- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi Mike,
In the beginning was Cain. And Cain was with THE adam, and Cain was adam.
The only way Cain was Adam is past tense.
Past? present? Future?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 20 2013,06:49) Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 19 2013,07:20) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 19 2013,08:44) (2) He uses the article, when the name of theos refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Word is named theos. 2) This part tells me that Origen believes “THE theos” of part b is the “uncreated cause of all things”, while “the Word” is NOT.
Do you believe the “god” in part b is the Father God Almighty, Creator of the Universe?
Mike,No, as theos is used to mean Jehovah in certain passages.
A perfect example of what I just said in my last post.
What do you mean “NO”, Kerwin?
Who then DO you suppose the “god” in part b is – if not the Father?
Mike,I got confused.
I have not looked into the matter but the god in John 1:1 seems to be clearly Jehovah while god is more vague.
God is used elsewhere to mean Jehovah.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 20 2013,07:01) Kerwin, 9th post on page 4, please.
Mike,I will try to get to it but I believe I answered it elsewhere in the not too distant past.
Quote (abe @ Mar. 20 2013,10:42) Hi Mike, In the beginning was Cain. And Cain was with THE adam, and Cain was adam.
The only way Cain was Adam is past tense.
Past? present? Future?
abeIn the beginning was Cain. And Cain was with THE adam, and Cain was “a” adam.
understand this ;; in the beginning was “” a person called Cain”
and Cain was with the father Adam the first (human) “”
and Cain was a adam (human)
Mike,
Quote What exactly would fall into the class “god”, in your opinion? Is God's Holy Spirit a god? Are the spoken words of God “gods”? Or does it seem much more likely that a BEING, who was also in the “god class”, was with “THE god” in the beginning?
The last I head elohim can even refer to holy items. I believe theos is the same way.
Quote a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities
the Godhead, trinity
God the Father, the first person in the trinity
Christ, the second person of the trinity
Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity
spoken of the only and true God
refers to the things of God
his counsels, interests, things due to him
whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way
God's representative or viceregent
of magistrates and judgesTheos defined.
Quote (terraricca @ Mar. 20 2013,05:20) Quote (abe @ Mar. 20 2013,10:42) Hi Mike, In the beginning was Cain. And Cain was with THE adam, and Cain was adam.
The only way Cain was Adam is past tense.
Past? present? Future?
abeIn the beginning was Cain. And Cain was with THE adam, and Cain was “a” adam.
understand this ;; in the beginning was “” a person called Cain”
and Cain was with the father Adam the first (human) “”
and Cain was a adam (human)
Hi T,Agreed.
Is.43:7 Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yes, I have made him.
Peace brother.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 20 2013,11:58) At some point of course some writings went wayward.
Yes, what point exactly. They are no different IMO than reading many of the posts here, and then using them to try and find 'proof', once some have been 'deleted' of course. Well that is what happened with the “Early Church Fathers” from what I can gather. Of course the Shepherd of Hermas (Ha ha, here I go again) WAS considered as canon in the earliest Church. And that considered the Holy Spirit to be the eternal Son of God (Spirit gives birth to spirit so, yes, the “first”). I was shown this through prayer and a genuine un-egotistical search for truth. I was shown that Jesus was the Holy Spirit, first. Next came “In the beginning was the word” and then came other verses. Then was the realization that 'The shepherd' which was so popular in the earliest Church says the same thing.I do not want to preach it and teach it, because what I trust as truth is difficult to insist upon. So I just leave it, rather than teach it – because I do not have the full picture yet.
One can repeat themself over and over like a broken down old record hoping somehow, I guess, that somebody will listen to them. See – listen to them so, are they not, rather, after followers of themself or their doctrine, rather than after followers of God.
Conversation is good, though, when it means searching for truth, rather than pushing a particular doctrine.
Quote (2besee @ Mar. 21 2013,09:30) Quote (t8 @ Mar. 20 2013,11:58) At some point of course some writings went wayward.
