- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 04 2011,21:43) Istari, do you anything to offer us besides this juvenile campaign of invective? In another thread, I put this challenge to you:
Quote By my count you asked 10 questions here and I'm guessing the post took you about 10 minutes to write. At 10 minutes a question it's going to take me over an hour and a half to answer them all. I don't mind doing that as long as i'm afforded the same opportunity to interogate your christology and pneumatology. Can I ask that you make concise statement of these doctrines, expressing your understanding of identity, nature and origin of Yeshua and the Holy Spirit. Then I'll prepare some questions for you to answer.
I note that you failed to respond. Since you seem to specialise in Ad hominem-based attack, I wonder how competently you can defend the key planks of your theology. Let's see how Istari's christology and pneumatology holds up to a little scrutiny. Perhaps we could do this in the debate thread where there will be no distractions.Keen?
Awaiting your answer with anticipation.
Bump for Istari.Hi Kathi,
You are right – I misread the placement of “arche”, thinking it referred to Jesus's beginning. Instead, it says “his origin is from the beginning, from days of old”. (NET, NAB, NIV, NRSV, NLT)
But I'll tell you what, read two more verses down………
He will assume his post and shepherd the people by the Lord’s strength, by the sovereign authority of the Lord his God.
………and tell me once again how God is Almighty only because of his Son, when it says here His Son will shepherd in Jehovah's strength?5:4 also speaks of this shepherd as being someone OTHER THAN and LESSOR TO his own God.
Uh oh!
mike
Quote (Lightenup @ June 05 2011,18:20) Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 04 2011,21:43) Istari, do you anything to offer us besides this juvenile campaign of invective? In another thread, I put this challenge to you:
Quote By my count you asked 10 questions here and I'm guessing the post took you about 10 minutes to write. At 10 minutes a question it's going to take me over an hour and a half to answer them all. I don't mind doing that as long as i'm afforded the same opportunity to interogate your christology and pneumatology. Can I ask that you make concise statement of these doctrines, expressing your understanding of identity, nature and origin of Yeshua and the Holy Spirit. Then I'll prepare some questions for you to answer.
I note that you failed to respond. Since you seem to specialise in Ad hominem-based attack, I wonder how competently you can defend the key planks of your theology. Let's see how Istari's christology and pneumatology holds up to a little scrutiny. Perhaps we could do this in the debate thread where there will be no distractions.Keen?
Awaiting your answer with anticipation.
Bump for Istari.
Perhaps Istari is still trying to figure out Paul's use of 1950's jazz speak, ie: keen?Mike,
Wow, you were wrong, you should also confess that YHVH is said to be from the eon also.And what don't you get about the Messiah 'according to the flesh?' Of course He depended on the Lord's strength.
Quote (Lightenup @ June 05 2011,18:08) So Mike, you should be able to see that both YHVH and the Son are from the same time.
But “arch” is used in Gen 1:1 also. Is the earth also “from the same time” as Jehovah and Jesus?Jesus' disciples were said to have been with him “from arche”. Are they also “from the same time” as Jehovah and Jesus?
Quote (Lightenup @ June 05 2011,18:37) Mike,
Wow, you were wrong, you should also confess that YHVH is said to be from the eon also.And what don't you get about the Messiah 'according to the flesh?' Of course He depended on the Lord's strength.
Kathi,When I first discussed Micah 5:2 with Keith over a year ago, the first thing I did was look up the Hebrew in Psalm 90:2 and noticed that it was the same wording. Those scriptures I listed earlier were proof that I've know this for a long time, and was waiting for one of you to finally bring it up.
So now you ask ME to “confess it” when it was ME who listed all those scriptures for you?
Micah 5:4 does not refer to Jesus' time on earth, but his second coming, IMO.
