- This topic has 25,906 replies, 115 voices, and was last updated 6 hours, 4 minutes ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (carmel @ Feb. 26 2014,00:32) MIke, PROVE THAT BROUGHT FORTH MEANS THAT IT NEVER HAD AN EXISTENCE, BEFORE IT WAS BROUGHT FORTH!
Charles,Was Jehovah God Almighty ever “brought forth”? YES or NO?
Quote (carmel @ Feb. 26 2014,00:32) SO HOW ON EARTH YOU ARE SO CORRUPTED TO SAY THAT THE WORD OF GOD HAD A BEGINNING ONLY WHEN IT CAME FORTH! FROM GOD'S MOST HOLY, AND POWERFUL MOUTH?
Charles,The Word of God was “the firstborn of every creature”, “the beginning of the creation of God”, “created as the first of God's works”, and his “origins are from ancient days of old”.
These things I learned in the scriptures, so it will do you no good to try to “bully” me into believing something that contradicts those scriptures.
Quote (Wakeup @ Feb. 26 2014,06:57) Carmel. You hit the nail on the head.
Hey Wakeup,What's YOUR answer to that question I asked Charles two posts ago?
Quote GIVE ME ONE PROOF FROM THE OT. THAT GOD THE FATHER IS THE ONLY TRUE GOD? Peace and love in Jesus
Charles
Jer. 10:10 – But Jehovah is the true God; he is the living God, and an everlasting King: at his wrath the earth trembleth, and the nations are not able to abide his indignation. – ASV.
Is. 64:8 – But now, O Jehovah, thou art our Father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand. – ASV.
Ps. 83:18 – That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth. – KJV.
Quote (jammin @ Feb. 26 2014,07:57) Quote (jammin @ Feb. 25 2014,14:05)
ill post again what wallace said…… Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of “God” (the Father).
yes he is not GOD the father. that is what wallace trying to portrait.
jammin,Read that first statement from Mr. Wallace again.
Do you notice the words “Jesus Christ” in parenthesis? We don't really need those words, do we? Because you and I both know that the Word is Jesus Christ, right? So let's remove those words from his statement.
Likewise, we already know that the God in John 1:1 b is “the Father”, right? So we don't need that spelled out for us in parenthesis either, do we? So let's also remove that part.
And in this context, there is no reason to put God in quotation marks, so let's eliminate them as well.
And we know that if I say, “The person of Mike”, I just mean “Mike”, right? So there's really no reason to say “the person of the Word” when we can just say “the Word”, right? And there's no reason to say “the person of God” when we can just say “God”, right? So let's also eliminate “the person of” from his statement.
So, are you ready for the streamlined version of what Mr. Wallace himself taught you? Here goes……..
Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the Word with God.
BAM! Now THAT is what Mr. Wallace himself taught you, jammin. All I did was eliminate words that were unnecessary in the first place, and I didn't change one iota of the MEANING of his statement in the process.
And I'll even add the following information from a different TRINITARIAN source, NETNotes, to Mr. Wallace's information:
The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”)………
See how these Trinitarians keep saying, “the person of God” instead of just “God”? Why? If Genesis 1:1 says that “God” created the heavens and the earth, would they change it to “the person of God created the heavens and the earth”?
Of course not. But like I pointed out earlier, to say “The person of jammin” is the same thing as just saying “jammin”, right?
So we can also eliminate that phrase from those NETNotes, right?
So THEIR streamlined version says: The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with God.
And they go on to tell us WHY the Word cannot actually BE God: (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”)
See jammin? If the Word was WITH God, then the Word couldn't possibly BE God. So like the TRINITARIANS at NETNotes (25 of them) point out, John 1:1b PROHIBITS the Word from actually BEING God Himself.
Let's combine the teachings from NETNotes and Daniel Wallace into one teaching, okay?
John's lack of a definite article in part c keeps us from identifying the Word with God. Also, the construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with God, because part b, where the Word is said to have been WITH God, rules outs that possibility.
The above is actually the very thing these two Trinitarian sources taught us, jammin. And they are 100% correct.
So I can't help but wonder how these apparently brilliant Trinitarian scholars can so easily figure this stuff out, and even publish writings that show their findings, but somehow end up with a conclusion that goes AGAINST the very things they just taught us.
But you're a Trinitarian, right? So maybe YOU can explain to us how a person can use brilliant reasoning to deduce that a thing is “BLACK”, and then two minutes later conclude that the thing is “WHITE” anyway. Because I sure can't figure it out.
mikeboll64,Feb. wrote:[/quote]
Quote
Was Jehovah God Almighty ever “brought forth”? YES or NO?Mike,
I REPEAT:
PROVE THAT BROUGHT FORTH MEANS THAT IT NEVER HAD AN EXISTENCE, BEFORE IT WAS BROUGHT FORTH!
