- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 28 2013,05:26) Jesus is not an attribute of God, Jesus has the fullness of God in Him.
Are you talking to yourself here.
I believe Jesus is a being, not part of God as you do.He was begotten by God and even Jesus said, “if God was your Father, you would believe that I came from God”.
First you do not believe that God is your Father. You believe that he is two persons melded together. Secondly, you do not believe he came from God because you believe he is God.
Double fail.
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 28 2013,05:26) Also,
“For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.”Notice the word 'as' it shows that in the similar way that the Father has life, the Son does also.
Another fail Kathi.You completely and conveniently ignored that the Father GRANTED the son to have life in himself.
No one granted God to have life in himself Kathi.
That is now a triple fail from you Kathi.
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 28 2013,05:26) The Roots sent the Shoot and yet the Shoot is the continuation of one of the Roots, therefore one of the Roots and the Shoot are the same person as Jesus says that He is the Root and Offspring of David. The first Root sent the second Root to continue it's life in a Shoot and as a Shoot as well as remaining the Root of itself, out of a nearly dried up stump. Amazing, isn't it.
Quadruple fail.Jesus is the firstborn of creation. He is the beginning of the creation of God.
Thus he is the root of all THINGS, and he is the offspring too because he emptied himself, and became a man for our sake.
If God created all things through him, then he would be the root. And we are taught that the head of the woman is the man, the head of the man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God. So Christ is the root of both the man and the woman in that sense.
Here it is in a nutshell: (an illustration of both sides)
Origen agrees with me – therefore it proves I'm right and YOU should accept it!
Hey wait a minute, Origen says (&^@$&*), AND that doesn't agree with you.
That doesn't prove anything and furthermore I will choose to ignore that!
Origen has NO authority, so who cares what he says!
OPEN YOUR EYES GUYS
We are talking about Origen's commentary on John 1:1. He was a man who was familiar with the nicities of the Greek tongue. If you discount other people's views without checking them out, then you will eventually go down your own road of lunacy. Iron sharpens iron and we need to stay sharp.
Discarding everyone's view but yourself leads you down the path of deception.
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 27 2013,12:04) Quote (t8 @ Mar. 26 2013,23:38) Also notice the words “But He came into being”. What does that tell you?
t8
A tree comes into being from a seed, that doesn't mean it's coming into being was a beginning of existence. It just means that it came into being in a different state. It went from within a seed to be apart from the seed. It existed within the seed before it came forth from the seed.Going from a closed seed, to a sprouted plant took work. The bringing forth was 'work' but that doesn't mean that it was a work of creating something that did not exist in it's early stages.
LU,A tree becomes life as a seed.
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 25 2013,23:06) Quote (mikeboll @ 64) Because the scriptures I know about speak of Jesus having origins “from days of old”, and being the “firstborn of every creature”, and being “the beginning of the creation by God”, etc. And you do not understand ANY of those things accurately, imo.
Kathi,I just follow the rule YOU taught me a long time ago: Always assume the default meaning UNLESS there is clear evidence to the contrary.
The only “evidence to the contrary” that I've been shown on these scriptures is your DESIRE to have Jesus exist from eternity.
And since I haven't seen any SCRIPTURAL reason to think Jesus did exist from eternity, there is no SCRIPTURAL reason for me not to accept those scriptures to which I referred with the default understanding of the words written therein.
Nor have I ever been shown any SCRIPTURAL reason to understand the words “father” and “son” differently in the case of Jehovah and Jesus than I would understand those same words about anyone else.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 27 2013,01:13) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 27 2013,20:14) I believe the Tatian quote is showing how the Father did not become less when He begat from Himself another person, like how one flame can start another flame without becoming less than it was before. It is the idea of being fruitful by multiplying, not fruitful by dividing and becoming less.
Well of course that is what you saw because you are blind to anything that competes with your teaching and you were able to manipulate this particular point into your teaching.
