Preexistence

[JustAskin]

t8,
It's funny how no matter what i write, someone misinterprets some little part and then presumes to tell me that i'm wrong…and then 'corrects me' by telling me the very thing I believe and already said.

T8, you and I aren par in that we both understand Computer Systems, and Computer Systems are a human form of a 'god creation'.
We can build 'a Heaven' in it, build worlds, create beings, Avatars, that…to all intents and purposes…become autonomous beings.
From none visible bodied 'Forums' where we speak to anyone at anytime, distance is no boundary, borders are no obstacle, time is immaterial, but we are disembodied, in the Spirit, so to speak. There is a God…When he speaks ..everyone listens…he is everywhere, all at the same time, he is omnipotent..who can say 'no' to him and still 'live'? But he loves his children and just gives them blocks,, visible signs of his displeasure…and he removes the blocks when they repent, beg pardon, desist from their wrongful ways…
And there are those who can exercise some of the powers of this god, but not all powers…for even 'All' does not mean 'ALL', and wisely so.

And then, 'Habbo' ….little human robot like creatures in an imaginary silicon based world, flesh made of 'pixels'…bodies filled and animated by the Spirit of the player, the creator of the particular Habbo creature…
That habbo creature is in a semi-three dimensional world, pretend three dimension…it can do unearthly things though, like appear and disappear in an instance from one room to another, simply by its Spirit controller selecting a room from a list….expand that thought to the real human world…would be incredible… How many time has someone said, 'I wish I was there', or 'I wish that I wasn't here'…what if they could…but God is wise…(Wouldn't 'Mr Lova lova' man have just loved it to happen that he could just disappear when his girlfriend caught him in a clinch with the woman next door?…why does a man beat up the other man when a man he catches his girlfriend in a clinch, but the girlfrind beats up her boyfriend when she catches him out? Why not beat up the other woman)

T8, both you AND Gene say counter…Gene says, physical bodies can go through each other, right after i explain why not. Gene says i don't know enough about Physics…i think perhaps Gene hasn't understood much of what i've written nor the concepts, ideas – real or apparent, the depth of thinking, the broad spectrum of knowledge of Chemistry, Physics, Biology, the Sciences, literature, Greek mythology, etc, etc, which is the Spirit and Soul of JustAskin…
How many times i write subtle hints of things, drawn from books, the arts, history, science, religion, etc…and it has gone unheeded, many taking JustAskin for a fool …because their earthbased, lacking wisdom, limited worldly view cannot understand…
Well, if the crucified my Lord, how should I expect that they will leave me unscathed. Indeed, if they did, i should feel extremely slighted..for how can i become 'like Him' unless i am treated 'like Him'.

T8,
I do understand that two bodies with strongly linked molecular bonds would be difficult to pass through each other…however, you miss out the ingredience of external force….
Can a straw pass through a brick? Ha ha…please say 'no'.

I'm laughing so much…tell my why not…..oh, ok…!!!

Now, do this. Load that straw into a high pressure 'gun' of sorts and fire it at the brick….
What happened…the straw has gone through the brick, left a hole in the brick,…a strawny piece of dried grass has penetrated a solid brick…how?

Simple…the strawny straw was 'empowered' with energy from the high pressure gun…
The moleclues of the straw became bound tighter than the molecules of the brick, and the straw simply 'parted' a hole, squashed apart all brick molecules in its path. In experiments, the brick is more often shattered because, in fact, the bonding of the brick in a certain direction, is extremely brittle…
A man can wade through water, but can't wade through a wall.
A wall can hold back water, but a high pressure jet of water can penetrate a wall…

Actually, what has any of this to do with 'preExistence'?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 14 2010,04:46)

Gene, Also you deny these scriptures… Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; As it is written, Behold, “I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence”: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. Rom 9:32, 33 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And “a stone of stumbling, and “a rock of offence”, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. 1 Peter 2:7, 8 Sanctify the LORD (YHWH) of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread. And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for “a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel”, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Isa 8:13, 14. So according to your words you have rejected “The Christ” who is the “Rock”, the chief cornerstone of our salvation.

