- This topic has 25,959 replies, 116 voices, and was last updated 6 days, 4 hours ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (carmel @ May 01 2014,00:58) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 01 2014,12:29) So in your opinion, Jesus was already “God Almighty the Father” at the time he said the above words?
Mike,IN A PARTICULAR UNIQUE WAY YES! AND HOW HE WAS!
Charles,1. It is said all throughout scripture that Jesus' own Father and God is the one who raised Jesus from the grave.
2. What I gathered from your post is that Jesus, as a man, didn't want to be touched by Mary. But then the fact that Jesus went through a wall and was touched by many means Jesus had transformed into God Almighty.
That is quite a stretch, Charles. Also, you never did actually address my point, which was: Why would Jesus tell his disciples he was NOT a spirit – when you say he was God Almighty at the time he told them that?
Then you say the Father eventually owned that very same body. And that means you don't think the Father is a spirit.
Then you were talking about something you called the “Ex-Holy Spirit” – something I've never heard about in any scripture.
Charles, you are all over the place with your doctrine. It's like you think ANYTHING Jesus does makes him God…….
Hey Mike, do you see that scripture where Jesus blew his nose? That tells us that he was now rid of the Ex-Holy Spirit, and had transformed from Satan as he assimilated into the Father God Almighty!
That is what most of your doctrines sound like to me, Charles. I simply have no scriptural reason to believe the things you tell me.
Quote (jammin @ May 01 2014,07:46) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 30 2014,11:04) John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
john 3.16 said those who believe will have eternal life. it is not the same as being ETERNAL.do you understand english boy? hahahaha
that is the most ridiculous explanation i have ever heard! hahaha
Actually, I DO understand English, jammin. On the other hand, it seems you sometimes struggle with it.If I am granted eternal life, then I – from that moment on – will be an eternal being. I would be ETERNAL, jammin.
On the contrary, being ETERNAL does NOT necessarily mean FROM eternity.
Angels were created as ETERNAL beings – never to die. That doesn't mean the angels are FROM eternity.
Consider:
Matthew 25:41
Then he will say to those on his left, “Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.”Does the fact that the fire is ETERNAL mean that fire has existed FROM eternity? NO. It only means that the fire WILL last forever.
So the word “eternal” doesn't always mean “FROM eternity”, jammin.
Quote (jammin @ May 01 2014,07:46) what a miserable doctrine you have mike. hahaha
Says the guy who nonsensically believes that the Son, Messiah, Priest, Prophet, Lamb, and Holy Servant OF God can actually BE the very God he is all those things OF.
Quote (jammin @ May 01 2014,08:00) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 30 2014,11:17) Quote (jammin @ April 29 2014,10:53) Gill said God is nothing but nature and essence. do you believe that? you just cut and paste the short phrase of gill's commentary.
That's right. I cut and pasted the ONLY part that had to do with our discussion, jammin.We weren't discussing who thinks Jesus is “God by nature”, and who doesn't. We were discussing whether the word “God” in Phil 2:6 referred to a PERSON – or to a “nature/species”.
And the very first words out of Gill's mouth made it abundantly clear that he thinks the “God” mentioned in Phil 2:6 is “the Father”.
Why would I post more of his commentary, when all I needed for THIS DISCUSSION was right there in his first words?
because you dont understand what gill really said.let me post the whole thing
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…………..
therefore, GILL IS NOT SUPPORTING YOUR FAIRY TALE DOCTRINE. poor mike.
hahahaha
jammin,WHO does Gill think the “God” is in Phil 2:6?
It seems to me he says the word “God” refers to THE FATHER. That means Gill DOESN'T think the word “God” refers to a “nature/species” known as “God”.
So Gill is indeed supporting me on the thing we were actually discussing.
Quote (jammin @ May 01 2014,08:01) hahaha. mike
profilestudied at UNIVERSITY OF MORON… hahaha
If this “moron” proves YOU wrong every step of the way – often using your own TRINITARIAN scholars to do so – then what does that make YOU?
Quote (carmel @ May 01 2014,10:23) NOW READ AND DISCERN THE TRUTH! 21 As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.
