- This topic has 25,924 replies, 116 voices, and was last updated 4 hours, 20 minutes ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 25 2014,12:04) 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”.
see. i will always ask for a verse but you always give me IMAGINATION, FAIRY TALE, ILLUSION. poor mike.i did not give you BIASED translation. THOSE TRANSLATION are translated by bible scholars. they know greek mike. what about you? you dont even have a formal study in greek.
let me post the Strong's Greek Lexicon
morphe:
shape, nature:–form.did you see that?
poo mike. you need to study more.Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 25 2014,12:00) 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.
hahahayou are the one who does not understand the meaning of that verse.
let me post WHAT BARCLAY SAID ABOUT JOHN 1.1
John 1:1-18 exegesis, Biblical exegesis, Bible study. … as we might say, of the very same character and quality and essence and being as God” (Barclay, 17).
did you see that? hahaha
poor mike. barclay is referring to the nature God (essence).
the Word( christ) was God!kerwin,
do you exist in the form of man or the form of your own man?
mike,
if i say i exist in the form of MAN, does it mean that i exist in the form of MY OWN MAN>? yes or no?
Quote (jammin @ April 26 2014,02:10) kerwin, do you exist in the form of man or the form of your own man?
mike,
if i say i exist in the form of MAN, does it mean that i exist in the form of MY OWN MAN>? yes or no?
Jammin,If you say that you exist in the form of a man it means you are a mere man, a servant of sin.
mikeboll64,April wrote:[/quote]
Quote 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.
Mike,
BUT HOW ON EARTH CAN'T YOU SEE THE TRUTH!
ANSWER:
IS THE FIRST ADAM THE FATHER OF ALL HUMANITY AS A LIVING SOUL
IS JESUS THE SECOND ADAM THE FATHER OF ALL HUMANITY AS ETERNAL LIFE GIVING SPIRIT?
NOW THAT'S THE REASON YOU DON'T WANT TO POST
ONE SCRIPTURE OUT OF MANY,WHICH DECLARES JESUS CHRIST AS THE FATHER, IN THAT SAME SENSE!
OR DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT
SATAN IS A FATHER TO ALL HUMANITY, IN RELATION TO
LIES, SINS, DEATH AND SO ON,
AND JESUS IS FATHER TO NONE?
ANSWER MR SCRIPTURAL LIAR
NOW I PRAY TO JESUS CHRIST, AND BY DOING SO IT IS ALSO TO
THE ONLY TRUE GOD, AND JESUS CHRIST!
TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT!
Peace and love in Jesus
Charles
mikeboll64,April wrote:[/quote]
Quote From NETNotes: Hebrew wisdom literature often assumes and reflects the male-oriented perspective of ancient Israelite society.
Mike,
FOR GOD'S SAKE, THE ABOVE WAS AN ANSWER TO MY POST, WHICH WAS ONLY A MERE 5 LINES CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT I WRITE IN BLOCK CAPITALS!
AND IN THAT PARTICULAR POST I SAID THESE EXACT WORDS:
NOW TO MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND!
ONLY ISRAEL WAS CLASSIFIED AS PEOPLE FOR GOD! AND ALSO ONLY AS A FIRST BORN SON!
OK? MIKE GOT IT? THEN I JUSTLY SAID: [/B]
I KNOW IT IS DIFFICULT FOR YOU MIKE, SINCE YOU RELY ONLY ON WORLDLY WISDOM,
BUT I ASK YOU THIS WHAT DOES ISRAEL SIGNIFY SINCE ONLY AS A FIRST BORN SON?
NOW CAN YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE?
I REPEAT IN DETAIL:
GENESIS 32 24:28
WHAT WAS THE REASON THAT THE SUPPOSED GOD AS MAN CHANGED HIS NAME TO ISRAEL WHILE WRESTLING?
ALSO DO YOU BELIEVE THAT GOD WAS REALLY IN THE FORM OF MAN?