Hi Keith,

Did you not notice this:

Isaiah 28:16 NIV
So this is what the Sovereign LORD says: “See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation; the one who relies on it will never be stricken with panic.

We know that Jesus IS that “cornerstone”, right?  But Jehovah doesn't say He will BE that cornerstone, only that He will LAY that stone in Zion.  So that right there tells you that Jesus is the “cornerstone” that his God laid, right?

Now, check this out:

Isaiah 8 NIV
13 The LORD Almighty is the one you are to regard as holy,
  he is the one you are to fear,
  he is the one you are to dread.
14 He will be a holy place;
  for both Israel and Judah he will be
a stone that causes people to stumble
  and a rock that makes them fall.

I notice in this scripture that you quoted, Isaiah says that Jehovah Himself will be this “stone”, right?  I wonder why, then, that Paul quotes this scripture with a little variation:

Romans 9 NIV
32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. 33 As it is written:
  “See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble
  and a rock that makes them fall,
  and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.”

Do you see how Paul uses the “lay” part of Is 28:16, but finishes up with Is 8:14?  This way, he makes clear that he does NOT think Jesus IS the YHVH from 8:13-14.  He makes sure by “mixing and matching” the scriptures that we understand it was GOD, who LAID Jesus as a “stumbling stone”.  Interesting?  And how does Peter phrase it?

1 Peter 2 NIV
4 As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him— 5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For in Scripture it says:
  “See, I lay a stone in Zion,
  a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
  will never be put to shame.”

7 Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,

  “The stone the builders rejected
  has become the cornerstone,”

8 and,

  “A stone that causes people to stumble
  and a rock that makes them fall.”

Let's anylize this passage a little, Keith.  First of all, Jesus is the “Living Stone” who was chosen by – it doesn't say THE FATHER – but chosen by GOD.  So Jesus is classified as someone OTHER THAN God, right?  

Then he says we offer spiritual sacrifices that are acceptable to……….who?  THE FATHER?  Nope.  We offer them to GOD……THROUGH……..JESUS.  Once again Peter is classifying Jesus as someone OTHER THAN God.

Then Peter quotes the scripture that says God LAID the “cornerstone” of Jesus.  It does NOT say God IS that “cornerstone”, right?

And what does Peter do when he gets to quoting Is 8:14?  He PURPOSELY leaves out the “he will be” part that might have been mistaken as referring to Jehovah.  So, although he doesn't “mix and match” the scriptures like Paul, he does start Is 8:14 mid-sentence, making it abundantly clear from the whole passage that Peter is quite sure that Jesus is NOT Jehovah.

peace and love,
mike

[gollamudi]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 14 2010,13:25)

Now, check this out: Isaiah 8 NIV 13 The LORD Almighty is the one you are to regard as holy,   he is the one you are to fear,   he is the one you are to dread. 14 He will be a holy place;   for both Israel and Judah he will be a stone that causes people to stumble   and a rock that makes them fall. I notice in this scripture that you quoted, Isaiah says that Jehovah Himself will be this “stone”, right?  I wonder why, then, that Paul quotes this scripture with a little variation: Romans 9 NIV 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. 33 As it is written:   “See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble   and a rock that makes them fall,   and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.” Do you see how Paul uses the “lay” part of Is 28:16, but finishes up with Is 8:14?  This way, he makes clear that he does NOT think Jesus IS the YHVH from 8:13-14.  He makes sure by “mixing and matching” the scriptures that we understand it was GOD, who LAID Jesus as a “stumbling stone”.  Interesting?  And how does Peter phrase it?

Hi brother Mike,
This is where I question the sanctity of N.T writers when applied Hebrew scriptures by taking them in bits and parts by twisting them from their original meaning. Do you see the truth in my arguments?

