Preexistence

Blocked

Quote (Ed J @ Dec. 06 2010,07:55)

Hi Mike,

Can we count on you to tell us when God's Word is “literal physical” and
when its “Metaphorical Spiritual” too; how about when there are aspects of both?

Hi Ed,

Yes you can. In fact, when in doubt, ask either me, Pierre, Irene, t8 or Georg.

We'll help you out in your time of crisis, okay?

mike

December 5, 2010 at 11:59 pm#227720

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 06 2010,08:57)

Quote (Ed J @ Dec. 06 2010,07:55)

Hi Mike,

Can we count on you to tell us when God's Word is “literal physical” and
when its “Metaphorical Spiritual” too; how about when there are aspects of both?

Hi Ed,

Yes you can. In fact, when in doubt, ask either me, Pierre, Irene, t8 or Georg.

We'll help you out in your time of crisis, okay?

mike

Hi Mike,

OK; tell me if Luke 12:52 is “literal physical” or “Metaphorical Spiritual” or both?…
Luke 12:52 For from henceforth there shall be five
in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.

How about this one…
John 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing…

And how about this one…
Rev.2:17 …To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone,
and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

Please explain this one too…
Zech.3:9 For behold the stone that I have laid before Joshua; upon one stone shall be seven eyes:
behold, I will engrave the graving thereof, saith the LORD of hosts,
and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day.

Looking forward to your answers; Mike!

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

December 6, 2010 at 1:05 am#227728

Blocked

Hi Ed,

I was making a joke. I was being facetious with you. I have no time to argue trivial things with you. I've been there already, and it has been a waste of time. I mean, what if I say one is literal and you say it's not? Who wins? But just this once…………

1. Literal.

2. Literal

3. Could be either, but I will accept heaven like a child. And a child would take this literally, so then will I.

4. Same answer as above.

peace and love,
mike

December 6, 2010 at 2:00 am#227740

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 06 2010,03:43)

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Dec. 06 2010,03:22)

That is because you distort John 1:1 to mean the WORD was JESUS Not GOD.

Well, we KNOW that Jesus was “the Word” in Revelation, right? We KNOW that a word cannot become flesh, right? And we KNOW that God didn't become flesh and dwell among us with the glory of His own Son, right?

Now, stop diverting things and answer the points we've been discussing.

Answer the “nature” thing Gene. Answer about how John 1:14 doesn't contain the word “IN”.

Answer those points first Gene. If you can't answer them, then what use is it for me to follow you down the rabbit hole, as WJ would say.

mike

Mike……In Revelations it says He is “Called” the word of GOD , now does that mean he (IS) the words of GOD himself as you claim. NO, God ONLY IS HIS WORD, Jesus He is called the word of GOD because He speaks GOD'S word to us. Prophets also Speak GOD'S Words to Us. So they also could have been called the of Word of GOD too the right? The word of GOD did not (BECOME) FLESH it came to be (IN) the Flesh Person JESUS. Why would Jesus say the WORDS Were NOT HIS if He was those Words himself. You are giving Jesus the Glory for what is not His, something He never did, by saying the words were (NOT) His. Anyone who speaks GOD'S words are expressing GOD to others, But that does make them the WORDS they are expressing.

As far as the Nature thing goes look up the word in (ANY) Concordance or Greek Translation and it will say Nature is what is can be implied. But your separatist doctrines keep trying to separate Jesus from our likeness as trinitarians do. The reason you fail to address the other parts of my Post Mike is because they deal with Your rabbit holes you lead people down, and refuse therefore to address them.

I notice all you do is cut a sentence or a small piece of a post and zero in on that without considering the rest of the logic behind that post and that is how you force you opinions off on others without addressing the compete post as presented.

So I will slow this down then, and ask ONE Question of you . DO YOU BELIEVE THE FATHER WAS (ACTUALLY) (IN) JESUS OR NOT?. Answer that and it should sum it all up.

WAS GOD THE FATHER (TRULY) (IN) JESUS, AND IF SO HOW >

If you can't answer that then you have no idea what you are saying IMO>

peace and love………………………….gene

December 6, 2010 at 2:08 am#227741

Participant

Quote (JustAskin @ Dec. 06 2010,04:44)

Wow Mike,
You sure are a God when dealing with Edj and Gene.

Why are you not then able to do the same with others.

But then again Gene is so wrong that even a child could argue against him in this thread.

Perhaps this is your level…you found your level at last.