Peace and love in Jesus
Charles
Mike,
BY THE WAY, I LEFT THIS OUT:
NOW READ THESE SCRIPTURE:
And thou shalt say to him: Thus saith the Lord: Israel is my son, my firstborn.
ANSWER:
WHY THE LORD GOD CALLED ISRAEL MY FIRST BORN SON?
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE DAUGHTER?
Quote (jammin @ April 25 2014,14:05) you are the one who does not understand the meaning of that verse. let me post WHAT BARCLAY SAID ABOUT JOHN 1.1
John 1:1-18 exegesis, Biblical exegesis, Bible study. … as we might say, of the very same character and quality and essence and being as God” (Barclay, 17).
did you see that? hahaha
Yes jammin,Barclay says that the Word has the very same character AS GOD HAS.
And who is “GOD”?
Quote (jammin @ April 25 2014,14:01) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 25 2014,12:04) You can show BIASED ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS that render the Greek word “morphe” as “nature” – but that word simply means “outward appearance”.
see. i will always ask for a verse but you always give me IMAGINATION, FAIRY TALE, ILLUSION. poor mike.i did not give you BIASED translation. THOSE TRANSLATION are translated by bible scholars. they know greek mike. what about you? you dont even have a formal study in greek.
let me post the Strong's Greek Lexicon
morphe:
shape, nature:–form.did you see that?
poo mike. you need to study more.
Does the word mean “nature” in Mark 16:12?Mar 16:12
After this he appeared in a different form to two of them while they were on their way to the country.Did you see what the scholar Barnes said from my last post?
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
The word (morphe) properly means, form, shape, bodily shape, especially a beautiful form, a beautiful bodily appearance – Passow.
Did you see what else he said?
The word “morphe” is often applied to the gods by the classic writers, denoting their appearance when they became visible to people……..
The word doesn't refer to “nature”. Early scholars have INCLUDED the definition “nature” out of thin air – to avoid a teaching that speaks of God having a FORM, jammin.
But none of this really matters, since whether you use “form” or “nature”, it is clear from the CONTRASTS and CONJUNCTIONS of the CONTEXT that Jesus was existing in the form/nature of the Father, ie: his own God.
I have posted many TRINITARIAN scholars who point this out to you, jammin. It is your choice whether you believe them or not.
Charles,
Your posts are long, confusing, unscriptural, and often have many insults directed at me.
I don't have time for nonsense.
If YOU can CLEARLY and DIRECTLY show me why God the Father is ONLY the Father of male human beings, but Jesus is the “Father” of both male and female human beings, do it BRIEFLY.
Nick and I have already posted scriptures that prove you wrong, but knock yourself out.
Mike you dont understand the commentary because you did not read the whole thing. Haha.
Let me post what jamiesson commentary said:
…the former, “His being,” or NATURE, His already existing STATE OF EQUALITY with God, both the Father and the Son having the same ESSENCE.Gill's exposition said
but this phrase, “the form of God”, is to be understood of the nature and essence of God, and describes Christ as he was from all eternity;
that he was in being before his incarnation; that he existed as a distinct person from God his Father, in whose form he was, and that as a divine person, or as truly God, being in the glorious form, nature, and essence of God; and that there is but one form of God, or divine nature and essence, common to the Father and the Son, and also to the Spirit;
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
2:5-11 The example of our Lord Jesus Christ is set before us. We must resemble him in his life, if we would have the benefit of his death. Notice the two natures of Christ; his Divine nature, and human nature. Who being in the form of God, partaking the Divine nature, as the eternal and only-begotten Son of God, Joh 1:1,
And many more haha. therefore your doctrine is not supported by those commentaries. Those commentaries tell us that the father and the son HAVE THE SAME FORM. that is why they said christ is God just like his father but of course, you will not accept that haha. Your cut and paste strategy is not effective. Haha. You HAVE TO READ THE WHOLE THING FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND THE TRUE MEANING OF IT.
