Mikeboll64 vrs worshippingjesus

This topic is empty.

Viewing 20 posts - 41 through 60 (of 73 total)

←1 234 →

Author
Posts

May 11, 2010 at 4:49 pm#190463

Worshipping Jesus

Participant

Mike

I have been away. My daughter was in the hospital for 4 days in labour with her sixth child. He was born a healthy 8 Lb boy. Happy Granddad #13.

Anyway I have read your rebuttal on the JWs NWT corruption and find it amusing to say the least. Did you get all that stuff from Watchtower?

I will address that later but for now I am submitting a post that I had been working on which is the end of your last response before you started in about the lengths of the post. Here it is….

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 01 2010,02:34)

The NIV had it's scholars sign off on being trinitarian before they were allowed on the project – and you are okay with that? Talk about bias. Were they afraid someone might want to translate it without a trinity bias? But now this is for another time. We'll get to it, trust me.

Why not get to it now? You have mentioned this already in which I had responded to show the proof rather than parrot what the JWs claim. Even if what you say is true, so what, that would not be proof that they conspired to corrupt the text. Do you think for a minute the translating committee of the NWT was not JWs, in fact that is even worse Mike because only members of an orginization who hold to set doctrines were the translators. What if the NIV Translators were all southern Baptist?

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 30 2010,12:02)

The burden of proof is on you because John 1:1c reads “the Word was God”.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 01 2010,02:34)

Does it have the capped “g” in the Greek? Yes or no.

Exactly, neither does John 1:1b have the capitol “G” which means that John was making no difference in the word “Theos” and at the very least qualitatively speaking the word “Theos” is equal, which would mean all that God (Theos) is in John 1:1b would also be all that God is in John 1:1c, True Theos” with “True Theos”.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 30 2010,12:02)

I don't believe you Mike, for unambiguous proof has been put to you and you still do not concede. You won't even admit that John 1:1c can mean “the true God” even though it is anarthrous.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 01 2010,02:34)

Sure it could. But then 1:18 would read, “No one has ever understood God, but the one and only God, who is at God's side, has explained God.” How does this language make sense to you?

It makes perfectly clear sense, because John 1:1 clearly reads “The Word was with God and the Word was God”. Your logic is circular. Your Arian view is trying to force your carnal understanding on the text by insisting that the word “Theos” classifies identity and not a “Class of being”. What is hypocritical about your view is that you talk out of both sides of your mouth by claiming there are other gods by putting “a god” next to the Father, and that John could have only meant that Jesus was one of those other gods therefore insulting Johns understanding of the scriptures that claim there are no other gods.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 01 2010,02:34)

And how can the being of God be WITH the being of God? Can WJ be WITH WJ?

Ask John he wrote it didn't he? This is your carnal logic at work again, for the Father is in Jesus and Jesus is in the Father at the same time, how can you explain that Mike? The Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are “One”, and there is one Spirit! How do you explain that Mike?

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 30 2010,12:02)

I thought that was what we were doing? I gave you John 1:1, 14, 18 – 20:28, 1 John 1:1-3 – 5:20 – Rev 1:8 -Rev 22:12, 13 and Rev 22:20

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 01 2010,02:34)

And I have posted rebuttals to them, but have heard nothing back on the matter.

Yes, and you insisted on sticking your head in the sand concerning the unambiguous proof that Jesus was the one spoken of in those verses.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 01 2010,02:34)

John 1:14 says, 14 So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of undeserved kindness and truth.

I don't get it. It says Jesus was begotten from a father. How does this make him God?

OK mike if you insist the word Monogenes should be “begotten” then why do you choose to force a different definition on the word? You have chosen instead to reinvent the principle of “every kind bearing after its own kind” for instance in like manner a human father who has a son is equally human. Therefore you are reinventing the word “begotten”. You still want to insist on the word “begotten” as merely meaning to be born, yet you have ignored my point that the Greek word made in relation to Jesus coming in the flesh in verse 14 is ‘ginomai’ which is the second part of “Monogenes” meaning “to come into existence” and that it matches Phil 2:7 “and was made (ginomai) in the likeness of men”?

This is proof that the word (monogenes) was not ascribed to Jesus until during and after his “coming into existence” in the flesh. So even if you use the term “begotten” it would still be in relation to him coming in the likeness of sinful flesh. How about showing some consistency Mike?

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 01 2010,02:34)

Your turn. John 1:12 says, 12 However, as many as did receive him, to them he gave authority to become God’s children, because they were exercising faith in his name;

John knew that Jesus gave authority to become GOD'S children. By this statement, did John th
ink Jesus to be God, or someone else?

Of course he did because in the opening of the prologue John clearly calls Jesus the Word that was with God, God.

