- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 13 2012,07:16) The fact that the Son was begotten before the ages does not indicate a beginning of existence.
That's about as laughable as the quote from the Athanasian Creed I posted for you in the other thread.He's God, and he's God, and he's God, yet there aren't three Gods, but only One. WHAT?
Where I come from, 1+1+1=3.
And where I come from, anyone who was begotten had a beginning of existence. Does the fact that Cain was begotten indicate a beginning of existence? How about Abel? Or David? Or Peter?
OF COURSE the word “begotten” indicates a beginning of existence, Kathi. Why do you think Marlin “corrected” you about what you wrote? Because it's COMMON SENSE to anyone except for you that one who is “begotten” has a “beginning of existence”.
That's why you'll NEVER read ANYWHERE about our one and only God being “begotten”.
1 man + 1 woman = 1 flesh.
That is 1 + 1 = 1
In your view, that must be 2, not 1. You go argue with God about it, not me.Mike,
Marlin corrected me because He knows that to be God, one cannot have a beginning, in which I agree and I don't think Jesus had a beginning. What He seems unaware of is that the word 'begotten' in and of itself can just mean 'brought forth.'Also, Mike, don't compare Jesus, who is 'the theos' who was brought forth before the ages, and was not a man that was brought forth before the ages as if He was a man brought forth before the ages. You compare apples to oranges. You never learn…always repeat your foolishness. There is a reason for that and it is called blindness to truth from your own version of the bible called the idon'twanttobelievejesusisgodtoo bible.
Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 14 2012,12:06) 1 man + 1 woman = 1 flesh. That is 1 + 1 = 1
In your view, that must be 2, not 1. You go argue with God about it, not me.Mike,
Marlin corrected me because He knows that to be God, one cannot have a beginning, in which I agree and I don't think Jesus had a beginning. What He seems unaware of is that the word 'begotten' in and of itself can just mean 'brought forth.'Also, Mike, don't compare Jesus, who is 'the theos' who was brought forth before the ages, and was not a man that was brought forth before the ages as if He was a man brought forth before the ages. You compare apples to oranges. You never learn…always repeat your foolishness. There is a reason for that and it is called blindness to truth from your own version of the bible called the idon'twanttobelievejesusisgodtoo bible.
kWOULD YOU TAKE ANY MAN TO BE YOUR OTHER HALF
IF NOT ;IN THAT CASE 1+1 = 2 OR THE 1 + 1 =1 MUST BE EXPLAIN AND NOT JUST IN NUMBERS
OR ONLY BE ;1/2 + 1/2 = 1 THIS SEEMS TO MAKE MORE SENSE ,AND IT TAKE A MALE AND AN FEMALE HALF ,JUST TO BE CLEAR
Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 14 2012,19:54) Pierre, are you saying that you were 1/2 of a man in your marriage? 
Kathino ,I was a full man but missing my other half so I could procreate as per Gods plan ,and in this way be one flesh with my love of my live ,
this his scripturally true to wordQuote (Lightenup @ Dec. 14 2012,00:06) 1 man + 1 woman = 1 flesh. That is 1 + 1 = 1
In your view, that must be 2, not 1. You go argue with God about it, not me.
Lame. Does 1 man + 1 man = 1 man, Kathi? If not, then your example doesn't match the words of Athanasius, and is therefore USELESS as a rebuttal to the point I just made.Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 14 2012,00:06) Marlin corrected me because He knows that to be God, one cannot have a beginning, in which I agree……..
Micah 5:2 NIV ©
“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.“Well, if to be God, you can't have a beginning, then the case should be closed about Jesus being God.
Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 14 2012,00:06) Also, Mike, don't compare Jesus, who is 'the theos' who was brought forth before the ages, and was not a man that was brought forth before the ages as if He was a man brought forth before the ages. You compare apples to oranges. You never learn…always repeat your foolishness.
Okay then. Help me to learn, Kathi.Show me the SCRIPTURE that suggests the word “yalad”, when used of Jesus, would have a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT meaning than when that same word is used of Cain, or Abel, or David, or Peter…………. or ANYONE ELSE.
Or is it just your WISH that “begotten” means something completely different when it comes to Jesus? Wasn't it God who used the word “yalad” concerning His Son? Don't you suppose the God of the Israelites KNEW how His own people would understand that word?
Micah 5:2
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
“But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity.”Mike,
You askedQuote Lame. Does 1 man + 1 man = 1 man, Kathi? If not, then your example doesn't match the words of Athanasius, and is therefore USELESS as a rebuttal to the point I just made. Many men + many men can = 1 man
Eph 2
13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 14 2012,18:46) Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 14 2012,19:54) Pierre, are you saying that you were 1/2 of a man in your marriage?