Just remember how hard it is to make others see what are obvious truths and see how they twist and writhe, and when you debate/discuss with me, remember not to do as they do.
Be honest, you will learn quicker that way, and in an honest, godly way.

JA…………He is not God to me or EDJ, Maybe he is to you but is definitely is not to us. Your statement is demeaning to me and EDJ , Mike is only draw to just certain Words and does not even begin to understand what the context of what scripture is saying. I even wounder about you at times to be honest with you.

peace and love…………………………………..gene

December 6, 2010 at 2:30 am#227746

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 06 2010,11:05)

Hi Ed,

1. Literal.

2. Literal

3. Could be either, but I will accept heaven like a child. And a child would take this literally, so then will I.

4. Same answer as above.

peace and love,
mike

Hi Mike,

Thank you for helping prove my point!
We really can't be certain when the deeper
“Metaphorical Spiritual” is the primary meaning.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

December 7, 2010 at 3:47 am#227832

Blocked

Gene:

Quote

Mike……In Revelations it says He is “Called” the word of GOD , now does that mean he (IS) the words of GOD himself as you claim.

I don't claim that Jesus is the “words of God Himself” Gene. That would be silly.

Gene:

Quote

Jesus is called the word of GOD because He speaks GOD'S word to us.

Yes Gene, that is correct. He is God's Spokesman, and therefore is called the “Word of God”, much like the spokesman for the King of Abyssinia has the title “the word of the king”.

Gene:

Quote

Prophets also Speak GOD'S Words to Us. So they also could have been called the of Word of GOD too the right?

Yes Gene. And they also counseled many people, so they could also have been called “Wonderful Counselor” too. But they aren't. Only Jesus is called “Wonderful Counselor” and “The Word of God”. Probably because he is the most special of all of God's counselors and spokesmen.

Gene:

Quote

The word of GOD did not (BECOME) FLESH it came to be (IN) the Flesh Person JESUS.

Gene, you're still not actually addressing the point in question. The scripture does NOT say the word “IN”. It says “the Word became flesh”. It does NOT say “the Word came to be IN flesh”. The words of Gene Balthrop do NOT override the words of God in the scriptures. You can't just add the word “IN” to make the scripture fit around your understanding Gene. You must form your understanding around the scripture – which DOESN'T contain the word “IN”.

Gene:

Quote

Why would Jesus say the WORDS Were NOT HIS if He was those Words himself.

Jesus spoke the words of his God to us Gene. They were not his words, but those of his God. He was God's Spokesman to us at that time, so he spoke God's words to us. What is so confusing about that?

Gene:

Quote

Anyone who speaks GOD'S words are expressing GOD to others, But that does make them the WORDS they are expressing.

Maybe in Bizarro World Gene. I have never been a “word” in my life Gene. I'm a person, a human being……..not a “word”.

Gene:

Quote

As far as the Nature thing goes look up the word in (ANY) Concordance or Greek Translation and it will say Nature is what is can be implied.

The only problem you and I both seem to have with “nature” is that Jesus never emptied himself of the “nature of God”, right? So how then could it be “nature” if Pauls says he “emptied himself” of it?

Gene:

Quote

WAS GOD THE FATHER (TRULY) (IN) JESUS, AND IF SO HOW

Yes Gene. The Father and Jesus are one in purpose and desire. The Father was “in” Jesus in the same way that love is “in” you. The being of God was not, however, contained inside the flesh body of Jesus, Gene. Jesus taught us how to pray to the Father IN HEAVEN. Jesus many times looked UP TO HEAVEN and gave thanks and asked blessings.

Listen Gene, I won't discuss the abstract way the Father was “in Jesus” or how they were “one” or how if you saw him you also “saw the Father” until you admit that the word “IN” is not in John 1:14 and that you can't take it upon yourself to insert it by your own FREE WILL.

The word is NOT there Gene. You can't just completely change the meaning of a scripture by adding words. Do you understand this?

peace and love,
mike

December 7, 2010 at 3:54 am#227833

Blocked

Gene:

Quote

Your statement is demeaning to me and EDJ ,

It was also demeaning to me Gene. And bordering on blasphemy IMO.

Gene:

Quote

Mike is only draw to just certain Words and does not even begin to understand what the context of what scripture is saying.

Yes Gene. You have to take all the words as they are written to get the full meaning of the scripture. Take your addition of the word “IN” in John 1:14 for example. Adding one simple little two letter word like “IN” changes the whole meaning of the text. The meaning of many scriptures hindge on one simple little word like that Gene. Of course I'm going to do whatever I can to make sure I understand each single little word.