Read your passage in its context Mike…

”THAT WAS THE TRUE LIGHT, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and THE WORLD WAS MADE BY HIM, and the world knew him not”. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: John 1:9-12

John says Jesus was the “True Light” which lights everyman, which also means that John believes he was “True Theos”, not to mention the fact that in verse 3 John says that “nothing came into being without him”. This would be in complete opposition to the Hebrew scriptures that clearly says YHWH “alone”, “by Himself” with none other created all things…

In the beginning “God” created the heavens and the earth! Gen 1:1

Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; *that stretcheth forth the heavens ALONE*; that spreadeth abroad the earth *BY MYSELF*; Isa 44:24

For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; *GOD HIMSELF* that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: *I am the LORD; and there is NONE ELSE*. Isa 45:18

Even your precious NWT reads as follows…

This is what Jehovah has said, your Repurchaser and the Former of you from the belly: “I, Jehovah, am doing everything, stretching out the heavens “BY MYSELF”, laying out the earth. “WHO WAS WITH ME?” Isa 44:24

Was John ignorant of these scriptures and how do you explain this conundrum you have Mike? There are several things to take note in the beginning of John’s prologue.

1. IN THE BEGINNING the Word that was with God and was God is the one by which all things were created and nothing came into being without him. John 1:1-3 And of course John knew this verse…

IN THE BEGINNING God created the heavens and the earth. Gen 1:1

2. Jesus is the life and the “True light” of men which also means that he is the source of life and that he is “True God”. John 1:4-7 John 14:6

3. The world was made by him and the world knew him not, and he came unto HIS OWN and they received him not. John claims that the children of Israel were his own which he created. John 1:10, 11

4. To as many as received him (not God the Father) and to those that believed in “HIS NAME” (not God the Fathers) to them (he Jesus) gave the authority to become (ginomai) sons of God. Jesus was the one who gives “eternal life” to as many as receive and believe on him.

Johns prologue is without question about Jesus the Word who was God and having the attributes of being God, had the power to give Life and light to all men, and the creative authority and power to bring all things into existence.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 30 2010,12:02)

I did and there is nothing that I said that even implies that Jesus was superior to the Father even in his Love.

Your accusation toward me was totally false.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 01 2010,02:34)

You should have rebuked your friend, instead of encouraging him IMO.

Why should I have to rebuke Jack for something you perceived he said? I know Jack did not mean what you thought he meant. Maybe he could have worded it a little better, but it is obvious Jack did not mean to say that Jesus was greater than the Father.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 30 2010,12:02)

But while searching for that incident, I came across other posts that make it clear you do not think Jesus to be superior to the Father. Good! One thing in common.

Oh I see Mike, so then what you said about me was false and a lie, so instead of apologizing you just say “Good”. Yet you demand that I rebuke Jack? Why don’t you rebuke your buddy JA for all his patronizing and poisonous diatribe that he spews out all the time against Jack and myself? Get real and check your own conscience.

Jack as a final note I have been reading your accusations that I avoid easy questions and do not answer others. I find it a little hypocritical seeing that there are many questions here in this debate you have avoided which I will be sure to bring to the light soon!

May 11, 2010 at 6:06 pm#190467

KangarooJack

Participant

WorshippingJesus said to Mike:

Quote

Keith,

Forgive me for posting here. I want to direct you to my reply today to Mike's false charge against me. He copied and pasted my statement out of context. In reply I copied and pasted ALL that I said in relation to that statement.

See my reply to Mike today in my debate with him.

The next time Mike misrepresents me like this I will ask the tech adm to close our debate.

Jack

May 11, 2010 at 6:31 pm#190468

Worshipping Jesus

Participant

Mike

BTW, based on Jacks explanation and his obvious intent, you owe him and me an oppology!

May 11, 2010 at 7:25 pm#190470

Worshipping Jesus

Participant

Mike

In light of your recent lame claims about me not answering questions, I thought I would bring to your remembrance the many questions in this debate you have not answered and the following is not all.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 05 2010,18:51)

On that note, you still have not explained how if Jesus possesses ALL things and has ALL Authority and Power, that he is not equal to the Father in “Authority and Power”?

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 13 2010,16:29)

Is Jesus your “god” Mike? You say he is “a god” then you should be able to confess him as your “god”, right? Is he your “true god” or your “false god”? Why don’t you and the JWs and ATs (Anti-Trinitarians) confess Jesus as their “god”? They love to say that God means “mighty one” so they have no problem with Jesus being called the Mighty god! But I do not hear them calling him their “Mighty god”, why is that Mike?

BTW Mike, Jesus = Webster’s won’t cut it since as you say Webster’s defines god as, “any of various beings conceived of as supernatural, immortal, and having special powers over the lives and affairs of people and the course of nature”.

So are you telling us that Jesus is not your god and he does not have “special powers over your life and affairs”. That is the definition, right Mike? Please explain how you serve more than one “Master” when Jesus said you can only serve “One”.
Please explain how you serve a big God and a little god and pray to the big God in the name of a little god? How does that fit into the Jewish concept of Monotheism?

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52)

No because Paul understood he was a god to the world but to him there was “no God but one” and Satan is a so-called god! Remember he can appear as an angel of light. Is there an OT or NT scripture that says God formed or made any “'elohiym” or “theos”?

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52)

Prove it Mike. Show me where any Apostle or follower of Jesus calls any other being their God but the Father and Jesus. Show me where any so-called god has divine nature other than the Father and Jesus. Moses doesn’t work for you because he was God to Pharaoh who was a Polytheist and worshipped many gods. Nowhere can you find a scripture where the children of Israel referred to Moses as “a god” or God, can you Mike? So he was not a God at all was he?

