm
Sorry I thought I was on the current discussion but I was on the first page.
Quote (seekingtruth @ April 06 2011,20:10) Quote Of course you like the KJV. They doctored the verse to change the meaning by adding their own word “even”, that is not in the Greek text. Let's keep it without “even”, since “even” isn't in the original, okay?
You welcomed me as if I were a billionaire, as if I were Bill Gates himself.
Dennison, does this statement mean that Bill Gates IS a billionaire, or IS NOT a billionaire?
mike
Galatians 4:14 (Young's Literal Translation)14 and my trial that [is] in my flesh ye did not despise nor reject, but as a messenger of God ye did receive me — as Christ Jesus;It is a second emphasis of an even higher status to stress the point.
My opinion – Wm
Sorry I thought I was on the current discussion but I was on the first page.
No no no, Its still on topic!Please add your input.
I still believe its a second emphasis.
Quote (seekingtruth @ April 06 2011,10:10) Quote Of course you like the KJV. They doctored the verse to change the meaning by adding their own word “even”, that is not in the Greek text. Let's keep it without “even”, since “even” isn't in the original, okay?
You welcomed me as if I were a billionaire, as if I were Bill Gates himself.
Dennison, does this statement mean that Bill Gates IS a billionaire, or IS NOT a billionaire?
mike
Galatians 4:14 (Young's Literal Translation)14 and my trial that [is] in my flesh ye did not despise nor reject, but as a messenger of God ye did receive me — as Christ Jesus;It is a second emphasis of an even higher status to stress the point.
My opinion – Wm
Sorry I thought I was on the current discussion but I was on the first page.
Amen! Seeking!WJ
So Paul was saying he was welcomed as an angel of God, as if he were God Himself? Wm, does Bill Gates have a “higher status” than a billionaire? What if I had said “Rockefeller” or “Getty” or “Hearst”? Did I just list people who were “higher” than billionaires?
Let me try this one:
Welcomed me as if I were a football player, as if I were Terry Bradshaw himself.
Is Terry Bradshaw in this exercise of a “higer status” than a football player? What if the player I named was someone much lessor known?
mike
Bye bye Dennison. Your last post leads nowhere. Both the Hebrew and Greek words for “angel” are the words for “messenger”.
God has had many spiritual messengers and human messengers throughout scripture. Jesus was at one time a human angel of God, more often called “messenger” in English. But he is now a spiritual messenger of God, most often called “angel” in English.
There are no two ways about it. The discussion is over unless you can prove that:
1. Jesus is NOT a messenger of his God.
2. Jesus is NOT a spirit being.If you can do either, I'll be willing to go the distance. If you cannot, then it's over sonny boy.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 07 2011,08:45) Bye bye Dennison. Your last post leads nowhere.
lol what a coward.You need to prove that Jesus is an “angelic being” and you have only posted one scripture.
This thread is about YOU AND PROVING your belief.
You have not done so.
so go ahead, be scared.
Sooo its funny how you hypocritically force people to answer your posts and force them to answer your questions but you CANT?because YOU feel like its leading no where?
can someone say hypocrite???
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 07 2011,08:52) D, Can you prove either of the two things I listed for you?
mike
Why would i have to prove anything??dude this is about YOUR theology not mine.
YOU started this thread with something to prove, right? Much like I started the “Is Jesus the Father” thread. The difference is that I am solidly PROVING that Jesus is not the Father. You haven't PROVED that Jesus is not an angel of God.
When were you planning on starting? I have already proved that he is. And since you can't seem to even acknowledge the two points I left for you, let alone PROVE them, then what more is there to say?
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 07 2011,08:57) YOU started this thread with something to prove, right? Much like I started the “Is Jesus the Father” thread. The difference is that I am solidly PROVING that Jesus is not the Father. You haven't PROVED that Jesus is not an angel of God. When were you planning on starting? I have already proved that he is. And since you can't seem to even acknowledge the two points I left for you, let alone PROVE them, then what more is there to say?
mike
Than mike YOU ARE LOST.You have things all twisted up.
If you start a thread basing it on someone to prove thier beliefs than that person has to bring up evidences to prove his belief.
this is what is going on.
You have to negate the proof that is provided for that belief.
if you disagree at all.I mirrored your exact words for that same purpose.
Man you know nothing about the fundamentals of debate.
I already negated the points, but for some reason you disagree so therefore you believe you are right.
Dude thats not how it works.
lol.
sorry your acting like a sore loser.I've proved my case. Now, here's what YOU have to prove to show me I'm wrong:
1. Jesus is NOT a messenger of his God.
2. Jesus is NOT a spirit being.If you can do either, I'll be willing to go the distance. If you cannot, then it's over.
Can you prove either of these two things, D?
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 07 2011,09:09) I've proved my case. Now, here's what YOU have to prove to show me I'm wrong: 1. Jesus is NOT a messenger of his God.
2. Jesus is NOT a spirit being.If you can do either, I'll be willing to go the distance. If you cannot, then it's over.
Can you prove either of these two things, D?
mike
My whole last post dealt with that issue mike.and you have not proved your case.
You only posted one scripture that has neither stated that 1. that Jesus is a spirit being 2. that Jesus is solely a messenger.
so you have NOT proven that with scripture at all.
Does this count as lying?
Quote (t8 @ April 06 2011,15:19) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 04 2011,05:00) When God talked about the Angels in Heb1, did that INCLUDE MOSES, THE SPYS OF JEREICO, JACOB, PAUL, PETER? YES OR NO??
Perhaps not specifically, but Jesus, John the Baptist, and other men are called angels in scripture.Malachi the prophet was obviously a messenger of God and look at his name.
Is John the Baptist a Angelic being such as Gabriel, and Cherubs?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
