- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi Kathi,
Quote Dennison,
Actually, I believe the Father and Son are separate persons of one Godhead.
That doesnt make any sense to me? so your stating that two persons become one person, or make up the concept of what is God. or what?Quote God, the Father is omnipotent because of the fullness of the Father with the Son and the Spirit who are 'of' Him. Take away the Son and the Father is less capable and not as powerful as He is with the Son. I don't believe that the Father was ever without the Son, not along side Him, but always within Him until He beget Him.
Im trying to find a way to respond to this becuase your points are confusing.
1. Every role shares a definition and a duty.
For example, as much as you want to say that God has always been Jehovah-Rapha (God is Healer) since before the beginning, you couldnt because though he has the POTENTIAL to heal he cant unless there is pain.
So than the Father and Son both share roles but not the way you see it. The Biblical representation of the Father shows Him as the creator, and God of the people. Has well the biblical representation of the “Son of God” “Son of Man” happened for a specific purpose and duty, to save us from our sins and be the “Mediator” between God and Man.So from eternity standpoint thier roles are non-existant, but of course potentially possible when the time came.
Quote Dennison, did you realize that 23 of your 46 chromosomes, that make up your being, were existing in your mother when she was born? Think about that. As long as your mother existed, half of what makes you…you existed also.
But the fact is that I didnt exist, she could have easily married someone else and I wouldnt exist. For some reason, God Almighty had matched up these pair for the specfic purpose to create Me. For example, just because i have the Materials to create a building doesnt mean that building exists.For thier to be a need for God takes away from his omnipotence.
Which the “need” is the crux of the matter you present.Quote I don't think it so far fetched to say the the Father always had the Son within Him until He was begotten from Him. In that manner, the Father was never without His Son and always Almighty, capable of all things necessary to be God. The Father and the Son created all things that were made, the Father and the Son together save mankind. Can you tell me of scripture that says that the Son couldn't have existed within the Father from eternity?
If they were one and the same being, than i would agree, but as Seperate persons i would disagree.
I believe the Lord is Echad.
and to answer your questions scripture actually never declares that they were ever seperated in the first place.Your arguements would be strong one's if only you were trying to prove that They are one and the same God.
And what scripture doesnt state, isnt proof.
Hi Kathi,
[/quote]Quote My pastor was saying this Sunday how God used him to go to another country and speak and lay out the plan of salvation to the room full of people. When he asked if anyone wanted this, to raise their hand and the whole room raised their hand. My pastor says that he is not an evangelist and is very cautious not to stir up the emotions of people and thus have some emotional response. He knew it was God at work.
And I bet you the very next day most of the people went back to thier previous lifestyle.
If it were God, they wouldnt need to raise thier hand, it would just simply Happen. It simple, humble, without the publics notice.Quote My two sons recently gave a benefit concert for their friends from church who were leaving the next day to go to Honduras to dig wells for people so they could have clean water.
Im from honduras, they are biblically scared and religiously deceived people. I know, im one of them and i have seen it with my eyes.
There is a reason that my country is suffering.Quote I am confident that in all these ministries, people are being taught about God the Father as well as His Son and the Spirit that can guide them in their walk. They aren't just learning about Jesus.
You could also be confident that they are taught by someones interpretation of doctrine that may disagree with yours.
And that most of them will grow up hating church because of the harm they do to people.Again I know i have seen it with my own two eyes.
I know im not alone.
Look at mike, Jeeesh he is a mess come on now?
Kathi, im not trying to destroy your points, im just trying to point out that not everything you think is Good? is not nessarily good.
What did the Apostles do? how was thier church? what happened? did people change?
Thier was true change back than, today its a circus.
Im just sayin, not to offend you.
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 05 2011,18:26) You could also be confident that they are taught by someones interpretation of doctrine that may disagree with yours.
And that most of them will grow up hating church because of the harm they do to people.Again I know i have seen it with my own two eyes.
I know im not alone.
Look at mike, Jeeesh he is a mess come on now?
Kathi, im not trying to destroy your points, im just trying to point out that not everything you think is Good? is nessarily good.
What did the Apostles do? how was thier church? what happened? did people change?
Thier was true change back than, today its a circus.
Im just sayin, not to offend you.