Kathino ,I was a full man but missing my other half so I could procreate as per Gods plan ,and in this way be one flesh with my love of my live ,
this his scripturally true to word
Nevertheless 1 + 1 = 1 in this case.Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 15 2012,10:35) Mike,
You askedQuote Lame. Does 1 man + 1 man = 1 man, Kathi? If not, then your example doesn't match the words of Athanasius, and is therefore USELESS as a rebuttal to the point I just made. Many men + many men can = 1 man
Eph 2
13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.
KathiI can't believe your ignorance to those scriptures ,
you are blinding your self with false doctrine
Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 15 2012,10:37) Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 14 2012,18:46) Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 14 2012,19:54) Pierre, are you saying that you were 1/2 of a man in your marriage?
Kathino ,I was a full man but missing my other half so I could procreate as per Gods plan ,and in this way be one flesh with my love of my live ,
this his scripturally true to word
Nevertheless 1 + 1 = 1 in this case.
NO,NO,NO it does not in reality but you can believe that it does, sweet dreamsWell Pierre, one of us is blind and I don't believe it is me. God blinds men's eyes who's hearts are not fixed on Him…the stubborn ones that deny the plain truths of scripture. You bring this truth to life for me. Thank you, I guess.
Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 15 2012,11:05) Well Pierre, one of us is blind and I don't believe it is me. God blinds men's eyes who's hearts are not fixed on Him…the stubborn ones that deny the plain truths of scripture. You bring this truth to life for me. Thank you, I guess.
KQuote I don't believe it is me are you sure
Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 14 2012,17:06) 1 man + 1 woman = 1 flesh. That is 1 + 1 = 1
In your view, that must be 2, not 1. You go argue with God about it, not me.Mike,
Marlin corrected me because He knows that to be God, one cannot have a beginning, in which I agree and I don't think Jesus had a beginning. What He seems unaware of is that the word 'begotten' in and of itself can just mean 'brought forth.'Also, Mike, don't compare Jesus, who is 'the theos' who was brought forth before the ages, and was not a man that was brought forth before the ages as if He was a man brought forth before the ages. You compare apples to oranges. You never learn…always repeat your foolishness. There is a reason for that and it is called blindness to truth from your own version of the bible called the idon'twanttobelievejesusisgodtoo bible.
1 glass of water + 1 packet of iced tea = 1 delicious glass of iced tea1 glass of water + 1 glass of water = 2 glasses of water
As you can see, I am thirsty.
Didn't Jesus say that his disciples would be “one”?
That just means they were united–,
“One” in purpose, thought, etc.But of course, they are not physically “one.”
The man and woman similarly, become one flesh in that they are now working together, as one, with a united purpose or goal.
They are not actually one. They don't physically morph into one flesh.
Hi:
Quote Jhn 17:20 ¶ Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; Jhn 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me
The Father and the Son are one in the spirit, and we also are one with them in the spirit as we are sanctified through the Word of God that has come to us through the Son.
Quote Jhn 17:16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Jhn 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
Jhn 17:18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.
Jhn 17:19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
And so, if we are one with Jesus and the Father are we also “God”? The Father has plainly revealed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. (Matthew 16) Should we not take His Word for this?
Love in Christ,
MartyMarty,
Believers are one flock…the Father and the Son are united as shepherds of the flock. The flock is not made up of the Father and the Son and the believers. What the believer's are one as (the flock) is different than what the Father and Son are one as (the shepherds). Yet, both groups are one (unity) and hence, one group is one as the other group is also one.Quote (david @ Dec. 15 2012,18:28) Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 14 2012,17:06) 1 man + 1 woman = 1 flesh. That is 1 + 1 = 1
In your view, that must be 2, not 1. You go argue with God about it, not me.Mike,
Marlin corrected me because He knows that to be God, one cannot have a beginning, in which I agree and I don't think Jesus had a beginning. What He seems unaware of is that the word 'begotten' in and of itself can just mean 'brought forth.'Also, Mike, don't compare Jesus, who is 'the theos' who was brought forth before the ages, and was not a man that was brought forth before the ages as if He was a man brought forth before the ages. You compare apples to oranges. You never learn…always repeat your foolishness. There is a reason for that and it is called blindness to truth from your own version of the bible called the idon'twanttobelievejesusisgodtoo bible.
1 glass of water + 1 packet of iced tea = 1 delicious glass of iced tea1 glass of water + 1 glass of water = 2 glasses of water
As you can see, I am thirsty.
Yes,
And 1 man (Gentile) + 1 man (Jew) = 1 (new) manNot one person but one unity.
Eph 2:14For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.
YHWH the God of gods (Father) + YHWH the Lord of lords (Son) = 1 YHWH unity…YHWH in the 'corporate' sense.
With corporate meaning the #4 definition:
cor·po·rate
[kawr-per-it, -prit] Show IPA
adjective
1.
of, for, or belonging to a corporation or corporations: a corporate executive; She considers the new federal subsidy just corporate welfare.
2.
forming a corporation.
3.
pertaining to a united group, as of persons: the corporate good.
4.
united or combined into one.
5.
corporative.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