[karmarie]

Quote (JustAskin @ Dec. 14 2010,13:13)

t8, Not one day…only 12 hours…

Jay, it's 13 hours.

That was a good post (on the last page).

[JustAskin]

Hi Kar,

Ah, the refinement…one day, but not one day, but half a day. But not half a day, but thirteen hours…

So, once having learnt a broad truth, it is a choice and an honour, to go onto the refinement of that truth…and yet even further refinement until the full truth be known.

[karmarie]

Quote (JustAskin @ Dec. 15 2010,12:11)

Hi Kar, Ah, the refinement…one day, but not one day, but half a day. But not half a day, but thirteen hours… So, once having learnt a broad truth, it is a choice and an honour, to go onto the refinement of that truth…and yet even further refinement until the full truth be known.

Ha ha thats good, I have no idea what your talking about though ?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (gollamudi @ Dec. 14 2010,13:56)

Hi brother Mike, This is where I question the sanctity of N.T writers when applied Hebrew scriptures by taking them in bits and parts by twisting them from their original meaning. Do you see the truth in my arguments?

Hi Adam,

It might look like that to us in certain scriptures at this time.  But I've learned to trust in Jehovah with my whole heart, soul and mind and not to lean on my own understanding Adam.

And I've been looking closer at Is 8:14 today.  I've compared the LXX with the way the Hebrew is translated.  The way the Hebrew is translated by most English Bibles, it seem to say that YHVH is both a “sanctuary” AND a “stumbling block” to Israel.  Read it for yourself.  The scripture seems to be saying two completely different things.

But the LXX translates like this:

And if thou shalt trust in him, he shall be to thee for a sanctuary; and ye shall not come against [him] as against a stumbling-stone, neither as against the falling of a rock: but the houses of Jacob are in a snare, and the dwellers in Jerusalem in a pit.

Now this makes more sense, right?  It changes the whole meaning of the passage.  Instead of saying YHVH will be both a sanctuary AND a stumbling block, it says if you trust Him, he will be like a sanctuary and he WON'T be to you as a stumbling block.

Now, notice the bracketed word [him] in the LXX version.  This is Sir Brenton's English translation of the Greek LXX.  I looked at the actual Greek words, and it could be read to say “you will not come up against HIS stumbling stone”.  

Let's face it Adam.  The Hebrew language was written with so few words that we have to “piece together” the meaning of any given scripture.  And I think the Greek speaking Jews who translated the Hebrew into Greek in the LXX had a better understanding of the Hebrew meaning than any translator today has.  And that's probably why the LXX was the version used by the early church fathers to settle any scriptural disagreements they had.

But now we have the problem of translating the Greek of the LXX into English.  The Greek uses more words and is easier, but it's not a perfect translation into English.  So many mistakes could be made in any number of steps in the process of bringing the Hebrew to English 3000 years later.

Is 8:14 could have actually been talking about God laying a stumbling block that we wouldn't stumble on if we had faith in Him.  Paul could have know this.  And Paul apparently made a mistake by combining the two scriptures.  But the mistake would not be that major if he had know that both scriptures spoke of YHVH placing, or “laying” a stubling block before the Israelites.

After all, almost every great spirit inspired person in the Bible still made simple human mistakes Adam.  Moses did.  So did Aaron.  And David.  And Solomon.  And Jonah.  And John.  And Peter.  And so on and so on.