SF,
I understand some of your sentiment about the disparity between first century churches and the modern institutional versions. I see the first century version as something close to an ideal too (though it had it's faults) and, to my mind, it has been a general devolutionary development since then. That said, we are scriptually mandated to assemble together for worship and fellowship (Hebrews 10:25) so physical fellowship is not an optional extra for the christian. The church is intrinsically a corporate entity and physical fellowship is essential to that. Don't dismiss the opportunity to find somewhere where you feel a sense of belonging, there will undoubtedly be one out there. You're too young to be so cynical!Blessings
Is 1:18Here is an example of some of the things happening in Churches today.
Quote;
“The 'Fire Tunnel' is formed by people lining up facing one another with their arms outstretched to form a human tunnel. Others travel through the fire tunnel and when they come out the other end, they gather in a group writhing around the floor, laughing in a manner that is clearly demonic.” ~ Unquote.
Here's a YouTube video of the end of the fire tunnel at Bethel Church (which I think is AOG)…
Jeremiah 34
But they set their abominations in the house, which is called by my name, to defile it.
And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.Quote (Lightenup @ June 04 2011,23:45) Ha, Paul…touche' We each found a verse that both speak of YHVH being from everlasting with two different words which are both found in Micah 5:2 which Mike claims Jesus had a beginning because of those two words.
If they prove Jesus had a beginning, then he has to say that YHVH had a beginning also, which we know He didn't. Good job!
Time to get some sleep…church in the morning!
What a mighty God we serve!!
Blessings,
Kathi
What took you so long?
Here's some more of them: Gen 1:23, Deut 33:27, Psalm 90:2, Psalm 93:2, Isaiah 40:28, and Jeremiah 10:10.
Perhaps Paul should take another look at the $800 Jeopardy! answer once more. For the NWT translators don't ever sink to the popular “everlasting” or “eternal” wording that most translations use, but instead usually render these Hebrew words as “from time indefinite”.
And here is their faithful translation of Hab 1:12,
Are you not from long ago, O Jehovah?There is no scripture I'm aware of that specifically says Jehovah is “from eternity” or “from everlasting”. But there is also no scripture that speaks of Him having a “beginning” either. And that is a big difference between Him and Jesus. For the LXX translation of Micah 5:2 clearly speaks of Jesus' BEGINNING being from long ago.
Which fits in with all the other scriptures I listed for you, Kathi. Jesus HAD a beginning, as all sons do. He was begotten, born, brought forth and created. None of those things are said about his Father.
mike
Good posts Deuce!
You made some very good points and I agree with almost all that you said.And you may be right that I'm a mess, but in my weakness he is strong.
Thanks for that info, Shimmer.
The best ammo atheists have is “Christians” themselves, who go in on Sunday morning and honor Him with their lips, then leave the building and deny Him by their life style. But I'm sure reading about whackos who claim to represent Christianity adds even more fuel to the fire.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 05 2011,14:16) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 05 2011,18:26) You could also be confident that they are taught by someones interpretation of doctrine that may disagree with yours.
And that most of them will grow up hating church because of the harm they do to people.Again I know i have seen it with my own two eyes.
I know im not alone.
Look at mike, Jeeesh he is a mess come on now?
Kathi, im not trying to destroy your points, im just trying to point out that not everything you think is Good? is nessarily good.
What did the Apostles do? how was thier church? what happened? did people change?
Thier was true change back than, today its a circus.
Im just sayin, not to offend you.
SF,
I understand some of your sentiment about the disparity between first century churches and the modern institutional versions. I see the first century version as something close to an ideal too (though it had it's faults) and, to my mind, it has been a general devolutionary development since then. That said, we are scriptually mandated to assemble together for worship and fellowship (Hebrews 10:25) so physical fellowship is not an optional extra for the christian. The church is intrinsically a corporate entity and physical fellowship is essential to that. Don't dismiss the opportunity to find somewhere where you feel a sense of belonging, there will undoubtedly be one out there. You're too young to be so cynical!Blessings
Is 1:18
Hi Paul,Maybe you should the post i wrote to Kieth.
Also where there is two or more people gathered togethor in agreement, there dwells God.We ARE the Church, US, not a building, not a corporate offical seal of a building, nor a name of a place.