I do, Charles. I read the truth that the one who SENDS is greater than the one who was SENT. I learned that truth from Jesus himself.So, from that simple line in the quote box above, we can learn that Jesus is greater than the disciples he SENT. And we can learn that the Father is greater than His holy servant Jesus, whom He SENT.
It's high time that YOU learn to “read and discern the truth”.
Charles, Jesus and you have the same exact God. Since Jesus' God isn't some weird combination of Father, Son, Ex-Holy Spirit, Satan, or whatever…… then neither is YOUR God.
YOUR one and only Most High God is the VERY SAME one and only Most High God Jesus himself has. I also learned that truth from Jesus himself.
Quote (kerwin @ May 01 2014,11:08) Mike, Quote In other words, Jesus appeared to the two disciples in a different “outward appearance” than he had when he was with Mary earlier, right? So my point is that we KNOW the word means “outward appearance” in Mark 16:12. And the definition “outward appearance” also works just fine for both uses in Phil 2.
The word form in Mark 16 works just like the Koine Greek word to express outward appearance but it does not work to express outward appearance in the statement “a form of godliness”.
Humans and angels have the same outward appearance so that is not a definition you go by in Philippians 2. We exist in the form of angels, at least externally.
Kerwin,Angels have wings. We don't. Cherubim have four different faces. We don't. Some angels have eyes in their hands. We don't.
Can you see how your stubbornness concerning “spiritual flesh angels” is leading you astray elsewhere as well? We can.
My point stands. The word “morphe” in Mark 16:12 CLEARLY and UNDENIABLY refers to a different “OUTWARD APPEARANCE” that Jesus had.
And the ONLY reason to not assume it means the same exact thing in Phil 2 is if you already have preconceived notions you must protect.
For example, you have already decided on your own that God doesn't have an outward appearance at all. And because of that preconceived notion you must protect, you are forced to argue against an “outward appearance” meaning of “morphe” in Phil 2 – despite KNOWING that the same word refers to “outward appearance” in Mark 16.
That, my friend, is your own problem. And only you can sort it out for yourself. I have no such dilemma, because I have no such preconceived notion to protect.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 01 2014,13:35) Hi KW,
No mention of angels here1 Corinthians 15:39
All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
I'll take that point one step further, Nick:1 Corinthians 15
39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
After Paul explained the different kinds of flesh the terrestrial bodies have, he went even further by pointing out the difference between those terrestrial bodies and the celestial bodies of heaven.
The idea is that “FLESH” is a thing TERRESTRIAL bodies are made of…… not a thing CELESTIAL bodies are made of.
Quote (carmel @ May 01 2014,14:30) mikeboll64,April wrote:[/quote]
Quote whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. This verse sums up the entire NT. Who did our ONE and ONLY God “give”, jammin? Himself? Or His Son?
You need to learn the difference between the two.
Mike,
IN WHOM SHALL WE BELIEVE TO HAVE ETERNAL LIFE?
IN THE FATHER OR IN HIS SON?
WHO IS THEREFORE OUR ETERNAL LIFE FATHER?
THE FATHER OR THE SON?
You need to learn the difference between the two
John 12
44 Then Jesus cried out, “Whoever believes in me does not believe in me only, but in the one who sent me.49 For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken.
50 I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say.”
There's that pesky “SENT” again, Charles. Remind me……… who did Jesus say was greater: the one who SENDS – or the one who was SENT?
At any rate, it's clear that by believing in Jesus we are believing also in the GREATER one who SENT Jesus into the world as His sacrificial lamb.
John 1:12
Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God………..Not children of HIMSELF, Charles…….. but children of his and our God, Jehovah.
“Jesus” is the one name JEHOVAH gave by which we can be saved. Don't confuse the sacrificial lamb with the one who sacrificed it on our behalf.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 02 2014,10:45) WHO does Gill think the “God” is in Phil 2:6? It seems to me he says the word “God” refers to THE FATHER. That means Gill DOESN'T think the word “God” refers to a “nature/species” known as “God”.
So Gill is indeed supporting me on the thing we were actually discussing.
really? hahahathat is only your OPINION.
let me post what gill said
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
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;
poor mike. you are a moron. hahaha
Quote Actually,I DO understand English, jammin. On the other hand, it seems you sometimes struggle with it.
