- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 21 2013,06:09) 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.
t8,Your post is a great example of breaking HN rules…false accusations, slander of another member.
If you want to display YOUR confusion all over HN, that is up to you. I have in my signature that there is Jehovah the Father AND ALSO Jehovah the Son. That is two, who together with their Spirit, form an eternal unity. My signature, btw, has been included in nearly every post that I have made.
If there are two then one can be begotten from the other one. If the one that begets is an eternal Father, (which I believe to be true) then He eternally had within Him an eternal Son which He later begat before creation. A begetting is not necessarily a beginning of existence or a creation out of nothing. For example, a seed can beget a tree but that doesn't mean that which made up the tree did not exist before it was begotten. That which made up the tree was physically contained in the seed before it was even planted in soil.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 21 2013,06:13) 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.
More t8 confusion:Quote Certainly there is the reference that THE God is greater than the Word. Please show us this reference.
Quote 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. Yes, I know that is what Origen is teaching and what I have already proved to be inaccurate. I have shown two verses in the same chapter where there is no article with the word God and the verses are not talking about a nature but Almighty God. I have also linked you to a page from a Greek Grammar book to show you why the article is missing.
Quote Big difference. Because Eve is in nature adam, but she is not Adam in identity. From my Hebrew class last night, I learned that 'the Adam' applies to any particular person that bears the image of God. Adam without the article, the, applies to people in general that bear the image of God but doesn't apply to unbelievers. So you can learn something from that.
Quote Really simple, but many choose to be blind in this matter and so blind they are. Sorry to keep exposing your blindness but really you can use this to help you see better.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 21 2013,06:33) 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.
More t8 confusion:I have never said that I am an authority in Greek grammar and even much less an authority in Hebrew grammar. I have never pretended that I was. Although I have had a year and a half of Greek Biblical grammar study in a classroom. I have only had two classes in a Biblical Hebrew classroom so far but look forward to gaining much knowledge in the future as I attend weekly classes.
Knowing some Greek grammar has helped me to better discern when people are in error, like t8 and Origen. That was the main reason for taking language classes in the first place.
Most importantly, knowing some Greek helps me to know where to look and learn and confirm what I think I know. This I have done on this thread by linking you to a page in a Greek grammar manual that supports what I said about why there is no article in John 1c.
So, t8, if you have a problem with what I explain about the Greek grammar of something, you should not think an insult proves that explanation wrong. That would be illogical. Instead, see if you can prove the Greek grammar manual wrong that I linked you to as support. Just sayin'…that would be a more intelligent way of handling your concern than laying out insults. Any fool can write an insult to attempt to discredit someone.
You should listen to your own words:
“Have you no shame? First learn to walk before you run.”Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 21 2013,06:36) 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.
Kerwin,
The incarnation of God, the Son, who existed eternally, taking on the appearance of man and walking in flesh is mysterious indeed. I have given you an example of how the prince and the pauper explain how a person can be 100% royalty but take on 100% poverty for a time and then returning to 100% royalty but this time having the heart of a pauper. Although this is not a perfect comparison, it is intended to help you.Jesus is still YHVH, the Son, while being the 'Shoot,' but has been emptied of whatever would keep Him from being tempted and not dying. He became limited as any other man till He returned to the glory that He once had with the Father.
Hi t8.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 21 2013,10:11) My first question is when the Spirit decended on Jesus was that Jesus decending on himself. No. Jesus was a man. (simplicity)
Quote 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. You have your own spirit even though there are many other spirits in existence, and so, that spirit is the spirit of “t8”. Your spirit can be shared for example when you write or when you talk to people. You can influence people with your spirit, etc. With God, He has His own Holy Spirit, which I believe is called the Son of God, because nobody knows a man's mind except for the spirit which is in Him, and so, likewise, nobody knows God's mind except for His own Spirit. (1Cor 2:10-11
Likewise…. and here is a clue…. Nobody knows The Father except for the Son (The Spirit!) (Matthew 11:27)
I hope that answered some questions for you.