Mike,
Whether it was a first coming or second coming, He was and still is the God/Man.So regarding Micah 5:2 and Psalms 90:2, you are admitting that Micah does not tell us that the Son had a beginning of existence, right. So why did you use Micah 5 as a defense for your 'creation of the son' theory?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 06 2011,11:29) Quote (Lightenup @ June 05 2011,18:20) Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 04 2011,21:43) Istari, do you anything to offer us besides this juvenile campaign of invective? In another thread, I put this challenge to you:
Quote By my count you asked 10 questions here and I'm guessing the post took you about 10 minutes to write. At 10 minutes a question it's going to take me over an hour and a half to answer them all. I don't mind doing that as long as i'm afforded the same opportunity to interogate your christology and pneumatology. Can I ask that you make concise statement of these doctrines, expressing your understanding of identity, nature and origin of Yeshua and the Holy Spirit. Then I'll prepare some questions for you to answer.
I note that you failed to respond. Since you seem to specialise in Ad hominem-based attack, I wonder how competently you can defend the key planks of your theology. Let's see how Istari's christology and pneumatology holds up to a little scrutiny. Perhaps we could do this in the debate thread where there will be no distractions.Keen?
Awaiting your answer with anticipation.
Bump for Istari.
Perhaps Istari is still trying to figure out Paul's use of 1950's jazz speak, ie: keen?
Acually it's a NZ colloquialism.Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 05 2011,19:39) Quote (Lightenup @ June 05 2011,18:08) So Mike, you should be able to see that both YHVH and the Son are from the same time.
But “arch” is used in Gen 1:1 also. Is the earth also “from the same time” as Jehovah and Jesus?Jesus' disciples were said to have been with him “from arche”. Are they also “from the same time” as Jehovah and Jesus?
Obviously not. The beginning is relative.Do you think that YHVH did not always exist?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 04 2011,10:25) Quote (Lightenup @ June 03 2011,22:45)
The Father was not able to offer eternal salvation apart from His Son, was He?
You are confusing the fact that God CHOSE a particular way and vessle through which to save us with your mistaken view that God WAS NOT ABLE to do it any other way.Kathi, consider that Jesus will destroy his enemies ONLY because his God will place them at his feet first. Consider that Jesus has been GIVEN his might and authority by the One who has always been Almighty – with or without Jesus.
God does not “become” Almighty because He gave power to Michael or Gabriel or Jesus or Moses. God was already Almighty before he gave whatever power those others have TO THEM. Jesus has power because his Almighty God GAVE IT TO HIM.
Quote (Lightenup @ June 03 2011,22:45)
Again, God was always 'Almighty' God because the Son always existed with Him and their Spirit.
This is unscriptural and illogical. What happened to the Kathi that searched the scriptures? Who is this new person who is grabbing thoughts out of thin air and claiming them as fact?mike
See how you placed Micah 5 in your list of verses that supposedly show that God 'created' the Son?I colored it 'red' for you
Kathi
Quote (Lightenup @ June 05 2011,18:55) Mike,
Whether it was a first coming or second coming, He was and still is the God/Man.
There is no such thing as a “God/Man” listed in scripture, Kathi. 5:4 lists someone who will rule in the strength OF his God. And Jesus is no longer a “man” anyway. He is now a life giving SPIRIT.So it seems that your “co-equal, co-Almighty God” will rule in the strength of his own God. Confusing, no?
Quote (Lightenup @ June 05 2011,18:55) So regarding Micah 5:2 and Psalms 90:2, you are admitting that Micah does not tell us that the Son had a beginning of existence, right.
No, the word “origin” does that for us.Quote (Lightenup @ June 05 2011,18:55) So why did you use Micah 5 as a defense for your 'creation of the son' theory?
When I first discussed this with Keith over a year ago, you had barely turned me on to NETNotes. I mistakenly saw the word “arche” and assumed the LXX used the word “beginning” in place of “origin”. Keith did not object to this mistaken claim of mine, and so it stuck in my head that this is the way it was. I was mistaken, as you have shown me. I've admitted my mistake, as one who is only after truth will always do.But the fact remains that the best scholarship still believe that “goings forth” refers to his “origin”. The usually pepper this acknowledgement with the disclaimer that it only refers to the origin of the PROPHECY about Jesus' earthly coming, but they nonetheless are in agreement that it does mean “origin”.