If I am granted eternal life, then I – from that moment on – will be an eternal being. I would be ETERNAL, jammin.
On the contrary, being ETERNAL does NOT necessarily mean FROM eternity.
Angels were created as ETERNAL beings – never to die. That doesn't mean the angels are FROM eternity.
Consider:
Matthew 25:41
Then he will say to those on his left, “Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.”Does the fact that the fire is ETERNAL mean that fire has existed FROM eternity? NO. It only means that the fire WILL last forever.
So the word “eternal” doesn't always mean “FROM eternity”, jammin.
as i said, john 3.16 has nothing to do with phil 2.6.i do not know what school did you come from. it seems that you were not able to develop your reading skill.
ill repeat what matthew said.
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary2:5-11 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,
did you notice that matthew gave john 1.1 to support his explanation for phil 2.6?
it is really hard to speak to a moron like you because i need to repeat myself over and over again.let me post what matthew said about john 1.1
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary1:1-5 The plainest reason why the Son of God is called the Word, seems to be, that as our words explain our minds to others, so was the Son of God sent in order to reveal his Father's mind to the world. What the evangelist says of Christ proves that he is God.
God is eternal. Christ is God just like his father. he is from eternity.
therefore, matthew not is supporting your fairy tale doctrine as well.
Quote (kerwin @ April 30 2014,04:28) Quote (jammin @ April 29 2014,22:47) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 29 2014,13:22) Quote (jammin @ April 27 2014,15:41) Mike You dont understand again what barclay said. Hahahaha you are a moron. Ill post it again
Morphe (Greek #3444) is the essential form which never alters…………
Read Mark 16:12, jammin.Did Jesus appear to them in a DIFFERENT morphe? YES.
Was Jesus' “essential form” altered? Or just his “outward appearance”?
Which one?
the morphe is HUMANITY. do you understand what barclay said?i told you to study greek. you are a great pretender hahaha.
you will never understand that because you have no knowledge about the greek language.
the essential form is still HUMANITY.
Jammin,You need to rethink what you just wrote as Jesus appeared to the two as a different human being. He still looked like the human he is.
one form, HUMANITY.
do you understand?Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 28 2014,04:08) Quote (jammin @ April 26 2014,20:42) 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
This information cannot be accurate, since Barclay says “morphe” never changes, and “schema” does change from time to time.It doesn't work because Mark 16:12 says Jesus appeared to them in a DIFFERENT “morphe”. But Barclay says “morphe” never changes.
It also doesn't work because of the teaching in Phil 2:6 itself, which clearly says Jesus was in one “morphe” before being CHANGED to a different “morphe”.
I have respect for the knowledge of the scholars, and often learn many things from them. But you must also check the things they write, since they are just men like us, and as such, are prone to human mistakes like we are. We must also remember that the vast majority of those scholars come into it with their own BIASES, and those biases often taint their conclusions.
This is why I told you that the word “morphe” means “outward appearance”, and not “nature”.
1. “God” is a PERSON, not a “nature”.
2. “A servant” is a PERSON, not a “nature”.
3. In Mark 16:12, Jesus did not appear to them in a different “nature”.I'm in the process of reading the NET Bible, cover to cover. I read every footnote they have, and you'd be surprised at all the Hebrew and Greek words they simply don't KNOW the definition of, and so they make “educated guesses” about what those words really meant.
They use context, and search out Aramaic, Arabic, and Akkadian cognates (base forms of the same word) to help them “guess” what the Hebrew word might have meant.
In the case of “morphe”, some of them are “guessing” that it must also have a hidden meaning of “nature” – simply because they can't fathom God having a “form”, or “outward appearance”.
But God DOES have an outward appearance – so the search to come up with a different meaning of “morphe” is really unnecessary.
