- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Nov. 02 2010,11:35) IN THE BEGINNING (of everything) WAS THE WORD AND THE WORD WAS WITH THE POWER AND THE WORD WAS POWER.
YES Gene!
Yes, yes yes! That's EXACTLY what it would say. THE WORD WAS WITH THE POWER AND THE WORD WAS POWER.
1. And we KNOW that “THE POWER” is referring to THE God Almighty, right?
2. And we know the WORD was……WITH……THE God Almighty, right?
3. And since it DOESN'T say “AND THE WORD WAS THE POWER”, then we know the WORD was NOT THE God Almighty, right?
4. And since it further says the WORD was WITH God Almighty, it is even further confirmed that the WORD cannot possibly BE God Almighty, right?
Now, instead of a lengthy post that just regurgitates more of the same ideas, I challenge both you and Ed to point by point address the above points. Just a YES or NO on each one will suffice. If the answer is NO, then just post a BRIEF reason as to why.
Are you guys up to the challenge? Or will you post a bunch of numbers, unrelated scriptures and useless rhetoric?
I'm rooting for you both!
peace and love,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 02 2010,12:09) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Nov. 02 2010,11:35) IN THE BEGINNING (of everything) WAS THE WORD AND THE WORD WAS WITH THE POWER AND THE WORD WAS POWER.
YES Gene! Yes, yes yes! That's EXACTLY what it would say. THE WORD WAS WITH THE POWER AND THE WORD WAS POWER.
1. And we KNOW that “THE POWER” is referring to THE God Almighty, right?
2. And we know the WORD was……WITH……THE God Almighty, right?
3. And since it DOESN'T say “AND THE WORD WAS THE POWER”, then we know the WORD was NOT THE God Almighty, right?
4. And since it further says the WORD was WITH God Almighty, it is even further confirmed that the WORD cannot possibly BE God Almighty, right?
Now, instead of a lengthy post that just regurgitates more of the same ideas, I challenge both you and Ed to point by point address the above points.
[ [ [ Just a YES or NO on each one will suffice ] ] ]. If the answer is NO, then just post a BRIEF reason as to why.Are you guys up to the challenge? Or will you post a bunch of numbers, unrelated scriptures and useless rhetoric?
I'm rooting for you both!
peace and love,
mike
Hi Mike,I will do exactly what you say!
Since there is only one #1…1) YES or NO
I hope this suffices!
God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgMike……….. IN the beginning the The WORD was given with POWER so the WORD was indeed with POWER. They WORD and POWER are connected together. Jesus now has the seven Spirits of GOD (called the eyes of GOD) connected with POWER (that Power is the (HORNS) the Eyes (SEVEN SPIRITS) sit upon.
Mike if John meant Jesus he would have simply written Jesus there and then you or no one else would not have to force the text to mean what in fact it does no say Right? IMO
peace and love …………………..gene
Hi Gene,
Ed bailed, so it's up to you buddy. Please address all four of my points, point by point, and tell me which one is wrong or right. Thanks.
And Gene, see my last post to Kerwin in “Pre-existent”.
The Word was the only begotten Son of God from the beginning. It was only when that “Word” BECAME flesh that we knew him as “Jesus”. But now we know him as both “the Word” AND “Jesus Christ” AND “Lord of lords”, etc.
Please do answer my points, because like I said, Ed apparently can't. All I did was take what YOU said Gene, and followed it through for you.
mike
hi mike
it looks like no one has the answer in his hearth,now it becoms politic,just like wen Jesus ask from hom did JB received the order to baptize,
so they say ;;we do not know;;;;;;
Yes Pierre,
But I had to go through this time consuming exercise to get them to the place where they KNEW the truth. I've backed both Gene and Ed so far against the wall that there is no more place for them to run.
So, they'll still keep on spouting their unscriptural doctrines, but they will do it knowing those doctrines are refuted by many scriptures.
You can only lead the horse to the water Pierre. You can't make it drink. You can seed, and I can water, but only God can make it grow.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 04 2010,14:11) Hi Gene, Ed bailed, so it's up to you buddy. Please address all four of my points, point by point, and tell me which one is wrong or right. Thanks.
And Gene, see my last post to Kerwin in “Pre-existent”.
The Word was the only begotten Son of God from the beginning. It was only when that “Word” BECAME flesh that we knew him as “Jesus”. But now we know him as both “the Word” AND “Jesus Christ” AND “Lord of lords”, etc.
Please do answer my points, because like I said, Ed apparently can't. All I did was take what YOU said Gene, and followed it through for you.
mike
Hi Mike,It's only because of your faulty wording I cannot answer,
Your points are neither valid nor correct!
You should not take My non-answer to mean your points are correct!
SF believes this fallacy as well? If you don't aggressively refute his points,
then they somehow become correct? I assure you, this is NOT the case!As I pointed out to SF: Jesus did not defend himself,
was this then an admission of guilt? Do you not see the flaw?I can discuss each and every point you wish to make,
but you must allow me the latitude to change the wording
of your statements; Are you up for it? Plus others are complaining.What would they do if this site had 100 daily active users instead of just 5?
