- This topic has 25,906 replies, 115 voices, and was last updated 16 hours, 26 minutes ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 16 2014,17:52) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 16 2014,23:30)
But in your own understanding, SOMETHING besides “God Himself” was WITH “God Himself” in the beginning, and God created ALL THINGS through that “something other than God”.So YOUR OWN understanding contradicts YOUR OWN understanding.
Mike,God's word is not created. You claim the son was the first creation which is based on you flawed understanding.
Forget “created”, Kerwin.One of your claims is that there couldn't have been anything other than God before God created a “place” for that other thing to be.
Yet your other claim is that something OTHER THAN God was WITH God before God started to created “places” and other things.
See how those two claims by you contradict each other?
Also, despite what exactly you think “the Word” is, it was either ALWAYS right there at God's side – which would mean that God AND something OTHER THAN God existed side by side from eternity……………..
OR…………..
God brought this “Word” forth, and caused it to have an existence at some point – which would mean that “the Word” had a BEGINNING to its existence.
Which one of those two do you believe?
Quote (carmel @ Feb. 17 2014,00:25) COMMENT PLEASE! UNLESS I TAKE IT FOR GRANTED THAT YOU DO AGREE WITH ME!
Don't ever make that mistake, Charles. You will be wrong 99% of the time.
Quote (carmel @ Feb. 17 2014,00:25) …….SATAN HAD THE RIGHT TO POSSESS ALL SOULS FROM BIRTH WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE SELECT DUE TO ADAM'S SIN………
I have never heard such a thing, nor can I read anything about it in scripture.And this is why I often choose not to comment, Charles. It's not because I agree with you, but because your claims are so far off from what the scriptures actually teach that I often don't know HOW to answer them, or if it's even worth my time to TRY.
It's like Colter and his Urantia Book. I like Colter personally, but usually don't converse with him at length because we are speaking different languages. He doesn't adhere to the scriptures that I consider to be inspired by God. So what's the point?
Likewise, even though I personally like you, most of the things you preach here are things I've NEVER seen in any scripture – nor are you able to show us which scriptures those teachings came from when asked. So what's the point? It's like we are speaking different languages.
I'm still waiting for an ADEQUATE explanation as to why Jesus would say the Father will GIVE the Holy Spirit to those who ask – if all of us are already filled with the Holy Spirit without asking.
Quote (terraricca @ Feb. 18 2014,01:59) Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 18 2014,01:01) T, Will you please answer my question?
khow could i ,it is a prophecy
T,Hardly as the man was speaking of David in either his own court or the court of his son Solomon.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 15 2014,06:00) Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 14 2014,09:57) You have chosen to remain blind and follow the teachings of men rather than the teachings of God.
That's YOU, Kerwin. Here, let me remind you of the things said about “the Word”, which are also said about “Jesus”……The italicized words below are things said about “the Word” in John 1. The scriptures listed in parenthesis identify some of the places in scripture where those same exact things are said about Jesus.
1. And the Word was a god: (Is 9:6, Heb 1:8-9, etc.)
2. He was with God in the beginning: (John 17:5)
3. All things were made through him: (Col 1:16, 1 Cor 8:6, Heb 1:2)
4. In him was life, and that life was the light of men: (John 5:26, John 8:12)
5. The light shines in the darkness: (Matthew 4:16; John 3:19; 2 Corinthians 4:6)
6. John the Baptist came as a witness to testify concerning that light: (John 1:29-34; 3:26; 5:32-36)
7. The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world: (Isaiah 42:6-7; John 3:19, 9:5, 12:35-36, 46; Luke 1:78-79)
8. Though he was in the world, the world did not recognize him: (Isaiah 53:3, John 4:10, Acts 13:27, John 12:37-38, 1 John 3:1)
9. He came to that which was his own: (Col 1:16; Matt 11:27; John 3:35, 13:3, 16:15; Eph 1:10; Heb 1:2)
10. but his own did not receive him: (Luke 9:53; John 5:43; Acts 13:46)
11. to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God: (Acts 4:12; John 3:14-16; Gal 3:26; Heb 2:10; Eph 1:5)
12. The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us: (1 John 1:1-2, 4:2; Phil 2:6-7; Rom 8:3; Gal 4:4-5)
13. We have seen his glory, the glory of the only begotten: (John 1:18, 3:16-18; 1 John 4:9)
14. who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.: (John 1:16, 14:6; Luke 2:40; Romans 1:5)
15. John testified concerning him.: (Mark 1:7-8; John 1:32, 34; John 3:26; John 5:32-33; John 10:41)
16. He cried out, saying, “This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’”: (John 1:29-30; John 3:28,30; Micah 5:2; Acts 19:4)
Jest bouncing so it is easier to be found.Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 17 2014,08:52) According to you the word firstborn means David was born before any creation of earth. including Adam.
