- This topic has 1,826 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Jan. 25 2011,05:51) Ed J said to WJ: Quote Hi WJ, The diversity in our understandings of Scripture should cause us to…
1) Look deeper into the Scriptures.
2) Reexamine and align our own beliefs to “the Word”!
3) Explain each and every point we wish to make using Scriptural backing!
Practice what you preach Ed!KJ
Hi Jack,Kindly show where I haven't.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote SF has already put me through the wringer with “non-answers” to this question
Prove that Mike, Prove it. Where did i NOT answer your question?
I have answered your questions repeatedly. This is annoying Mike.You know what im going to spend an hour of my life and waste it on all this post of points that u did not answer. pages 91,97,87 and the rest are recent.
Red Highlight: Questions that were ASKED DIRECTLY and WERE NOT ANSWERED!what happen MIke? why is it ok for you to IGNORE my questions and I HAVE TO answer yours?
Stop crying.
(and even though i didnt have to answer your questions, nor should i feel obligated too, I did anyways)
And the only reason im bringing this up, is because You keep on accusing me of not answering yuor questions, and giving you “nonanswers”Ridculous.
UNREFUTED POINTS:
And i think it sucks how you accuse us for “hiding” and “avoiding” questions.
I like how you avoided this logic where I said these points in my last post and i had some questions that were unanswerd in these posts as well.
Yet i really wasnt going to say anything, but I see in the “Mikester world” its ok for you to do whatever you want, and than hypocriticaly accuse us of doing the things you do.
Its getting annoyhing.Anyways as we all know in the terms of debate, when a point is not refuted its held valid.
Quote Actually thats Incorrect, Theos is used to present the identity or divinity of a God.NETnotes
Theos
1) a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities 2) the Godhead, trinity 2a) God the Father, the first person in the trinity 2b) Christ, the second person of the trinity 2c) Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity 3) spoken of the only and true God 3a) refers to the things of God 3b) his counsels, interests, things due to him 4) whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way 4a) God's representative or viceregent 4a1) of magistrates and judges
and Acts 17:23 Pauls mentions the Unknown “Theos” of the greeks. He wasnt talking about a Title, but about the Identity.Quote again you have a fallacy in yourlogic. We are talking about the IDENTITY of God, not the title. Your focusing so much that “elohim” is only a title.
Im saying that though satan was called “god of this age” he was never a god.
and though “ceaser was worshiped as a god” he was never god.
Though david, or moses, or deborah, or judges, or kings, or rulers were ever called “Elohim” or “God” they were never truely GODS BECAUSE they were not SUPREME, they were not PERFECT, NOR SINLESS, NOR CREATED THE HEAVENS OR THE EARTH, NOR THE CREATOR.This is why they are NOT GODS MIKE, and never were.
Its like trying to use a word in spanish, and depending on the way I use it, it would make sense to a spanish speaker. But if i were to translate it to english it woudnt make sense, so i would have to change a few things, here and there, to make sense of it in english.Quote This is why they were called Elohim mike.
If you can note, that The reference has deep meaning to it.
There is always a reason why.
Exodus 22:28
NETBible “You must not blaspheme God or curse the ruler of your people.
So who is who? Is God solely used as a Title or a Identity?
You have the notes right there as a fair explantions of why other humans were called “elohim” becuase they compeletly represented Gods civil authority here on earth by Jacobs rule.And it also makes sense beacuse Moses did the very same thing. He coudnt do it all by himself, so God commanded him to find judges and what not.
Quote But you know what? Jesus was not merely human, he resurrected, was Sinless, Perfect, Creator, and was always part of Eternity because he was never created. Quote Joshua 24:19
And Joshua said unto the people, Ye cannot serve the LORD: for he is an holy God; he is a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins.
1 Kings 18:24
And call ye on the name of your gods, and I will call on the name of the LORD: and the God that answereth by fire, let him be God. And all the people answered and said, It is well spoken.
Jeremiah 11:4
Which I commanded your fathers in the day that I brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, from the iron furnace, saying, Obey my voice, and do them, according to all which I command you: so shall ye be my people, and I will be your God:
What are these writers talking about?
Isnt the subject about A TRUE PERFECT SUPREME BEING?
Joshua 24:19- Is talking abuot a GOD, one that is worshipped is holy and a Jealous God.
1 Kings 18:24- Is Elijah contest with the Baal worshippers about the ONLY TRUE GOD.
Jeremiah 11:4- is talking about being a GOD to a People.Look point is that THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH “LEADERS”
but about the TRUE IDENTITY OF THE REAL GOD!