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 23 2010,19:12)

“BEFORE ME THERE WAS NO GOD FORMED” Isa 43:10

AFTER ME THERE CONTINUED TO BE NONE” Isa 43:10

“APART FROM ME THERE IS NO GOD Isa 44:6-8

“IS THERE ANY GOD BESIDES ME” Isa 44:6-8

“APART FROM ME THERE IS NO GOD” Isa 45:5

“THERE IS NONE BESIDES ME. I AM THE LORD” Isa 45:6

“THERE IS NO OTHER” Isa 45:6

“I am God, and there is no other” Isa 46:9

“I am God, and there is none like me” Isa 46:9

“THERE IS NO GOD BESIDES ME” Deut 32:39

How can you read these scriptures and say there are other “gods” Mike? Do you know of any gods today besides Jesus that you say is god yet he is not your god?

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 23 2010,19:12)

You do believe Jesus is 'a god', right?

How about YHWHs command not to mention the name of other gods…

“Be careful to do everything I have said to you. “DO NOT INVOKE THE NAMES OF OTHER GODS; DO NOT LET THEM BE HEARD ON YOUR LIPS”. Exod 23:13

Yet you pray to the Father in the name of “a god”, how do you explain this Mike?

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 24 2010,16:46)

And Jesus willingly came and gave his own life! Remember a man can not give his life for a ransom for another in Hebrew law could he?

No man can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom for him— Ps 49:7

If Jesus is not God in the flesh, how do you explain this especially in light of Titus 2:13, 14, where Paul calls Jesus the Great God and Savour who not only redeems “a man” but ALL MEN for himself?

How do you explain this in light of the fact that YHWH says there is “NO SAVOUR” besides him? Isa 43:11 – Isa 13:4 – Isa 45:21

(edited for clarification)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 26 2010,15:10)

No there are not any other gods but only so-called gods of men’s making. You just said “we are to worship and serve only one” , so why does Paul say he is a prisoner of Jesus, and a bond slave to him? This kind of devotion only belongs to God doesn’t it? Yet Jesus requires his followers to lay down their lives for him. This is another reason why they could have stoned him because he was making himself equal to God.

This is just a few for you to get started on. You have a lot to do to get caught up Mike.

More to come.

May 12, 2010 at 5:14 am#190521

mikeboll64

Blocked

Hi WJ,

You said:

Quote

Happy Granddad #13.

Congrats!

You said:

Quote

Anyway I have read your rebuttal on the JWs NWT corruption and find it amusing to say the least. Did you get all that stuff from Watchtower?

No, from reading the Greek. Does it matter? Please rebut them one Scripture at a time, so we can actually get to the heart of something.

You said:

Quote

Why not get to it now? You have mentioned this already in which I had responded to show the proof rather than parrot what the JWs claim.

I didn't hear that from the Jehovah's Witnesses. (Why do you take every chance you have to slam them? Because they are teaching millions the truth about the trinity? May the ONLY true God, Jehovah bless them for their efforts!)

I actually heard it on a debate I downloaded at the suggestion of Glad Tidings in a thread where I was debating Lightenup. The man debating the trinitarian made that claim, and the trinitarian acknowledged it. I assumed it was common knowledge that I had been left out on. I have since deleted that debate, but I will look into it. For the record, I very much like the NIV translation.

I said:

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 01 2010,02:34)

Does it have the capped “g” in the Greek? Yes or no.

You said:

Quote

Is that a “yes” or a “no”? And you forgot to mention only one “god” has the definite article in front of it. When will you actually deal with that? It says, “the word was with the god, and god (not the god) was the word”. Why do you think John wrote “the” in front of one, but not the other? Could it be he knew there was a difference between them? Could it be that he NEVER intended readers to infer they were one and the same? Maybe we'll find out if we ever get to the “John writings”.

You said that the phrasing, “No one has ever understood God, the ONE AND ONLY GOD, who is at God's side, has explained God” makes “perfectly clear sense”. Really? How can the ONE AND ONLY GOD be at THE ONLY TRUE GOD'S side? How can one being be “at the side” of himself? How can the ONE AND ONLY GOD be the one to explain THE ONLY TRUE GOD that no one has EVER been able to understand completely? Why didn't John just say, “No one used to be able to understand God, but God Himself has explained Himself”? And if that was the case, why is there no referrence to time? For example, “No one has ever understood God, but then He decided to explain Himself”, or “No one has ever understood God but in the year xxxx, he decided to explain Himself”.

WJ, you make yourself seem foolish when you say that wording makes sense.

You said:

Quote

It makes perfectly clear sense, because John 1:1 clearly reads “The Word was with God and the Word was God”.

You misrepresent again. The Greek clearly says, “the word was with the god and god was the word”. I can understand capping the “g” for who we both know to be God Almighty, but you doing it in John 1:1 as if it proves your point is useless. It doesn't, because you have yet to prove that the second “god” is referring to the Almighty.

Can WJ the being, be WITH WJ the being? It doesn't say “IN”, it says “WITH”. For any being to be WITH a being, they must be separate beings.

You said:

Quote

Your Arian view is trying to force your carnal understanding on the text by insisting that the word “Theos” classifies identity and not a “Class of being”.