I think that anything we read in the NT that seems “contradictory” or “out of place” is a combination of us reading a 2000 year old book that has been translated and re-translated many times over the years, the fact that the writers were all human and made human mistakes,  and the fact that our understanding is not quite complete yet.

peace and love,
mike

[gollamudi]

Hi brother Mike,
I appreciate your honest confessions on different versions of Bible especially of our O.T. In fact there is some allegation on the LXX version of Nevi'im (prophets) and other writings (Ketuvim) that they were not authorized by king Ptolemy in 3rd BCE. Here is such allegation taken from Wikipedia ;

Use of the Septuagint
“Jewish use:
In the 3rd century BCE, on the 8th of Tevet in the Jewish calendar, the LXX (Septuagint) was translated from Hebrew into Greek by 72 learned Jews who included 15 intentional “mistranslations.” The LXX was produced at the command of King Ptolemy and was only of the Five Books of Moses (the Torah).[17]
The Prophets and Writings (Nevi'im and Ketuvi'im) were translated by anonymous authors at some later date. Over time the Septuagint became corrupt and Jews stopped using Greek translations. Origen, an early church father (died 232 CE) wrote:
“We are forthwith to reject as spurious the copies in use in our Churches, and enjoin the brotherhood to put away the sacred books current among them, and to coax the Jews, and persuade them to give us copies which shall be untampered with, and free from forgery.”.[18]
Read more: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.js….i1MWmfm
Starting approximately in the 2nd century CE, several factors led most Jews to abandon use of the LXX. The earliest gentile Christians of necessity used the LXX, as it was at the time the only Greek version of the Bible, and most, if not all, of these early non-Jewish Christians could not read Hebrew. The association of the LXX with a rival religion may have rendered it suspect in the eyes of the newer generation of Jews and Jewish scholars.[5] Perhaps more importantly, the Greek language—and therefore the Greek Bible—declined among Jews after most of them fled from the Greek-speaking eastern Roman Empire into the Aramaic-speaking Parthian Empire when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans. Instead, Jews used Hebrew/Aramaic Targum manuscripts later compiled by the Masoretes; and authoritative Aramaic translations, such as those of Onkelos and Rabbi Yonathan ben Uziel.[19]
What was perhaps most significant for the LXX, as distinct from other Greek versions, was that the LXX began to lose Jewish sanction after differences between it and contemporary Hebrew scriptures were discovered. Even Greek-speaking Jews — such as those remaining in Eretz Yisrael — tended less to the LXX, preferring other Jewish versions in Greek, such as that of Aquila, which seemed to be more concordant with contemporary Hebrew texts.[5] While Jews have not used the LXX in worship or religious study since the 2nd century CE, recent scholarship has brought renewed interest in it in Judaic Studies.”

N.T writers were not thorough with Hebrew including Paul who also a Diaspora Jew. Therefore they used only LXX version of Hebrew Bible which was familiar to them. You can't justify the logics of these writers by stating that LXX was true version. After the findings on Dead Sea Scrolls even the percentage of these Scrolls favors only Masoretic (MT) than LXX. Here is the statistics taken from Wikipedia;

“Dead Sea Scrolls:
The Biblical manuscripts found in the Qumran, are distributed as follows: 60% Proto-Masoretic texts, 20% Qumran style manuscripts, 10% Nonaligned texts, 5% Proto-Samaritan texts, and 5% Septugintal type texts. Further more, the Qumran style manuscripts have their bases in the proto-Masoretic texts. The Masoretic type texts were dominant in the time of the Hasmonean period (about 160 B.C.E.). [p. 172 of Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls by Laurence Shiffman)”

Scholars today differ on LXX being the reliable version of Hebrew Bible. Yes you may be right in saying after all the translators were also human beings like us could have caused bias and errors. But the problem is N.T writers like Paul and Gospel writers were keen in finding some scriptural support for Jesus being the Jewish Messiah. Therefore they tried their level best to find some word or passage in the Hebrew Bible for their Christological support. That is what I point out here as bits and parts taken from different passages and contexts to suit their ideas. Some times I even doubt whether Paul and other writers like John, Hebrews were all Trinitarians. So they equated Jesus with God in terms of Soteriology as well as doxology. I don't know fully.

Thanks and peace to you
Adam

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 14 2010,21:49)

And Paul apparently made a mistake by combining the two scriptures.

So then how can we believe anything Paul says?  

