- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 04 2011,06:08) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 03 2011,18:40) wHat? 
THe bible clearly states that God glorifys Jesus, and that Jesus will in return glorify God.Pierre stop contradicting your self.
What you state is not biblical.The scriputre itself states that He is THE IMAGE of the INVISIBLE GOD.
Can you not read?
So how is it possible that you state that the image is NOT GOD.
That doesnt make any sense.
D, stop whining and learn to respect your elders. Pierre is so obviously right, but you are apparently blind to truth.What Pierre says is that an IMAGE OF GOD is not GOD HIMSELF. Get it? If Paul wanted to say Jesus was GOD HIMSELF, then he would have said that. Instead, he said Jesus was an IMAGE OF GOD. There's a difference if you're willing to take off the blinders.
And Pierre is also right that God shares HIS GLORY with no other. Because God has glorified Jesus does not mean it is GOD'S GLORY, does it? Jesus said that Solomon had glory also. Does that mean that all glory anywhere is automatically GOD'S GLORY?
Slow down for a minute and read things through before going off on a tangent against your obviously more educated brother.
mike
Mike,
dude literally come on, im done playing with your explainations.You know how your frustrated with Paladin because he cant stop giving his interpretations and ideas that are not biblically supported.
Well im just as irritated abut that when it comes to you.
I can repeat the same thing you just said but vise-versa in my point of view, and claim im Right, but that will not get us anywhere.WE will not advance anywhere like this.
CAn you not see that?And you state im BLIND?
Pierre has never claimed me as a brother, so why would i claim him as a brother?
Maybe brothers of Sin but not as children of God.According to the bible, God looks for the foolish things of this world to confound the wise, maybe you shouldnt be so prideful about education, because only a fool would state he is wise in the Lords works, when he himself doesnt know him.
Education will not save you mike, just letting you know.
And finally Pierre its not contributing to the thread, he is only stating off topic points that have nothing to do with I said.IF this thread is about refuting what I interpret in scripture, than refute the scripture because giving me another scripture wont change anything becassueeeeeee I obviosuly again would interpret the scripture as I would the other.
Logically you would take one scripture at a time Don Corleone.
You need to take a chill pill, and take some medicine for your amnesia.
Quote (Istari @ April 04 2011,06:13) Hi SF,
I didn't post to anybody in particular – it was an open question to everyone?
Thanks.
Ok Ja,Thats fine sorry, Im too busy with these posts, to go off topic at the moment.
If you feell your answering the intial thread, than continue to do so.But im only replying to anyone who is refuting my prooftexts.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 04 2011,06:13) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 03 2011,18:46) anyways can you stop getting off topic and give me a chance to catch up on the thread.
D,What's to “catch up” with? John 10 says the Father is IN Jesus, and you take that to mean Jesus IS God the Father. But John 17 says the Father will be IN us, and you DON'T take that to mean WE will be God the Father.
That pretty much sums it up. I agree that things are beginning to get clustered here. But is there really much more to discuss? If you take 10 literally, then you must take 17 literally. Are you willing to do that?
If you think you have more scripture to add, and don't want things clustered, ask t8 to move this to the debates. I don't mind.
mike
Dude, catch up with the posts that you have left me.
Im asking you what it meant, and how I interpret it.but you have ignored everything i stated and moved on to another scripture.
If i consider john 17 as a proof text, wouldnt it be your responsibility(and smarter) to solely deal with John 10 and than obviously use that to your advantage on John 17?
Obviosuly it depends in how I interpret the scripture as.
But you wouldt know that because we are NOT on John 17 yet.Why move things to debate thread.
I would love this to be public, and for everyone to post freely in.
I want everyone to contribute thier thoughts and how they feel.
I realy dont mind stating here where its barely just started and just barely started to get intresting.Lets see how hot things can get
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 04 2011,06:18) Istari, Ask ONE question about John 10 or John 17, and I'll be happy to answer it. Why would you ask me and Pierre these questions anyway, when we've brought the same points up against the “Jesus is God” people many times?
mike
Mike you stated:Quote I was hoping he could show some scriptural support of this theory, one scripture at a time, so we could come to understand why he believes this way You should keep to your word.
Because however I CANNOT bring up another scripture until im Done with John 10.So its not fair to bring up other scriptures that are not part of the context while I CANNOT.
Get what im saying?
How is it fair that i can only post 1 at a time, and than you post a bunch, or even just one, while i cannot even continue to post more.Im helping solve this dilema by dealing with the intial scripture i started with.
