- This topic has 1,826 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Mike
Address the point I made about Jesus calling anyone that said they were the Christ that they were “false Christ”.
Adress the point that I originally made that the NT or the Forefathers do not refer to anyone but Jesus as the Christ.
“ Messiah is Jesus and Only Jesus Mike!
We don't give a flip what the Old Covenant says about “messiahs”.
Who does the New Covenant say “The Christ” is?
WJ
Hi Keith,
What we have here is a failure to communicate.
You seem to be purposely avoiding a DIRECT answer to my question………….why?
This is a part of the Athanasius quote that YOU underlined:
And yet they are not three Gods, but one God
Keith, I know that YOU, like Athanasius, believe that we have only ONE GOD.
IS JESUS THE SON OF THAT ONE GOD LIKE PETER SAID? YES or NO?
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 28 2011,17:15)
Address the point I made about Jesus calling anyone that said they were the Christ that they were “false Christ”.
Give me the scripture that mentions a “false christ”.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 28 2011,17:15)
Adress the point that I originally made that the NT or the Forefathers do not refer to anyone but Jesus as the Christ.
Keith, the Written Word of God consists of both the OT and the NT. You can't ask me to discuss only part of the scriptures just because you think you'll have a better chance of making your point using only the NT. (Remember our proskuneo discussion?)This is what you said to me:
Quote Mike Listen real close.
There is only One “Christos” in scripture.
There is only One “Messiah” spoken of in scripture.
Unless you can show me a verse that says “Christ” (Christos) is ascribed to any other then you are just blowing in the wind.
And that is the point I addressed. And as it turns out, YOUR STATEMENTS WERE INACCURATE and I showed you many verses. Please be man enough to acknowledge this fact instead of trying to “narrow the search” down to only half of the Holy Word to save face.And after you've acknowledged that “Mr Mike the almigthy credential-less scholar” was actually correct, maybe you could address the fact that NONE of the messiahs mentioned in the scripture were the God who anointed them, but instead were ALL servants OF that God.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 28 2011,17:15)
We don't give a flip what the Old Covenant says about “messiahs”.
Did you mean to say “Old Testament”? I'm not sure what you're saying here, but I imagine it's out of anger that you're saying it. Didn't the Old Covenant contain the promise of the coming Messiah Jesus?Oh, and Keith, you forgot to answer this:
Keith, does Isaiah 45:1 refer to Cyrus as Jehovah's messiah? YES or NO?
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 28 2011,08:55) The Throne of David was “Gods Throne” in the earth and the scritpures says Jesus would rule in that Throne Forever and of his dominion there would be no end. Its now the Throne of Jesus becasue he is the succeeding King of Kings and all things are in his hands.
Keith,I'm getting confused here. Will Jesus rule forever from “the throne of David”, 'the throne of Jesus” or “the throne of God”?
If you say “the throne of David”, then that is scriptural and I agree with you.
If you say “the throne of Jesus”, then I would also agree, knowing that Jesus is also referred to by God as “my servant David”. So “David/Jesus”, mean the same thing as far as I'm concerned, because both of those names refer to God's anointed one ruling from the throne of God's anointed one.
But if you say, “the throne of God”, then I have some questions for you:
1. How is it that those of US who overcome will be able to sit on the throne of God Himself?
2. Why does Jesus word it in such a way as to imply TWO thrones – one belonging to his God, which he was granted to sit on, and one belonging to himself, which he will grant some of us to sit on?
3. Should we call the throne that God sits on the “throne of David”, or the “throne of God” – since you say they are the same throne?
4. Should we start calling our God “David”?
5. Who is the one about whom God says, “and my servant David will be their Prince, and I will be their God”?
mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Feb. 28 2011,13:26) SF said: Quote There is only one Christ, who died for all our sins.