The word “firstborn”, like the word “word”, has more than one meaning in scripture, Kerwin.But just because “firstborn” CAN sometimes refer to a high-ranking status instead of to actual childbirth, doesn't mean it HAS TO.
In the case of David, it is said that God will ASCRIBE to him the title of “firstborn/most exalted” of the KINGS OF THE EARTH.
So in that case, our common sense tells us that God isn't referring to a LITERAL firstborn. We already know that many humans lived on earth BEFORE David – so that is our first clue. Secondly, a LITERAL firstborn isn't “appointed”, or “granted” that position. And thirdly, David was appointed to be the firstborn (highest status) of “THE KINGS OF THE EARTH”.
So these three things tell us that the title “firstborn”, in the case of David, is a GIVEN title which represents his high status in the eyes of God.
On the other hand, in the case of Jesus, he is called the firstborn of EVERY CREATURE. And of course, that still COULD BE a title representing his high status among all created things.
BUT………… it is also said that he was the “beginning of the creation by God”. So when we take that into consideration, “firstborn of all creation” is looking more and more like a LITERAL title, and not a GIVEN one.
And by the time we also take into account the fact that all things came FROM God, and THROUGH our Lord Jesus Christ, that title is seeming more and more LITERAL.
And when we add in the fact that ALL THINGS, whether in heaven or on earth, whether visible or invisible, were created THROUGH Jesus, it's beginning to be a no-brainer.
And when we add in the fact that Jesus' origins were from the ancient past, and that he was existing in the form of God BEFORE emptying himself to be made in the likeness of a human being, we have a slam dunk.
So do you understand that David can't possibly be the LITERAL firstborn, while all the scriptural facts point to Jesus being the LITERAL firstborn?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 18 2014,03:45) Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 16 2014,17:50) Mike, I already admitted the human kings that sit on the throne of David are called gods.
Good. So my point #1 stands as FACT, right?On to point #2……. Can you refute it?
The word that was made flesh has been a god in the sense he was made a human king when he was made lord of all things in heaven and on earth. The Son was not a god before he was conceived in Mary's womb.Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 17 2014,16:27) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 18 2014,03:45) Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 16 2014,17:50) Mike, I already admitted the human kings that sit on the throne of David are called gods.
Good. So my point #1 stands as FACT, right?On to point #2……. Can you refute it?
The word that was made flesh has been a god in the sense he was made a human king when he was made lord of all things in heaven and on earth. The Son was not a god before he was conceived in Mary's womb.
We're done with point #1, Kerwin. The Word who was with God in the beginning was also a god.And Jesus is called a god in at least one scripture, right?
End of point #1.
On to point #2.
Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 18 2014,04:18) Quote (terraricca @ Feb. 18 2014,01:59) Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 18 2014,01:01) T, Will you please answer my question?
khow could i ,it is a prophecy
T,Hardly as the man was speaking of David in either his own court or the court of his son Solomon.
kwell ,you tell me how this guy can do this ;
Ps 89:1 I will sing of the LORD'S great love forever;
with my mouth I will make your faithfulness known through all generations.
Ps 89:2 I will declare that your love stands firm forever,
that you established your faithfulness in heaven itself.show me how he could do that
Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 17 2014,17:08) Mike, We have discussed John 17:5 before and I simply do not see it as you do.
And that's okay for right now, Kerwin.Because I'm wanting you to scripturally REFUTE my points.
You can't refute #1, because the Greek could be translated as “and the Word was a god” – and we all know that Jesus IS called a god in scripture.
And you can't refute #2, because the most logical understanding of John 17:5 is that Jesus was physically WITH God before the world began, and had a great amount of glory then and there.
So you can pretend that it talks about the glory that was with God in the beginning, and not Jesus who was with God in the beginning, but the words “I WAS HAVING” make your objection seem weak and biased. Because you are arguing for the most illogical and asinine way those words could possibly be construed – just so you don't have to accept the logical and sensible way.
But no matter how YOU choose to understand 17:5, you can't logically fault the way I understand it. There is no way on earth that you could make a case that it can't be understood as Jesus having glory in God's presence before the world was created.
Which means you CAN'T scripturally refute my point #2 either. Because “the Word” was with God in the beginning, and 17:5 is most logically understood as “Jesus” being with God in the beginning.
Shall we try #3?
Btw Kerwin,
Just the fact that you can't scripturally refute point #1 is enough to make the following words you posted to jammin null and void:
“Jammin,
What you says proves nothing and if you were not blind you would see that. You have chosen to remain blind and follow the teachings of men rather than the teachings of God.”
Let's see how null and void those words become when it turns out that you can't scripturally refute ANY of those points.