Peace and love in Jesus
Charles,
mikeboll64,Feb. wrote:[/quote]
Quote The Word of God was “the firstborn of every creature”, “the beginning of the creation of God”, “created as the first of God's works”, and his “origins are from ancient days of old”. Mike,
I ASK YOU THE SAME QUESTION:
PROVE THAT BY ACCEPTING:
The Word of God was “the firstborn of every creature”,
WHICH ALSO I AM CONVINCED ABOUT!
ASSERT THAT THE WORD OF GOD WAS CREATED, FIRST!
SINCE ALSO SCRIPTURE DECLARED THAT:
ALL WAS CREATED BY THE WORD
WHATEVER IS CREATED!
WHICH CLARIFIES AND EMPHATICALLY SAYS:
HE HIMSELF WAS NEVER CREATED!
OR ELSE EXPLAIN YOURSELF THE PROCESS, TO JUSTIFY THAT YOUR BELIEF IS THE TRUTH!
I ALSO CAN JUSTIFY THAT THROUGH A PARTICULAR PROCESS HE WOULD STILL BE THE FIRST BORN OF EVERY CREATURE, WITHOUT HE HIMSELF WOULD NOT BE CREATED!
Peace and love in Jesus
Charles
mikeboll64,Feb. wrote:[/quote]
Quote But you're a Trinitarian, right? So maybe YOU can explain to us how a person can use brilliant reasoning to deduce that a thing is “BLACK”, and then two minutes later conclude that the thing is “WHITE” anyway. Because I sure can't figure it out. Mike,
WELL DONE REGARDING YOUR MANIFESTOS, AT LEAST I DEDUCED YOU TO START DOING IT YOURSELF!
NOW WITH THE SAME ARGUMENT
WHAT IF I TELL YOU THAT:
GOD, WHO IS A SPIRIT, ACQUIRED HIS OWN UNIQUE GENUINE CLOTHING,
BUT HE STILL REMAINED IN THE NUDE
CAN YOU SEE THIS SINCE YOU ARE NOT A TRINITARIAN
Peace and love Jesus
Charles
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 27 2014,11:13) Quote (Wakeup @ Feb. 26 2014,06:57) Carmel. You hit the nail on the head.
Hey Wakeup,What's YOUR answer to that question I asked Charles two posts ago?
Mike B.If Jehovah God was brought forth;
Who brought Him forth?wakeup.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 27 2014,12:03) Quote (jammin @ Feb. 26 2014,07:57) Quote (jammin @ Feb. 25 2014,14:05)
ill post again what wallace said…… Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of “God” (the Father).
yes he is not GOD the father. that is what wallace trying to portrait.
jammin,Read that first statement from Mr. Wallace again.
Do you notice the words “Jesus Christ” in parenthesis? We don't really need those words, do we? Because you and I both know that the Word is Jesus Christ, right? So let's remove those words from his statement.
Likewise, we already know that the God in John 1:1 b is “the Father”, right? So we don't need that spelled out for us in parenthesis either, do we? So let's also remove that part.
And in this context, there is no reason to put God in quotation marks, so let's eliminate them as well.
And we know that if I say, “The person of Mike”, I just mean “Mike”, right? So there's really no reason to say “the person of the Word” when we can just say “the Word”, right? And there's no reason to say “the person of God” when we can just say “God”, right? So let's also eliminate “the person of” from his statement.
So, are you ready for the streamlined version of what Mr. Wallace himself taught you? Here goes……..
Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the Word with God.
BAM! Now THAT is what Mr. Wallace himself taught you, jammin. All I did was eliminate words that were unnecessary in the first place, and I didn't change one iota of the MEANING of his statement in the process.
And I'll even add the following information from a different TRINITARIAN source, NETNotes, to Mr. Wallace's information:
The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”)………
See how these Trinitarians keep saying, “the person of God” instead of just “God”? Why? If Genesis 1:1 says that “God” created the heavens and the earth, would they change it to “the person of God created the heavens and the earth”?
Of course not. But like I pointed out earlier, to say “The person of jammin” is the same thing as just saying “jammin”, right?
So we can also eliminate that phrase from those NETNotes, right?
So THEIR streamlined version says: The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with God.
And they go on to tell us WHY the Word cannot actually BE God: (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”)
See jammin? If the Word was WITH God, then the Word couldn't possibly BE God. So like the TRINITARIANS at NETNotes (25 of them) point out, John 1:1b PROHIBITS the Word from actually BEING God Himself.