Romans 1- talks about how the people ended up worshipping false gods, and images that they themselves created!
God /gɒd/ Show Spelled
[god] Show IPA
–noun
1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe
This is the subject they are referring to. Because in reality those people worhshipped many false gods that didnt exist.
1 Kings 18 comeletly destroys your logic that “elohim” is only a title, but instead a Identity of a Supreme God. Why? because the contest was to prove the Identity of the TRUE “ELOHIM” “GOD” NOT LEADER.Quote Lol Mike.. 1 John 4:8
Which GOD is LOVE?Quote I feel like writing a letter to the President
“Dear President Barrack Obama,
Im sure it would boast your ego to hear that in many forums and by your number 1 fan “Mike” loves to use you as an example in comparison to “God Almighty”.
President Obama, dont you find this humorous?
No wonder they call you the AntiChrist, because people typically use you as in example in comparison to God.
Its not your fault, Im sure you never intended that.
From,
The D-linquent who clearly knows your not God”Quote Lol but “ELOHIM” even as a TITLE has REQUIREMENTS to FULLFILL AS A ROLE!
So You couldnt be ELOHIM if your merely a carnal human, nor imperfect.
Elohim of course has a definition that is interpreted by the Context.
So OF COURSE, it doesnt mean leader, but the Supreme being in reference.Quote Jesus spoke about how the Jews easily believed that men were called gods, yet scripture cannot be broken. But clearly psalms 82 says otherwise, that these gods die like men.
So clearly the jews were not gods.
Yet Jesus proved that he was by his next claims in John 10.
clearly of Paul says that Satan is a “god of this age” means he is not god. becuaes a god cannot be a god of an “age” or time period for its limiting and not perfect.
Therefore he didnt leave the term by it self, but defined it by stating satans limited potential to BLIND and DECIEVE others away from God which is permited by the ONE TRUE GOD.Mike your nonesense is in your logic, which is a fallacy.
The way we use the word God is “Common sense” which by common sense, we can understand that when the word God is used its talking about the ALMIGHTY GOD.You know what your confused? because you went to search, and search, and went all the way back the hebrew and in your own brain changed the concept and meaning of the word “God” to FIT your theology.
Quote LOL mike again, you tickling me. this is nonesense.
Mike, is Satan truely a Father in the first place? of course not!
Is Satan a Liar, of course he is. a Deceiver of course he is!
Lol mike HITLER WAS A DICTATOR AMOUNG OTHER DICTATORS!
SATAN IS NOT EQUAL TO GOD! lol He doenst stand a chance against God, he does what is permitted for him to do.lol your LOGIC fails again.
what is it with you and comparing God to a president.
This isnt a battle between good vs Evil, for God created it all. It goes according to his plan, if he wanted to squash the devil at this very moment, he could and has through Jesus Christ.
do you not understand this mike?
Satan is not a ruler of anything lol!
did you know that in revelations that “demons are realised from the deep to attak only the one who bares the mark of the beast” ?
Woww mike what a rulerrr………….
Lol Mike no NOOO NOOOOOOOO! dont tell me you included starwars! thats my favorite movie, dont ruin it!
first of all, God is the force if you want to compare reality with a ficitional movie.
Darthvador and Yoda are depended on the force, just as Satan is still depended on God's permission as he accuses and taunts us day and night.lol mike, your logic fails again.
Quote Mike you claim the “ONE TRUE GOD IS THE FATHER”
Technically speaking, one cannot be a Father without the Son.
so lets Say Jesus didnt exist, would the above text still be true?Quote Lol mike, we can only be one with God Through Jesus.
so we are depended on Jesus of course to have a relationship as God promised to be IN US.
OF course WE are not God almighty, but Jesus is =DQuote Lol Not at all. Totally wrong. The Represented Gods civil authority amoung the people but were never “sanctified and sent” were not “perfect” were not “sinless”.
therefore never was born with a virgin “birth”
soooooooooooooo they were nothing like Jesus, compeletly alien.Quote Lol not succeeded at all. Actually i mentioned MANY, and many times. how come you act like I havent mike? why do you keep claiming that we havent given scriptures to prove that JEsus is God, when thats all we have been doing?
ARe yuo insane man?Quote You know mike,
Every word is defined by its context, in general. Thats why words have secondary meanings FYI.
God cant be compared to a King just like a Father is not like King, they all have thier requirements.
Of course melek doesnt begin to mean “God” because Melek and God have different requirements to fullfilll the role.Quote more netnotes on Genesis 1:1 on Elohim.