Their conversation would always be separated by many pages.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 04 2010,14:53) Yes Pierre, But I had to go through this time consuming exercise to get them to the place where they KNEW the truth. I've backed both Gene and Ed so far against the wall that there is no more place for them to run.
So, they'll still keep on spouting their unscriptural doctrines, but they will do it knowing those doctrines are refuted by many scriptures.
You can only lead the horse to the water Pierre. You can't make it drink. You can seed, and I can water, but only God can make it grow.
peace and love,
mike
Hi Mike,Your victory lap is a little premature.
I have explained to you what's up in my last Post.
Pierre, it seems, believes in the same logic fallacy as you and SF!Many blessings
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgHi Ed,
You didn't make a comment about how I worded it before. You just posted a joke instead of any answer.
Go ahead and put your words into my questions. (Someone……..just shoot me now!
) mike
Hi Mike,
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 05 2010,14:59) Go ahead and put your words into my questions.
OK, thank you. Mikes adjusted questions (by Ed J):
based on Post dated Nov. 02 2010,12:09 of this thread…Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 02 2010,12:09)
Starting Point: What I(Mike Boll) would say is…
THE WORD WAS WITH THE POWER AND THE WORD WAS POWER.1. And we know that “THE POWER” is referring to JEHOVAH GOD, right?
2. And we know that “THE WORD” was……WITH……JEHOVAH GOD , right?
3. And since it DOESN'T say “AND THE WORD WAS THE POWER”,
then we know “THE WORD” was NOT THE God JEHOVAH, right?4. And since it further says “THE WORD” was WITH JEHOVAH GOD,
it is even further confirmed that “THE WORD” cannot possibly BE JEHOVAH GOD, right?
Hi Mike,When I had a disagreement with POK, she said (in essence) what was wrong with what I posted?
I said, allow me to change the wording so I can agree, and the result was we then had agreement.
I know you like having a “point” by “point” discussion.I sincerely hope this will be the case with you as well!I(Ed J) can agree with this starting point.
1) Yes.
2) Yes.
3) There is nothing to suggest this is the case?
4) There is nothing to suggest this is the case either?
Can you at least agree that I did not alter the intent of your questions?
God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgMike………….First of all it doesn not say it was JEHOVAH GOD, You added the word JEHOVAH their it say that The WORD (intelligent utterance) WAS WITH GOD (POWER). Just that simple Mike. why try to complicate it, by adding word that are not even there?
peace and love ……………………….gene
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 04 2010,14:53) Yes Pierre, But I had to go through this time consuming exercise to get them to the place where they KNEW the truth. I've backed both Gene and Ed so far against the wall that there is no more place for them to run.
So, they'll still keep on spouting their unscriptural doctrines, but they will do it knowing those doctrines are refuted by many scriptures.
You can only lead the horse to the water Pierre. You can't make it drink. You can seed, and I can water, but only God can make it grow.
peace and love,
mike
Mike, truer words have not been spoken. You should see what kind of post Gene just made to me….. Martian all over again…..Peace IreneMike…………..You or Terricca, and Irene have backed no one against any wall , don't glorify yourselves , you all have changed the text to met you dogmas which so many other scripture shows you a totally wrong. Mike as EDJ has said you are trying to force us to see you forced rendition of what scriptures really say. You can't even understand the (THE WORD was with GOD and the WORD (WAS) GOD still means the same thing GOD'S WORD and GOD ARE ONE, the SAME thing as your WORDS and YOU ARE THEY SAME THING. That would be like me say Mikes Words and Mike are two different people not the same thing. Do you see how ignorant that is? You have never even answered me asking Why would John even say it that way , don't you think he would have just written Jesus there if that is what he meant to say. Common sense should tell you that .
But you just as Irene and Terricca keep ignoring these simple commonsense question and continue to plow ahead with you dogmas . I have ask you for (ONE) (SPECIFIC) SCRIPTURE THAT SAYS JESUS “PREEXISTED” HIS BERTH HERE ON EARTH. Just ONE where is it? You can't produce it, or his activity, it just is not THERE so you along with the Trinitarians and Preexistences here Just take it upon yourselves to force the text to say what in fact it does not (SPECIFICALLY SAY) Just like the US thing in Genesis does not say Jesus you Just simple add it their at you convience, to fit you dogmas. All the time asking us to believe you don't force scriptures to come out the way you want them to. Just like Irene does with the wisdom thing even though there is (NO) scripture saying what you people are saying even exists, Then you start gloating as if you backed someone in a corner when in fact you have done nothing of the Kind, only in the chambers of you mind, you have failed miserably to convience Me or EDJ or JA of any of your Dogmas. What actually your presentations show is how far the dogmas of the Apostate Religions of this world have taken over you thinking. You seem to be totally brain washed by them even to the point of denying common sense issues. IMO
peace and love……………………….gene
Quote (Baker @ Nov. 06 2010,04:54) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 04 2010,14:53) Yes Pierre, But I had to go through this time consuming exercise to get them to the place where they KNEW the truth. I've backed both Gene and Ed so far against the wall that there is no more place for them to run.