About barclay, he said morphe is form but he believes that phil 2:6 also talks about the nature or essence
William barclay study bible
Philippians 2:6 : Being in the form of God; he was by nature in the very form of God.barclay also said that morphe is the ESSENTIAL FORM which never alterr
There are two Greek words for form, morphe (Greek #3444) and schema (Greek #4976). They must both be translated form, because there is no other English equivalent, but they do not mean the same thing. Morphe (Greek #3444) is the essential form which never alters; schema (Greek #4976) is the outward form which changes from time to time and from circumstance to circumstance. For instance, the morphe (Greek #3444) of any human being is humanity and this never changes; but his schema (Greek #4976) is continually changing. A baby, a child, a boy, a youth, a man of middle age, an old man always have the morphe (Greek #3444) of humanity, but the outward schema (Greek #4976) changes all the time. — WILLIAM BARCLAY
You have no formal study in greek language mike. You are a moron. You shoult study first before talking to me hahaha
Quote (kerwin @ April 26 2014,15:06) Quote (jammin @ April 26 2014,02:10) kerwin, do you exist in the form of man or the form of your own man?
mike,
if i say i exist in the form of MAN, does it mean that i exist in the form of MY OWN MAN>? yes or no?
Jammin,If you say that you exist in the form of a man it means you are a mere man, a servant of sin.
What is your answer then?do you exist in form of man or form of your own man?Mike
Here is the analysis of barnes
barnes notes on the bible
The second opinion is, that the word is equivalent to nature, or being; that is, that he was in the nature of God, or his mode of existence was that of God, or was divine. This is the opinion adopted by Schleusner (Lexicon); Prof. Stuart (Letters to Dr. Channing, p. 40); Doddridge, and by orthodox expositors in general, and seems to me to be the correct interpretation.
Again, you have to read the whole thing for you to UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF IT. you are a moron mike hahahaha
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 27 2014,02:43) Quote (jammin @ April 25 2014,14:01) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 25 2014,12:04) You can show BIASED ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS that render the Greek word “morphe” as “nature” – but that word simply means “outward appearance”.
see. i will always ask for a verse but you always give me IMAGINATION, FAIRY TALE, ILLUSION. poor mike.i did not give you BIASED translation. THOSE TRANSLATION are translated by bible scholars. they know greek mike. what about you? you dont even have a formal study in greek.
let me post the Strong's Greek Lexicon
morphe:
shape, nature:–form.did you see that?
poo mike. you need to study more.
Does the word mean “nature” in Mark 16:12?Mar 16:12
After this he appeared in a different form to two of them while they were on their way to the country.Did you see what the scholar Barnes said from my last post?
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
The word (morphe) properly means, form, shape, bodily shape, especially a beautiful form, a beautiful bodily appearance – Passow.
Did you see what else he said?
The word “morphe” is often applied to the gods by the classic writers, denoting their appearance when they became visible to people……..
The word doesn't refer to “nature”. Early scholars have INCLUDED the definition “nature” out of thin air – to avoid a teaching that speaks of God having a FORM, jammin.
But none of this really matters, since whether you use “form” or “nature”, it is clear from the CONTRASTS and CONJUNCTIONS of the CONTEXT that Jesus was existing in the form/nature of the Father, ie: his own God.
I have posted many TRINITARIAN scholars who point this out to you, jammin. It is your choice whether you believe them or not.
Mike,Any expert would tell you that Barnes has insignificant evidence to base his conclusion on as morph is only used two times in the exact same form in Scripture. It is used in a slightly different form to speak of the form of a servant. There are variations of the same root that are used to speak in other ways. Romans 2:20 used one of those variations.
Romans 2:20
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)20 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law.
Another variation is:
Galatians 4:19
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)19 My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,
The first variation is a feminine noun and the second is a verb but all three have the syllable morph in common and can be translated to a variation of form.
I do not see where any of this supports jammins claim not do I think many expert Trinitarians would agree with him.