2 sn God. This frequently used Hebrew name for God (אֱלֹהִים,’elohim ) is a plural form. When it refers to the one true God, the singular verb is normally used, as here. The plural form indicates majesty; the name stresses God’s sovereignty and incomparability – he is the “God of gods.”Quote Your Example cannot be Compared to God. Its like saying “is George washington a God?”, of course NOT. Its that simple and anyone can tell you that. However you can go to the webster dictionary and find out that God means “Supreme Being” if it comes to that. Again this is a Identity that is defined by the Context.
The meaning of words are always defined by their context.
If I say “Man the president of the USA is out of control for sending troops home from Iraq”
There are alot of Presidents Mike, yet with common sense you will realize that the reference is only about ONE. and how is that proven? BY character, Ethics, and works we realize who we are talking about.
If I say im the President of the USA, that cannot be true.
Just as Pharaoh claims to be the “Bright and mourning star” thats also NOT true at all.
IDENTITY Mike.Here is a good example.
Mike means- Name: Mike
Gender:Boy
Origin:Hebrew
Meaning:Who is like God?
Origin:English Meaning: Short form of Michael
Pronunciation: (MIEK) [Guide]
Form of: Michael
http://babynamesworld.parentsconnect.com/meaning_of_Mike.html
Your name means “Who is like God?”
So should I say when i refer to Mike i only refer to the definition or the Identity, or the Person, who is You.
Context defines everything.Quote We never claimed that “calling Jesus by this title does not, in and of itslef, teach us that Jesus is God Almighty”
We claimed, the reason WHY he is called “God” is the reason why the scripture teachs that Jesus is God Almighty.
By his Works, Ethics, and Character. The CONTEXT proves this.Quote lol… Mike… God of gods,
Daniel 2:47
The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret.In the Eyes of the King other “Supreme beings” existed in his polytheism, but he realized that the God of Daniel was above all of them.
so he is the God above the supposed Gods.
CONTEXT MIKE CONTEXT.how about when the Hebrews worshipped a “golden Calf” as a God? was that a leader/judge/ruler?
Exodus 32:4
And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
lol MIKE, CONTEXT! they were talking about a FALSE GOD, that they thought was real.
We know its false because of Gods law, and knowing who He is.Mike admit defeat already.
your defeating yourself with your nonesense.Quote Context provides that in Exodus these people lived in a world where they believed in many “Supreme Gods' that were false, such as the CALF, and the Egyptian gods of Ra, and etc.
But in the plagues, God smote all there “so called” gods.
because their gods were represented by natural things, that belonged to the ONE True God to begin with.Consider 14Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the LORD's thy God, the earth also, with all that therein is.
What do the “other gods” have than?
so its pretty easy to determine that God is simply the God of all things.Quote Thats not proof at all mike because we are using the same source that DOESNT agree with you in the first place.
So how is it apprantly fair that its ok for you to use Netnotes coviently as you see fit and when we start using netnotes, you just “reject” it because you “think” it shouldnt be that way? Your source made a mistake?
So why should i even debate against your source in the first place?dont i also have the Right to say “Well Netnotes has it wrong it shoud be defined as a 'Supreme God' so therefore I Reject leader or judge as the definition?
I mean if you can do that, than i ALSO can do the same, and we are just stuck in the same line of reasoning.
This is what i see as UNFAIR.
You are asking us to accept your claims becasue “in the words of the scholars who have tirelessly studied those scriptures and have defined the Hebrew and Greek words for us.” and “this info is from Biblical scholars.” Yet in the same breath you deny the Secondary and Eqaul a,b,c,d,e definitons to the primary definitions of Elohim.Thats unfair. I can also say, why cannt you accept “God” as a definitinon for “Elohim” if this info is form Biblical Scholars who tirelessly studied those scriptures and have defined Hebrew and Greek for us?
Do you see the problem we are having here?
Quote Mike, first off Elohim is used to present a “Surpeme being”
and second It always depends of the Context to prove that one is FACT TRUELY THE SUPREME BEING.So NO, being called Elohim without proving that you actually are doesnt in fact make you God almighty.
So if i call you Elohim for example, You are not a Supreme being, and though other people would worship you as a Supreme being, the fact is that you are not, regardless of what people believe.
So though you are called a God, doesnt mean you really are one.So there is only ONE TRUE GOD, which is defined by his
works, ethics and character.
Which is why we are using the CONTEXT to prove that Jesus is called God is being used correctly.
And we already gave our reasons why.
So YES being called “Elohim” can mean in fact that you are God Almigthy because you fullfill the role of what Makes a True God.So if you Render Elohim as just a Title, than the person in question HAS TO fullfill the ROLE.