I just can't bring myself to add them in and take them out as it suits me like you do.

peace and love,
mike

December 7, 2010 at 3:57 am#227834

Blocked

Quote (Ed J @ Dec. 06 2010,12:30)

We really can't be certain when the deeper
“Metaphorical Spiritual” is the primary meaning.

Fair enough Ed. And if it says, “he spoke the word of God”, it's pretty clear that he spoke God's words.

But if it says, “he is called the Word of God”, then it's pretty clear that has a different meaning altogether, right?

mike

December 7, 2010 at 4:05 am#227836

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 07 2010,13:54)

Gene:

Quote

Your statement is demeaning to me and EDJ ,

It was also demeaning to me Gene. And bordering on blasphemy IMO.

Gene:

Quote

Mike is only draw to just certain Words and does not even begin to understand what the context of what scripture is saying.

I just can't bring myself to add them in and take them out as it suits me like you do.

peace and love,
mike

Hi Mike,

Is this not true you want to add the indefinite article ‘a’
to John 1:1 so it will fit your preconceived ideas of truth?

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

December 7, 2010 at 4:08 am#227837

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 07 2010,13:57)

Quote (Ed J @ Dec. 06 2010,12:30)

We really can't be certain when the deeper
“Metaphorical Spiritual” is the primary meaning.

Fair enough Ed. And if it says, “he spoke the word of God”, it's pretty clear that he spoke God's words.

But if it says, “he is called the Word of God”, then it's pretty clear that has a different meaning altogether, right?

mike

Hi Mike,

The “HolySpirit” is indeed called “The Word” of God! (Click Here)

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

December 7, 2010 at 11:25 am#227872

kerwin

Participant

Mike Boll,

We have already covered John 1 and I pointed out how that chapter can be understood in such a way that it does support the Word being the Holy Spirit. As far as I know everyone believes that the Holy Spirit is with God and is God.

I will try to remember to post a thread on John 1 next Sunday pointing out how is can be understood to be speaking of the Holy Spirit.

Thank you for the suggestion but I still feel I need additional information about being made the light of the world by God.

December 7, 2010 at 4:23 pm#227885

Participant

Kerwin…………..You have it right the Word of GOD is GOD , GOD and His word are one and the same , Just as we and our Word are one and the Same thing. If there were a scripture that said ” In the beginning the word was with Gene and the Word Was Gene, no one would have a problem understanding that, But because they (trinitarians and Preexistences) have separated GOD from His WORDS , they change the meaning of the text completely, Even though Mike full well knows that the WORD “JESUS” is not even in the text of John 1:1, and then he criticizes other who add a word like (IN) to the meaning even though the word could (NOT) become flesh, so it has to mean GOD who is His WORD was (IN) Jesus. Just as Jesus said He was> IMO

PS…> Kerwin hope you kidney is functioning OK Brother.

peace and love to you and yours Kerwin…………………………………..gene

December 7, 2010 at 10:54 pm#227912

Participant

Hi Mike

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 05 2010,06:51)

The problem you have is this is one of those Trinitarian scriptures that cannot be refuted.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 04 2010,20:21)

Whoa! Slow your roll there Mr. Keith!

Why Mike? Am I going a little too fast for you? I tell you what, I will slow it down a little, now listen closely Mike!!!

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 04 2010,20:21)

There is much evidence that supports “Christ” in 1 Cor 10:9, but at least as much evidence that supports “God” and “Lord” in that scripture.

True Mike, but if it was “Lord” or “God” then it would make an even stronger case for the “Deity” of Christ, because it is clear that “Christ’ is the “Spiritual Rock” that followed them in the wilderness and the one that was being tempted.

And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of “that spiritual Rock that followed them: and THAT ROCK WAS CHRIST”. 1 Cor 10:4

There is no variations in the manuscripts in verse 4, is there Mike?