Come on, your a moderator and policing your own thread. shoudnt you be more responsible to make things fair.
Quote (Istari @ April 04 2011,06:49) Mike,
I thought the thread topic was 'Is Jesus God the Father?'Has it changed?
2:50am…Goodnight…
Istari,You know Mike well, dont you believe its wise to stick to one scripture instead falling into the cycle of debate where it will never end.
What are your thoughts?
Hi D,
I have just read through your posts. Here's the verdict: YOU think John 10 is literally saying Jesus and the Father are the same God because one is in the other and the other is in one.
I don't think it's literal. That's it. Now, do you have a scripture to SUPPORT your literal understanding? Because I have John 17 that refutes it………..unless of course you think we all have the chance to be God Almighty. Do you?
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 07 2011,09:30) Hi D, I have just read through your posts. Here's the verdict: YOU think John 10 is literally saying Jesus and the Father are the same God because one is in the other and the other is in one.
I don't think it's literal. That's it. Now, do you have a scripture to SUPPORT your literal understanding? Because I have John 17 that refutes it………..unless of course you think we all have the chance to be God Almighty. Do you?
mike
lol mike, Im proving that it is literal, can you refute that?
Jsut because you state that its not literal, doesnt prove that it isnt.
use the context. I ALSO have John 17 that proves it! obvisouly you must agree that Jesus being in Us makes him OUR God.now what?
???Good bye mike, your a hypocrite, im not going to discuss anything with you anymore you coward.
Im tired of wasting my time in answering all your posts, and answering every single question, and point that you make while you continue to not give me the same satisfaction.
I know you love being wrong, so stay wrong.
That way you dont lose your manhood, to a kid who obvisouly knows more than you.hit the road jack, dont come back no more, no more , no more
Dennison,
It is easy to prove it is not as you understand as Jesus petitions God that his disciples be one even as he and the Father are. In addition scripture speaks of the Unity.
Since one can mean united it still is literal.
SF,
My post to this thread I thought was in keeping with the thread topic.As for sticking to one Scripture, yes – but leaway needs to be given for bringing in a supporting Scripture that is ONLY used as such.
What tends to happen with some people is that that supporting Scripture becomes the focal point of the discussion instead … How many times have I written in a post “Please be reminded of the TOPIC of this thread…?” – my petitions often just got ignored!!
Way back in the days … (I love that saying!!) when we had true Moderators such a petition would not go unheeded – and this is why, to be effective, a true Moderator needs to be somewhat estranged from the minute by minute activity in the forum but when he does appear he must be swift, short and unbiased in both understanding the point of dispute and doling out appropriate judgement be it a tile, a warning, an admonition, a direction, a positive suggestion or complement.
Seeing that only t8/Heaven is/are the only one/ones who do this now in any way shape or form, a seconday option needs to be employed whereby, as I suggested, a signature is added ([Moderator]) to show that the point being made is AS MODERATOR, different from that posters own posting (Bit like a one horse town Blacksmith who is also Sheriff when he takes his apron and puts on his badge)Istari,
This thread is not about the function of the moderating staff of HN. Please remember the topic of the thread in future posts. If you would like to discuss who is a good or bad moderator, you should comment in the “Who would make a good Moderator” poll. While there, you'll be able to see how I fared. And factor in that I myself voted for Wm.
Moderator
(There, you happy?)
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 06 2011,23:28) Jsut because you state that its not literal, doesnt prove that it isnt.
use the context. I ALSO have John 17 that proves it! obvisouly you must agree that Jesus being in Us makes him OUR God.
Hi D,Have you even noticed within your two year old temper tantrums that I've answered everything you've asked that is ON TOPIC. I have also shown ON TOPIC proof that you can't take John 10 to literally mean that Jesus IS God unless you also take John 17 to literally mean that WE WILL BE GOD.
And I did not “state” that I “proved” John 10 is not literal. I said “I DON'T THINK it's literal.”
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 06 2011,23:28) obvisouly you must agree that Jesus being in Us makes him OUR God.
Okay, let's follow YOUR thoughts on this “IN” thing:1. The Father being IN Jesus means Jesus is literally God Himself.
2. Jesus and the Father being IN us further proves that Jesus is God Himself.
3. But Jesus and the Father being IN us for some reason DOESN'T prove that WE will be God.
Do you see how one of these things just doesn't match the others? If the Father being IN Jesus means he is God, then the Father being IN us means we are God. How can you say one instance of “IN” means “literally God” but the other doesn't?