When you understand by the Spirit of Revelation that Paul knew the Lord “Kurious” is Jesus and Jehovah (which of course is the Greek word in the LXX for YHVH) then you began to see why Paul applied so many scriptures that spoke of YHVH to Jesus yet making a distinction between the Father and the Son or the Word that was with God and was God.

I think Paul a Hebrew of the Hebrews knew more about the LXX and its prophetic application to Jesus than you MIke.

Peter as well as Jude and John does the same thing.

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 14 2010,21:49)

Now this makes more sense, right?  It changes the whole meaning of the passage.

Mike

No it doesn't change the meaning at all.

For YHVH is still the “Stumbling stone” and the “Rock of offence” that they stumbled over. No one else in the Hebrew scriptures is called “The Rock” other than YHVH. Yet Jesus is called “The Rock” and both Peter and Paul point to these scriptures as refering to Jesus as being the Rock, not to mention 1 Cor 10:4.

Furthermore it says “in him (YHVH) they shall put their trust“, and on what name and in whom do we trust for our salvation?

Who is our Savour? Who is the ROCK of our salvation?

The Hebrew scriptures teach that only YHVH is our Savour. Yet Jesus is emphatically called our Savour in whom we put our trust, and not by proxy for it was by his “own life and blood” that he saved us FOR HIMSELF.

It is Jesus name that we call on and in whom we put our trust.

while we wait for the blessed hope–the glorious appearing of “our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who GAVE HIMSELF for us to redeem us from all wickedness and “to purify “FOR HIMSELF” a people that are “HIS VERY OWN“, eager to do what is good.Titus 2 13, 14

Verse 14 is proof that Paul viewed Jesus as his Great God and Savour for he knew that only YHVH was his Savour.

Jesus and the Father are one.

WJ

[terraricca]

all

Isa 28:16 So this is what the Sovereign LORD says:
“See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a tested stone,
a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation;
the one who trusts will never be dismayed.

Isa 8:14 and he will be a sanctuary;
but for both houses of Israel he will be
a stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall.
And for the people of Jerusalem he will be
a trap and a snare.

Ro 9:32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the “stumbling stone.”

stumbling stone;Ro 9;32 and rock ;Es 8;14 and stone in zion ;this is Jesus Christ because Jesus is the faith in wich we can have faith in God his father

so Paul ad it right all the way;Ro 9:30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith;
Ro 9:31 but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it.
Ro 9:32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the “stumbling stone.”
Ro 9:33 As it is written:
“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”
Ro 10:1 Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved.
Ro 10:2 For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge.
Ro 10:3 Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.

sorry WJ i do not agree with you on this

[mikeboll64]

Quote (gollamudi @ Dec. 15 2010,14:28)

Yes you may be right in saying after all the translators were also human beings like us could have caused bias and errors. But the problem is N.T writers like Paul and Gospel writers were keen in finding some scriptural support for Jesus being the Jewish Messiah. Therefore they tried their level best to find some word or passage in the Hebrew Bible for their Christological support. That is what I point out here as bits and parts taken from different passages and contexts to suit their ideas. Some times I even doubt whether Paul and other writers like John, Hebrews were all Trinitarians.

H Adam,

Even Jesus quoted from the LXX. In fact, something like 67% of the OT quotes in the NT are from the LXX, not the Hebrew.

And none of the NT writers were trinitarians. The trinity wasn't INVENTED BY MAN until way after all the Apostles and NT writers were dead and buried.

peace and love,
mike

[Baker]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 16 2010,11:56)

Quote (gollamudi @ Dec. 15 2010,14:28) Yes you may be right in saying after all the translators were also human beings like us could have caused bias and errors. But the problem is N.T writers like Paul and Gospel writers were keen in finding some scriptural support for Jesus being the Jewish Messiah. Therefore they tried their level best to find some word or passage in the Hebrew Bible for their Christological support. That is what I point out here as bits and parts taken from different passages and contexts to suit their ideas. Some times I even doubt whether Paul and other writers like John, Hebrews were all Trinitarians. H Adam, Even Jesus quoted from the LXX.  In fact, something like 67% of the OT quotes in the NT are from the LXX, not the Hebrew. And none of the NT writers were trinitarians.  The trinity wasn't INVENTED BY MAN until way after all the Apostles and NT writers were dead and buried. peace and love, mike

