- This topic has 25,959 replies, 116 voices, and was last updated 6 days, 7 hours ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (carmel @ April 23 2014,00:46) YOUR LIES ARE WORSE THAN SATAN'S! POST WHERE I SAID THAT JESUS HAVE DAUGHTERS AND SISTERS
Quote (carmel @ April 21 2014,13:05) JESUS CHRIST IS THE FATHER OF ETERNAL LIFE OF BOTH MALES AND FEMALES! Quote (carmel @ April 23 2014,00:46) SO WHY SCRIPTURES ARE WRITTEN FROM A MALE PERSPECTIVE? YOU BETTER DO SO BECAUSE:
I CONSIDER IT THAT YOU HAVE LOST YOUR ARGUMENT!
From NETNotes:Hebrew wisdom literature often assumes and reflects the male-oriented perspective of ancient Israelite society.
The main reason why is because God created man, and then created woman FOR man. Women were basically created as possessions of men, and they were treated that way for years.
We learn from the NT that even 4000 years later, woman were still not considered the equals of their male counterparts.
Btw Charles, you can “consider” that I've lost the argument when I don't address every detail of your often silly posts…… but you would be wrong. The truth is that I simply don't have the time or patience to wade through your mostly unscriptural waters with you.
Quote (carmel @ April 23 2014,00:56) CAN YOU SEE YOUR RABBIT HOLES MIKE?
I can see that you keep posting the same crap over and over again – despite the fact I wasn't interested the first time you posted it.
Charles, I only want the CONCLUSION of what you're trying to show me. I don't need all the other stuff.
Here, I'll start it out for you:
God Almighty only has sons, and no daughters because…………
On the other hand, “Father Jesus” has sons AND daughters because…………….
Just finish those two lines and be done with it already.
Quote (jammin @ April 23 2014,07:53) 1. i said before that we need to finish first the form of God before i can answer your question……….
We have discussed that “form of God” thing a hundred times already.Mar 16:12
After this he appeared in a different form to two of them while they were on their way to the country.This is the same word “morphe” that is used in Phil 2:6 and 2:7, jammin. The word refers to the OUTWARD APPEARANCE of a person or thing. It never refers to “nature” or “species”.
Now, answer my question: Does the SECOND word “God” in Phil 2:6 refer to a PERSON, or to a NATURE?
Quote (jammin @ April 23 2014,07:53) that is why barclay translated that verse this way:
and the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God.
What does the phrase, “nature of the Word” mean, jammin? Doesn't it refer to the nature of the PERSON known as “the Word”? Of course it does.So then what would the phrase, “nature of God” mean in that same context? Wouldn't it refer to the nature of the PERSON known as “God”?
Barclay doesn't help you…… he hurts you. Unless of course you want to start claiming that “the Word” is also a “nature/species”.
Find me a scripture where there is no guess work, jammin. Find a scripture where it is IMPOSSIBLE for the word “God” to mean anything but “nature/species”.
Using John 1:1 to support Phil 2:6 is like using Phil 2:6 to support John 1:1. It is not even close to clear in either one of them that the word “God” refers to a “nature/species”. Find a scripture where there is no doubt in anyone's mind that the word “God” refers to a “nature” or “species”.
Quote (jammin @ April 23 2014,07:53) 3. do you have a verse that will tell you that MAN HAS THE NATURE GOD?
Like your “answer” to #1, this one is also nothing but a dodge, jammin.Would the “nature of Godkind” include being all powerful? Would it include being all knowing? Would it include NOT having a God of your own?
If so, then Jesus does NOT have the “nature of Godkind”, since Jesus ISN'T all powerful, ISN'T all knowing, and DOES have a God of his own.
And that makes your claim that “God” refers to a “nature” in Phil 2:6 null and void. It cannot possibly refer to a “nature”, because by having that nature, Jesus WOULD BE all powerful, all knowing, and would NOT have a God of his own.