And one who has an origin is one who has not existed eternally. But Micah 5:2 is not all there is, you know. There are many other scriptures, including every single one that ever calls Jesus a “son”. For every son has a beginning, whether or not your vivid imagination allows you to believe that or not. A son starts to exist when he is begotten by his father, who has always existed prior to this time.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 05 2011,18:57) Acually it's a NZ colloquialism.
It was also quite popular in 1950's America. “Betty is keen on Bill.” Translation: She likes Bill.Quote (Lightenup @ June 05 2011,18:57) Obviously not. The beginning is relative. Do you think that YHVH did not always exist?
This is why I didn't bring it up over a year ago. I had other fish to fry at the time (many of which are still on the pan).But the fact is that I don't know of anywhere in the whole of scripture where Jehovah is actually said to be “from eternity”, do you? It is commonly believed and taught because of many misuses of “owlam” and “aion”, but I seriously don't think a single scripture that actually says it is there in the Bible.
I didn't want to get into this discussion with all the other fish frying in the pan, and I still don't think I have time. I'm sure it will be a doozy if I'm right, and will be time consuming.
I just let it slide at the time and figured that, unlike Jesus, there also isn't any scripture that speaks of Jehovah's “origin” or being “begotten” or “born” or “brought forth”, so I'd just let sleeping dogs lie for the time being – until I had the time to really delve into it.
Anyway, since we know the “beginning” is relative, and we know that a son ALWAYS comes AFTER his father has already existed, what support do you have for your claim that this is not the case with Jesus? (I ask rhetorically, since we've already had the discussion on the debate thread, and you were never able to come up with any SCRIPTURAL support to your claim.)
And since we DO know this stuff, “from days of old” would have a whole different meaning concerning Jesus than it would concerning the God who must have been there at an earlier “days of old” in order to later bring Jesus forth in “days of old”.
mike
Mike,
The word origin is according to the place where one is from, not the beginning of their existence. In other words, His origin in light of where He is from. He is from days of old. Is 'days of old' the name of His Father? YHVH is also from days of old, maybe they have the same father, eh?
Also, you didn't answer my question about if you thought that YHVH always existed. Or did I miss your answer.
And, you don't believe that scriptures teach the idea that Jesus was the God/Man. We are told that He had human nature and divine nature, Mike. No where is it said in scripture that He gives up either nature.
Mike,
Quote But the fact is that I don't know of anywhere in the whole of scripture where Jehovah is actually said to be “from eternity”, do you? It is commonly believed and taught because of many misuses of “owlam” and “aion”, but I seriously don't think a single scripture that actually says it is there in the Bible. Ps 90:2 Before the mountains themselves were born,
Or you proceeded to bring forth as with labor pains the earth and the productive land,
Even from time indefinite to time indefinite you are God.I don't know why you can't see this verse talking about Him being from eternity and to eternity.
Also, I think 'days of old' in regards to the Father and the Son, would just mean a time before the time of creation, a time beyond our understanding.
Kathi
Kathi is right Mike, the same language that is used to describe YHWH's eternality is also applied to Yeshua in Micah 5:2. So although you included it on your little list of prooftexts that supposedly bear out the fact that Yeshua was created, it actually argues the opposite. I've seen others (possibly yourself too) make the same error with “el gibbor” (translated “mighty God”) in Isaiah 9:6, arguing that it denotes a lessor divinity than Almighty God. But “el gibbor” is also used in reference to YHWH – in the very next chapter of Isaiah (10:21) no less!
Quote (Lightenup @ June 05 2011,17:30) Mike,
I'll show you where arche' is used with YHVH. First look at the Apostolic Interlinear for Micah 5:2:Micah 5:2 And you, Bethlehem, of the house of Ephratah, are very few being among thousands of Judah; from out of you to me shall come forth the one being for ruler of Israel; and his goings forth were from the beginning (arche'), from [of days eon].