Exactly! Mike is just playing his dumb word games so he can avoid facing the truth.KJ
And what truth is that, Jack? The truth that Jesus is a messiah of God, which mean his God anointed him?I accept that truth. Do you accept the truth that not one of the messiahs mentioned in the scriptures are the God who anointed them?
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 23 2011,06:17) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 22 2011,13:56) Because for now, I got what I wanted. You have admitted that being called “elohim” is not proof in and of itself.
MikeI will address your other points later but for now let it be know to all that you can never claim that you always answer our questions and we never answer yours.
Why did you avoid my question and not answer again Mike?
When Jesus is referred to as “elohim” or “theos” does it absolutely and positively mean he is “Not” God Almighty?
If so please explain how you know this.
OK I didn't see your post above so good for you Mike.
So now you can't say that when the scriptures refer to Jesus as God that he abslolutely is not God Almighty!
So now you have to prove how he isn't God Almighty since he is the “Supreme Ruler” having all authority and power of an infinite God and shares all the attributes and characteristics of God Almigthy! How are you going to do that Mike?
WJ
Is this the post you are looking for?Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 01 2011,10:39) IS JESUS THE SON OF THAT ONE GOD LIKE PETER SAID? YES or NO? mike
I wonder if WJ can admit the truth in this matter?Personally speaking, my attitude is to answer questions truthfully because if it exposes contradiction in my thinking, then I would want to know about that.
I get the feeling WJ, you think hard about whether answering the truth infringes on something you said earlier, and if so, you ignore the question.
Let me tell you that it is much easier to be up front and honest all the time regardless of the repercussions.
Hi t8,
Good post and a good policy to follow. I too, would like to know if I'm mistaken, and have adjusted my understanding many times since joining HN after being shown scriptures that contradicted my understanding.
I did find the post David was looking for, thanks. It's the 6th post on page 118 of this thread.
And WJ finally DID answer the question about Jesus being the Son of the ONE BEING we know as God. I posted his “YES” answer in my “refuted” thread. It's sad that I had to go back and forth with him for a month to get that simple “YES” answer though.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 01 2011,10:39) And yet they are not three Gods, but one God
Interesting statement that.It's as if the creed leads people to assume that there are 3 Gods, and then corrects that assumption with enforcing the unavoidable truth that there is one God, but gives no explanation as to why or how 3 are 1.
No wonder confusion is the fruit.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 23 2011,04:32) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 22 2011,00:07) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 22 2011,05:31) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 20 2011,19:31) Are there elohim mentioned in scripture who are neither “God Almighty” nor “false gods”?
MikeYes
Thanks Keith,But I already have your answer. You are the one who has HONESTLY admitted the only thing I ever set out to prove so far. I am hoping for D and Francis and Jack to follow your lead.
THEN…………you may continue to persuade me as to WHY when Jesus was referred to as “elohim”, it ABSOLUTELY AND POSITIVELY MUST HAVE MEANT HE WAS GOD ALMIGHTY………..one scriptural point at a time.
Hi MikeNo, since the word is also used to identify the “One True God” then you have to prove to us why Jesus is “Not” God Almighty when the scriptures call him God.
Since I am honest enough to give you the answer to your question then why don't you answer mine…
When Jesus is referred to as “elohim” or “theos” does it absolutely and positively mean he is “Not” God Almighty?
If so please explain how you know this.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 22 2011,00:07) If I was debating with YOU, we would have moved on by now, because you alone are willing to admit what the others haven't so far been willing to acknowledge.
No you wouldn't Mike because I wouldn't let you get away without proving first why Jesus is not “God Almighty” in context when the scriptures call him God.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 22 2011,00:07) My whole point thus far is this: If there are others called elohim who are neither God Almighty nor false gods, then JUST being called “elohim” is not proof of being God Almighty. You need more. And I'm willing to hear out and discuss all the “more” that you are willing to dispense.
Isn't that what Francis, D, and Jack and I have been saying but you will not let Francis discuss context as to why “God” in Hebrews 1:8 is God.Why do you keep beating this dead horse?