BOTH of the words “God” in Phil 2:6 refer to the PERSON we know as “God the Father”.
mikeboll64,April wrote:[/quote]
Quote POST WHERE I SAID THAT JESUS HAVE DAUGHTERS AND SISTERS
quote=carmel,April 21 2014,13:05]JESUS CHRIST ISTHE FATHER OF ETERNAL LIFE OF BOTH MALES AND FEMALES!
Mike,
YOU ARE LOST IN YOUR OWN LIES!
FOR YOU :
THE FATHER OF ETERNAL LIFE
MEANS:
JESUS HAS DAUGHTERS AND SISTERS?
ANSWER !
NOW
THE FIRST ADAM IS THE FATHER OF BOTH MALES AND FEMALES
DOES THAT MEAN THAT ADAM HAS DAUGHTERS AND SISTERS?
THE SECOND ADAM IS ALSO THE FATHER OF BOTH MALES AND FEMALES
DOES THAT ALSO MEAN THAT JESUS, THE SECOND ADAM, HAS DAUGHTERS AND SISTERS?
NOW REFLECT:
THE FIRST ADAM IS A LIVING SOUL!
THE SECOND ADAM IS A LIFE GIVING SPIRIT ETERNAL LIFE GIVING SPIRIT!
CAN YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE GENUINE SCRIPTURAL LIAR
YOU ARE IN A CUL DE SAC SITUATION MIKE!
THE END OF THE ROAD!
I WILL PRAY FOR YOU!
Peace and love in Jesus
Charles
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 24 2014,13:07) Quote (jammin @ April 23 2014,07:53) 1. i said before that we need to finish first the form of God before i can answer your question……….
We have discussed that “form of God” thing a hundred times already.Mar 16:12
After this he appeared in a different form to two of them while they were on their way to the country.This is the same word “morphe” that is used in Phil 2:6 and 2:7, jammin. The word refers to the OUTWARD APPEARANCE of a person or thing. It never refers to “nature” or “species”.
Now, answer my question: Does the SECOND word “God” in Phil 2:6 refer to a PERSON, or to a NATURE?
Quote (jammin @ April 23 2014,07:53) that is why barclay translated that verse this way:
and the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God.
What does the phrase, “nature of the Word” mean, jammin? Doesn't it refer to the nature of the PERSON known as “the Word”? Of course it does.So then what would the phrase, “nature of God” mean in that same context? Wouldn't it refer to the nature of the PERSON known as “God”?
Barclay doesn't help you…… he hurts you. Unless of course you want to start claiming that “the Word” is also a “nature/species”.
Find me a scripture where there is no guess work, jammin. Find a scripture where it is IMPOSSIBLE for the word “God” to mean anything but “nature/species”.
Using John 1:1 to support Phil 2:6 is like using Phil 2:6 to support John 1:1. It is not even close to clear in either one of them that the word “God” refers to a “nature/species”. Find a scripture where there is no doubt in anyone's mind that the word “God” refers to a “nature” or “species”.
Quote (jammin @ April 23 2014,07:53) 3. do you have a verse that will tell you that MAN HAS THE NATURE GOD?
Like your “answer” to #1, this one is also nothing but a dodge, jammin.Would the “nature of Godkind” include being all powerful? Would it include being all knowing? Would it include NOT having a God of your own?
If so, then Jesus does NOT have the “nature of Godkind”, since Jesus ISN'T all powerful, ISN'T all knowing, and DOES have a God of his own.
And that makes your claim that “God” refers to a “nature” in Phil 2:6 null and void. It cannot possibly refer to a “nature”, because by having that nature, Jesus WOULD BE all powerful, all knowing, and would NOT have a God of his own.
BOTH of the words “God” in Phil 2:6 refer to the PERSON we know as “God the Father”.
do you understand english mike?do you know the difference between the “form of God” and “with God”.
let me post your reasoning.
mike believes Christ was existing in the form of his OWN GOD (albeit this is never written in the bible – phil 2.6)
if im going to follow your reasoning, you are existing in the form of YOUR OWN MAN. only a moron can tell that. i do not exist in the form of MY OWN MAN. i exist in the form OF MAN.
do you understand that? therefore the first word ” GOD” refers to nature and not to his FATHER! as you have said, YOU CANT GIVE ME ANY VERSION to support your imagination. the truth is, there's no greek scholar that will translate that version to FORM OF HIS OWN GOD because that is not the correct translation of the verse. it is FORM OF GOD or nature GOD.
you do not know greek. base on your explanation,i can see that you did not go to school to study the greek language. you are a moron.