Mike I agree, the trinity was invented in the third century by a man named Quintus Septimus Florence Tertullian. And Constantine made it a Law at the ecumenical council at Nicea. He also made Sunday the day of rest…
Peace and Love Irene

[mikeboll64]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 14 2010,21:49)

And Paul apparently made a mistake by combining the two scriptures.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 16 2010,02:57)

So then how can we believe anything Paul says?

Do you dispute the FACT that Paul “merged” two different scriptures together?

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 16 2010,02:57)

When you understand by the Spirit of Revelation that Paul knew the Lord “Kurious” is Jesus and Jehovah (which of course is the Greek word in the LXX for YHVH)

No it's not Keith.  “Kurios” simply means “lord”, not “YHVH”.  Unless maybe you think Abraham is also a part of the “Godhead”.  He is called “kurios” in Gen 23:15 and in other scriptures.  So are others.

Besides, the earliest fragments of the LXX known to date actually have YHVH in the Hebrew letters mixed right in with the Greek text.  So when Jesus read in the synagogue in Luke 4:18-19, he most likely read AND SAID the name YHVH.  And that's why he later could claim that he made God's NAME known.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 16 2010,02:57)

then you began to see why Paul applied so many scriptures that spoke of YHVH to Jesus

Yes.  And he also applied a scripture written about Solomon to Jesus.  Was Jesus also Solomon?  

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 16 2010,02:57)

yet making a distinction between the Father and the Son

Yeah, he made a distinction alright!  He said to praise God…..AND……Jesus, clearly distinguishing two different beings from each other – one of which was “God”.

He said he thanks the God OF our Lord Jesus Christ, again clearly distinguishing between two, and only ONE of those two is “God”.

Oh, and he said we have but ONE God, and that is the Father.  He didn't say “the Father and Son duo”, nor did he say “the Father, Son and Spirit trio”.  

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 16 2010,02:57)

or the Word that was with God and was God.

1 John 1 NIV
1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.

1 John 4 NIV
12 No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.

14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.

20  For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen.

How much clearer can it be Keith?  NO MAN has EVER SEEN GOD.  But John and the disciples DID SEE AND TOUCH the Word.
Conclusion:  Jesus is NOT God.  

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 16 2010,02:57)

I think Paul a Hebrew of the Hebrews knew more about the LXX and its prophetic application to Jesus than you MIke.

I agree completely.  And Paul says God LAID a stumbling stone in Zion instead of saying God WAS that stone.  

See my post to Adam yesterday for a possible explanation to why Paul could have said what he said WITHOUT misquoting scripture.

peace and love,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 16 2010,05:16)

No it doesn't change the meaning at all.

Are you blind?  One says YHVH will be a sanctuary and a stumbling stone to Israel and Judah.  Kind of a contradiction, eh?

The other says IF YOU TRUST IN YVHV, He will be your sanctuary and you WON'T stumble on the stone he placed in Zion.  No contradiction there, right?

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 16 2010,05:16)

For YHVH is still the “Stumbling stone” and the “Rock of offence” that they stumbled over.

Not according to Paul and Peter.  They say that YHVH LAID that stone in Zion……….not that He WAS that stone.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 16 2010,05:16)

Yet Jesus is called “The Rock” and both Peter and Paul point to these scriptures as refering to Jesus as being the Rock, not to mention 1 Cor 10:4.

Yes Keith.  And Jesus himself named Simon “Rock”.  And he said that Simon's revelation that Jesus was God's SON, not God Himself, was “the Rock” on which he would build his church.