Quote (jammin @ April 27 2014,09:14) Mike Here is the analysis of barnes
barnes notes on the bible
The second opinion is, that the word is equivalent to nature, or being; that is, that he was in the nature of God, or his mode of existence was that of God, or was divine. This is the opinion adopted by Schleusner (Lexicon); Prof. Stuart (Letters to Dr. Channing, p. 40); Doddridge, and by orthodox expositors in general, and seems to me to be the correct interpretation.
Again, you have to read the whole thing for you to UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF IT. you are a moron mike hahahaha
Jammin,Do you know what the scholarly words mean? It looks to me like it was not written for lay persons like you and me.
kerwin,April wrote:[/quote]
Quote The second opinion is, that the word is equivalent to nature, or being; that is, that he was in the nature of God, or his mode of existence was that of God, or was divine. Kerwin,
FEW PAGES BACK YOU AND ME DISCUSSED ,OR RATHER I DEFINED THE STATEMENT WHICH JESUS SAID TO MARY MAGDALENE:
John 20:17 ……………But go to my brethren, and say to them:
I ascend to my Father and to your Father, to my God and your God.
WHICH ACTUALLY MEANS:
I ASCEND TO THE STATE OF my Father and to THE STATE OF your Father, to my God and your God.
I ALSO PROVED THIS TRUTH SINCE:
THE PREP.TO MEANS MOTION TOWARDS TO INTERFACE WITH
ACCORDING TO THE STRONG'S GREEK
4314 prós (a preposition) – properly, motion towards to “interface with” (literally, moving toward a goal or destination).
SO THE ABOVE IS THE REAL DEFINITION, CONSIDERING THE FACT IN MARK IT SAYS:
Mark 16:12 After these things, he appeared before two of them IN ANOTHER FORM……………
WHICH PROVES THAT JESUS DID BECAME IN THE TRUTH AS HE SAID TO MAGDALENE:
THE ALMIGHTY FATHER AND ALMIGHTY GOD TO ALL HUMANITY! IN SPIRIT AND FLESH FORM
THE REASON THAT THEY NEVER RECOGNIZED JESUS!
Peace and love in Jesus
Charles
KERWIN,
REFLECT NOW ALSO THAT:
SINCE HE SPOKE THOSE WORDS TO MARY, A WOMAN SCRIPTURALLY SYMBOLIZES THE FLESH,IN EVE, THE MOTHER OF ALL EARTHLY SATANIC LIVING
HE DECLARED THAT HE THEREFORE IS NOW THE OWNER OF ALL THE ENTIRE FLESH,AS CONFIRMED HEREUNDER:
John 17:2 AS YOU HAVE GIVEN HIM POWER OVER ALL FLESHthat he may give eternal life………………
THEREFORE JESUS CHRIST IS THE ONLY TRUE GOD AND FATHER ALSO TO FEMALES!
WHICH GOD THE FATHER AS A PRINCIPAL ISN'T YET,
SINCE SATAN THE SPIRITUAL FEMALE FIGURE IN SCRIPTURES STILL IN CONTROL OF THIS WORLD!
DUE TO THE FACT THAT OFFICIALLYJESUS REDEEMED HUMANITY ONLY IN THE FLESH, SINCE HE RESURRECTED AS MAN IN THE FLESH, WHILE HER SOUL WAS STILL IN HELL,
THEREFORE SATAN NEVER ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT THE MAN IN THE GRAVE WAS THE SAME PERSON ALSO IN HELL
NOW GOD ALMIGHTY THE FATHER, STILL IS IN THE PROCESS TO PUT JESUS' ENEMIES AS HIS FOOTSTOOL,ON EARTH AND ESTABLISH HIMSELF ALSO ONCE AND FOR ALL AS
THE DAUGHTER OF GOD, OR
FEMALE/GOD
SINCE IN JESUS HE ESTABLISHED HIMSELF ON EARTH AS
THE SON OF GOD
MALE/ GOD
AND THEREFORE:
SHE WILL CRUSH HIS HEAD!
Charles,
I am not following you as I have no idea what instance if 4314 prós you are writing if. I found the definition where you said in Strong's but I do not know what passage of Scripture you are speaking of that has it in.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