Why do i have to FIND somewhere? It never states in the bible that i must find somewhere comfortable??
I rather be rebuked by my brethern, to be corrected and changed by the wittnesses of God.
Like Paul and is letters to the churchs that had much rebuke and corrections.The fellowship of God doesnt need a building or one person leading them.
Ill give you an Example, I use to work for a Company called ACN, and our meeting went through the same PROCEDURES as a church.
I couldnt believe it, and i learend it was a buisness tactic.
Imagine, the churchs are runned like buisnesses to retrieve and “enslave” the people to that building.
There is no difference, its scary.But the bible claims that we are “not from this world” to “seperate ourselves” so if the church is runned like a buisness and is so much like the world but disguised with logos about God than it must be a scheme.
Just because you stamp Jesus name on a playboy magazine doesnt make it holy.
So just because the Churchs claims to serve Jesus, (as Many denominations do) doesnt make it true or holy.Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 05 2011,20:43) Good posts Deuce! You made some very good points and I agree with almost all that you said.And you may be right that I'm a mess, but in my weakness he is strong.
Thanks for that info, Shimmer.
The best ammo atheists have is “Christians” themselves, who go in on Sunday morning and honor Him with their lips, then leave the building and deny Him by their life style. But I'm sure reading about whackos who claim to represent Christianity adds even more fuel to the fire.
Hi Mike,
Is that my new nickname now? “Deuces” lol funny.To which post do you refer to? The responses about the Church, or what I said to Kathi?
Many of your problems Mike comes from this subject about Church.
Dont worry your not alone, i went through the same thing and much more.Its a terrible pain, But there is a God who can take that all away in due time.
Both posts were very good – almost as if an intelligent person possessed you for a moment.
And I have no “problems” that I'm aware of concerning churches – unless you speak of the many writings and teachings of church leaders that clearly contradict what the scriptures say.
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 05 2011,02:16) Hi Kathi, Quote Dennison,
Actually, I believe the Father and Son are separate persons of one Godhead.
That doesnt make any sense to me? so your stating that two persons become one person, or make up the concept of what is God. or what?Quote God, the Father is omnipotent because of the fullness of the Father with the Son and the Spirit who are 'of' Him. Take away the Son and the Father is less capable and not as powerful as He is with the Son. I don't believe that the Father was ever without the Son, not along side Him, but always within Him until He beget Him.
Im trying to find a way to respond to this becuase your points are confusing.
1. Every role shares a definition and a duty.
For example, as much as you want to say that God has always been Jehovah-Rapha (God is Healer) since before the beginning, you couldnt because though he has the POTENTIAL to heal he cant unless there is pain.
So than the Father and Son both share roles but not the way you see it. The Biblical representation of the Father shows Him as the creator, and God of the people. Has well the biblical representation of the “Son of God” “Son of Man” happened for a specific purpose and duty, to save us from our sins and be the “Mediator” between God and Man.So from eternity standpoint thier roles are non-existant, but of course potentially possible when the time came.
Quote Dennison, did you realize that 23 of your 46 chromosomes, that make up your being, were existing in your mother when she was born? Think about that. As long as your mother existed, half of what makes you…you existed also.
But the fact is that I didnt exist, she could have easily married someone else and I wouldnt exist. For some reason, God Almighty had matched up these pair for the specfic purpose to create Me. For example, just because i have the Materials to create a building doesnt mean that building exists.For thier to be a need for God takes away from his omnipotence.
Which the “need” is the crux of the matter you present.Quote I don't think it so far fetched to say the the Father always had the Son within Him until He was begotten from Him. In that manner, the Father was never without His Son and always Almighty, capable of all things necessary to be God. The Father and the Son created all things that were made, the Father and the Son together save mankind. Can you tell me of scripture that says that the Son couldn't have existed within the Father from eternity?
If they were one and the same being, than i would agree, but as Seperate persons i would disagree.
I believe the Lord is Echad.
and to answer your questions scripture actually never declares that they were ever seperated in the first place.Your arguements would be strong one's if only you were trying to prove that They are one and the same God.
And what scripture doesnt state, isnt proof.