NASB Micah 5:2
“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.”I do not understand how you come up with an origin of existence from this? Can you explain?
Kathi
Hi Kathi and PaulI had a debate with Mike for a while about Micah 5:2 and Ps 2:7 and showed him even the “Twot” disagrees with his Idea that that Micah 5:2 is proof Jesus had a beginning.
TWOT for mowtsa'ah or mosaa
Place from which one comes or to which one goes. Used only twice in very different connections. In 2 Kings 10:27 it means “latrine.” The meaning in Mic 5:2 {H 1] the plural is debated. The translation “origin” (RSV) is unsuitable for the Messianic reference. The meaning of the KJV “going forth” is obscure. The NIV “whose origins are from of old, from ancient times” agrees with the Idea that the ancestry of the expected ruler traces way back to David’s time as well as David’s city. The NEB “roots” are similar.
I finally got tired of going in circles with him.
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 07 2011,09:28) Quote (Lightenup @ June 05 2011,17:30) Mike,
I'll show you where arche' is used with YHVH. First look at the Apostolic Interlinear for Micah 5:2:Micah 5:2 And you, Bethlehem, of the house of Ephratah, are very few being among thousands of Judah; from out of you to me shall come forth the one being for ruler of Israel; and his goings forth were from the beginning (arche'), from [of days eon].
NASB Micah 5:2
“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.”I do not understand how you come up with an origin of existence from this? Can you explain?
Kathi
Hi Kathi and PaulI had a debate with Mike for a while about Micah 5:2 and Ps 2:7 and showed him even the “Twot” disagrees with his Idea that that Micah 5:2 is proof Jesus had a beginning.
TWOT for mowtsa'ah or mosaa
Place from which one comes or to which one goes. Used only twice in very different connections. In 2 Kings 10:27 it means “latrine.” The meaning in Mic 5:2 {H 1] the plural is debated. The translation “origin” (RSV) is unsuitable for the Messianic reference. The meaning of the KJV “going forth” is obscure. The NIV “whose origins are from of old, from ancient times” agrees with the Idea that the ancestry of the expected ruler traces way back to David’s time as well as David’s city. The NEB “roots” are similar.
I finally got tired of going in circles with him.
WJ
WJwhere is it written in scriptures that men can save himself of sin and dead and be reconciled with God.?
Pierre
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 05 2011,01:59) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 04 2011,00:28) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 03 2011,14:17) Mike,
I agree with the whole church thing.
todays churchs are unscriptural
Hi DennisonSorry you feel that way. But how can you make a blanket statement like that about all churches? Have you been to all of them?
The majority of people getting saved, healed, and the feeding of the hungry and meeting the needs of the poor come through these so called unscriptural churches you condemn.
If that church had not have been there me getting saved would not have happened and I may have been lost.
WJ
Hi WJ,
I could blanket a statment like that about all general churchs based on a few observational points.
Hi DennisonOkay, but you would have to prove that the “observational points” apply to the assembly of believers or the churches you speak of. So lets look at them one at a time young man.
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 05 2011,01:59)
1. The Christian churchs as a whole are seperated by denomations on every corner.
How is this different than the early churches like the seven churches in Revelations or the church of Corinth or church of Philippi etc, except that we have more of them?Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 05 2011,01:59)
2. Each church has its own unique name made up, or based on location.
Didn't the NT churches have names? See above.Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 05 2011,01:59)
3. Each church is lead by ONE PERSON, or a Parlimentry procedure, or the people of the church themselves.
Again, how is that not scriptural?This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a ’bishop”, he desireth a good work…. (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, “how shall he take care of the church of God?”) 1 Tim 3:1, 5 Also read 2 Tim 4:22 and Tit 3:15
The old English word for “bishop” in the Greek means an “Overseer”.
Paul said to the church of Corinth…
And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And ”THE REST WILL I SET IN ORDER WHEN I COME. 1 Cor 11:34
Paul was the overseer of the churches he started and had the authority from God to set certain things in order.