Mike we know that kerwin wants to play and doesnt want to listen to the word of God. Kerwin always deny the truth of the bible. I remember when i told kerwin to make his bible so that he can defend his man made doctrine.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 18 2014,03:51) Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 16 2014,17:52) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 16 2014,23:30)
But in your own understanding, SOMETHING besides “God Himself” was WITH “God Himself” in the beginning, and God created ALL THINGS through that “something other than God”.So YOUR OWN understanding contradicts YOUR OWN understanding.
Mike,God's word is not created. You claim the son was the first creation which is based on you flawed understanding.
Forget “created”, Kerwin.One of your claims is that there couldn't have been anything other than God before God created a “place” for that other thing to be.
Yet your other claim is that something OTHER THAN God was WITH God before God started to created “places” and other things.
See how those two claims by you contradict each other?
Also, despite what exactly you think “the Word” is, it was either ALWAYS right there at God's side – which would mean that God AND something OTHER THAN God existed side by side from eternity……………..
OR…………..
God brought this “Word” forth, and caused it to have an existence at some point – which would mean that “the Word” had a BEGINNING to its existence.
Which one of those two do you believe?
Mike,God is love therefore love was with God before anything was created.
God's word comes forth from the mouth of God and therefore was not created. By it God created all things that were created.Quote (terraricca @ Feb. 18 2014,05:51) Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 18 2014,04:18) Quote (terraricca @ Feb. 18 2014,01:59) Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 18 2014,01:01) T, Will you please answer my question?
khow could i ,it is a prophecy
T,Hardly as the man was speaking of David in either his own court or the court of his son Solomon.
kwell ,you tell me how this guy can do this ;
Ps 89:1 I will sing of the LORD'S great love forever;
with my mouth I will make your faithfulness known through all generations.
Ps 89:2 I will declare that your love stands firm forever,
that you established your faithfulness in heaven itself.show me how he could do that
T,It is the singer saying he will be one of those that sing of the Lord's great love forever. You already know of those who sing before the throne so you know the answer to how he can do that.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 18 2014,06:26) Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 17 2014,17:08) Mike, We have discussed John 17:5 before and I simply do not see it as you do.
And that's okay for right now, Kerwin.Because I'm wanting you to scripturally REFUTE my points.
You can't refute #1, because the Greek could be translated as “and the Word was a god” – and we all know that Jesus IS called a god in scripture.
And you can't refute #2, because the most logical understanding of John 17:5 is that Jesus was physically WITH God before the world began, and had a great amount of glory then and there.
So you can pretend that it talks about the glory that was with God in the beginning, and not Jesus who was with God in the beginning, but the words “I WAS HAVING” make your objection seem weak and biased. Because you are arguing for the most illogical and asinine way those words could possibly be construed – just so you don't have to accept the logical and sensible way.
But no matter how YOU choose to understand 17:5, you can't logically fault the way I understand it. There is no way on earth that you could make a case that it can't be understood as Jesus having glory in God's presence before the world was created.
Which means you CAN'T scripturally refute my point #2 either. Because “the Word” was with God in the beginning, and 17:5 is most logically understood as “Jesus” being with God in the beginning.
Shall we try #3?
Mike,I pointed out your flaw in one because you believe Jesus is an angel and Scriptures attests angels were not created before everything else. It also claims Jesus is a man.
I pointed out your flaw in two though you refuse to see that it is a flaw. All that passage claims is that Jesus' glory was with God in the beginning. You are reading into what you want to see.
1 Cor 8:6 does not even mention creation so it seems you believe “all things” literally means “all things” and is neither a general statement or one that apiece to a specific type of all things. An example of the later is that the spirit teaches all things. Of course Paul calls Jesus Lord and he claimed that was made Lord of all things in heaven and on earth after he was resurrected. It seems reasonable Paul was speaking of that.
Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 18 2014,20:21) Quote (terraricca @ Feb. 18 2014,05:51) Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 18 2014,04:18) Quote (terraricca @ Feb. 18 2014,01:59) Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 18 2014,01:01) T, Will you please answer my question?
khow could i ,it is a prophecy
T,Hardly as the man was speaking of David in either his own court or the court of his son Solomon.
kwell ,you tell me how this guy can do this ;
Ps 89:1 I will sing of the LORD'S great love forever;
with my mouth I will make your faithfulness known through all generations.
Ps 89:2 I will declare that your love stands firm forever,
that you established your faithfulness in heaven itself.show me how he could do that
T,It is the singer saying he will be one of those that sing of the Lord's great love forever. You already know of those who sing before the throne so you know the answer to how he can do that.
KPs 89:3 You said, “I have made a covenant with my chosen one,
I have sworn to David my servant,
Ps 89:4 ‘I will establish your line forever
and make your throne firm through all generations.’ ”AND NOW WHO IS THIS THAT THE GUY TALKS ABOUT
Quote (jammin @ Feb. 17 2014,20:53) Mike we know that kerwin wants to play and doesnt want to listen to the word of God. Kerwin always deny the truth of the bible. I remember when i told kerwin to make his bible so that he can defend his man made doctrine.