You're confused. I'm saying that “the god” classifies identity, but “god” classifies a nature. The Word was divine. The Word was “a mighty one”. I'm the one saying that the Word was “a god” in the sense that Jehovah said of judges, “you are gods”. In the sense that Manoah called an angel “god”. In the sense that Paul calls Satan a “god”. You are the one saying that it isn't just a “class of being”, as if you were talking about two separate beings – you are saying that the Word is the SAME EXACT BEING as “the god”.

You said:

Quote

What is hypocritical about your view is that you talk out of both sides of your mouth by claiming there are other gods by putting “a god” next to the Father, and that John could have only meant that Jesus was one of those other gods therefore insulting Johns understanding of the scriptures that claim there are no other gods.

John meant the Word was “a mighty one” or “divine”. Didn't John record Jesus as saying, “He called them gods, to whom the word of God came…”? Didn't John read the Law and the Prophets? Didn't he know about the beings other than Jehovah that were referred to as “gods”? And what the Scriptures claim is that there are no other Gods, not gods. Surely if John didn't already know this, he figured it out when he recorded Jesus praying to his God and calling Him “the only true God”. Why the word “true”? Maybe for clarification? Much like Paul clarified that though their are many beings, things, etc called “god”, for us their is only one. Who is that one, WJ? Did not Paul make it perfectly clear when he said it was the Father? Did he not further expand on that same thought by explaining that Jesus, while NOT being the Father and thereby NOT the ONLY God, was instead somebody different – our Lord?

About God being WITH God, you said:

Quote

Ask John he wrote it didn'
t he?

What? Are you saying that you have no reasonable explanation as to why John wrote this? I do. The Word was a separate being from God, and therefore could be said to be WITH God.

You said:

Quote

This is your carnal logic at work again, for the Father is in Jesus and Jesus is in the Father at the same time, how can you explain that Mike?

See? And then you slam the NWT for translating it “in union with” to clarify it. Maybe if you would have read the NWT first, you would not be so confused today, saying things like, “Ask John, he wrote it” and such. WJ, you always bring this up, but you never bring up the fact that Jesus prayed (to his God and our God) that we too could be “in” him and the Father. Do you think he was praying for us to also be members of the godhead?

You said:

Quote

The Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are “One”, and there is one Spirit! How do you explain that Mike?

Same answer, for Jesus also prayed that we would be one with them. The one Spirit originates and flows from Jehovah through Jesus and every other living thing in existence, IMO.

You said:

Quote

Yes, and you insisted on sticking your head in the sand concerning the unambiguous proof that Jesus was the one spoken of in those verses.

What? I don't even know what you are saying. Save it for when we take John's writings one by one. I'm sure we'll be able to come to a conclusion of what John thought about Jesus and his and our God.

You said:

Quote

That definition is Jack's, not mine. I use it to appease him, because it ends up saying the same thing in the end. Monogenes means “only begotten” and “ginomai” means “caused to exist” or “be made”. From OBST:

Ginomai 1:681,117
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
ghin'-om-ahee Verb

Definition
to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being
to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen
of events
to arise, appear in history, come upon the stage
of men appearing in public
to be made, finished
of miracles, to be performed, wrought
to become, be made

You said:

Quote

First of all, like I've told thinker repeatedly, God could not have been said to have SENT his only begotten Son into the world if he had not been His only begotten Son prior to being SENT. And if Jesus wasn't already the begotten Son of God prior to his coming to earth, what did John mean in 1 John 4?

9 By this the love of God was made manifest in our case, because God sent forth his only-begotten Son into the world that we might gain life through him.

10 The love is in this respect, not that we have loved God, but that he loved us and sent forth his Son as a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins.

14 In addition, we ourselves have beheld and are bearing witness that the Father has sent forth his Son as Savior of the world.

The fact that he was again “begotten” of flesh is supported by Mary giving birth to him. The fact that he was again “begotten” by being raised is supported by the fact that he was was dead and did not exist. For him to be alive now, he would have had to be “begotten” again. So call it “made”, “born”, “begotten”, “caused to exist”, “created” or “to become”. It doesn't matter. He was begotten directly by God before the creation of the heavens and the earth. That is why John says that while on earth, he had the glory of an only begotten son after calling him the only begotten god.

And you better check with your boy, Jack on your “monogenes being ascribed to Jesus during his coming into existence in the flesh” thoughts. He thinks it is a title given to Jesus when he was raised and has nothing at all to do with him actually being “begotten” in any way.

Anyway, John 1:14 was your Scripture – how does it show that John thought Jesus was God Almighty?

My Scripture was John 1:12,

12 However, as many as did receive him, to them he gave authority to become God’s children, because they were exercising faith in his name;

And I asked:

Quote

John knew that Jesus gave authority to become GOD'S children. By this statement, did John think Jesus to be God, or someone else?

You said:

Quote

Of course he did because in the opening of the prologue John clearly calls Jesus the Word that was with God, God.

I don't think you fully understand the exercise. We are trying to decypher what John meant in 1:1 by using OTHER Scriptures John wrote. You can't prove what John meant in 1:12 by posting what you THINK he meant in the Scripture we're trying to get to the bottom of – that's just silly. My question is, why does John not say, “to become HIS children”? Why does he distinguish between Jesus and God if they are the same being now?