Your statement that there is “as much evidence” is not exactly true either as the NET shows us, (highlights are mine)…

“6TC ΧΡΙΣΤΌΝ (CRISTON, “CHRIST”) IS ATTESTED IN THE MAJORITY OF MSS, INCLUDING MANY IMPORTANT WITNESSES OF THE ALEXANDRIAN (Ì46 1739 1881) AND WESTERN (D F G) TEXTTYPES, AND OTHER MSS AND VERSIONS (Ψ LATT SY CO).” On the other hand, some of the important Alexandrian witnesses have κύριον (kurion, “Lord”; א B C P 33 104 1175 al). A few mss (A 81 pc) have θεόν (qeon, “God”). The nomina sacra for these readings are quite similar (cMn, kMn, and qMn respectively), so one might be able to account for the different readings by way of confusion. On closer examination, the variants appear to be intentional changes. Alexandrian scribes replaced the highly specific term “Christ” with the less specific terms “Lord” and “God” because in the context it seems to be anachronistic to speak of the exodus generation putting Christ to the test. If the original had been “Lord,” it seems unlikely that a scribe would have willingly created a difficulty by substituting the more specific “Christ.” Moreover, even if not motivated by a tendency to overcorrect, a scribe might be likely to assimilate the word “Christ” to “Lord” in conformity with Deut 6:16 or other passages. The evidence from the early church regarding the reading of this verse is rather compelling in favor of “Christ.” Marcion, a second-century, anti-Jewish heretic, would naturally have opposed any reference to Christ in historical involvement with Israel, because he thought of the Creator God of the OT as inherently evil. In spite of this strong prejudice, though, {Marcion} read a text with “Christ.” Other early church writers attest to the presence of the word “Christ,” including {Clement of Alexandria} and Origen. What is more, the synod of Antioch in a.d. 268 used the reading “Christ” as evidence of the preexistence of Christ when it condemned Paul of Samosata. (See G. Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles, 126-27; TCGNT 494; C. D. Osburn, “The Text of 1 Corinthians 10:9,” New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis, 201-11; contra A. Robertson and A. Plummer, First Corinthians [ICC], 205-6.) Since “Christ” is the more difficult reading on all accounts, it is almost certainly original. In addition, “Christ” is consistent with Paul’s style in this passage (cf. 10:4, a text in which {Marcion} also reads “Christ”). This text is also christologically significant, since the reading “Christ” makes an explicit claim to the preexistence of Christ. (The textual critic faces a similar dilemma in Jude 5. In a similar exodus context, some of the more important Alexandrian mss [A B 33 81 pc] and the Vulgate read “Jesus” in place of “Lord.” Two of those mss [A 81] are the same mss that have “Christ” instead of “God” in 1 Cor 10:9. See the tc notes on Jude 5 for more information.) In sum, “Christ” has all the earmarks of authenticity here and should be considered the original reading.[/b] NET

If anything it would have been Arians tampering with the Text.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 04 2010,20:21)

But to say that Jesus was the “angel of Jehovah” in whom Jehovah had put His name is not to say Jesus IS Jehovah. An “angel OF Jehovah” is not Jehovah Himself Keith.

Really? So an “angel of Jehovah” was the “Spiritual Rock” that followed them? Can you give us one OT scripture where an “angel of Jehovah” is ever called “The Rock”? In fact only Jehovah is called “The Rock”. Only Jehovah was the source of the literal and spiritual water that they drank.

Was it an “angel of Jehovah” that they tempted?

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 04 2010,20:21)

Christ” in 10:9 would definitely attest to pre-existence, but not to deity.

So you say Mike! But Christ is called the “Spiritual Rock” and it was Christ that they tempted and it was Christ who over threw them, therefore “Christ” is YHVH.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 04 2010,20:21)

And it's interesting that two of the mss that have “Christ” in 1 Cor 10:9 are also the ones that have “Jesus” in Jude 1:5.[/b]

HaHa Mike. Jude 1:4 and 5 is another proof text that anybody with an open mind can see that in context Jude is speaking of Jesus as YHVH. Paul and Jude agree that it was the Lord Jehovah that overthrew them in the wilderness, and Paul referred to him as “Christ” and Jude referred to him as the Lord Jesus.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 04 2010,20:21)

Sounds like a “trinity conspiracy theory” to me.

Seems like someone is “doctoring the books” hey?

Of course that is what you cry about when the “books” don’t agree with you. It sounds like to me a desperate attempt of an “Arian” to deny the truth.

December 7, 2010 at 11:06 pm#227913

Participant

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Dec. 04 2010,21:07)

Jesus was an anointed Person he was not (THE ANOINTING) but (THE ANOINTED) of GOD, WJ.

Thank you Gene, that is what I have been saying. But you have been saying that the “Spiritual Rock” that followed them who is Christ, was the anointing.

Again, “Christ” does not equal “anointing” but as you say (THE ANOINTED), therefore Jesus is the Rock that that followed them in the wilderness. Get it?