Your point is weak and flawed, and doesn't even stand up against the first one of the hundreds of scriptures I could use to prove it wrong.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 08 2011,07:32) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 06 2011,23:28) Jsut because you state that its not literal, doesnt prove that it isnt.
use the context. I ALSO have John 17 that proves it! obvisouly you must agree that Jesus being in Us makes him OUR God.
Hi D,Have you even noticed within your two year old temper tantrums that I've answered everything you've asked that is ON TOPIC. I have also shown ON TOPIC proof that you can't take John 10 to literally mean that Jesus IS God unless you also take John 17 to literally mean that WE WILL BE GOD.
And I did not “state” that I “proved” John 10 is not literal. I said “I DON'T THINK it's literal.”
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 06 2011,23:28) obvisouly you must agree that Jesus being in Us makes him OUR God.
Okay, let's follow YOUR thoughts on this “IN” thing:1. The Father being IN Jesus means Jesus is literally God Himself.
2. Jesus and the Father being IN us further proves that Jesus is God Himself.
3. But Jesus and the Father being IN us for some reason DOESN'T prove that WE will be God.
Do you see how one of these things just doesn't match the others? If the Father being IN Jesus means he is God, then the Father being IN us means we are God. How can you say one instance of “IN” means “literally God” but the other doesn't?
Your point is weak and flawed, and doesn't even stand up against the first one of the hundreds of scriptures I could use to prove it wrong.
mike
You havent Mike.
I already told you that the interpretation of John 10 is taken differently than John 17, but since you refuse to go into context and refuse to interpret what it says than your mistaken and chooose to be lossed.You dont even know my thoughts on the matter beceause we have yet to dicuss it.
Your face is flawed as well.
Your points is weak, and flawed, and doesnt even stand up against the first one of the hundreds of scriptures i could use to prove YOU wrong.Deuce loser
Quote (kerwin @ April 07 2011,15:19) Dennison, It is easy to prove it is not as you understand as Jesus petitions God that his disciples be one even as he and the Father are. In addition scripture speaks of the Unity.
Since one can mean united it still is literal.
That has nothing to do with what I stated kerwin.Thankyou.
Quote (Istari @ April 07 2011,16:29) SF,
My post to this thread I thought was in keeping with the thread topic.As for sticking to one Scripture, yes – but leaway needs to be given for bringing in a supporting Scripture that is ONLY used as such.
What tends to happen with some people is that that supporting Scripture becomes the focal point of the discussion instead … How many times have I written in a post “Please be reminded of the TOPIC of this thread…?” – my petitions often just got ignored!!
Way back in the days … (I love that saying!!) when we had true Moderators such a petition would not go unheeded – and this is why, to be effective, a true Moderator needs to be somewhat estranged from the minute by minute activity in the forum but when he does appear he must be swift, short and unbiased in both understanding the point of dispute and doling out appropriate judgement be it a tile, a warning, an admonition, a direction, a positive suggestion or complement.
Seeing that only t8/Heaven is/are the only one/ones who do this now in any way shape or form, a seconday option needs to be employed whereby, as I suggested, a signature is added ([Moderator]) to show that the point being made is AS MODERATOR, different from that posters own posting (Bit like a one horse town Blacksmith who is also Sheriff when he takes his apron and puts on his badge)
The rules of this thread requier that i produce one scripture and my thoughts on it while others have the ability to post other scriptures that seem to contradict antoher without getting into the interpretation of the orginal proof text in the first place.IF one believes that the person in question has the wrong interpretation of a certain scripture what makes you THINK that giving another scripture would help??
The only solution is to get into that one scripture and interpret its meaning.
what does it say? use the context and than one can continue to post another scripture.
Mike is a coward and can never do this.
He puts his tail in between his legs and doesnt like to abide by other peoples standards of debate.a Selfish fool
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 07 2011,23:09) You dont even know my thoughts on the matter beceause we have yet to dicuss it.
Let me get this straight: You are running around crying like a baby and saying mean things to and about me because I'm sitting here thinking “the Father is in me” is all you have?IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING MORE TO SHARE ON JOHN 10, WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR? I POINT BLANK ASKED YOU IF THERE WAS MORE A COUPLE OF PAGES AGO. I SAID THIS TWO PAGES AGO:
Quote That pretty much sums it up. I agree that things are beginning to get clustered here. But is there really much more to discuss? If you take 10 literally, then you must take 17 literally. Are you willing to do that? If you think you have more scripture to add, and don't want things clustered, ask t8 to move this to the debates. I don't mind.