Yes, what point exactly. They are no different IMO than reading many of the posts here, and then using them to try and find 'proof', once some have been 'deleted' of course. Well that is what happened with the “Early Church Fathers” from what I can gather. Of course the Shepherd of Hermas (Ha ha, here I go again) WAS considered as canon in the earliest Church. And that considered the Holy Spirit to be the eternal Son of God (Spirit gives birth to spirit so, yes, the “first”). I was shown this through prayer and a genuine un-egotistical search for truth. I was shown that Jesus was the Holy Spirit, first. Next came “In the beginning was the word” and then came other verses. Then was the realization that 'The shepherd' which was so popular in the earliest Church says the same thing.I do not want to preach it and teach it, because what I trust as truth is difficult to insist upon. So I just leave it, rather than teach it – because I do not have the full picture yet.
One can repeat themself over and over like a broken down old record hoping somehow, I guess, that somebody will listen to them. See – listen to them so, are they not, rather, after followers of themself or their doctrine, rather than after followers of God.
Conversation is good, though, when it means searching for truth, rather than pushing a particular doctrine.
That post was to Mike as well as t8.
Quote (terraricca @ Mar. 20 2013,11:42) 2bee Quote I trust the scriptures and God can lead us through them, and if there is anything not right, God shows us. God shows us ;;HOW
T,
What do you mean, “How”? Do you read the scriptures alone or is God with you when you read them?Quote (terraricca @ Mar. 21 2013,03:20) Quote (abe @ Mar. 20 2013,10:42) Hi Mike, In the beginning was Cain. And Cain was with THE adam, and Cain was adam.
The only way Cain was Adam is past tense.
Past? present? Future?
abeIn the beginning was Cain. And Cain was with THE adam, and Cain was “a” adam.
understand this ;; in the beginning was “” a person called Cain”
and Cain was with the father Adam the first (human) “”
and Cain was a adam (human)
Yes T, now it makes sense. Abe confused me.Quote (2besee @ Mar. 21 2013,10:39) Quote (2besee @ Mar. 21 2013,09:30) Quote (t8 @ Mar. 20 2013,11:58) At some point of course some writings went wayward.
Yes, what point exactly. They are no different IMO than reading many of the posts here, and then using them to try and find 'proof', once some have been 'deleted' of course. Well that is what happened with the “Early Church Fathers” from what I can gather. Of course the Shepherd of Hermas (Ha ha, here I go again) WAS considered as canon in the earliest Church. And that considered the Holy Spirit to be the eternal Son of God (Spirit gives birth to spirit so, yes, the “first”). I was shown this through prayer and a genuine un-egotistical search for truth. I was shown that Jesus was the Holy Spirit, first. Next came “In the beginning was the word” and then came other verses. Then was the realization that 'The shepherd' which was so popular in the earliest Church says the same thing.I do not want to preach it and teach it, because what I trust as truth is difficult to insist upon. So I just leave it, rather than teach it – because I do not have the full picture yet.
One can repeat themself over and over like a broken down old record hoping somehow, I guess, that somebody will listen to them. See – listen to them so, are they not, rather, after followers of themself or their doctrine, rather than after followers of God.
Conversation is good, though, when it means searching for truth, rather than pushing a particular doctrine.
That post was to Mike as well as t8.
Thanks 2b.Yes I have heard this before and is worth looking into.
My first question is when the Spirit decended on Jesus was that Jesus decending on himself.
My second question is do these references actually say a holy spirit or THE Holy Spirit. I mean there are many spirits and we are all called to be holy. We even use the term holy angels, and we know angels are spirits for example.
Worth looking into this.
Quote (2besee @ Mar. 21 2013,02:41) Quote (terraricca @ Mar. 20 2013,11:42) 2bee Quote I trust the scriptures and God can lead us through them, and if there is anything not right, God shows us. God shows us ;;HOW
T,
What do you mean, “How”? Do you read the scriptures alone or is God with you when you read them?
2beeQuote T,
What do you mean, “How”? Do you read the scriptures alone or is God with you when you read them?are you trying to tell me that everyone that read the bible God his with him
Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 19 2013,16:35) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 19 2013,21:02) Quote (t8 @ Mar. 19 2013,01:51) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 19 2013,17:52) This 'article theology' argument falls flat on its back for two reasons:
1. It is inconsistent since there are two other verses in John 1 alone that have the word 'God' in them but NO ARTICLE and they refer to God who is unseen.2. The article is not there in order to indicate that 'God' is not the subject of the clause but instead-the predicate nominative. Go to the above link and get educated.