Nevertheless, this is how they do it, jammin. This is how they translate the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words of scripture into English the best they can.
let me the post the profile of barclayWhile professor, he decided to dedicate his life to “making the best biblical scholarship available to the average reader”. The eventual result was the Daily Study Bible, a set of 17 commentaries on the New Testament, published by Saint Andrew Press, the Church of Scotland's publishing house. Despite the series name, these commentaries do not set a program of regular study. Rather, they go verse by verse through Barclay's own translation of the New Testament, listing and examining every possible interpretation known to Barclay and providing all the background information he considered possibly relevant, all in layman's terms. The commentaries were fully updated with the help of William Barclay's son, Ronnie Barclay, in recent years and they are now known as the New Daily Study Bible series.
and here is the profile of mike
studied at university of moron.
hahaha
Jammin………….If you don't see Jesus as a pure human being who came into existence at the time of his berth on this earth, You simply do not see Jesus as he really is , and you have bought into the biggest LIE ever taught by SATAN and His Churches. THE DOCTRINE OF “SEPARATION” that makes Jesus our brother “DIFFERENT” then we are and moves His Identity away from ours. This also destroys the Plan God has for “ALL” HUMANITY It is SATAN who has moved you away from Jesus and your relating with Him by the LIE that Jesus is a God. 2 th 2.
peace and love to you and yours………………………….gene
mikeboll64,May wrote:[/quote]
Quote He is, however, the redeemer of all human beings, who are brothers and sisters to him – not sons and daughters. Mike,
JESUS IS THE REDEEMER OF ALL HUMANITY! RIGHT?
NOW READ THIS SCRIPTURE:
1Peter 1 BEING BORN AGAIN
not of corruptible seed, but incorruptible,
BY THE WORD OF GOD WHO LIVES AND REMAINS FOR EVER
NOW ANSWER:
SINCE WE ARE BORN AGAIN ACCORDING TO THIS SCRIPTURE ABOVE,
BY WHOM ARE WE BORN AGAIN?
THEREFORE:
WHO IS OUR FATHER?
Peace and love in Jesus
Charles
Mike,
The angels that visited Lot, Abraham id not have wings and were said in Scripture to have same outward appearance of humans.
If you desire to claim that outward appearance varies among angels then I will go along but it still opposes your chosen interpretation of Philippians 2.
mikeboll64,May wrote:[/quote]
Quote In either case, the BEING who is “Mike” is not actually “from eternity”, because he was created. Mike,
GOD COULDN'T CARE LESS FOR THE FLESH!
GOD SENT HIS SON TO REDEEM HUMANITY 'S SOULS,
NOT FLESH!
SO MIKE THE MORTAL BEING IS NOT GOD'S INTEREST, BUT SATAN'S!
Quote In either case, the BEING who is “Mike” is not actually “from eternity”, because he was created. And the BEING who is “Jesus” is also not actually “from eternity”, because he also was created.
Mike,
IT IS THE FACT THAT JESUS WAS NOT CREATED,
MADE HIM
NOT AN IDENTICAL BEING LIKE US
HE IS THE SOURCE OF ETERNAL LIFE TO ALL CREATURES!
SO WE ARE ETERNAL THROUGH THE PRESENCE OF THE WORD WITHIN US!
NOT THROUGH OUR OWN SUBSTANCE!
FROM THE OTHER HAND
THE SON IS THE WORD ITSELF!
AND THE SON HAS LIFE IN HIMSELF!
HE IS THE ETERNAL LIFE GIVING SPIRIT!
Peace and love in Jesus
Charles
mikeboll64,May wrote:[/quote]
Quote There's that pesky “SENT” again, Charles. Mike,
READ AGAIN THE GOSPEL:
whoever believes in HIM shall not perish but have eternal life.
AND YOU SAID:
that pesky “SENT” again, Charles.
MIKE HOW ON EARTH HUMANS COULD BELIEVE IN GOD'S SON, WITHOUT SENDING HIM OVER TO HUMAN'S PLANET?
SO,IT IS IRRELATIVE TO MY QUESTIONS!
ALSO THE FACT THAT GOD ALMIGHTY SENT HIS SON,
HE AUTOMATICALLY CONFIRMED THAT HE WAS IN A WAY OF NO USE REGARDING THE FLESH BEINGS, AS A PRINCIPAL THE FEMALE FACTOR, THE DAUGHTERS! SATANA'S OWNERSHIP!