BUT thats not always the case in scripture, because God is mentioned as “God” many times just like Genesis1:1 as a particular individual, but not as a title.
So Context defines the Usage of Elohim.
In all languages the “Context clues” defines the word and how its applied.
We learned this in 3rd grade Mike, try to catch up.Quote Quote
Oh, and he has the other “rational” claim that calling someone “MY God” doesn't imply inferiority in any way. IN WHAT WORLD IS THAT?But YOU dont even know what that means lol.
Dont you believe that Elohim, theos means “leader”
jokes on you kid.Quote Lol, but you dont even know what that MEANS?
If we cant AGREE in what Elohim means, how are you sure that we even begin to agree what is meant by the SON or FATHER.
You have said many times that God can do anything and that we cant equate him to us.
But here we go again, how are you so SURE that being called the “Son” makes Jesus a LITERAL Son as much as a human father has a son?How come you dont argue against Jesus being the “SON OF MAN”?
Is Jesus literally a Son of Man? what MAN was Jesus a Son too by blood?
Was Jesus literally the Son of Joshua?
To what Man is Jesus the Son too?Jesus said himself, if you see him, you see the FAther.
Yet we know that scriptures says that no one has seen God at any time.
So Jesus is that EXPRESSED IMAGE, the knowable of the Father.
Its that simple.Quote Mike,
I remember I quoted some verses and such.
do i really have to go back and bring back the whole point all over again?
I used the first 3 chapters as Context.Define God Almighty?
dont you mean Leader Almighty? im seriously asking.Are you asking if the leader almighty has a leader?
or a Supreme being?Quote 2. You asked me why would God of his God need to inherit anything? correct?
I asked you, Why would God need or depend on anyone to create?
So couldnt I also say “Because he chose too”
lol.
First of all you would have to prove that Jesus did not create the earth.
And according to
who did Jesus Create?
Does the OT ever say that Jesus participated in the Creation?
Does the OT specficaly state that God created the heavens and earth- YEs
Soooooooooo put two and two togethor mike and its easy to understand that the NT writers were emphasising that Jesus is the Creator of all things.It does so what?
3. Prove that. Ill use collosians 1, hebrew 1, and John 1, as my support.
all life is sustained by him.Quote Its not Diverting at all, If you can say that God used Jesus to create the world, when he really didnt have to is beacuse he simply chose to. Than why cant i use the same arguement?
I already proved that he did create.
What Did Jesus Do in the beginning Mike?Quote Oh Very True, JA did use that example.
Right But what does that MEAN Mike,
Dude lets get this clear, I admit that no where in the OT (correct me if im wrong) states that the “Son” had any participation in beginning of all Creation.
Its only the NT writers of paint that picture.So what did JEsus Do exactly?
Quote 2. “logical human understanding upside down” How can you compared God to what a Human is?
Wasnt Jesus Birth totally humanistic or even normal?Quote Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 22 2011,20:16)
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 22 2011,16:53)
1. So what does the Father mean to you?
2. and what does the Son mean to you?
3. and what does God mean to you?1. One who has brought forth offspring.
2. One who has been brought forth by his father.
3. The Almighty Creator of heaven and earth…………not to be confused with “elohim”, which does NOT necessarily mean that.
mike
Ok can you do this again in reference to God and Jesus, because thats reffering to Humans.
like THE FATHER and THE SON. and THE GOD
Quote The Tabernacle had God fullness inside also right? Quote Quote
And Moses also did what was “HUMANLY impossible”. And he was called “God”. And God gave him powers to perform miracles, too. God even gave him his own prophet, Aaron.Soooo Moses stopped sinnning all on his own, was also perfect and also gave up his life to save everyone from sin?
Quote So now what? Are we right back to the drawing board? What you attempt to now do with “theos” is the same thing you all used to do with “elohim”. But Jesus used the word “theos” to describe MEN. Yet you now claim every mention of “theos” refers to the “SUPREME BEING”? Depending on context mike, ACtually the Psalsm 82 gave that picture and Jesus quoted it, butttt we know that they die like fallen princes soooooo they are obviously not Gods at all.
Probably the idea of it, just like the molten calf.Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Jan. 24 2011,17:00) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 25 2011,08:43) Quote (942767 @ Jan. 24 2011,15:21) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 25 2011,06:38) Quote (942767 @ Jan. 24 2011,12:13) Hi WJ: Also, your source states:
Quote It was considered by some of the Church Fathers as part of the New Testament[3] but rejected as spurious or non-canonical by others,[4] eventually not accepted into the New Testament canon. The mode of baptism does not agree with how the Apostles baptized, does it?