Sheesh! If you think there's something in “context” that makes the Father being “IN” someone different in 10 than in 17, then SPEAK UP INSTEAD OF CRYING.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 08 2011,10:22) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 07 2011,23:09) You dont even know my thoughts on the matter beceause we have yet to dicuss it.
Let me get this straight: You are running around crying like a baby and saying mean things to and about me because I'm sitting here thinking “the Father is in me” is all you have?IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING MORE TO SHARE ON JOHN 10, WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR? I POINT BLANK ASKED YOU IF THERE WAS MORE A COUPLE OF PAGES AGO. I SAID THIS TWO PAGES AGO:
Quote That pretty much sums it up. I agree that things are beginning to get clustered here. But is there really much more to discuss? If you take 10 literally, then you must take 17 literally. Are you willing to do that? If you think you have more scripture to add, and don't want things clustered, ask t8 to move this to the debates. I don't mind.
Sheesh! If you think there's something in “context” that makes the Father being “IN” someone different in 10 than in 17, then SPEAK UP INSTEAD OF CRYING.
mike
LOOK OLD MAN,
JUST BECAUSE MY WORDS ARE CONVICTING YOU AND MAKEING THAT OLD BRAIN OF YOURS WORK, DOESNT MEAN IM CRYING FOR THE LIKES OF YOU !I asked you questions! you ignored them! i asked you what is it saying, you ignored that too!
I HAVE SPOKEN,
YOU JUST ARE LAZY TO RESPONDSF, Mike,
Thank you both for your responses, the contents of which were enlightening.And, Mike, yes… Adding 'Moderator' ( [Moderator] ) definitely gives an aire of authority separating the poster as an enforcer of a forum regulation as opposed to the poster's own views.
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 08 2011,11:14) Quote (Istari @ April 07 2011,16:29) SF,
My post to this thread I thought was in keeping with the thread topic.As for sticking to one Scripture, yes – but leaway needs to be given for bringing in a supporting Scripture that is ONLY used as such.
What tends to happen with some people is that that supporting Scripture becomes the focal point of the discussion instead … How many times have I written in a post “Please be reminded of the TOPIC of this thread…?” – my petitions often just got ignored!!
Way back in the days … (I love that saying!!) when we had true Moderators such a petition would not go unheeded – and this is why, to be effective, a true Moderator needs to be somewhat estranged from the minute by minute activity in the forum but when he does appear he must be swift, short and unbiased in both understanding the point of dispute and doling out appropriate judgement be it a tile, a warning, an admonition, a direction, a positive suggestion or complement.
Seeing that only t8/Heaven is/are the only one/ones who do this now in any way shape or form, a seconday option needs to be employed whereby, as I suggested, a signature is added ([Moderator]) to show that the point being made is AS MODERATOR, different from that posters own posting (Bit like a one horse town Blacksmith who is also Sheriff when he takes his apron and puts on his badge)
The rules of this thread requier that i produce one scripture and my thoughts on it while others have the ability to post other scriptures that seem to contradict antoher without getting into the interpretation of the orginal proof text in the first place.IF one believes that the person in question has the wrong interpretation of a certain scripture what makes you THINK that giving another scripture would help??
The only solution is to get into that one scripture and interpret its meaning.
what does it say? use the context and than one can continue to post another scripture.
Mike is a coward and can never do this.
He puts his tail in between his legs and doesnt like to abide by other peoples standards of debate.a Selfish fool
Are you condemning Mike's reasoning strategy because you do not believe it is the proper one to use.If you wish to discuss the how to correctly interpret one particular scripture then the Scriptural/Biblical forum is the forum specially made that purpose. Even then other scripture are used to properly understand a particular scripture.
Of course any efforts at all are in vain if God is not with you. So always remeber to ask, seek, and knock for his guidance.
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 08 2011,11:11) Quote (kerwin @ April 07 2011,15:19) Dennison, It is easy to prove it is not as you understand as Jesus petitions God that his disciples be one even as he and the Father are. In addition scripture speaks of the Unity.
Since one can mean united it still is literal.
That has nothing to do with what I stated kerwin.Thankyou.
Scripture declares God and all who bear his name are united.It seems simple enough to understand but to many seem not to.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