I SAID ALREADY:
THE FATHER COULDN'T CARE LESS FOR THE FLESH, IT IS NOT HIS ENTITY BUT HIS OPPONENT'S SATANA!
HIS OWN INTEREST ARE THE SONS, THE SOULS SPIRITS
AND IT IS CONFIRMED ALSO HEREUNDER
And a voice came out of the cloud, saying: This is my beloved Son; HEAR HIM.
OK? JESUS WAS IN FLESH, SATANA'S SUPPOSED OWNERSHIP!
SO GOD THE FATHER LITERALLY DECLARED THAT HE, GOD ALMIGHTY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HUMANS ANY MORE!
AFTER ALL HUMANS ARE FILTHY FLESH AND ONLY THEIR ONLY TRUE GOD OF FLESH COULD SPEAK TO THEM!
SO AGAIN:
You need to learn the difference between the two
NOW THESE WERE MY QUESTIONS:
IN WHOM SHALL WE BELIEVE TO HAVE ETERNAL LIFE?
IN THE FATHER OR IN HIS SON?
WHO IS THEREFORE OUR ETERNAL LIFE FATHER?
THE FATHER OR THE SON?
ANSWER AND SWALLOW THE TRUTH!
Peace and love in Jesus
Charles
Quote John 1:12
Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God………..Not children of HIMSELF, Charles…….. but children of his and our God, Jehovah.
Mike,
FIRST OF ALL YOUR SCRIPTURES ARE CORRUPTED!
READ:
But as many as received him, he gave them power to be made the SONS OF GOD, to them that believe in his name.
NOT CHILDREN BECAUSE GOD ALMIGHTY HAS NO DAUGHTERS, FLESH ONLY SONS! SOULS
BUT FOR YOUR A ARGUMENT SAKE!
YOU ALWAYS LOOK FROM ONE ASPECT OF GOD!
THE ONE WHO NEVER GLORIFIED, AND REMAINED A SPIRIT THE USELESS GOD REGARDING THE MORTAL HUMAN FLESH BEINGS THE EX DAUGHTER, FACTOR, SATANA'S OWNERSHIP
IT IS THE FACT THAT ONLY ALL WHO RECEIVE AND BELIEVE IN JESUS' NAME , THE ONLY TRUE SPIRIT/ FLESH GOD!
JESUS THE ONLY TRUE SPIRIT/FLESH GOD HIMSELF GAVE THEM THE RIGHT TO BECOME FOR THE FIRST EVER TIME THE CHILDREN OF THE ONLY TRUE SPIRIT/FLESH GOD SINCE ONLY JESUS AS GOD'S ONLY SUBSTANCE CAME IN FLESH ON EARTH!
OR MORE APPROPRIATE:
THE CHILDREN, MALES AND FEMALES, SONS AND DAUGHTERS OF:
THE ONLY TRUE GOD, AND JESUS CHRIST
SO AGAIN:
You need to learn the difference between the two
Peace and love in Jesus
Charles
charles
Quote SO AGAIN: You need to learn the difference between the two
NOW THESE WERE MY QUESTIONS:
1)IN WHOM SHALL WE BELIEVE TO HAVE ETERNAL LIFE?
IN THE FATHER OR IN HIS SON?
2)WHO IS THEREFORE OUR ETERNAL LIFE FATHER?
THE FATHER OR THE SON?
ANSWER AND SWALLOW THE TRUTH!
1) eternal life comes from God this is the new covenant ;GOD SEND HIS SON TO TEACH MEN THE WAY TO THE FATHER ,AND ANYONE THAT BELIEVE WHAT HE SAYS WOULD HAVE LIFE;
2)TO THOSE THAT HAVE BELIEVED IN THE SON WILL RECEIVE ETERNAL LIFE ,FROM THE FATHER ,BUT THE SON AS RECEIVED FROM THE FATHER THE POWERS TO GIVE LIFE TO THOSE THAT BELIEVE ,SO THE FATHER AS PUT IN THE SON THE POWERS TO GIVE LIVE AND GIVE IT TO WHOM HE WANTS TO;
THE FATHER BY DOING SO DOES NOT CHANGE HIS FATHERHOOD NOR THE SON LOOSING HIS SONSHIP
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