Everyone not just I are saying that just because Jesus is called God does not mean he is God.
We have been telling you all along it is all about context yet you keep saying that God (elohim or theos) only means ruler, or leader which defies the definition given for them depending on its context.
Go ahead Mike in every case where YHWH is called “elohiim or god” insert the word leader and see if it works and defines YHVH from all others. It won't and you know it.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 22 2011,00:07) But it frustrates me that you are so far the only one to acknowledge this clear and scriptural truth. And if further frustrates me because I (think: per Francis) KNOW that the others are being obstinate and difficult because they simply don't want to give up this “big gun” they think they have.
What frustrates you is that the cream of Greek Scholarship is against you and you have no formal credentials or even any credible source for your views to oppose them Mike.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 22 2011,00:07) Keith, I didn't quote only part of your post to be deceitful. It's just that the rest of your reasons can be addressed after we all are willing to acknowledge the CLEAR and SCRIPTURAL FACT that it will take more than JUST being called by the title “elohim” to PROVE Jesus is God Almighty. That, IN AND OF ITSELF, proves absolutely NOTHING about the deity of Jesus.
I have acknowledged this now please convince us why Jesus being called God absolutely means he is “Not” God Almighty?Blessings WJ
Page 118, 6th post. I am reposting this for reference, because it's really hard to find back on page 118.It is mostly these words that we are interested in:
Isn't that what Francis, D, and Jack and I have been saying but you will not let Francis discuss context as to why “God” in Hebrews 1:8 is God.
Why do you keep beating this dead horse?
Everyone not just I are saying that just because Jesus is called God does not mean he is God.
By the way,
I don't think Francis is going to return. It's been over a month since we've heard from him.
Apparently he wasn't able to find enough CONTEXT to prove the “elohim” in Heb 1:8 and Ps 45:6 was God Almighty.
I kind of figured that, seeing that 1:9 tells us it was the Elohim OF this “elohim” who set him above his companions. I don't think God Almighty needs that kind of help from anyone.
I've offered Keith to take Francis' place, but so far he has not acknowledged my offers. It's really too bad, because Francis was willing to debate the trinity SCRIPTURE BY SCRIPTURE, to see if even one of them really supported a trinity Godhead.
I have not found another trinitarian on HN who is willing to go point by point, scripture by scripture before. Keith won't because he already knows the results before we start.
In fact, I think all learned trinitarians know the results if we were to go point by point. That's why they won't. They must always throw many points at you all at once, giving the appearence of logic in mass.
For instance, Francis is the one who brought up Heb 1:8 as his first trinity proof text. He quickly found out that being called “elohim” wasn't proof of being God Almighty. Then he was shown that the Psalm it's based on is generally considered to be about an earthly king who was called “elohim”. Add in 1:9 and ……………..cablouhey! One down, many to go. But they all fall just as easily if you go one at a time. You know this, don't you Keith?
Sorry, I've rambled.
mike
Hi All
Here is the context of my statement to Mike….
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 22 2011,12:32) “Isn't that what Francis, D, and Jack and I have been saying but you will not let Francis discuss context as to why “God” in Hebrews 1:8 is God. Why do you keep beating this dead horse?
Everyone not just I are saying that just because Jesus is called God does not mean he is God.
We have been telling you all along it is all about context yet you keep saying that God (elohim or theos) only means ruler, or leader which defies the definition given for them depending on its context.
Go ahead Mike in every case where YHWH is called “elohiim or god” insert the word leader and see if it works and defines YHVH from all others. It won't and you know it.
<a href="https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=31;t=3694;st
=1170″ target=”_blank”>Found here!Here is my counter question to Mike and his answer…
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 22 2011,14:16) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 23 2011,04:32) When Jesus is referred to as “elohim” or “theos” does it absolutely and positively mean he is “Not” God Almighty?