————
The Shepherd, Fifth Similitude, Chapter 6 (77-82)
“The field is this world; and the Lord of the field is He who created, and perfected, and strengthened all things; and the son is the Holy Spirit; and the slave is the Son of God; and the vines are this people, whom He Himself planted; and the stakes are the holy angels of the Lord, who keep His people together; and the weeds that were plucked out of the vineyard are the iniquities of God's servants; and the dishes which He sent Him from His able are the commandments which He gave His people through His Son; and the friends and fellow-councillors are the holy angels who were first created; and the Master's absence from home is the time that remains until His appearing.”
“The holy, pre-existent Spirit, that created every creature, God made to dwell in flesh, which He chose. This flesh, accordingly, in which the Holy Spirit dwelt, was nobly subject to that Spirit, walking religiously and chastely, in no respect defiling the Spirit; and accordingly, after living excellently and purely, and after labouring and co-operating with the Spirit, and having in everything acted vigorously and courageously along with the Holy Spirit, He assumed it as a partner with it.
For this conduct of the flesh pleased Him, because it was not defiled on the earth while having the Holy Spirit.
He took, therefore, as fellow-councillors His Son and the glorious angels, in order that this flesh, which had been subject to the body without a fault, might have some place of tabernacle, and that it might not appear that the reward [of its servitude had been lost], for the flesh that has been found without spot or defilement, in which the Holy Spirit dwelt, [will receive a reward].”Quote (terraricca @ Mar. 21 2013,16:21) 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
No, not everyone.
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 22 2013,06:08) t8, Your post is a great example of breaking HN rules…false accusations, slander of another member.
If you want to display YOUR confusion all over HN, that is up to you. I have in my signature that there is Jehovah the Father AND ALSO Jehovah the Son. That is two, who together with their Spirit, form an eternal unity. My signature, btw, has been included in nearly every post that I have made.
Wrong. Your defense here is no defense. When you say that Jesus is the son of YHWH or son of God and is at the same time God and YHWH, then to anyone's mind you are saying that he is the God or YHWH that he is the son of.But even a child knows that you are either the son or the Father.
Kathi, the king has no clothes on and should be embarrassed.By implication, I am going to defend your stance with the best explanation. You are free to use it, I make no claim of ownership or trademark.
“Jesus is the son of the other YHWH”. “The son of the other God”. That could work because now Jesus is not the son of himself. Although this is ridiculous, it is less ridiculous than what you are proposing.
You can thank me for the help if you want.
Quote (2besee @ Mar. 22 2013,10:44) No. Jesus was a man. (simplicity) You have your own spirit even though there are many other spirits in existence, and so, that spirit is the spirit of “t8”. Your spirit can be shared for example when you write or when you talk to people. You can influence people with your spirit, etc. With God, He has His own Holy Spirit, which I believe is called the Son of God, because nobody knows a man's mind except for the spirit which is in Him, and so, likewise, nobody knows God's mind except for His own Spirit. (1Cor 2:10-11
Likewise…. and here is a clue…. Nobody knows The Father except for the Son (The Spirit!) (Matthew 11:27)
I hope that answered some questions for you.
Hmm. Please explain this.You say is a man only.
And Jesus is the son of God.
And the son of God is the Holy Spirit.Am I missing something here.
Please explain this contradiction.
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 22 2013,06:32) More t8 confusion: I have never said that I am an authority in Greek grammar and even much less an authority in Hebrew grammar. I have never pretended that I was. Although I have had a year and a half of Greek Biblical grammar study in a classroom. I have only had two classes in a Biblical Hebrew classroom so far but look forward to gaining much knowledge in the future as I attend weekly classes.
Thank you for admitting that. So why not act like it.If you do not understand the Greek in John 1:1 and yet teach John 1:1 as if you are an authority or that your view is the correct one, then you are deceiving yourself. This leads to confusion because you exalt your view above all others even though you yourself admit your lack of understanding.
I have studied the Greek of John 1:1 time and time again and am aware of all the views of how translators and scholars see it. I have heard probably every argument for the Word being God and the Word being in the form of God or divine.
And it becomes clear that only die hard Trinitarians and the world's 32 Binitarians hold the impossible view that the Word is THE God because they want to believe that view for prideful reasons of supporting their doctrinal view. That is the only reason they have that view and they hold it even in light of the fact that it is detrimental/excludes the Father, when you say that the Word is THE God.