Philippians 2:6
New International Version (NIV)6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,
Philippians 2:6
New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)6 who, though he was in the form of God,
2. it means that that nature of the person WORD is God.
very simple. do not make things complicated.
you asked me if i can give you a verse that will explain the word “God” as nature. i gave you john 1.1how about you?: you gave me stories. hahaha
poor mike.you also said, Find a scripture where there is no doubt in anyone's mind that the word “God” refers to a “nature”
i already posted that verse many times but you dont want to accept it because you are a false teacher. you like fairy tales. hahaha
read again phil 2.6 and john 1.1 over and over and make sure you wear eyeglasses boy. hahaha3. im not asking for your explanation. i am asking for a verse. can you give me a verse that says the MAN HAS THE NATURE OF GOD? yes or no?
3.
Quote (jammin @ April 24 2014,20:13) kerwin, do you exist in the form of MAN or form of your own man?
Jammin,I yet fall short of God's glory so I do not yet dwell in his form.
mikeboll64,April wrote:[/quote]
Quote The main reason why is because God created man, and then created woman FOR man. Women were basically created as possessions of men, and they were treated that way for years. Mike,
YOUR POOR DEFINITION IS QUITE EVIDENT! WITH EVERY RESPECT!
YOU SAID ABOVE, BECAUSE GOD CREATED MAN FIRST!
BUT WHY HE DID SO?
WHY DIDN'T HE CREATE THEM BOTH TOGETHER?
OR WHY NOT THE WOMAN FIRST?
WOMAN WAS NOT CREATED AS POSSESSIONS OF MAN, BUT AS A HELPER! AND ALSO THERE'S A REASON FOR IT!
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TWO OPPOSING ELEMENTS! ENTITIES!
SPIRIT AND MATTER! APART FORM HUMANS!
AND GOD CREATED ADAM AND EVE TO REPRESENT THESE ELEMENTS, FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT THERE WERE TWO OPPOSING SPIRITS IN THE PROCESS OF CREATION,
GOD AND LUCIFER
LIGHT AND DARKNESS!
SPIRIT AND MATTER:
AND OUR CREATION WAS CREATED UNDER CERTAIN JUSTIFIED PRINCIPALS!
WHAT'S SPIRIT IS SPIRIT BELONGS TO GOD, AND WHAT'S FLESH IS FLESH BELONG TO LUCIFER!
SO
ADAM WAS CREATED AND SUBJECT TO GOD! SPIRIT ROLE!
AND
EVE WAS BUILT AND SUBJECT TO ADAM, MATTER ROLE!
SO AS A SPIRIT, GOD'S, HE SHOULD OVERRULE MATTER!LUCIFER!
SO ADAM ONLY, WAS CREATED AS A LIVING SOUL:
SPIRIT IMAGE OF GOD!
EVE FROM THE OTHER HAND WITHOUT EVEN A SPECIFIC TITLE OBVIOUS NOT GOD'S, HIS OPPONENT'S
SO THE REASON THAT SCRIPTURE IS FROM THE MALE PERSPECTIVE IT IS ONLY BECAUSE IT IS GOD’S SPIRITUAL LITERATURE, TEACHING, WISDOM, AND MAN AS A PRINCIPAL WAS ATTRIBUTED TO THE SPIRIT OF GOD!
AND THE REASON THAT THE FEMALE FIGURE, AS A PRINCIPAL COULD IN NO WAY BE RELATED TO GOD BECAUSE SHE BECAME SUBJECT TO SATAN!
Peace and love in Jesus
Charles
Hi,
Rev22
16 “I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things [h]for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.”The WORD made FLESH
The ROOT of David is the Spirit of Christ, of prophecy
He is DESCENDANT of David by his adopted father, Joseph.