December 7, 2010 at 11:18 pm#227914

terraricca

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 08 2010,16:06)

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Dec. 04 2010,21:07)

Jesus was an anointed Person he was not (THE ANOINTING) but (THE ANOINTED) of GOD, WJ.

Thank you Gene, that is what I have been saying. But you have been saying that the “Spiritual Rock” that followed them who is Christ, was the anointing.

Again, “Christ” does not equal “anointing” but as you say (THE ANOINTED), therefore Jesus is the Rock that that followed them in the wilderness. Get it?

i am tempted to agree with you,because God does not come to men he would kill us all,

and after all ;Jn 1:11 He(Jesus) came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him,

Pierre

December 7, 2010 at 11:18 pm#227915

Participant

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Dec. 04 2010,21:18)

WJ………..By the way Messiah does not mean SON of GOD, it Means THE ANOINTED of GOD. While that anointing can cause you to be considered a Son of GOD that is the same with Us also. “Bretheren (NOW) we are the Sons of GOD”, it says, But you trinitarians and Preexistences alway try to make Jesus Different from us and move his identity away from our identity, you are indeed Separatist and that Wj is the Spirit (intellect) of Antichrist John was talking about. Your trinitarian roots are clouding you understanding brother. IMO

peace and love…………………………………..gene

Gene

There is only One “Messiah”.

There is only One “Christ”.

Can you give us a scripture anywhere that refers to a believer or someone who is anointed as being called “Christ”?

I didn't think so. All 569 times Christ is mentioned in the NT it is speaking of Jesus Christ or “false christ”. HMMM, are you inferring that you are a “Christ”, an anointed one just like Jesus?

BTW, you keep throwing around the word seperatist, but do you even know what the word means?

December 7, 2010 at 11:23 pm#227916

Participant

Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 07 2010,17:18)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 08 2010,16:06)

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Dec. 04 2010,21:07)

Jesus was an anointed Person he was not (THE ANOINTING) but (THE ANOINTED) of GOD, WJ.

Thank you Gene, that is what I have been saying. But you have been saying that the “Spiritual Rock” that followed them who is Christ, was the anointing.

Again, “Christ” does not equal “anointing” but as you say (THE ANOINTED), therefore Jesus is the Rock that that followed them in the wilderness. Get it?

i am tempted to agree with you,because God does not come to men he would kill us all,

and after all ;Jn 1:11 He(Jesus) came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him,

Pierre

True Pierre!

Thanks!

December 7, 2010 at 11:42 pm#227925

Baker

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 08 2010,08:54)

Hi Mike

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 05 2010,06:51)

The problem you have is this is one of those Trinitarian scriptures that cannot be refuted.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 04 2010,20:21)

Whoa! Slow your roll there Mr. Keith!

Why Mike? Am I going a little too fast for you? I tell you what, I will slow it down a little, now listen closely Mike!!!

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 04 2010,20:21)

There is much evidence that supports “Christ” in 1 Cor 10:9, but at least as much evidence that supports “God” and “Lord” in that scripture.

And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of “that spiritual Rock that followed them: and THAT ROCK WAS CHRIST”. 1 Cor 10:4

There is no variations in the manuscripts in verse 4, is there Mike?

Your statement that there is “as much evidence” is not exactly true either as the NET shows us, (highlights are mine)…

If anything it would have been Arians tampering with the Text.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 04 2010,20:21)

But to say that Jesus was the “angel of Jehovah” in whom Jehovah had put His name is not to say Jesus IS Jehovah. An “angel OF Jehovah” is not Jehovah Himself Keith.

Was it an “angel of Jehovah” that they tempted?

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 04 2010,20:21)

Christ” in 10:9 would definitely attest to pre-existence, but not to deity.

So you say Mike! But Christ is called the “Spiritual Rock” and it was Christ that they tempted and it was Christ who over threw them, therefore “Christ” is YHVH.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 04 2010,20:21)

And it's interesting that two of the mss that have “Christ” in 1 Cor 10:9 are also the ones that have “Jesus” in Jude 1:5.[/b]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 04 2010,20:21)

Sounds like a “trinity conspiracy theory” to me.

Seems like someone is “doctoring the books” hey?

Of course that is what you cry about when the “books” don’t agree with you. It sounds like to me a desperate attempt of an “Arian” to deny the truth.

WJ It says and the Lord Jesus Christ….in

Jud 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only LORD God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Jud 1:5 ¶ I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the LORD, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.

Peace Irene

December 8, 2010 at 12:38 am#227950