Hi Dennison,Quote That doesnt make any sense to me? so your stating that two persons become one person, or make up the concept of what is God. or what? Well, thanks for the spirit of understanding. I am not stating that two persons become one person. I am stating that while each are God according to nature, they are distinct persons…one as Father and one as Son. Together they make up the one Godhead. Together they are stronger than individually. What one can do, the other doesn't do.
One can be seen, the other unseen by man.
One can be heard, the other unheard by man.
One can empty Himself to become man, the other one doesn't empty Himself to become man.
One can be the master craftsman, the other the source.
Together makes their potential so much greater than when alone.I do not think they were ever alone because I think that the Godhead was always Almighty, each person existing from eternity. The Son always existed within the Father until He was begotten to create.
I don't see 'Father' and 'Son' as roles but as relationship of two persons with God nature. The Father was always Father, and the Son was always Son.
Regarding the whole 23 chromosomes thing, that is true YOU didn't always exist, for one, your mother did not always exist. But if she did always exist and had not only 23 chromosomes but the complete 46 chromosomes that make you-you, then you too would have always existed. You may have been in a dormant stage but you still would have always existed. Get it?
Jesus' Father did always exist…do you at least agree with that? I purpose that all that made the Son-a person was always within the Father, thus the Son always existed too. Therefore, the Father was always Almighty because the Son always existed within Him.
Let me ask you:
Does the Father have more potential to eternally save mankind with the presence of the Son or without the Son?If you say that the Father has more potential to eternally save mankind with the Son, then the Father is even greater with the Son than without. See? Thus, Almighty means 'all' mighty, not just mighty. With the Son, the Father can do all things. I believe the Father could always do all things and thus always had the Son within Him to bring forth to do His work.
Quote If they were one and the same being, than i would agree, but as Seperate persons i would disagree.
I believe the Lord is Echad.
and to answer your questions scripture actually never declares that they were ever seperated in the first place.Well, it seems that everyone here understands that the Father is a separate person from the Son, except you. You don't think they are separate persons? Well, I think they are separate persons who are inseparable from each other. They strengthen and complete the other as far as where one can do part a, the other does part b. Like creation and eternal salvation. Their Spirit then takes from them and discloses it to us.
Kathi
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 05 2011,10:22) Quote (Lightenup @ June 04 2011,23:45) Ha, Paul…touche' We each found a verse that both speak of YHVH being from everlasting with two different words which are both found in Micah 5:2 which Mike claims Jesus had a beginning because of those two words.
If they prove Jesus had a beginning, then he has to say that YHVH had a beginning also, which we know He didn't. Good job!
Time to get some sleep…church in the morning!
What a mighty God we serve!!
Blessings,
Kathi
What took you so long? Here's some more of them: Gen 1:23, Deut 33:27, Psalm 90:2, Psalm 93:2, Isaiah 40:28, and Jeremiah 10:10.
Perhaps Paul should take another look at the $800 Jeopardy! answer once more. For the NWT translators don't ever sink to the popular “everlasting” or “eternal” wording that most translations use, but instead usually render these Hebrew words as “from time indefinite”.
And here is their faithful translation of Hab 1:12,
Are you not from long ago, O Jehovah?There is no scripture I'm aware of that specifically says Jehovah is “from eternity” or “from everlasting”. But there is also no scripture that speaks of Him having a “beginning” either. And that is a big difference between Him and Jesus. For the LXX translation of Micah 5:2 clearly speaks of Jesus' BEGINNING being from long ago.
Which fits in with all the other scriptures I listed for you, Kathi. Jesus HAD a beginning, as all sons do. He was begotten, born, brought forth and created. None of those things are said about his Father.
mike
Mike,
Do you think that Micah 5:2 teaches that Jesus had a beginning? Which word in that scripture makes you think that?Kathi
Quote (Lightenup @ June 05 2011,14:53) I am stating that while each are God according to nature, they are distinct persons…one as Father and one as Son.
D,Kathi is what is called a “ditheist” – one who believes in TWO separate equal and eternal Gods.
Quote (Lightenup @ June 05 2011,15:16) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 05 2011,10:22) Quote (Lightenup @ June 04 2011,23:45) Ha, Paul…touche' We each found a verse that both speak of YHVH being from everlasting with two different words which are both found in Micah 5:2 which Mike claims Jesus had a beginning because of those two words.