Quote (carmel @ April 24 2014,00:35) I WILL PRAY FOR YOU!
The reason I included “sisters” is because we are told that someday we can be SONS to “God”, and BROTHERS to “Jesus”.A lot of English translations add the words “and sisters” into the text, although the words “and sisters” are not in the teaching of the Greek mss.
But forget about the “sister” part, Charles. Tell me how God Almighty does NOT have daughters, but “Father Jesus” DOES have daughters. Explain that to me using scriptures.
P.S. When you pray for me, please pray TO our one and only God Jehovah, THROUGH His holy servant Jesus Christ.
Hi,
2 Corinthians 6:18
And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.Quote (jammin @ April 24 2014,08:11) mike believes Christ was existing in the form of his OWN GOD (albeit this is never written in the bible – phil 2.6) if im going to follow your reasoning, you are existing in the form of YOUR OWN MAN. only a moron can tell that.
Actually, only a moron would be daft enough to not understand the very simple thing I'm saying, jammin.Listen closely……. I'll try to take baby steps with you:
If the word “God” in the FIRST part of Phil 2:6 referred to a “nature” or “species” known as “God”, or “Godkind”, then it would be idiotic to say Jesus existed in the form of “his own God”.
On the other hand (are you listening?), if the word “God” in the FIRST part of Phil 2:6 refers to the PERSON we know as “God”, then we know that PERSON is God the Father. And since we know from other scriptures that God the Father IS INDEED the God OF Jesus, it would make PERFECT SENSE to say that Phil 2:6 teaches that Jesus was existing in the form of his own God, the Father.
Can you see the difference jammin? Can you see that I would NEVER say “the form of his own God” – IF the word “God” referred to a NATURE?
But since the word “God” refers to Jesus' own God, the Father (both times that word is in Phil 2:6), then I am absolutely correct in saying that Jesus was existing in the form of his own God, Jehovah.
The teaching of Phil 2:6 is that Jesus was existing in the form of the Father, but did not consider equality with the Father something to be grasped.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
Who being in the form of God,…. The Father; being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person.
The Trinitarian Gill also believes the word “God” refers to the Father, jammin.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
Translate, “Who subsisting (or existing, namely, originally: the Greek is not the simple substantive verb, 'to be') in the form of God (the divine essence is not meant: but the external self-manifesting characteristics of God, the form shining forth from His glorious essence).
………that beauty was 'the form of God'; as 'the form of a servant' (Php 2:7), which is in contrasted opposition to it, takes for granted the existence of His human nature, so 'the form of God' takes for granted His divine nature [Bengel], Compare Joh 5:37; 17:5; Col 1:15, 'Who is the IMAGE of the invisible God' at a time before 'every creature,' 2Co 4:4,
Those Trinitarians also don't believe it refers to any “essence” called “God” – but instead to the external characteristics of the PERSON known as “God”.
These guys also make a great point about the CONTRAST between “form of God” and “form of a servant“. The words “a servant” describe a PERSON, jammin………. not a “nature/species”.
So (see if you can follow along here), to make the accurate CONTRAST that Paul made, the subject of “form of” must be the same thing in both cases.
If the words “form of God” refer to the nature/species of a particular group of persons, then “form of a servant” must also refer to the nature/species of a particular group of persons.
But “a servant” is neither a nature nor a species.
On the other hand, if “the form of a servant“ refers to the form of a PERSON, then for the CONTRAST to work, “the form of God“ must also refer to the form of a PERSON.
And as if they didn't do enough already, the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown scholars also gave us Colossians 1:15 as support for their understanding. Just as 1:15 says Jesus is the image of the invisible God (the words “invisible God” referring to a PERSON), Phil 2:6 also teaches that Jesus was existing in the form (image) of the invisible God. Both teachings refer to Jesus existing in the form or image of the PERSON known as “God” – it's just that Col 1:15 adds the word “invisible” to the teaching.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
The word (morphe) properly means, form, shape, bodily shape, especially a beautiful form, a beautiful bodily appearance – Passow.