Love in Christ,
Marty
MartyIt says the “Didache” was rejected as part of the Canon, but it doesn't say Mattew 28:19 was rejected. I was only showing this because it is believed to date back to the first century and that it agrees with every extant manuscript which is thousands.
They obviously didn't reject the Didache because of the “Tripart formula”.
WJ
Hi WJ:Were the Apostles then disobedient to Jesus command to baptize in Tri-formula? The only baptized in the name of Jesus.
You pointed to the fact that the Didache included the Tri-forumula for baptism, but if is not canon, then what does that prove.
I have read the Didache, and although it has been a long time since I read it, I did not believe then or now that it was inspired by God.
I will have to get back to you on your discussion of 1 Corinthians 2:7-13.
Love in Christ,
Marty
MartyThe Apostles understood that in Matt 28:18 Jesus was given all authority and power. Therfore it was in his name they Baptised. And there is no other name under heaven whereby men must be saved.
As you know Hebrew names defined the nature and the character of the person that held it.
Jesus said he came in the Fathers name but did he ever speak it that we know of?
Yeshua means “YHVH” is salvation.
The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit shared the singular name and shared all the attributes and characteristics of that one name.
Since all the authority and power was in Jesus it stands to reason that when they baptised in the name of Jesus they were fulfilling the commission.
WJ
It doesn't work Keith. Jesus commanded them to teach all nations baptizing them UNTO the Tri-une name. Even Albert Barnes says that the expression does not mean “in the authority of.”Water baptism is not at all in view in the mandate. They were to baptize, UNTO meaning to make people followers of the Tri-une name. Trintiarians can't win if it is about water baptism.
Jack
JackWhy can't Trinitarians win? It is scripture isn't it?
If all authority and power and all the fullness of deity resides in the name Jesus then they were fulfilling the great commission. Everything was done in the name of Jesus. The name Jesus the name above all names, fully represented the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Hebrew names defined attributes and character didn't they?
Blessings WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 24 2011,18:16) Keith and Marty, Shouldn't this Matt 28:19 discussion be on the JA vs WJ thread?
mike
MkeTrue. It is brought up because Marty believes it is a corrupt passage.
Blessings WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 24 2011,18:13) Or maybe you could show me any occasion in the history of mankind where a representation OF something or someone actually WAS that something or someone?
Hi MikeOnce again, that is the problem isn't it Mike. You don't have any example where someone can be the “exact representation” of someone else. Every humans DNA is different yet so close. But Paul says Jesus is the “Exact representation “of an infinite God.
You don't get it Mike. The language that Jesus is the “exact representation” of the infinite God could only mean that he is God.
The fact that Paul also says Jesus is “in very nature God” and that he is the “image of the invisible God” or “the visible image of God” who is infinite is proof that Jesus is in every way God like the Father.
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 26 2011,02:06) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 24 2011,18:16) Keith and Marty, Shouldn't this Matt 28:19 discussion be on the JA vs WJ thread?
mike
MkeTrue. It is brought up because Marty believes it is a corrupt passage.
Blessings WJ
Hi Mike and WJ:There was some discussion of the Trinity on this thread and Matthew 28:19 is the primary doctrine that Trinitarians use to support the Trinity, but I entered into the discussion when Francis used the term “Orthodox” Christianity for the church that teaches this doctrine.
Nevertheless, where would you like to continue this discussion brother Keith?
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (942767 @ Jan. 25 2011,10:36) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 26 2011,02:06) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 24 2011,18:16) Keith and Marty, Shouldn't this Matt 28:19 discussion be on the JA vs WJ thread?
mike
MkeTrue. It is brought up because Marty believes it is a corrupt passage.
Blessings WJ
Hi Mike and WJ:There was some discussion of the Trinity on this thread and Matthew 28:19 is the primary doctrine that Trinitarians use to support the Trinity, but I entered into the discussion when Francis used the term “Orthodox” Christianity for the church that teaches this doctrine.
Nevertheless, where would you like to continue this discussion brother Keith?
Love in Christ,
Marty
MartyWhat are we going to discuss? I have said all I can say.
Either you show proof the text is corrupt or live with the fact that you are teaching corruption in the Bible.
Blessings Keith
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 26 2011,03:17) Quote (942767 @ Jan. 25 2011,10:36) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 26 2011,02:06) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 24 2011,18:16) Keith and Marty, Shouldn't this Matt 28:19 discussion be on the JA vs WJ thread?
mike
MkeTrue. It is brought up because Marty believes it is a corrupt passage.