That's the first thing I thought too, t8. You've done a fine job of logically and scripturally correcting Kathi's flawed understandings in these last few posts.As for you, Kathi, are you able to see what you did? Can you see that you completely ignored the PLANK of the Tatian writing (including the entire CONTEXT of it), and instead went immediately searching for SPECKS that you could twist your way?
Look again at the writing, and then look at how you summarized that writing. And then look at both again. And again. And a few more times.
Let me know if you are able to see what you did, and how you did it.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 28 2013,16:28) Kathi, I just follow the rule YOU taught me a long time ago: Always assume the default meaning UNLESS there is clear evidence to the contrary.
Great advice, and surprising to hear that Kathi actually said that. Kathi, if you won't listen to us, then what about your former self?Quote (t8 @ Mar. 28 2013,09:29) We are talking about Origen's commentary on John 1:1. He was a man who was familiar with the nicities of the Greek tongue. If you discount other people's views without checking them out, then you will eventually go down your own road of lunacy. Iron sharpens iron and we need to stay sharp. Discarding everyone's view but yourself leads you down the path of deception.
Hi T8,I go directly to the Greek, no need for a middle man here.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Mar. 28 2013,13:53) Quote (t8 @ Mar. 28 2013,09:29) We are talking about Origen's commentary on John 1:1. He was a man who was familiar with the nicities of the Greek tongue. If you discount other people's views without checking them out, then you will eventually go down your own road of lunacy. Iron sharpens iron and we need to stay sharp. Discarding everyone's view but yourself leads you down the path of deception.
Hi T8,I go directly to the Greek, no need for a middle man here.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Strain at a gnat and swallow a camel is what Jesus said.Yes Jesus said that Ed J. Gematria didn't teach us that, and nor did the KJV exclusively teach men that. Texts before the KJV including the Dead Sea Scrolls and translated Bibles after the KJV teaches us this.
So you have proved neither point Ed J.
But by all means continue to ignore the elephant in the room Ed J. That way we can provide more ways to show your error for others to learn from. Be the example that we should avoid, that was always up to you.
Back to John 1:1 now.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 26 2013,16:34) This discussion is about the strategy that some use here where a speck nullifies a plank. In other words a clear scripture that cannot be confused is nullified by another scripture that can have multiple meanings depending on where you put the comma or other similar things. While we should let the Bible interpret the Bible, we often see here some who twist a scripture somewhere giving rise to them ignoring a very clear scripture elsewhere.
This strategy is used to support bias. In my next post I will give a pure example of this.
Hi T8,Does studying the nuances (of Greek) teach you to disregard “very clear scripture“?
“ye are even my witnesses.
Is there a God beside me? yea,
there is no God; I know not any.” (Isa 44:8)What does the word “GOD” mean in this verse?
1. God
2. Judge
3. Magistrate
4. A mighty oneEL-o-heem defines as all these,
so based on the context – what say you?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Mar. 28 2013,16:53) Quote (t8 @ Mar. 28 2013,09:29) We are talking about Origen's commentary on John 1:1. He was a man who was familiar with the nicities of the Greek tongue. If you discount other people's views without checking them out, then you will eventually go down your own road of lunacy. Iron sharpens iron and we need to stay sharp. Discarding everyone's view but yourself leads you down the path of deception.
Hi T8,I go directly to the Greek, no need for a middle man here.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Did that too.We are looking at this from every angle possible because we love truth and want to test all things. Usually when you test something, you need to conduct more than one type of text.
What we have done is look at the Greek and all the possibilities there. Next we have compared it with other scriptures because the Bible is its best dictionary. And now we are looking at what others have said about this especially men from a much closer time to John than us and our modern views. And in particular Origen who was well versed in the Greek tongue and speaks particularly about this subject. He is obviously worth looking in our investigating of John 1:1.
Criticize this approach all you like, but what I see here is that people who test all things are much less vulnerable to deception. And it is not as if you are a good example for anyone to follow is it? Your ideas have little support from the outset, and if you are against testing them in every conceivable way, then that is a weakness of yours, not ours. So criticizing us for doing our homework further proves why your conclusions are they way they are.
Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 28 2013,17:08) Hi T8, Does studying the nuances (of Greek) teach you to disregard “very clear scripture”?
The opposite Ed J. It helps us to understand what the scriptures teach.Otherwise we are at the complete mercy of the English translators. We are digging deeper than modern translations to see if things are so.
Criticizing us for digging deep is a silly thing to do. You should be applauding it.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 28 2013,14:06) Yes Jesus said that Ed J. Gematria didn't teach us that, and nor did the KJV exclusively teach men that. Texts before the KJV including the Dead Sea Scrolls and translated Bibles after the KJV teaches us this. So you have proved neither point Ed J.
But by all means continue to ignore the elephant in the room Ed J. That way we can provide more ways to show your error for others to learn from. Be the example that we should avoid, that was always up to you.
Back to John 1:1 now.
Hi T8,Gematria doesn't teach anything; but “Theomatics”, however,
confirms the supernatural aspect of the God of the bible.No need for you to complain about me commenting
on something YOU brought up. Now back to the topic.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (t8 @ Mar. 28 2013,14:13) Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 28 2013,16:53) Quote (t8 @ Mar. 28 2013,09:29) We are talking about Origen's commentary on John 1:1. He was a man who was familiar with the nicities of the Greek tongue. If you discount other people's views without checking them out, then you will eventually go down your own road of lunacy. Iron sharpens iron and we need to stay sharp. Discarding everyone's view but yourself leads you down the path of deception.
Hi T8,I go directly to the Greek, no need for a middle man here.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Did that too.We are looking at this from every angle possible because we love truth and want to test all things. Usually when you test something, you need to conduct more than one type of text.
What we have done is look at the Greek and all the possibilities there. Next we have compared it with other scriptures because the Bible is its best dictionary. And now we are looking at what others have said about this especially men from a much closer time to John than us and our modern views. And in particular Origen who was well versed in the Greek tongue and speaks particularly about this subject. He is obviously worth looking in our investigating of John 1:1.
Criticize this approach all you like, but what I see here is that people who test all things are much less vulnerable to deception. And it is not as if you are a good example for anyone to follow is it? Your ideas have little support from the outset, and if you are against testing them in every conceivable way, then that is a weakness of yours, not ours. So criticizing us for doing our homework further proves why your conclusions are they way they are.
Hi T8,You mean like doing an internet search to find those who agree with your premise.
You might be better served by listening carefully why others disagree with you.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (t8 @ Mar. 28 2013,14:16) Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 28 2013,17:08) Hi T8, Does studying the nuances (of Greek) teach you to disregard “very clear scripture”?
The opposite Ed J. It helps us to understand what the scriptures teach.Otherwise we are at the complete mercy of the English translators. We are digging deeper than modern translations to see if things are so.
Criticizing us for digging deep is a silly thing to do. You should be applauding it.
Hi T8,I would when you get it right,
but then you might think I'm saying I told you so instead.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Mar. 28 2013,14:08) Quote (t8 @ Mar. 26 2013,16:34) This discussion is about the strategy that some use here where a speck nullifies a plank. In other words a clear scripture that cannot be confused is nullified by another scripture that can have multiple meanings depending on where you put the comma or other similar things. While we should let the Bible interpret the Bible, we often see here some who twist a scripture somewhere giving rise to them ignoring a very clear scripture elsewhere.
This strategy is used to support bias. In my next post I will give a pure example of this.
Hi T8,Does studying the nuances (of Greek) teach you to disregard “very clear scripture“?
“ye are even my witnesses.
Is there a God beside me? yea,
there is no God; I know not any.” (Isa 44:8)What does the word “GOD” mean in this verse?
1. God
2. Judge
3. Magistrate
4. A mighty oneEL-o-heem defines as all these,
so based on the context – what say you?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Yes, this is an example of what you choose to ignore.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