You quoted:

Quote

You said:

Quote

John says Jesus was the “True Light” which lights everyman, which also means that John believes he was “True Theos”,

I don't see the connection between “light” and “God Almighty”. Jesus was the “light” that his God sent to us. Where do you read that God was the “true light”?

You said:

Quote

not to mention the fact that in verse 3 John says that “nothing came into being without him”. This would be in complete opposition to the Hebrew scriptures that clearly says YHWH “alone”, “by Himself” with none other created all things…

All things come FROM God, THROUGH His Son, Jesus. And even if JHWH was a godhead of three equal members, the “alone” and “by Himself” wouldn't really work, would it? Because it would still mean JHWH the Father worked TOGETHER with JHWH the Son and JHWH the Spirit. Which JHWH was the one who said he, “stretched out the heavens alone and spread out the earth by myself”? Was it the Father? The Son? The Spirit? All three persons talking at once and each one saying they did it “by myself”?

I do find your view funny in light of the NWT's translation:

Wasn't the Word WITH Him? The same Word who nothing came into being without. Yet the Word was WITH God in the beginning, before everything came into being. And God is asking, “Who was with me?” I don't know, I'm confusing myself here. Don't you see? Even if the Word was a co-equal person in the godhead, he was still WITH the God of John 1:1 during the creation of everything. But JHWH says, “Who was with me?”

Maybe we shouldn't take everything so literally. I mean, Bill Gates would be correct in saying he created Microsoft “by himself” and “alone”, because he didn't have an equal partner. But we are smart enough to understand that Microsoft was actually built by many nameless people who worked FOR Bill Gates, even if Bill claims he built the company by himself.

You said:

Quote

Was John ignorant of these scriptures and how do you explain this conundrum you have Mike? There are several things to take note in the beginning of John’s prologue.

It is a conundrum for sure. Which one of your persons said he created everything by himself?

You said:

Quote

1. IN THE BEGINNING the Word that was with God and was God is the one by which all things were created and nothing came into being without him. John 1:1-3 And of course John knew this verse…

You have not yet proved that John meant the Word was God. Please refrain from using 1:1.

You said:

Quote

2. Jesus is the life and the “True light” of men which also means that he is the source of life and that he is “True God”. John 1:4-7 John 14:6

It does not say “true light” equals “God” anywhere. It says that life came into existence THROUGH or BY MEANS OF him, not that he is the SOURCE. It does not say he is “true God” anywhere in 1:4-7. And 14:6 says,

6 Jesus said to him: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Think it out, WJ. No one comes to the Father (one entity) except through me ( a different entity). How do you get that they are the same from 14:6? You're supposed to be coming up with Scriptures that prove YOUR view, not mine.

You said:

Quote

3. The world was made by him and the world knew him not, and he came unto HIS OWN and they received him not. John claims that the children of Israel were his own which he created. John 1:10, 11

I'm sorry, I didn't read “created” in there. And I'm sure that John knew that “all the Father has is mine” and that Jesus protected the ones the Father had “given him” out of the world. Nothing whatsoever to say Jesus is in fact God Almighty so far.

You said:

Quote

Yes, if people believed that he was in fact the Son of God and God's Christ, he had recieved authority from his God to give them the authority to become sons of his God. We can be BROTHERS of Christ, yet SONS of God. Does that tell you something?

You said:

Quote

Is that it? Is that all the John writings you have to prove 1:1? At least two that you used worked better for me than you. And I just started at the gospel and picked the first one I saw, 1:12. When you answer to my comments on 1:12 in this post, I'll pick another.

You said:

Quote

I agree. He should have NEVER worded it to say exactly what it said, “the love of Jesus SURPASSED the love of the Father”. His caps. For you to now say you know that's not what he meant and that he could have worded it better is moot. You didn't say it to him at the time, did you?

You said:

Quote

Oh I see Mike, so then what you said about me was false and a lie, so instead of apologizing you just say “Good”.

What did I say that was a lie? I said that Jack said it, and you posted an approving comment after. Is that a lie?

You said:

Quote

Yet you demand that I rebuke Jack? Why don’t you rebuke your buddy JA for all his patronizing and poisonous diatribe that he spews out all the time against Jack and myself? Get real and check your own conscience.

I didn't demand anything. I said you should have rebuked your friend. I still feel the same way. And I have rebuked JA for his strutting. Once in a thread along with Nick and again in a PM. I told him we could all do without the “I'm greater than you” crap. In those words, plus some. And I have never given one single encouraging comment to him when he posts that hateful stuff. I think it is as childish and unproductive as when thinker posts his insulting dancing little critters. (I also used those words in the PM) I'm not anyone's judge, but he hasn't crossed into blasphemy that I'm aware of. That I take seriously.

You said:

Quote

Fantastic! And I will answer them one at a time so we can actually have some discussion on a point and maybe get some closure. I don't want the thousand word posts anymore. I've spent 4 hours answering this one post, and haven't even got to read the other threads, let alone your other posts in this debate and thinkers response in our debate. You can post as many as you like, but I'm only answering one at a time.

For now, all I want from you is your response to 1:12,

peace and love,
mike

May 12, 2010 at 5:26 am#190522

mikeboll64

Blocked

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 12 2010,07:25)

On that note, you still have not explained how if Jesus possesses ALL things and has ALL Authority and Power, that he is not equal to the Father in “Authority and Power”?