Blessings WJ
Hi Mike and WJ:There was some discussion of the Trinity on this thread and Matthew 28:19 is the primary doctrine that Trinitarians use to support the Trinity, but I entered into the discussion when Francis used the term “Orthodox” Christianity for the church that teaches this doctrine.
Nevertheless, where would you like to continue this discussion brother Keith?
Love in Christ,
Marty
MartyWhat are we going to discuss? I have said all I can say.
Either you show proof the text is corrupt or live with the fact that you are teaching corruption in the Bible.
Blessings Keith
Hi Bother:The Holy Spirit is not a “Third person” of a Tri-une God, but is the Spirit of God my Father, and that is proof that the scripture that states to baptize in the Tri-une formula is not something that Jesus said. He knows that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God our Father even if you do not.
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (942767 @ Jan. 25 2011,12:09) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 26 2011,03:17) Quote (942767 @ Jan. 25 2011,10:36) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 26 2011,02:06) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 24 2011,18:16) Keith and Marty, Shouldn't this Matt 28:19 discussion be on the JA vs WJ thread?
mike
MkeTrue. It is brought up because Marty believes it is a corrupt passage.
Blessings WJ
Hi Mike and WJ:There was some discussion of the Trinity on this thread and Matthew 28:19 is the primary doctrine that Trinitarians use to support the Trinity, but I entered into the discussion when Francis used the term “Orthodox” Christianity for the church that teaches this doctrine.
Nevertheless, where would you like to continue this discussion brother Keith?
Love in Christ,
Marty
MartyWhat are we going to discuss? I have said all I can say.
Either you show proof the text is corrupt or live with the fact that you are teaching corruption in the Bible.
Blessings Keith
Hi Bother:The Holy Spirit is not a “Third person” of a Tri-une God, but is the Spirit of God my Father, and that is proof that the scripture that states to baptize in the Tri-une formula is not something that Jesus said. He knows that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God our Father even if you do not.
Love in Christ,
Marty
{{{{{Shaking Head}}}}}WJ
Hi All
When I read the folowing post to Mike from Francis all I could do was smile.
[begin quote]
“Hello Mike…
Quote
Hi Francis,After wading through about a million words explaining to me how DIRECT you are, your answer to my ONE SINGLE (NOT TWO) QUESTION is, in essence:
Yes Mike, there ARE those in scripture referred to as “elohim” who are neither God Almighty nor a “false god”.
It took a million words to demonstrate to you how direct I was because it was abundantly clear that my direct answers in the past weren't enough. So I had no choice but to go step by step… and show every direct answer I had given you to show how direct my answers were all the time. As I said before, you don't appear to be able to see a direct answer, at least not in the past as my previous post demonstrates.
So if it took a million words for you to finally see the light… then it was worth it because you finally can see now. At least for now. We'll see how well you do in the future.
Quote Thank you for your DIRECT answer. Which one are you thanking me for? I've given you over 15 in my previous posts.
Quote Now you know why I ask and ask. Now you know why I had to use a million words… because you finally saw my direct answer. I had to use a million words to show you that I given you a direct answer over 15 times in the past. It was a chore, but it appears that it might have paid off finally.
Quote It's because I don't want a million words to answer a question that ONLY requires a “YES” or a “NO”. First of all, I gave you a direct answer over 15 times in the past. That wasn't enough for you. So a million words WERE NECESSARY in your case, because I kept giving you the same information and answer over and over.
Secondly, your first question I did answer with a direct yes… after I had to show you that I had answered that question directly over 15 times in the past. And as for your second question, it was a bit confusing… and still is.
Sometimes a question cannot logically be answered with a simple yes or no if you are truly interested in the truth. Sometimes a simple yes or no… if given with no clarification/elaboration/context/etc will be misleading. And we both don't want to be misleading.
Anyone who uses languages a lot, understand this. There are questions which are considered to be loaded or complex and so must be reframed with the inherent flaws in the question pointed out.
That's exactly what I did with your second question. It was confusing the way you asked it, and so I pointed out the inherent flaw in it.
The exact same thing happend to the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Madeleine Albright in an interview she did on 60 minutes. It happens often as it did with your question.
Here is a good example from logic… “Do you still beat your wife?” See how a simple direct answer of a “Yes or no” could be misleading?
That was what your second question was. It was confusing the way you framed it. I pointed it out to you and gave you a yes answer with a clarification.
Your first answer I answered directly over 15 times in the past. And in my last post… I FIRST showed all the occurences where I did that, before answereing it the 17 time directly.
CONCLUSION: To be intellectualy honest and precise, it required a million words for you to see the answer finally.”