Whereas, many honest Trinitarian scholars as well of course honest Greek scholars say it is talking qualitatively like THE Adam versus adam. I even have a friend of a friend who is fluent in Greek and he confirms that the definite article and lack of one is significant.
I even read of a scholar whose view was Trinitarian say that yes it is speaking of nature, but that doesn't exclude him as God but actually implies that he is God because only God is divine in nature. Thus he could say that the Word was God indirectly by reference of the Word being divine.
But even his more honest view is easily shot down when one considers that a being taken from the Divine God and nothing else in existence can only be derived from the nature of which he was brought forth. Thus he could only be divine because created beings come from God and through the Word. And Jesus originally came directly from the Father. As it is written, “He existed in the FORM of God, emptied himself, and came in flesh”. Further, we can partake in the same nature ourselves and we will even receive a body like his. Yet who here makes the arguments that we are God, and yet that is one of many false conclusions your view leads to and if you really believed your own view, you would teach this if you were honest, or honestly deceived.
You argue against Origen in this thread and the only possible translation of John 1:1 because you will use any excuse to back your view. In doing this, you prove your dishonesty by not accepting the reality of the Greek language.
You are a student not a teacher, and while it is good to be a student, it is not good to be a teacher when you do not know that which you teach. Paul (I think it was) gave good advice when he said, “Not many of you should be teachers”. He followed by saying that teachers will be judged more harshly. I personally would not want to be in the shoes of a false teacher when my life is being reviewed. Yet you are heading in that direction unless you repent.
I am a teacher and I know how important it is to be honest in that profession. If I get something wrong it is because I am imperfect and did not maliciously set out to deceive anyone. If that happened I would publicly apologise and repent. But how can the same be said about a person who will draw at any excuse to back their doctrine because their own pride motivates them. Thus they exalt themselves above others to force their view for the pure reason that it is THEIR view. Cursed is such a teacher for he/she deceives them-self and risks deceiving others.
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 22 2013,05:48) taking on the appearance of man and walking in flesh is mysterious indeed. Is this not suspicious, more than mysterious?
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 22 2013,10:16) Quote (2besee @ Mar. 22 2013,10:44) No. Jesus was a man. (simplicity) You have your own spirit even though there are many other spirits in existence, and so, that spirit is the spirit of “t8”. Your spirit can be shared for example when you write or when you talk to people. You can influence people with your spirit, etc. With God, He has His own Holy Spirit, which I believe is called the Son of God, because nobody knows a man's mind except for the spirit which is in Him, and so, likewise, nobody knows God's mind except for His own Spirit. (1Cor 2:10-11
Likewise…. and here is a clue…. Nobody knows The Father except for the Son (The Spirit!) (Matthew 11:27)
I hope that answered some questions for you.
Hmm. Please explain this.You say is a man only.
And Jesus is the son of God.
And the son of God is the Holy Spirit.Am I missing something here.
Please explain this contradiction.
I believe that there are two dominant Sons of God. One is eternal and is God's own Spirit, whilst the other is the Son by adoption, Jesus the Christos, the Messiah. (Mike will say that it is impossible for God to have two Sons. I say – “Why is it impossible for God to have two sons?”)
The flesh Son is the second Adam. And through Him, the firstborn of the dead, came many Sons by adoption.God knows everything before it happens, even though we have our own free will (This explains Déjà vu!). God foreknew that a man would be born who was sinless, and that through Him, salvation would come. So God intervened in His conception to make Him the second Adam, (born of a virgin). So where Adam failed, Jesus did not fail. And that is why the Angel told Joseph to call Him “Yah-shua” which means “Yah saves”. And God certainly did save Jesus from the grave, and exalted Him to be both our Lord and Christ. And through Him, many have been saved, from times past until the end.
That is how I am seeing things, so far.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 21 2013,16:12) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 22 2013,06:08) t8, Your post is a great example of breaking HN rules…false accusations, slander of another member.
If you want to display YOUR confusion all over HN, that is up to you. I have in my signature that there is Jehovah the Father AND ALSO Jehovah the Son. That is two, who together with their Spirit, form an eternal unity. My signature, btw, has been included in nearly every post that I have made.