Hi WJ,

Question #1. When we are done with it, I will answer another that you ask.

If Jesus posesses ALL Power and Authority, then he could not possibly be equal to the Father, could he? He would be greater than the Father. If Jesus literally has ALL, then there is nothing left for you, me, the angels or the Father, correct?

So maybe it's not a literal as you like to think. Maybe, it can be understood in light of other Scriptures to mean that Jesus' God has given Jesus acting authority for Him to fulfill His purposes. Maybe we can use the story of Joseph and the Pharaoh as an example of what is meant here. Did Joseph actually become the “being” of Pharaoh? Did Joseph have the right to de-throne the Pharaoh? Or is it understood that although Joseph had ALL power and authority, it didn't imply he was the Pharaoh or equal to him?

What do you think?

peace and love,
mike

May 12, 2010 at 6:09 am#190527

SimplyForgiven

Participant

I know that this is a one on one debate.
i would like to pose a question for both of the debators
I see there is alot of debate whether Jesus is God or not or he is one with him or part of him and etc.
But shifting the focus, doesnt it mean anything to ya that the scripture that is referring to Jesus (If you agree in that) in John 1:1, that he was in the beggining? How does either side explain his existance or involvment in the Begginging?
If you were to compare Genesis 1:1-5 and John 1:1-5 isnt it intresting that they both talk about first, the beggining, than creation, and than light and division of light and darkness? What was Johns intent in connecting Jesus to this scripture?

May 12, 2010 at 6:36 pm#190576

Worshipping Jesus

Participant

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ May 12 2010,02:09)

Simply

Thanks for your response, however these threads are not open to comments for others simply because it would clutter the dialogue if everyone starts commenting. This is what the debates threads are for. The rules of this sight should be respected!

You can copy and past any part of the dialogue into an appropriate thread and comment on it.

Blessings Keith

May 19, 2010 at 5:25 pm#191250

Worshipping Jesus

Participant

Hi Mike

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 12 2010,07:25)

On that note, you still have not explained how if Jesus possesses ALL things and has ALL Authority and Power, that he is not equal to the Father in “Authority and Power”?

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 12 2010,00:26)

Hi WJ,

Question #1. When we are done with it, I will answer another that you ask.

Well there goes your carnal logic at work again. Wow Mike, you have effectively made every scripture that says Jesus “owns, possesses, and has” all things of none effect. I do understand how your theology could lead you to that conclusion since you do not see the Father and Jesus as “One”. Read these Mike and explain to us how Jesus does not “literally” have and posses all things?…

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, “ALL POWER (Authority) IS GIVEN UNTO ME IN HEAVEN AND IN EARTH”. Matt 28:18

”ALL THINGS THAT THE FATHER HATH ARE MINE”: therefore said I, that he (Holy Spirit) shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you. John 16:15

The Father loveth the Son, and “HATH GIVEN ALL THINGS INTO HIS HAND”. John 3:35

Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, “FAR ABOVE ALL PRINCIPALITY, AND POWER, AND MIGHT, AND DOMINION, AND EVERY NAME THAT IS NAMED, NOT ONLY IN THIS WORLD, BUT ALSO IN THAT WHICH IS TO COME”: Eph 1:20, 21

For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, “WHICH IS THE HEAD OF ALL PRINCIPALITY AND POWER”: Col 2:9, 10

For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, “it is manifest that he is excepted, WHICH DID PUT ALL THINGS UNDER HIM (JESUS). And WHEN ALL THINGS SHALL BE SUBDUED UNTO HIM (JESUS)”, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. 1 Cor 15:27, 28

Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby “HE (JESUS) IS ABLE EVEN TO SUBDUE ALL THINGS UNTO HIMSELF”. Phil 3:21

If the above scriptures are not literal to you Mike, then what in scriptures are?

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 12 2010,00:26)

So maybe it's not a literal as you like to think.

I am beginning to wonder if your Jesus is literal.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 12 2010,00:26)

Maybe, it can be understood in light of other Scriptures to mean that Jesus' God has given Jesus acting authority for Him to fulfill His purposes.

Wishful thinking Mike! Jesus is not “King of Kings and Lord of Lords” by proxy Mike.

Jesus is not our “Only Owner or Master” by proxy Mike. Jesus is not our Savour by proxy Mike. All things were created by him and for him and not by proxy Mike. Jesus is not “God” by proxy Mike!

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 12 2010,00:26)

Maybe we can use the story of Joseph and the Pharaoh as an example of what is meant here. Did Joseph actually become the “being” of Pharaoh? Did Joseph have the right to de-throne the Pharaoh? Or is it understood that although Joseph had ALL power and authority, it didn't imply he was the Pharaoh or equal to him?

What do you think?

You can appeal to your analogy all you want Mike but it does not compare to Jesus who is the “Owner” and “Possessor” of all things. Joseph was not an heir to the throne, nor was he a Son to the Pharaoh, nor did he sit in the Pharaohs throne, nor was it said that Joseph “owned” Egypt, does it Mike?

Jesus Owns all things and sits in the Throne with the Father. Jesus is in very nature God just as his Father is God. You are in very nature human just as your Father is in very nature human. But God is “One Spirit” just as man is one flesh! Wake up Mike!