[end quote]
Blessings WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 26 2011,04:28) Quote (942767 @ Jan. 25 2011,12:09) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 26 2011,03:17) Quote (942767 @ Jan. 25 2011,10:36) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 26 2011,02:06) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 24 2011,18:16) Keith and Marty, Shouldn't this Matt 28:19 discussion be on the JA vs WJ thread?
mike
MkeTrue. It is brought up because Marty believes it is a corrupt passage.
Blessings WJ
Hi Mike and WJ:There was some discussion of the Trinity on this thread and Matthew 28:19 is the primary doctrine that Trinitarians use to support the Trinity, but I entered into the discussion when Francis used the term “Orthodox” Christianity for the church that teaches this doctrine.
Nevertheless, where would you like to continue this discussion brother Keith?
Love in Christ,
Marty
MartyWhat are we going to discuss? I have said all I can say.
Either you show proof the text is corrupt or live with the fact that you are teaching corruption in the Bible.
Blessings Keith
Hi Bother:The Holy Spirit is not a “Third person” of a Tri-une God, but is the Spirit of God my Father, and that is proof that the scripture that states to baptize in the Tri-une formula is not something that Jesus said. He knows that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God our Father even if you do not.
Love in Christ,
Marty
{{{{{Shaking Head}}}}}WJ
WJ: Your shaking your head does not alter the facts. The scriptures are clear that the Holy Ghost is God's Spirit.Praying that God will give you revelation knowledge of this truth.
Love in Christ,
MartyMarty:
Quote Your shaking your head does not alter the facts.
Marty,Until you cough up a manuscript that shows that the tri-une formula is corrupt what you say is THEORY and not 'fact' at all.
Quote Praying that God will give you revelation knowledge of this truth.
Are you still praying for God to cause your imaginary corrupt manuscript to be discovered?KJ
Hi Jack and WJ:
Quote Matthew 1:18-20 (King James Version) 18Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
19Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.
20But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
Now then according to the “Trinity doctrine” this would read and the “Third Person” of a Tri-une God overshadowed Mary and that which was conceived in her womb is of the “Third Person” of a Tri-une God. Isn't that what you are saying?
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (942767 @ Jan. 25 2011,13:15) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 26 2011,04:28) Quote (942767 @ Jan. 25 2011,12:09) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 26 2011,03:17) Quote (942767 @ Jan. 25 2011,10:36) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 26 2011,02:06) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 24 2011,18:16) Keith and Marty, Shouldn't this Matt 28:19 discussion be on the JA vs WJ thread?
mike
MkeTrue. It is brought up because Marty believes it is a corrupt passage.
Blessings WJ
Hi Mike and WJ:There was some discussion of the Trinity on this thread and Matthew 28:19 is the primary doctrine that Trinitarians use to support the Trinity, but I entered into the discussion when Francis used the term “Orthodox” Christianity for the church that teaches this doctrine.
Nevertheless, where would you like to continue this discussion brother Keith?
Love in Christ,
Marty
MartyWhat are we going to discuss? I have said all I can say.
Either you show proof the text is corrupt or live with the fact that you are teaching corruption in the Bible.
Blessings Keith
Hi Bother:The Holy Spirit is not a “Third person” of a Tri-une God, but is the Spirit of God my Father, and that is proof that the scripture that states to baptize in the Tri-une formula is not something that Jesus said. He knows that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God our Father even if you do not.
Love in Christ,
Marty
{{{{{Shaking Head}}}}}WJ
WJ: Your shaking your head does not alter the facts. The scriptures are clear that the Holy Ghost is God's Spirit.Praying that God will give you revelation knowledge of this truth.
Love in Christ,
Marty
MartyMy head is shaking because you have not answered me concerning my previous post on the Holy Spirit and in fact you insist on claiming the Holy Spirit is the Father yet he is not a person when scriptures clearly stated the “the Lord is that Spirit”. Well who is the Lord if he is not a person?
I am shaking my head because there are many scriptures that says the Father and the Holy Spirit are distinct for instance when the Father says and Jesus says that they will “send” the Holy Spirit and that “he” will come to us.
I am shaking my head because you believe Matt 28:19 is corrupt with no proof, except your claim that it is and in fact it is only because of your doctrine, though you claim your doctrine is based on the scriptures.
Ha Ha Marty. Like I said you lose when you claim they are corrupt because I can say whatever you think is scripture is corrupt. I can say that the Arians changed the text and it should read…
“And this is life eternal, that they might know thee Father and Jesus Christ the only true God, whom thou hast sent” John 17:3
…because the scriptures say Jesus is God.