If they prove Jesus had a beginning, then he has to say that YHVH had a beginning also, which we know He didn't. Good job!
Time to get some sleep…church in the morning!
What a mighty God we serve!!
Blessings,
Kathi
What took you so long? Here's some more of them: Gen 1:23, Deut 33:27, Psalm 90:2, Psalm 93:2, Isaiah 40:28, and Jeremiah 10:10.
Perhaps Paul should take another look at the $800 Jeopardy! answer once more. For the NWT translators don't ever sink to the popular “everlasting” or “eternal” wording that most translations use, but instead usually render these Hebrew words as “from time indefinite”.
And here is their faithful translation of Hab 1:12,
Are you not from long ago, O Jehovah?There is no scripture I'm aware of that specifically says Jehovah is “from eternity” or “from everlasting”. But there is also no scripture that speaks of Him having a “beginning” either. And that is a big difference between Him and Jesus. For the LXX translation of Micah 5:2 clearly speaks of Jesus' BEGINNING being from long ago.
Which fits in with all the other scriptures I listed for you, Kathi. Jesus HAD a beginning, as all sons do. He was begotten, born, brought forth and created. None of those things are said about his Father.
mike
Mike,
Do you think that Micah 5:2 teaches that Jesus had a beginning? Which word in that scripture makes you think that?Kathi
“Arche”, in the LXX.That's a pretty vague statement, Kathi.
Do you know of a scripture that says Jehovah's beginning was from days of old?
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?
KathiWell Kathi,
Micah speaks quite clearly that Jesus had a beginning – which goings forth would there be if there was no heaven and earth to go forth to and from?
Spirits don't need to GO and COME in heaven so it must be the Physical world that the goings forth are referring to!And seeing that be is a Son of God, of whom there are Many, there must have been a time when he was Not – and therefore God was not a Father.
God became a father when Jesus (to be called) was brought forth from him – just as the Other Spirit creatures of heaven were!
It is evident that the Spirit that came to be known as Satan and the Devil was an extremely powerful Spirit being with enormous influence – a bit like the First born Son!
This Angelic (?) Spirit clearly thought himself a cut above the rest and was owed something greater than his worth – and sinned for his pains!
The Scriptures clearly shows a pattern of the FIRST BORN SINNING (For what reason?) and a humbler one being brought up in his place (Begotten) as Firstborn – (By Rank order not birth order, note: no space!)Why is this pattern (Fractal I call it) repeated over and over in Scriptures??
And just WHO ARE 'the PRINCES OF WHOM ONE HAS FALLEN'?We know that MICHAEL is 'One of the Chief Princes'…
Mike,
Micah 5:2 does not in anyway speak about the beginning of His existence being from the beginning, from 'eons'It may be talking about when He was begotten, but this is not about a beginning of existence, just his goings forth is from the beginning, from eons.
YHVH is also said to be from the 'eon.'
Psalms 93:2
In the Apostolic translation:
[was prepared Your throne] from then; from the eon you are.
That passage is about YHVH.Kathi
Mike,
Habakkuk 1:12Are You not from everlasting, O LORD, my God, my Holy One? We will not die. You, O LORD, have appointed them to judge; And You, O Rock, have established them to correct.
the Apostolic translation:
Are you not from the beginning (arche), O LORD (YHVH)…So Mike, you should be able to see that both YHVH and the Son are from the same time.
KathiIstari,
You should let Is 1:18 debate your Christology and you can tell him all about it. I will bump his challenge to you after I post this. As for me, I think you don't know what a true firstborn is and the fractal scriptures that support it. Firstborns are considered holy to the Lord, the firstborn is the first of the father's procreative strength, the firstborn receives double the inheritance, etc.Also, there is only one begotten Son, not many.
Furthermore, you said that you weren't going to 'discuss Jesus-God' with me anymore, just over 24 hours ago.
Quote Mike,
I have given up discussing Jesus-God with her as she is totally lost. WE are driving her to defend her deceitful and unscriptural ideas and it's best to stop – I get a headache from understanding her misconceptions – it's not helped by WJ backing her up even when he doesn't actually believe what she is saying… Just posting again us for the sake of it!!Yet here you are.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