LU, even many Trinitarian scholars agree that if it was implying that the Word was THE God even though for grammatical reasons it doesn't have THE, it still could not mean that the Word was God because if it did, it would be saying that to the detriment/exclusion of the Father.
The trinitarian's belief that the Son of God is very God of very God, doesn't do any detriment to the Father as God. This truth is made to the glory of the Father.
LU,The Trinitarian belief that Jesus is God accuses God of of being tempted by evil; even as humans are.
Jesus, according to the flesh, is tempted…as the 'Shoot' He was tempted, not as the 'Root.'So, I learned something about 'the Adam' tonight in my Hebrew class. 'the Adam' refers to a specific person that bears the image of God…in other words 'a specific follower' of God. Without the 'the,' adam refers to the believers in general. The word 'adam' is not a word for unbelieving man in general or a specific man if he is not a believer and hence, not an image of God bearer.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 19 2013,17:05) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 20 2013,05:02) Quote (t8 @ Mar. 19 2013,01:51) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 19 2013,17:52) This 'article theology' argument falls flat on its back for two reasons:
1. It is inconsistent since there are two other verses in John 1 alone that have the word 'God' in them but NO ARTICLE and they refer to God who is unseen.2. The article is not there in order to indicate that 'God' is not the subject of the clause but instead-the predicate nominative. Go to the above link and get educated.
LU, even many Trinitarian scholars agree that if it was implying that the Word was THE God even though for grammatical reasons it doesn't have THE, it still could not mean that the Word was God because if it did, it would be saying that to the detriment/exclusion of the Father.
The trinitarian's belief that the Son of God is very God of very God, doesn't do any detriment to the Father as God. This truth is made to the glory of the Father.
Babble all you like. I know that the Word became flesh and that the Word was with God and that the Word is also part of God. Like Wisdom. It is an attribute of God, and yet wisdom was brought forth and God created all with Wisdom as the workman by his side.Jesus is the Word of God that was with God. And the Word that was with God did not divest the Word that is in God. The Word then came to the lost.
I am not here to attack or agree with your attacks as to who Jesus is. Jesus identity is the foundation of the Church and Peter explains who he is to us in scripture.
Kathi says, “You are YHWH, one person of the Binity God”.
Peter said, “You are the Christ, the son of the living God”.
Jesus said, “blessed are you Peter…. Upon this rock I will build my Church and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail.You obviously have a warped view of things Kathi if you think we would ever consider abandonment of the truth about Jesus for your view. And if the Gates of Hell cannot prevail against the Church that is built on the truth that Peter uttered, then what chance do you have of prevailing against it. I say no chance.
Might was well give it up Kathi, you will only injure yourself fighting the truth. You attack Jesus by lying about him. Your offense and fight is with him.
Like I have unfortunately had to say many times…don't pay any attention to what t8 says about what I believe. For instance, I certainly do believe that Jesus is the Son of God.He should have been tiled enough times for him to be gone for misrepresenting me here on HN but, then again, he is the dictator moderator here and he is not about to tile himself. An abuse of power.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 19 2013,19:36) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 18 2013,21:59) Mike,
I am glad that you can see that I make a point. The point that I made destroys the foundation of the argument that Origen was building so I see no need to bother with the conclusions that he built on top of a foundation made of sand.
“Destroys the foundation of the argument”?Are you saying that John COULDN'T HAVE BEEN distinguishing between “THE god”, and the “god” who was with “THE god”?
Don't you agree with me, Origen, and Irenaeus that “THE god”, in part b, refers to the Father, while “god”, in part c, refers to a DIFFERENT god who was WITH the Father?
Because I thought you DID agree to the fact that 1:1 speaks of TWO gods, one of whom was with the other. Have you changed your mind now?
Mike,
Origen is making an argument based on the absence of the article to show the second God mentioned is a lessor type. This is what is the failed argument.I agree that the words 'with God' indicates that the first God mentioned is with the second God mentioned and they are not the same but that doesn't make one lessor than the other. God with God…two are mentioned. They are one!