Wrong. Your defense here is no defense. When you say that Jesus is the son of YHWH or son of God and is at the same time God and YHWH, then to anyone's mind you are saying that he is the God or YHWH that he is the son of.But even a child knows that you are either the son or the Father.
Kathi, the king has no clothes on and should be embarrassed.By implication, I am going to defend your stance with the best explanation. You are free to use it, I make no claim of ownership or trademark.
“Jesus is the son of the other YHWH”. “The son of the other God”. That could work because now Jesus is not the son of himself. Although this is ridiculous, it is less ridiculous than what you are proposing.
You can thank me for the help if you want.
I have consistently said that Jesus is the Son of Yahweh-the Father. The Father gave the Son His (the Father's) name. John 17. The Father's name is Yahweh and the Son has the Father's name. Gen 15 says that the Word of Yahweh came to Abram in a vision….the Word of Yahweh said that He was Yahweh. This makes complete sense when you understand that the Word is the Son who has the same name as His Father.John 17
11…Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one. 12 While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me.Gen 15
After these things the word of Yahweh came[a] to Abram in a vision, saying: “Do not be afraid, Abram; I am your shield, and your reward shall be very great.” 2 Then Abram said, “O Yahweh, my Lord, what will you give me? I continue to be[c] childless, and my heir[d] is Eliezer of Damascus.” 3 And Abram said, “Look, you have not given me a descendant, and here, a member of my household[e] is my heir.”[f] 4 And behold, the word of Yahweh came to him saying, “This person will not be your heir,[g] but your own son will be your heir.”[h] 5 And he brought him outside and said, “Look toward the heavens and count the stars if you are able to count them.” And he said to him, “So shall your offspring be.” 6 And he believed in Yahweh, and he reckoned it to him as righteousness. 7 And he said to him, “I am Yahweh, who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans to give this land to you, to possess it.”Psalms 33:6
6 By the word of Yahweh the heavens were made,
and by the breath of his mouth all their host.Col 1
12 giving thanks to the Father who has qualified you for a share of the inheritance of the saints in light, 13 who has rescued us from the domain of darkness and transferred us[g] to the kingdom of the Son he loves[h], 14 in whom we have the redemption, the forgiveness of sins, 15 who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation, 16 because all things in the heavens and on the earth were created by him, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers, all things were created through him and for him,Heb 1
8 but concerning the Son,“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever[l],
and the scepter of righteous is the scepter of your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
because of this God, your God, has anointed you
with the olive oil of joy more than your companions.[m]10 And,
“You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,
and the heavens are the works of your hands;John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 This one was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through him, and apart from him not one thing came into being that[a] has come into being. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of humanity. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome[c] it.The Word of Yahweh is Yahweh the Son.
Quote (2besee @ Mar. 21 2013,17:09) ..Jesus “appearing” as a man/flesh only in some mysterious way – is that not denying the flesh/man?
Read what I said again without changing the words.Quote (abe @ Mar. 19 2013,22:42) 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?
Could it be that since mankind itself is called “adam” in Hebrew, the statement could mean that Cain was with THE Adam (the original man), and Cain was also AN adam (a member of mankind)?Because this is what I'm looking for, Abe. I want you to understand that if Cain was with “THE Adam”, and was himself “adam”, it simply means Cain was “a man” who was with “THE first man, Adam”.
Can you see this?
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 21 2013,16:40) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 22 2013,06:32) More t8 confusion: I have never said that I am an authority in Greek grammar and even much less an authority in Hebrew grammar. I have never pretended that I was. Although I have had a year and a half of Greek Biblical grammar study in a classroom. I have only had two classes in a Biblical Hebrew classroom so far but look forward to gaining much knowledge in the future as I attend weekly classes.
Thank you for admitting that. So why not act like it.If you do not understand the Greek in John 1:1 and yet teach John 1:1 as if you are an authority or that your view is the correct one, then you are deceiving yourself. This leads to confusion because you exalt your view above all others even though you yourself admit your lack of understanding.
I have studied the Greek of John 1:1 time and time again and am aware of all the views of how translators and scholars see it. I have heard probably every argument for the Word being God and the Word being in the form of God or divine.