If by Jesus nothing came into existence that has come into existence, (including time space and matter) and he has all things, and by him all things consist, and all things are upheld by the word of his power, and all authority and power is subject to him, and he is the owner of all things, and he is subjecting all things unto himself, then by definition Jesus is equal to God, in fact the above implies Jesus is God.

Oh thats right the scriptures say he is God!

May 20, 2010 at 4:10 am#191302

mikeboll64

Blocked

Hi Wj,

Just answer this: When it says “all power and authority”, does it mean above Jehovah or not?

You said:

Quote

I do understand how your theology could lead you to that conclusion since you do not see the Father and Jesus as “One”.

I believe them to be one in the same way we will be one with them. And we will not be God Almighty, will we?

In every Scripture you quoted, it is clear that One who is the mightiest of the mighty – let's call Him the Almighty, since that's what the word means – has given things to another, who is NOT the Almighty, to make this other one more mighty than he was before, yet still not the Almighty. Am I wrong?

You said:

Quote

Wishful thinking Mike! Jesus is not “King of Kings and Lord of Lords” by proxy Mike.

Nor is Jehovah the “God of gods” by proxy. Jesus is one of the “gods” He is the God of. That is why, although being considered a god himself, Jesus still calls Jehovah “my God”. Am I wrong? Is our God not also Jesus' God?

You said:

Quote

If Jesus owns everything, then Jehovah owns nothing, right? Or could it be that Jesus' Father and God decided to share what he has with His Son?

1. Jesus is not an heir to God's throne either. He has his own.

2. Jesus IS a Son to God, but that right there should clear up your delusions. When in the history of existence were a father and a son the same being? It's ludicrous.

3. Jesus doesn't sit in Jehovah's throne by himself. He was GRANTED to sit there WITH his God. Granted by whom? The One who is greater than him.

4. Where does Scripture say that Jesus owns all things?

You said:

Quote

Jesus is in very nature God just as his Father is God. You are in very nature human just as your Father is in very nature human. But God is “One Spirit” just as man is one flesh! Wake up Mike!

That's what I keep thinking about you – Wake up! You are human just like Albert Einstein was human. Are you the same being as him? Are you equal in every way? God is spirit. Jesus was in the form of God – spirit. Then he came in the form of man. That's all it says. Anything else is just what you WANT to read into it. And if you want to say that Jesus is God because God is “One Spirit”, then you have to include all the other spirit creatures too. The four that worship at the throne day and night, the myriads of angels, etc.

You said:

Quote

No, no, no! If Jesus has, holds, created, and owns all things, then he is not EQUAL with God, he is greater. Is that the case? Answer my first question in this post, then we can start to move forward.

You said:

Quote

Oh thats right the scriptures say he is God!

Not only do they never say he is God Almighty – the only one who is God with a capital “g” – they list verse after verse clarifying that he is in fact NOT God Almighty, but a servant of Him. Jesus is the Son of God. The Son who came FROM his Father and God. The Son who tells us that our God is also his God. What is not crystal clear about this?

peace and love,
mike

June 12, 2010 at 2:33 am#195299

mikeboll64

Blocked

Hi WJ,

Just answer this: When it says “all power and authority”, does it mean above Jehovah or not?

Didn't want you to forget.

peace and love,
mike

June 30, 2010 at 8:39 pm#201058

Worshipping Jesus

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 11 2010,21:33)

Hi WJ,

Just answer this: When it says “all power and authority”, does it mean above Jehovah or not?

Didn't want you to forget.

peace and love,
mike

Mike

The answer is an obvious “NO”, because scriptures tell us Jesus is not above the Father nor beneath the Father but at his right hand!

This is another one of your ridiculous questions and in fact is just another way of rewording a question that has already been answered by me more than once.

Again, my answer is not enough so you think if you can reword the question that you might get a different answer.

So that you will not continue to accuse me of avoiding you I will give the answer that I already have here… (7th post down)

So as you can see I answered you and gave you plenty of scriptures that claim Jesus has “All authority and power” and possesses all things.

But instead of responding to the scriptures and my points once again you ask the ridiculous question again here… (8th post down)

So you still keep asking the same ridiculous question! So how about you answering a few questions…

How can Jesus be greater than the Father unless the Father gave him greater authority and power than he had which by the way is infinite?

Is there any thing greater than infinite?

How could Jesus be given more than the Father had?

The Father and Jesus share the same “Authority and Power” because the Father and Jesus are One!

So tell me how Jesus is less than the Father if he shares the same “Authority and Power” as the Father and “Posseses all things” like the Father?

Tell me how the scriptures I quote imply that Jesus is GREATER than the Father?

Your question is not based on the scriptures and is foolish, and I will not answer it again!

July 1, 2010 at 3:17 am#201133

mikeboll64

Blocked

Whoo Hoo! You FINALLY answered, bless your heart.

I asked: When it says “all power and authority”, does it mean above Jehovah or not?

You said:

Quote

The answer is an obvious “NO”, because scriptures tell us Jesus is not above the Father nor beneath the Father but at his right hand!

We'll get to the “right hand” and “beneath” things soon enough. But for now, if the “all” doesn't mean to the extreme that the Father has none, it is then a “relative” all, not an “absolute” all, right?