Mike please answer this:
Which one purchased the church with His own blood? The first mentioned God or the second God mentioned???Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 21 2013,17:43) Like I have unfortunately had to say many times…don't pay any attention to what t8 says about what I believe. For instance, I certainly do believe that Jesus is the Son of God.
If you believe that Jesus is the son of God and that Jesus is God, then you believe that Jesus is his own son.That is the conclusion that one draws from your doctrine.
Anyone can see that and it is not misinformation. It is what you teach.So while you say in tongue that Jesus is the son of God, in action you imply that he is his own son. Likewise, Muslims believe that Jesus is the Christ in tongue, but in action they deny that he is the Christ because they say he failed to save us and thus others were sent after him to complete the work. And some evil people say they are good, but that doesn't mean that they are good. It is the action that verifies your words. If your action is contrary to Jesus is the son of God, then you deny that he is the son of God. Simple as that.
Let's face it. Anyone can say Jesus is the son of God. Even an Atheist would say that if he was threatened with death but let off if he said that.
Your teaching is what you really say Kathi and that teaching is that Jesus is God and YHWH. Thus he cannot be the son of himself and the son of YHWH. You are 100% responsible for the outcome of your own teaching.
Your teaching is actually antichrist because you deny that he is the son of God, by subtly saying that he is the God that he is the son of.
Babylon= Confusion.
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 21 2013,17:49) Mike,
Origen is making an argument based on the absence of the article to show the second God mentioned is a lessor type. This is what is the failed argument. Mike,
Origen is making an argument based on the absence of the article to show the second God mentioned is a lessor type. This is what is the failed argument.
Certainly there is the reference that THE God is greater than the Word. But Origen is teaching that lack of article here has an intended purpose and that is to distinguish between the Almighty God and the Word who is in nature god or divine.Big difference. Because Eve is in nature adam, but she is not Adam in identity.
Really simple, but many choose to be blind in this matter and so blind they are.
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 21 2013,17:38) So, I learned something about 'the Adam' tonight in my Hebrew class. 'the Adam' refers to a specific person that bears the image of God…in other words 'a specific follower' of God. Without the 'the,' adam refers to the believers in general. The word 'adam' is not a word for unbelieving man in general or a specific man if he is not a believer and hence, not an image of God bearer.
Could you imagine if Origen said he was learning Greek at a very basic level at the end of his writing that we are discussing. What confidence would you have in his view?Yet this is you. You say you are a pupil of Hebrew, so why are you also an authoritative teacher in Greek regarding John 1:1, Origen, and what we are saying.
Learn the niceties of the Greek tongue in matters we are discussing before claiming you know how John 1:1 and Origens letter is saying. Is that not good advice.
Have you no shame? First learn to walk before you run.
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 21 2013,09:24) Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 19 2013,16:35) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 19 2013,21:02) Quote (t8 @ Mar. 19 2013,01:51) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 19 2013,17:52) This 'article theology' argument falls flat on its back for two reasons:
1. It is inconsistent since there are two other verses in John 1 alone that have the word 'God' in them but NO ARTICLE and they refer to God who is unseen.2. The article is not there in order to indicate that 'God' is not the subject of the clause but instead-the predicate nominative. Go to the above link and get educated.
LU, even many Trinitarian scholars agree that if it was implying that the Word was THE God even though for grammatical reasons it doesn't have THE, it still could not mean that the Word was God because if it did, it would be saying that to the detriment/exclusion of the Father.
The trinitarian's belief that the Son of God is very God of very God, doesn't do any detriment to the Father as God. This truth is made to the glory of the Father.
LU,The Trinitarian belief that Jesus is God accuses God of of being tempted by evil; even as humans are.
Jesus, according to the flesh, is tempted…as the 'Shoot' He was tempted, not as the 'Root.'
LU,That is a confusing Trinitarian tenet. You infer that
Jesus the Shoot is not Yawheh.
Jesus the Root is Yawheh.That there is two Jesuses with separate souls, in one body.
That you the Jesus that is not Yawheh is also known as the flesh.The two cannot mix or God becomes able to be tempted by evil.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