I am praying that God will open your eyes to see that the Holy Spirit is a person and not an “it” sent by the Father and Jesus.
An “it” doesn't live in true believers Marty, God lives in them and God is a Spirit and a sentient being or a person.
Why do you think the Bible calls our bodys the “Temple of the Holy Spirit”? Does an “it” have a “Temple”?
WJ
Quote (942767 @ Jan. 25 2011,13:43) Hi Jack and WJ: Quote Matthew 1:18-20 (King James Version) 18Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
19Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.
20But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
Now then according to the “Trinity doctrine” this would read and the “Third Person” of a Tri-une God overshadowed Mary and that which was conceived in her womb is of the “Third Person” of a Tri-une God. Isn't that what you are saying?
Love in Christ,
Marty
NoThats not what we are saying at all.
The conception of Mary is not at all like a human conception is it Marty? But we find the details in the scriptures that claim The Word that was with God and was God came in the likeness of sinfull flesh. John 1:1 – Phil 2:6-8.
You however do not believe that God can dwell in a flesh Temple of his own. Though you claim that God is in you.
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 26 2011,05:51) Quote (942767 @ Jan. 25 2011,13:43) Hi Jack and WJ: Quote Matthew 1:18-20 (King James Version) 18Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
19Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.
20But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
Now then according to the “Trinity doctrine” this would read and the “Third Person” of a Tri-une God overshadowed Mary and that which was conceived in her womb is of the “Third Person” of a Tri-une God. Isn't that what you are saying?
Love in Christ,
Marty
NoThats not what we are saying at all.
The conception of Mary is not at all like a human conception is it Marty? But we find the details in the scriptures that claim The Word that was with God and was God came in the likeness of sinfull flesh. John 1:1 – Phil 2:6-8.
You however do not believe that God can dwell in a flesh Temple of his own. Though you claim that God is in you.
WJ
WJ:You say no, to what I asked above, but think about it and see if this is not exactly what “Trinitarians” are professing.
God dwells within me by His Spirit. How does He dwell within you?
The Spirit of God overshadowed Mary and she conceived and brought for the Son of the Living God, and he, Jesus, and I call Him Father.
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (942767 @ Jan. 25 2011,14:19) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 26 2011,05:51) Quote (942767 @ Jan. 25 2011,13:43) Hi Jack and WJ: Quote Matthew 1:18-20 (King James Version) 18Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
19Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.
20But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
Now then according to the “Trinity doctrine” this would read and the “Third Person” of a Tri-une God overshadowed Mary and that which was conceived in her womb is of the “Third Person” of a Tri-une God. Isn't that what you are saying?
Love in Christ,
Marty
NoThats not what we are saying at all.
The conception of Mary is not at all like a human conception is it Marty? But we find the details in the scriptures that claim The Word that was with God and was God came in the likeness of sinfull flesh. John 1:1 – Phil 2:6-8.
You however do not believe that God can dwell in a flesh Temple of his own. Though you claim that God is in you.
WJ
WJ:You say no, to what I asked above, but think about it and see if this is not exactly what “Trinitarians” are professing.
God dwells within me by His Spirit. How does He dwell within you?
The Spirit of God overshadowed Mary and she conceived and brought for the Son of the Living God, and he, Jesus, and I call Him Father.
Love in Christ,
Marty
MartyThink about what you are saying. Did Mary concieve by an “it”? Is the Holy Spirit the Father of Jesus?
Of course not, so there is more to Mary's conception than meets the eye isn't there?
WJ
Quote (942767 @ Jan. 25 2011,14:19) God dwells within me by His Spirit. How does He dwell within you?
MartyDoes God who is a Spirit need an “it” to dwell in you? Is the God in you a person?
WJ
Francis said to Mike:
Quote You will use NETNotes when it suits you, but you will then turn around and reject or ignore or say that NETNotes are wrong, when you don't like what NETNotes says.
Brother Francis is catching on to Mike's flip flopping.
Francis said to Mike:
Quote 5)… Wikipedia says that “The Right Hand of God” (Dextera Domini in Latin) or God's Right Hand may refer to the Hand of God often referred to in the Bible and common speech as a metaphor for the omnipotence of the Jewish and Christian DEITY… This plainly shows that you have no good logical reason to pigeon hole Jesus into your above idea that Jesus is not equal to God because he is sitting at the right hand of God.
Moreover, the Hebrew “adonay” which refers to God alone is used in verse 5. David said, “My Adonay (God) at your right hand shall execute judgment….”Francis' source that the expression 'right hand' may refer to the Jewish and Christian DEITY is helpful.
Roo
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