Let's combine the teachings from NETNotes and Daniel Wallace into one teaching, okay?
John's lack of a definite article in part c keeps us from identifying the Word with God. Also, the construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with God, because part b, where the Word is said to have been WITH God, rules outs that possibility.
The above is actually the very thing these two Trinitarian sources taught us, jammin. And they are 100% correct.
So I can't help but wonder how these apparently brilliant Trinitarian scholars can so easily figure this stuff out, and even publish writings that show their findings, but somehow end up with a conclusion that goes AGAINST the very things they just taught us.
But you're a Trinitarian, right? So maybe YOU can explain to us how a person can use brilliant reasoning to deduce that a thing is “BLACK”, and then two minutes later conclude that the thing is “WHITE” anyway. Because I sure can't figure it out.
what is wrong with that? i have no problem with that what wallace said.we know that the word God in john 1.1 refers to the father and wallace only tells us that the Word is not God (father).
that is what he meant.
did you read the latter part of what wallace said??
he did not say THAT CHRIST IS NOT GOD BY NATURE BUT
he said
CHRIST IS GOD
do you understand that mike?
ill give you basic example. you and your father are BOTH HUMAN.
do you get it?
but you are not your father of course, yet you are both HUMAN by nature.
and let us stick to the topic mike, we want to make this topic clear. if you want you can create another thread if Christ is God or god
THE WORD IS CHRIST and i think this topic was well explained by the bible, by the commentary and by a greek professor wallace
tigger2,Feb. wrote:[/quote]
Quote Jer. 10:10 – But Jehovah is the true God Tigger2,
FIRST AND FORMOST JEHOVAH IS NOT GOD'S NAME!
SECOND THAT IS A STATEMENT NOT A PROOF!
A PROOF IN OUR WORLD MUST BE VISIBLE!
THE OT GOD WAS NEVER VISIBLE, AND WAS NEVER ACCEPTED! EXCEPT BY THE PROPHETS, AND THE SELECTS! WHO WERE SENT BY GOD HIMSELF!
SO ORDINARY HUMAN PEOPLE HAD THEIR OWN TASTE OF GOD!
NOT EVEN HIS OWN PEOPLE ACCEPTED HIM!
SO AGAIN ONE UNCONTESTED PROOF!
Peace and love in Jesus
Charles
Charles,
Quote WHAT IF I TELL YOU THAT THE WORD THE TRIUNE MEDIATOR CREATOR GOD WAS BOTH MASCULINE AND FEMININE! The word is neither male nor female as it is derived from God's mind and put into action by him. He utters it and it does his will. He rules angels by it. He created all things that are created by it, even Jesus.
To all,
I have been sick a few days and am getting over it now by the grace of God. It seems my heart needed testing in more ways than God normally proofs it.
Quote (jammin @ Feb. 24 2014,08:31) geneva bible also tells us that the Word was with God and that Word is Christ.
Jammin,The Geneva bible is a study bible and those write the comments to teach and chose to translate it were Trinitarians of some type. Even though they were Trinitarians they chose to call the word an “it” and not a “he”.
It is just like the Trinitarian who chose to translate John 1:1c as the word was divine. He chose to do it because his Trinitarian beliefs differed from those Trinitarians that insist it is “the word was God”.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 25 2014,06:02) Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 23 2014,13:18) Mike, So are you claiming a concrete thing can not become an aspect of an abstract thing.
That claim lacks support.
Okay Kerwin,But it's not for me to prove a negative. You'll have to prove the positive.
Can you find an example of an abstract quality or attribute, like “love”, that has a concrete thing as IT'S own attribute?
For example, can “love” have an elephant as one of it's attributes?
Can a command from God have a rhinoceros as one of it's attributes?
As far as I know, concrete things can have abstract things as attributes – but not the other way around.
Mike,It is done in poetry but I am not sure about normal conversation.
Quote Love is Flesh and Love is Flowers Here is another way of using the same pastern
Quote For you, what is faith? Who is Jesus to you?
To say “faith” is to say “Jesus Who died and is risen.” My faith is total. It encompasses everything. I cannot have anything that is not in and through faith; I can only act in and through faith; I can no longer experience anything outside of the experience of faith. God’s Providence that has never abandoned us, His Providence that amazes us everyday, arriving from all over the world, is the sign of faith. I give thanks because faith is flesh. Faith is blood. Faith is tears. Faith is the moments in which God has freed me from my fears. Faith is life.Note:poem and Confession
Quote (jammin @ Feb. 27 2014,07:53) and let us stick to the topic mike, we want to make this topic clear…………
I thought that WAS on topic, jammin.Who is The Word?