In Philippians 2:7, it is applied to the appearance of a servant – and took upon him the form of a servant;” that is, he was in the condition of a servant – or of the lowest condition.
The word “form” is often applied to the gods by the classic writers, denoting their aspect or appearance when they became visible to people……..
Barnes knows the word “morphe” doesn't mean “nature/species”, jammin.
Matthew Poole's Commentary
……..there is a cogent reason for it here, considering the form of God, in opposition to the form of a servant afterward, and in conjunction with equality to God, which implies the same essence and nature……..
……whence we may conclude the Son to be of the same (not only of like) substance with the Father……
This guy takes the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown scholar's point about the contrast one step further. He not only points out the CONTRAST between “form of God” and “form of a servant” – but also points out the CONJUNCTION with “equality with God”. (This is the reason I wanted you to tell me what the SECOND word “God” referred to in Phil 2:6.)
You might not understand such a deep thought, but the fact that Paul conjoins “was existing in the form of God” with the statement “did not consider equality with God something to be grasped” shows that whatever the SECOND word “God” referred to, the FIRST word “God” also referred to.
So in this case, we KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that the SECOND “God” refers to the PERSON of the Father. And since we KNOW that part without a doubt, the FIRST word “God” must refer to the PERSON of the Father as well – or the conjunction doesn't work.
So now we have both a CONTRAST and a CONJUNCTION that would simply not work if the FIRST word “God” in Phil 2:6 didn't refer to the PERSON of God the Father.
Also, scholar Matthew Poole concluded that “form of God” means Jesus was the “same substance as the Father”. I don't agree with his clearly Trinitarian biased conclusion, but it's easy to see that he also believes the “God” mentioned in the first part of Phil 2:6 is the Father.
Geneva Study Bible
Who, being in the form of God: Such as God himself is……….
Yet another set of Trinitarian scholars who think the word “God” refers to the PERSON of “God Himself”.
Vincent's Word Studies
To say, then, that Christ was in the form of God, is to say that He existed as essentially one with God.
Vincent also understands “God” as referring to the PERSON of God the Father.
These are just MEN that I quoted, and as such are flawed and prone to mistakes. But I quoted them so you can see that I am not alone in my understanding, jammin. And you SHOULD BE smart enough to know that when Kerwin and I talk about Jesus existing in the form of his own God – it is only because we know that BOTH of the words “God” in Phil 2:6 refer to the PERSON of God the Father.
So it's time you let
up with the “form of your own man” games. Everyone else here understands that we only say “form of his own God” because we know “God” refers to the Father, and not to a “nature/species”.We would not say such a thing if we believed “God” referred to a “nature” or a “species”. And everyone who reads this thread knows that, jammin.
So the game you're playing over and over again only makes YOU look like a fool………. not us.
Quote (jammin @ April 24 2014,08:11) 2. it means that that nature of the person WORD is God.
very simple. do not make things complicated.
I now realize that I must make things VERY SIMPLE for you to understand them, jammin.The point is that when Barclay spoke of the nature of the Word, he was speaking of the nature of A PERSON.
Likewise, when he used the phrase, “the nature of God” in the same sentence and same context, he was also talking about the nature of A PERSON.
But I see that this is too deep for you.
Quote (jammin @ April 24 2014,08:11) 3. im not asking for your explanation. i am asking for a verse. can you give me a verse that says the MAN HAS THE NATURE OF GOD? yes or no?
No. Nor can you show a scripture that says JESUS has “the nature of God”. You can show BIASED ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS that render the Greek word “morphe” as “nature” – but that word simply means “outward appearance”.I can, however, show you a scripture that says human beings will share in “divine nature” – which is the nature of God, Jesus, and the angels.
Now, you keep attempting to answer my question WITH a question of your own. I have now answered YOUR question, and it's time you answer the one I asked you.
I want to know if “the nature of God” would include being all powerful. Would it?
Would it include being all knowing? YES or NO?