Also Jesus was the “stone” that would cause some to stumble and that would crush those it falls on.  In Zech 12:3, Jerusalem is also called an “immovable stone” that would cause people to be hurt.

But what else is YHVH supposedly called in Is 8:14?  A “trap” and a “snare”?

Judges 2:3 NIV
And I have also said, ‘I will not drive them out before you; they will become traps for you, and their gods will become snares to you.’”

OH NO!  The Canaanite gods were also called “snares”!  They must be YHVH God Almighty too!  You tried this with Pierre and the word “good” Keith.  Just because God is called “good” and Jesus is called “good” does not mean Jesus is God.  Jesus is God's Son and the second most powerful being in existence.  It stands to reason that some words that describe YHVH would also be used to describe His Son who is the exact representation of Him.

And more than just Jesus are “saviors” in the scriptures Keith.  See my answer to that in the “Scriptures that prove Jesus is God” thread that you have avoided like the plague because you would rather just keep posting scriptures that “sound good” than discuss them with someone.  Because you know for a fact that were we to actually discuss them one at a time, your straw house would burn very easily when scriptural fire is applied to it.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 16 2010,05:16)

while we wait for the blessed hope–the glorious appearing of “our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who GAVE HIMSELF for us to redeem us from all wickedness and “to purify “FOR HIMSELF” a people that are “HIS VERY OWN“, eager to do what is good.Titus 2 13, 14 Verse 14 is proof that Paul viewed Jesus as his Great God and Savour for he knew that only YHVH was his Savour.

I also started a Titus 2:13 thread for just you and SF which  neither of you ever visited.

But this is from the CEV, one of the versions you touted as being translated by “50+ Scholars” – and it says the same thing I've been saying.

13We are filled with hope, as we wait for the glorious return of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ. [a]

Footnote “a” says,

Titus 2:13 – the glorious return of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ: Or “the glorious return of our great God and our Savior Jesus Christ” or “the return of Jesus Christ, who is the glory of our great God and Savior.”

Again, you have nothing.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 16 2010,05:16)

Jesus and the Father are one.

Yes they are.  They are one in purpose and desire.  Jesus hopes for us to also someday be “one” with them.  Will the “Godhead” be gaining some new members soon, Keith?  

Keith, I can set scriptural fire to your straw houses all day long.  But it gets old because you never stand and defend any of the points that are refuted.  You just go away and live to post the same stupid things in another thread at another time.  And I'm not going to run thread to thread refuting the same things that many of us here have SCRIPTURALLY refuted time and time again.

THERE IS NOTHING IN THE SCRIPTURES THAT COMES CLOSE TO TEACHING THAT JESUS IS GOD ALMIGHTY, KEITH.

peace and love,
mike

[gollamudi]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 16 2010,11:56)

Quote (gollamudi @ Dec. 15 2010,14:28) Yes you may be right in saying after all the translators were also human beings like us could have caused bias and errors. But the problem is N.T writers like Paul and Gospel writers were keen in finding some scriptural support for Jesus being the Jewish Messiah. Therefore they tried their level best to find some word or passage in the Hebrew Bible for their Christological support. That is what I point out here as bits and parts taken from different passages and contexts to suit their ideas. Some times I even doubt whether Paul and other writers like John, Hebrews were all Trinitarians. H Adam, Even Jesus quoted from the LXX.  In fact, something like 67% of the OT quotes in the NT are from the LXX, not the Hebrew. And none of the NT writers were trinitarians.  The trinity wasn't INVENTED BY MAN until way after all the Apostles and NT writers were dead and buried. peace and love, mike

Hi brother Mike,
Thanks for your response on my post. Your statistics on Jesus are as a result of Hellenistic writers of N.T who put words in the mouth of an Aramaic speaking Jew who came from an ordinary family background from Nazareth a small town in Israel. But the writers of N.T were scholars in Greek who could analyse Greek version of Hebrew Bible to fit their ideas on Jesus. I gave you the statistic of Dead Sea scrolls where Jewish people could only rely MT than LXX. Jesus must have depended on Aramaic Targums than even Hebrew Bible (MT) which was the Bible of educated scholars of his time. Remember again these writers of N.T wrote these books based on oral traditions which were developed decades after Jesus' departure from this world.