And it becomes clear that only die hard Trinitarians and the world's 32 Binitarians hold the impossible view that the Word is THE God because they want to believe that view for prideful reasons of supporting their doctrinal view. That is the only reason they have that view and they hold it even in light of the fact that it is detrimental/excludes the Father, when you say that the Word is THE God.
Whereas, many honest Trinitarian scholars as well of course honest Greek scholars say it is talking qualitatively like THE Adam versus adam. I even have a friend of a friend who is fluent in Greek and he confirms that the definite article and lack of one is significant.
I even read of a scholar whose view was Trinitarian say that yes it is speaking of nature, but that doesn't exclude him as God but actually implies that he is God because only God is divine in nature. Thus he could say that the Word was God indirectly by reference of the Word being divine.
But even his more honest view is easily shot down when one considers that a being taken from the Divine God and nothing else in existence can only be derived from the nature of which he was brought forth. Thus he could only be divine because created beings come from God and through the Word. And Jesus originally came directly from the Father. As it is written, “He existed in the FORM of God, emptied himself, and came in flesh”. Further, we can partake in the same nature ourselves and we will even receive a body like his. Yet who here makes the arguments that we are God, and yet that is one of many false conclusions your view leads to and if you really believed your own view, you would teach this if you were honest, or honestly deceived.
You argue against Origen in this thread and the only possible translation of John 1:1 because you will use any excuse to back your view. In doing this, you prove your dishonesty by not accepting the reality of the Greek language.
You are a student not a teacher, and while it is good to be a student, it is not good to be a teacher when you do not know that which you teach. Paul (I think it was) gave good advice when he said, “Not many of you should be teachers”. He followed by saying that teachers will be judged more harshly. I personally would not want to be in the shoes of a false teacher when my life is being reviewed. Yet you are heading in that direction unless you repent.
I am a teacher and I know how important it is to be honest in that profession. If I get something wrong it is because I am imperfect and did not maliciously set out to deceive anyone. If that happened I would publicly apologise and repent. But how can the same be said about a person who will draw at any excuse to back their doctrine because their own pride motivates them. Thus they exalt themselves above others to force their view for the pure reason that it is THEIR view. Cursed is such a teacher for he/she deceives them-self and risks deceiving others.
How many Greek classes have you taken, t8? You have a friend that says the lack of the article is significant. So why is that a support for your theology? Significant doesn't mean less than. Maybe your friend doesn't know about predicate nominative. Maybe you should show him what I linked you to. That was a scholar, a TEACHER of GREEK. He supports what I am telling you.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 21 2013,18:31) Quote (abe @ Mar. 19 2013,22:42) 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?
Could it be that since mankind itself is called “adam” in Hebrew, the statement could mean that Cain was with THE Adam (the original man), and Cain was also AN adam (a member of mankind)?Because this is what I'm looking for, Abe. I want you to understand that if Cain was with “THE Adam”, and was himself “adam”, it simply means Cain was “a man” who was with “THE first man, Adam”.
Can you see this?
Cain would not be adam…only those that serve YHVH are adam. Unbelievers are not adam.Quote (2besee @ Mar. 21 2013,17:06) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 22 2013,05:48) taking on the appearance of man and walking in flesh is mysterious indeed. Is this not suspicious, more than mysterious?
No besee, the incarnation is a mystery which I take by faith. I am not suspicious of this, that would be doubting the incarnation.Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 20 2013,06:40) Mike, I got confused.
Phew! I was starting to worry about you for a minute.
I don't think there is any doubt in anyone's mind that the “god” in part b is the Father God. I mean, who else could it be?Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 20 2013,06:40) I have not looked into the matter but the god in John 1:1 seems to be clearly Jehovah while god is more vague.
Agreed. But read my post to Abe right above this one, and see if you can grasp that possibility.If the phrase “Cain was with THE Adam, and Cain was adam” could mean that Cain was a man who was with THE man, Adam, then the phrase “The Word was with THE God, and the Word was god” could mean that the Word was a god who was with THE God, Jehovah………. right?
Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 20 2013,13:36) 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.
So then your answers are both “YES”, right? You believe the Holy Spirit is “a god”. And you believe the spoken words of God are “gods” – is that what you're saying?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