I BELIEVE I SAID: “NO!So what has Mike proved? Mike also has made these statements…
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 06 2011,17:00) And I don't know of a scripture that calls Jesus “the true god”, but I agree that he is. And…
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 05 2011,18:35) Jesus is the god, or “powerful ruler” of all in heaven right now, and of the believer's on earth. So Thanks Mike for admitting that the word “God” in referring to Jesus can mean that Jesus is The True God and that he is your “true god”!
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 07 2011,20:05) One down, many to go. But they all fall just as easily if you go one at a time. You know this, don't you Keith?
MikeHa Ha!
I will not debate with someone who denys all scripture as being inspired. What is the point?
Maybe that is why Francis hasn't come back.
You can't debate with those that no matter what evidence you show them it is not enough.
So continue on with your ad-hominems and lame claims that you are victorious. Beat your chest Mike, but you have proven nothing.
You lose when you reject the scriptures.
WJ
Keith said:
Quote I will not debate with someone who denys all scripture as being inspired. What is the point?
This is fundamental Keith. For a debate to have any chance of being orderly the debaters must agree that all of the scripture is inspired except where there are varient readings in certain texts.There are no variant readings of Matthew 28:19. It is the inspired word of God. Since Mike does not accept Mt. 28:19 as being authentic there is no point at all in entering into a debate.
Jack
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 08 2011,10:37) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 07 2011,20:05) One down, many to go. But they all fall just as easily if you go one at a time. You know this, don't you Keith?
MikeHa Ha!
I will not debate with someone who denys all scripture as being inspired. What is the point?
Maybe that is why Francis hasn't come back.
You can't debate with those that no matter what evidence you show them it is not enough.
So continue on with your ad-hominems and lame claims that you are victorious. Beat your chest Mike, but you have proven nothing.
You lose when you reject the scriptures.
WJ
Translation:Yes Mike, you are right. I know for a fact that one at a time, any third grader could shoot down all of the “trinity proof texts”. So no, I won't debate you one scripture at a time, for I know my doctrine is based on confusion, causes confusion, and can only be defended in a confusing, “everything at the speed of light” way.
Besides Keith, you are asserting that I rejects scriptures. Can you tell me which scriptures I have rejected?
mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Mar. 08 2011,11:26) There are no variant readings of Matthew 28:19. It is the inspired word of God. Since Mike does not accept Mt. 28:19 as being authentic there is no point at all in entering into a debate.
So now it's okay to run away from a debate all of the other scriptures you guys call “proof texts”? Just because 28:19 seems a little unlikely? Hmmmmmmmmmmm………………….how did those Trinitarians from the Catholic Encyclopedia put it again?It seems altogether unlikely that immediately after Christ had solemnly promulgated the trinitarian formula of baptism, the Apostles themselves would have substituted another.
That's right, “ALTOGETHER UNLIKELY”.
Cowards.
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 09 2011,03:29) So Thanks Mike for admitting that the word “God” in referring to Jesus can mean that Jesus is The True God and that he is your “true god”!
John 17:3
Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.Question to you WJ.
If Jesus Christ is identified as God in this verse, then who is Jesus Christ. Is he an impostor, because according to your doctrine, there are 2 Jesus Christs in this verse?Please explain.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 09 2011,03:37) I will not debate with someone who denys all scripture as being inspired. What is the point?
Does that also include 1 John 5:7-8 (The Johannine Comma), John 5:4, Acts 8:37, and Mark 16:9-20?Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 08 2011,20:52) Besides Keith, you are asserting that I rejects scriptures. Can you tell me which scriptures I have rejected?
MikeYes, you have rejected Matt 28:19!
A little leaven leavens the whole lump! You can't claim any of the scriptures as being inspired if you reject some.
Where would that leave us? It would be like saying “Hey my scriptural proof is inspired and the Word of God but yours isn't”!
What a slippery slope that would be.
WJ
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