So, they'll still keep on spouting their unscriptural doctrines, but they will do it knowing those doctrines are refuted by many scriptures.
You can only lead the horse to the water Pierre. You can't make it drink. You can seed, and I can water, but only God can make it grow.
peace and love,
mike
Mike, truer words have not been spoken. You should see what kind of post Gene just made to me….. Martian all over again.….Peace Irene
Hi Irene,You know an animal is more vicious when cornered………..AGAINST A WALL!
I forgot about this thread for a couple of days. Sorry. I'll try to hit it tomorrow. I'm too tired now.
Peace and Love to all of you,
mikeMike……….Cornered?…………..Against a Wall?………..surely you jest, you ignorance is deceiving you Mike as it has Terricca and Irene, and JA and his alter EGO JA
Hi Mike,
Have you dropped the ball on our discussion?
It starts at the top of this Page you know.
How quickly we forget that the cows
are still pasturing in the pasture!
Did you here the fat lady sing?
The discussion is not over.
No victory lap yet buddy.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 05 2010,14:59) Go ahead and put your words into my questions. Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 02 2010,12:09)
Starting Point: What I(Mike Boll) would say is…
THE WORD WAS WITH THE POWER AND THE WORD WAS POWER.1. And we know that “THE POWER” is referring to JEHOVAH GOD, right?
2. And we know that “THE WORD” was……WITH……JEHOVAH GOD , right?
3. And since it DOESN'T say “AND THE WORD WAS THE POWER”,
then we know “THE WORD” was NOT THE God JEHOVAH, right?4. And since it further says “THE WORD” was WITH JEHOVAH GOD,
it is even further confirmed that “THE WORD” cannot possibly BE JEHOVAH GOD, right?
Hi Mike,3) What evidence do you have to suggest this is the case?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 05 2010,14:59) Go ahead and put your words into my questions. Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 02 2010,12:09)
Starting Point: What I(Mike Boll) would say is…
THE WORD WAS WITH THE POWER AND THE WORD WAS POWER.1. And we know that “THE POWER” is referring to JEHOVAH GOD, right?
2. And we know that “THE WORD” was……WITH……JEHOVAH GOD , right?
3. And since it DOESN'T say “AND THE WORD WAS THE POWER”,
then we know “THE WORD” was NOT THE God JEHOVAH, right?4. And since it further says “THE WORD” was WITH JEHOVAH GOD,
it is even further confirmed that “THE WORD” cannot possibly BE JEHOVAH GOD, right?4) What evidence do you have to suggest this is the case?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Gene Balthrop @ Nov. 06 2010,22:17) Mike…………..You or Terricca, and Irene have backed no one against any wall , don't glorify yourselves , you all have changed the text to met you dogmas which so many other scripture shows you a totally wrong. Mike as EDJ has said you are trying to force us to see you forced rendition of what scriptures really say. You can't even understand the (THE WORD was with GOD and the WORD (WAS) GOD still means the same thing GOD'S WORD and GOD ARE ONE, the SAME thing as your WORDS and YOU ARE THEY SAME THING. That would be like me say Mikes Words and Mike are two different people not the same thing. Do you see how ignorant that is? You have never even answered me asking Why would John even say it that way , don't you think he would have just written Jesus there if that is what he meant to say. Common sense should tell you that . But you just as Irene and Terricca keep ignoring these simple commonsense question and continue to plow ahead with you dogmas . I have ask you for (ONE) (SPECIFIC) SCRIPTURE THAT SAYS JESUS “PREEXISTED” HIS BERTH HERE ON EARTH. Just ONE where is it? You can't produce it, or his activity, it just is not THERE so you along with the Trinitarians and Preexistences here Just take it upon yourselves to force the text to say what in fact it does not (SPECIFICALLY SAY) Just like the US thing in Genesis does not say Jesus you Just simple add it their at you convience, to fit you dogmas. All the time asking us to believe you don't force scriptures to come out the way you want them to. Just like Irene does with the wisdom thing even though there is (NO) scripture saying what you people are saying even exists, Then you start gloating as if you backed someone in a corner when in fact you have done nothing of the Kind, only in the chambers of you mind, you have failed miserably to convience Me or EDJ or JA of any of your Dogmas. What actually your presentations show is how far the dogmas of the Apostate Religions of this world have taken over you thinking. You seem to be totally brain washed by them even to the point of denying common sense issues. IMO
peace and love……………………….gene
geneyou never answer wen you have to and were you can make a point if you would have one.
but you never do .you just ask a stupid question ,looking more like a blind man who says did you see that elephant??
you did the same thing in the topic of freewill.
so this topic will be added to that one as GENE never answered.because he could not,
Pierre
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