Paul said to Titus…
For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ORDAIN ELDERS IN EVERY CITY, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a ”bishop” (overseer) must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; Titus 1:5-7
Here Paul calls Bishops “Elders” and the Greek word for “Elders” is “presbyteros” which is where we get our word “Presbyter”.
The earliest organization of the Christian churches in Judea was similar to that of Jewish synagogues, which were governed by a council of elders (presbyteroi). In Acts 11:30 and 15:22, this collegiate system of government is seen in Jerusalem, and, in Acts 14:23, the Apostle Paul ordains elders in the churches he founded.
Some modern commentators believe that these presbyters may have been identical to the overseers (episkopoi) and cite such passages as Acts 20:17, Titus 1:5,7 and 1 Peter 5:1 to support this claim.[2][3] The earliest post-apostolic writings, the Didache and Clement for example, show the church recognized two local church offices—elders (interchangeable term with overseer) and deacon. SourceQuote (SimplyForgiven @ June 05 2011,01:59) 4. Each Church requieres memberships,
Well look again because not all churches require membership. Many assemblies take place in store fronts, warehouses, schools, and homes and do not require you to be a member on some list of membership. Most require that you are proven and tested as faithful before you are able to teach in ministry or have a place of leadership in the church and that is scriptural.Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 05 2011,01:59) 5. Each Church listens the interpretation from one person.
How do you know that? Kathi admits she is not a Trinitarian yet she goes to a Trinitarian church and fellowships with them as believers in Christ. It is true that if someone doesn’t agree with the basic doctrine of a church then they will not stay or if they do agree they may stay. But in no way does it mean that “they only listen” to one mans interpretation. I have yet to see a person agree with everything the Pastor believes or any member of the assembly for that matter. Besides if we had to have complete unity in the faith to assemble together then we would never obey the scriptures that teach us to assemble. The churches have more than a Pastor, for they have elders, teachers and associate Pastors. The churches I have been to have not been a one man show.Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 05 2011,01:59) 6. Each church has a pulpit
So what? Practically everyone today have Bibles yet in the Apostles times that was not the case. The Pulpit is not only for one man but is used by many church members for a place to sit their Bible on to read from or for exhortation, or testimonies. How does a piece of furniture make a church invalid? Is there a scripture that says “thou shalt not have a “pulpit” a piece of furniture to set your Bible and a bottle of water on”?Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 05 2011,01:59) 7. Each church is congregated to a certain building
And your point is? The NT church met under one roof whether it was the synagogues, buildings or homes. The point was they “assembled together” which is what the word church means, “an assembly”.Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 05 2011,01:59) 8. Each Church works primarly inside the building.
That is not at all true because as we have stated the majority of Christendom (the churches you condemn) today are the ones leading men to Christ and discipling them and feeding the hungry, attending to the needs of the poor, and visiting the widows and the fatherless.Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 05 2011,01:59) Most of Todays churchs consist of at least one of the many of these points that are unscriptural and totally produce by a carnal goverment.
First of all you have not established your points as being unscriptural and in fact you did not provide a single scripture for your claims. Come on Dennis, you haven’t made a scriptural point yet and it is disingenuous to stereotype all churches as the same. Don’t get me wrong, I think that denominations have a lot of things wrong but that doesn’t mean that many of those who go to them are not saved or not doing the will or work of God. Was there ever a perfect church or assembly? No. For if there were then when you or I or anyone for that matter walked into it then it would cease to be perfect. Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 05 2011,01:59) I could tell you that at least in alll the churchs that i have been too here in Houston, Tx are unscripatually sound and are decieving many people because they are ignorant.
And just how many hundreds did you not go too? And at “your age” how many churches could you have possibly visited and stayed at for any length of time? Should we believe your generalities without some proof? Because I can tell you that every church I have been in there were people getting saved, healed and filled with the Holy Spirit and also where they feed the hungry and take care of the poor. I am a living testimony of it.If you don’t mind can you give us more information to substantiate your claims above like what churches you went to and for how long and what you believe was unscriptural and deceiving?
Blessings WJ
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