Would it include NOT having a God of your own? YES or NO?
Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 24 2014,18:38) Hi,
2 Corinthians 6:18
And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
Well done, Nick.And for Charles:
Isaiah 43
6 I will say to the north, ‘Hand them over!’and to the south, ‘Don’t hold any back!’
Bring my sons from distant lands,
and my daughters from the remote regions of the earth,
7 everyone who belongs to me,
whom I created for my glory,
whom I formed – yes, whom I made!
Okay Charles? Jehovah had daughters – not just sons. Will that finally end the madness?
nick wrote:[/quote]
Quote 2 Corinthians 6:18
And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.Nick,
EXPLAIN IN SIMPLE ENGLISH WHAT IS THE MEANING OF:
I SHALL BE A FATHER TO YOU, AND YOU WILL BE SONS AND DAUGHTERS TO ME MEANS
IS GOD ALMIGHTY THE FATHER OF SONS AND DAUGHTERS YET?
SINCE HE SAID
I SHALL BE………….
ISN'T HE UP TO THIS MOMENT IN TIME IN THE TRUTH ONLY A
FATHER AND GOD TO BOTH TO SONS AND DAUGHTERS THROUGH
THE ONLY TRUE GOD, AND JESUS CHRIST
SINCE A FATHER CAN ONLY BE SO IF HE HAD FLESH AND BLOOD LIKE HIS CHILDREN?
WHICH ONLY JESUS HAD!
OR IS YOUR FATHER A SPIRIT?
Peace and love in Jesus
Charles
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 25 2014,12:10) [/quote] mikeboll64,April wrote:Quote Okay Charles? Jehovah had daughters – not just sons. Will that finally end the madness? Mike,
YOU REALLY DON’T KNOW WHERE YOU ARE!
YOU BET WE AREN’T NOT TILL TRUTH IS REVEALED!
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT YOU SIMPLY DON'T WANT TO UNDERSTAND SIMPLE ENGLISH!
AND YOU ARE IN A REMOTEST STATE LIKE A PERSON IS GETTING DROWNED AND ARE LOOKING FOR A MATCH STICK TO GRAB ON!
NO MIKE GOD ALMIGHTY DOESN’T HAVE DAUGHTERS, AND THE SCRIPTURES WHICH NICK AND YOU POSTED CONTRADICTS YOU IN CLEAR PLAIN ENGLISH
WHERE DOES IT SAY
GOD ALMIGHTY HAS, NOT HAD, DAUGHTERS!
I SAID IN PLAIN ENGLISH:
GOD ALMIGHTY SCRIPTURALLY HAS NO DAUGHTERS ONLY SONS, AND I ALSO IN DEPTH EXPLAINED THE REASON WHY!
AND I ALSO SAID THAT THE LORD GOD IS NOT JUST GOD ALMIGHTY,
BUT ALSO JESUS’ SPIRIT AS THE WORD IN
CREATION!ISAIAH 43 1: 6 I will say to the north: Give up: and to the south: Keep not back: bring my sons from afar, and my daughters from the ends of the earth.
NOW LEARN SOME PLAIN ENGLISH:
I WILL SHOW YOUR LIES IN DUE COARSE! SO I STILL HAVE TO,AND I DIDN'T YET! NO?
IN THE SAME SENSE
I WILL SAY TO THE NORTH………………… IN DUE COARSE , THROUGH JESUS CHRIST,
NOW SINCE GOD ASSERTED THAT HE WILL DO SO,
GET SCRIPTURES WHICH DECLARE THAT GOD DID SO!
APART THAT THE WORDS SONS AND DAUGHTERS ARE SYMBOLICALLY MEAN
SPIRIT, AND FLESH RESPECTIVELY!
BUT ONE LIKE YOU WHO STILL DRINK MILK ,CANNOT SEE WHAT ONLY THOSE WHO DRINK WINE CAN SEE!
Peace and love in Jesus
Charles
nick wrote:[/quote]
Quote Have a good day. Nick,
Test all things. Hold fast to what is good
Peace and love in Jesus
Charles
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