So, here's part two of the question:

If the “all” is relative and not absolute, how is it that you come to this following conclusion?

Quote

The Father and Jesus share the same “Authority and Power” because the Father and Jesus are One!

Why does it have to be the “same” power as the Father? You can't say it's just because they “are one”, for Jesus' hope was for us to be “one” with them. Unless you think the redeemed will also be God…….do you?

Question: IF WE KNOW THE “ALL” IS RELATIVE, NOT ABSOLUTE, THEN IS IT EVEN REMOTELY POSSIBLE THAT IT MEANS JEHOVAH HAS GIVEN JESUS “ALL POWER AND AUTHORITY” ALMOST UP TO, BUT NOT INCLUDING OR EQUAL TO, THE AMOUNT OF POWER AND AUTHORITY THAT JESUS' OWN GOD HAS?

Because that would fit nicely into the scriptures that have Jesus saying the Father is greater than him, and greater than all, and that God is the head of Christ, and it would explain why, even after Jesus was raised, he is still God's servant and calls Jehovah “my God”, etc.

Try as I might, it seems I will never get you to answer without miles and miles of unecessary words. So go to town with the million word post if you must, but in the process, could you do me the one simple solid of answering my bolded question with a yes or a no? Of course, if your answer is no, I trust you will have reasons as to why not.

peace and love,
mike

July 1, 2010 at 4:27 pm#201199

Worshipping Jesus

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 30 2010,22:17)

Whoo Hoo! You FINALLY answered, bless your heart.

I asked: When it says “all power and authority”, does it mean above Jehovah or not?

You said:

Quote

The answer is an obvious “NO”, because scriptures tell us Jesus is not above the Father nor beneath the Father but at his right hand!

So, here's part two of the question:

If the “all” is relative and not absolute, how is it that you come to this following conclusion?

Quote

The Father and Jesus share the same “Authority and Power” because the Father and Jesus are One!

peace and love,
mike

Mike

See what I mean! I answered you and now you completely ignore my questions and proceed with another one of your own.

Is this all about answering you and your points Mike or like others have said “why does everyone have to answer Mikes questions and Mike answer none?

You did it again!

July 2, 2010 at 12:18 am#201273

mikeboll64

Blocked

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 01 2010,07:39)

Mike

See what I mean! I answered you and now you completely ignore my questions and proceed with another one of your own.

Is this all about answering you and your points Mike or like others have said “why does everyone have to answer Mikes questions and Mike answer none?

You did it again!

Okay WJ,

You want all of your questions answered so we can move to the super long posts again? Fine. I'll answer every one, and then I expect an answer to mine.

You said:

Quote

How can Jesus be greater than the Father unless the Father gave him greater authority and power than he had which by the way is infinite?

Jesus can't be greater than the Father.

You said:

Quote

Is there any thing greater than infinite?

Not that I am aware of.

You said:

Quote

How could Jesus be given more than the Father had?

He couldn't.

You said:

Quote

The Father and Jesus share the same “Authority and Power” because the Father and Jesus are One!

Scriptures NEVER say they have the “same” power and authority. That is conjecture on your part.

You said:

Quote

So tell me how Jesus is less than the Father if he shares the same “Authority and Power” as the Father and “Posseses all things” like the Father?

Again, scripture never says “same”. And again, as you are slowly finding out, sometimes the word “all” is relative, not absolute.

You said:

Quote

Tell me how the scriptures I quote imply that Jesus is GREATER than the Father?

I don't know which scriptures you refer to, but it doesn't matter, because there are NONE that imply Jesus is greater than the Father.

The next step is to find out what proof you have that tells you that the “all” has to mean “equal to the Father”. So please answer my previous post.

Okay WJ, I asked ONE question. You answered that ONE question and asked SIX! From now on, IF you answer my ONE question, I will gladly, immediately and DIRECTLY answer ONE from you. If you want to follow up on the answers to your questions that I just gave, pick ONE and do so.

peace and love,
mike

ps, what Dennison said is “Why do we only have to answer Mike's questions?” You added the last part yourself.

July 2, 2010 at 5:47 pm#201370

Worshipping Jesus

Participant

Hi Mike

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 01 2010,07:39)

How can Jesus be greater than the Father unless the Father gave him greater authority and power than he had which by the way is infinite?

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 01 2010,19:18)

Jesus can't be greater than the Father.

Thanks Mike. So you admit then that Jesus could not be greater than the Father based on his statement that the Father has given him “All authority and Power”, which means your question…

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 11 2010,21:33)

Just answer this: When it says “all power and authority”, does it mean above Jehovah or not?

has no merit for the Father could not give Jesus more “Authority or Power” than he has.

Does Jesus claim that he has all “Authority and Power” mean he has less “Authority and Power” than the Father has?
WJ

Recent Replies

Forums

Forum Topics

POPULAR WRITINGS

Study Tools

ABOUT THIS SITE

Navigation

Mikeboll64 vrs worshippingjesus

Recent Replies

Forums

Forum Topics

POPULAR WRITINGS

Study Tools

ABOUT THIS SITE

TOPICS

Navigation

Log in with your credentials

Forgot your details?

Create Account