Is he Jesus? Yes.
Is he the very God he was with? No.
kerwin,Feb. wrote:[/quote]
Quote The word is neither male nor female as it is derived from God's mind and put into action by him. He utters it and it does his will. He rules angels by it. He created all things that are created by it, even Jesus. Kerwin,
WITH EVERY RESPECT, THAT'S YOUR CORRUPTED MIND'S OPINION!
THE WORD WAS GOD!
THEREFORE NEVER WAS CREATED!
ALSO THE WORD: WAS
THE SPIRIT OF THE SON IN FULL POWER OF THE DEITY!
A SPIRIT WHO WAS AND IS WITHIN THE SPIRIT OF THE DEITY!
THE ALMIGHTY
A COMPOUND SPIRIT:
THE FATHER, THE SON, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT, ALL THROUGH
THE WORD ALL IN THE WORD
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is
LIVING AND EFFECTUAL, SO IT IS NOT IT AS YOU CORRUPTLY SAID!
and more piercing than any two edged sword; and reaching unto the division of the
SOUL AND SPIRIT, SO IT IS NOT IT AS YOU CORRUPTLY SAID! IT HAS THE ABILITY TO SEPARATE, PREVENT ANY KIND OF ATTACHMENT BETWEEN SOUL AND SPIRIT DESPITE BEING IN ONE BODY!
OF JESUS!
of the
JOINTS AND MARROW,
SO IT IS NOT IT AS YOU CORRUPTLY SAID! IT HAS THE ABILITY TO SEPARATE, PREVENT ANY KIND OF ATTACHMENT BETWEEN JOINTS AND MARROW DESPITE BEING IN ONE BODY!
OF JESUS!
and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13 Neither is there any creature invisible
IN HIS SIGHT: SO IT IS DECLARED AND CLEAR THE WORD IS NOT IT SINCE IT IS REFERRING TO:
THE WORD
but all things are naked and open
TO HIS EYES, SO IT IS EMPHATICALLY DECLARED AND CLEAR THE WORD IS NOT IT SINCE IT IS REFERRING TO:
THE WORD
to whom our speech is.
14: Having therefore a great HIGH PRIEST that hath passed into the heavens,
Jesus the Son of God: …………….
NOW CONTRADICT ME AND MAKE SURE THAT YOU USE SCRIPTURES!
OR ELSE KEEP YOUR OPINIONS TO YOURSELF, ON HEAVEN NET WE WANT TRUTH DERIVED, SEEN, UNDERSTOOD, FROM SCRIPTURES!
Peace and love in Jesus
Charles
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 28 2014,11:08) Quote (jammin @ Feb. 27 2014,07:53) and let us stick to the topic mike, we want to make this topic clear…………
I thought that WAS on topic, jammin.Who is The Word?
Is he Jesus? Yes.
Is he the very God he was with? No.
yes he is the Word.no because he is not the God in john 1.1 because that is the father.
do you understand mike? it does not tell in john 1.1 that the son is not God. in fact, if you continue reading the verse it will tell you that the Word was God. meaning, he has the same nature just like his father. they are both God.
do you understand what i mean? their nature is one and that is NATURE GOD.
that is why john said in verse 18 that no one sees God but God the only son (monogenes theos in greek).
that is what wallace wanted to tell us. in the latter part of his explanation he said Christ is God. do you see that? or you just want ignore what wallace said?
kerwin,
it is clear that GNV accepts that Christ is the Word in john 1.1 but you dont. make your own bible
Quote (carmel @ Feb. 27 2014,06:00) NOW YOU: GIVE ME ONE PROOF FROM THE OT. THAT GOD THE FATHER IS THE ONLY TRUE GOD?
Peace and love in Jesus
Charles
Charles……..I see you can't show ONE SCRIPTURE where Jesus ever said He was a GOD> OK that should prove my point.Now I will give you just a few scriptures from the OT that say there is no God but one.
Isa 44:6…..> Thus says the, the LORD the King of Israel, and His (Israel's) redeemer the LORD of Hosts; I am the first and the last and besides me there is “NO” God.
Isa 44:8…> Fear you not neither be afraid; have not I told you from that time, and have declared it? you are my witnesses. Is there a GOD besides me? yea there is “NO” GOD, I KNOW NOT ANY.
I can produce many more but what good will it do you were “indoctrinated” into a trinitarian and Preexistence belief system a lone time ago and your pride will not let you consider you could be wrong. IMO
peace and love to you and yours……………………..gene
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