Kerwin is a diligent studier of scriptures. He searches high and low for the truth of the matter, like I do. He's not afraid of doing some research to sort things out.But many times he takes it too far, because he already knows what he WANTS to believe, and that DESIRE blocks out the most common sense meaning of a particular scripture.
Here's an example of what he so often does.
Let's say the scripture is sensibly translated as, The mother took her little girl to the candy store, and the little girl walked back home eating a lollipop.
Now Kerwin doesn't WANT this scripture to be about a girl eating a lollipop, so he searches tirelessly for other things those Hebrew or Greek words could possibly mean.
And he finds out that the word translated as “eating” has a rarely-used meaning of “crunching”. And he finds out that the word translated as “lollipop” can, on very rare occasions, metaphorically refer to “a mountain”.
So then, loaded with this new information and his desire to NOT have the scripture be about a girl eating a lollipop, he sets out to convince us that the verse is REALLY about a girl “crunching a mountain”.
And all we can say is, “Yes Kerwin, those Hebrew words COULD mean “crunching” and “mountain”, but is that the MOST LOGICAL definitions of those words IN THAT PARTICULAR CONTEXT?”
And at that point, there is no way we can “win” – because Kerwin will insist that a girl leaving a CANDY STORE would most naturally CRUNCH A MOUNTAIN on the way home – instead of EATING A LOLLIPOP.
In his haste to find alternate definitions, he completely loses sight of the CONTEXT – which in this case involved a CANDY STORE.
So he opts for his new-found definitions, and just PRETENDS that they make perfect sense in that context.
And all because he simply doesn't WANT to accept the most sensible translation, because it goes against the doctrine he made up in his own mind.
But what can we do? That's King Kerwin for you…….. and we can't change him.
Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 18 2014,08:17) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 18 2014,03:51)
Forget “created”, Kerwin.One of your claims is that there couldn't have been anything other than God before God created a “place” for that other thing to be.
Yet your other claim is that something OTHER THAN God was WITH God before God started to created “places” and other things.
See how those two claims by you contradict each other?
Also, despite what exactly you think “the Word” is, it was either ALWAYS right there at God's side – which would mean that God AND something OTHER THAN God existed side by side from eternity……………..
OR…………..
God brought this “Word” forth, and caused it to have an existence at some point – which would mean that “the Word” had a BEGINNING to its existence.
Which one of those two do you believe?
Mike,God's word comes forth from the mouth of God and therefore was not created. By it God created all things that were created.
And if this “Word” came forth from the mouth of God, then it was BROUGHT FORTH by God, Kerwin. That means it wasn't always there, but BEGAN to be at the moment God brought it forth from Himself.And let's face it, before God created the heavens and stars and planets, those things didn't exist, right? So unless the elements those things are made of had already existed from eternity, God also brought those things forth from Himself. Yet you say those things ARE created. Hmmm………..
So here are your choices: Either “the Word” is the actual BEING of God Almighty Himself, or it is not.
If it is NOT, then your choices are as follows:
1. This thing that is NOT God has existed from eternity along with God, and therefore God was never alone.
2. This thing that is NOT God had a beginning.
Which one, Kerwin?
Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 18 2014,08:39) Mike, I pointed out your flaw in one because you believe Jesus is an angel and Scriptures attests angels were not created before everything else. It also claims Jesus is a man.
I pointed out your flaw in two though you refuse to see that it is a flaw. All that passage claims is that Jesus' glory was with God in the beginning. You are reading into what you want to see.
The fact that Jesus was also a human being ISN'T a flaw in my belief – if Jesus was indeed existing in the form of God BEFORE being made in the likeness of a human being……… like scripture clearly says. So let's drop that one right now, and never bring it up again, okay? Because your claim that Jesus was a “man” will NEVER prohibit Jesus from having been something else BEFORE he became flesh.Also, even if we were to understand the creation account the way that you ALONE understand it, there is nothing in your understanding that would prohibit God from BRINGING FORTH someone or something from Himself, and THEN creating all other things through that someone or something. In fact, you believe that's the way it DID happen. It's just that you believe it was a “something”, and not a “someone”.
So even if God created “the messengers”, in general, AFTER He created all these other things, like you ALONE believe, is there a scripture that would prohibit God from creating His main Messenger BEFORE He created the universe, and then all the OTHER messengers? If there is, please show it to me.
As for point #2, you have shown no flaw whatsoever. The only flaw is in YOUR understanding that John 17:5 refers to a GLORY that was with God before the world began, when it is clear that Jesus referred to a glory “HE WAS HAVING” with God before the world began.
So like I've said twice now, you have not, and cannot, scripturally refute #1 or #2.
It's time for you to try to refute #3.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