I still feel the writers of N.T were Trinitarians in some form or other as their scriptures support most of the Trinitarian doctrines as even our brother WJ argues here based on the same scriptures to prove Jesus' preexistence and divinity. John 1:1-3,14; Rom 10:9-12; Phil 2:5-11, 1 Cor 8:6, Eph 3:9, Heb 1:8-9, Col 1:15-16 certainly support their views on Jesus being God and creator.

I leave rest to you to decide.
Thanks and love to you
Adam

[mikeboll64]

Quote (gollamudi @ Dec. 16 2010,14:44)

I still feel the writers of N.T were Trinitarians in some form or other as their scriptures support most of the Trinitarian doctrines as even our brother WJ argues here based on the same scriptures to prove Jesus' preexistence and divinity. John 1:1-3,14; Rom 10:9-12; Phil 2:5-11, 1 Cor 8:6, Eph 3:9, Heb 1:8-9, Col 1:15-16 certainly support their views on Jesus being God and creator.

There is not one single scripture in the NT, or OT for that matter, that implies that Jesus is God Almighty, Adam.

But I've started a ONE SCRIPTURE AT A TIME thread called, “Scriptures that prove Jesus is God”.  You are free to post any scriptures there you think say that Jesus is God or support a trinity.  We can discuss them one at a time and see if they really say that at all (hint: they don't  ).

But since you don't even believe in the NT, it would probably be a useless exercise for you, huh?

peace and love to you Adam,
mike

[gollamudi]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 17 2010,13:07)

Quote (gollamudi @ Dec. 16 2010,14:44) I still feel the writers of N.T were Trinitarians in some form or other as their scriptures support most of the Trinitarian doctrines as even our brother WJ argues here based on the same scriptures to prove Jesus' preexistence and divinity. John 1:1-3,14; Rom 10:9-12; Phil 2:5-11, 1 Cor 8:6, Eph 3:9, Heb 1:8-9, Col 1:15-16 certainly support their views on Jesus being God and creator. There is not one single scripture in the NT, or OT for that matter, that implies that Jesus is God Almighty, Adam. But I've started a ONE SCRIPTURE AT A TIME thread called, “Scriptures that prove Jesus is God”.  You are free to post any scriptures there you think say that Jesus is God or support a trinity.  We can discuss them one at a time and see if they really say that at all (hint: they don't  ). But since you don't even believe in the NT, it would probably be a useless exercise for you, huh? peace and love to you Adam, mike

Hope you are correct. But there is no consensus on Jesus' nature and personality so far. I look forward for that day.

Thanks and love to you too
Adam

[barley]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 21 2010,09:03)

JA: Quote Mike, Only two questions… Jesus is directly created from God, you say,…so he is God from God. And, you say, God created the Angels through Jesus. 1) What higher glory can a God from God have? 2) If Jesus is God from God, how would anyone want to compare him to that which he had a hand in creating – Angels. (Is the Potter compared to the Pots he created? Is the Potter said to be greater than the pots he created? Is the Potter put in authority over the pots he created? Is God said to be greater than the Angels? IS God said to be greater than Jesus (Note  – Not Jesus is NOT as Great as God…!)) (These questions will be raised again) Hi JA, 1)  Jesus is not “God from God” anymore than your son would be “JA from JA”.  None of King David's sons were “King David from King David” either.  Nor would the President's son be “The President from The President”. Jesus is the Son of God.  God is THE ALMIGHTY ONE.  Jesus is a mighty one in his own right, but not THE ALMIGHTY ONE.  And since you know “a god” means “a mighty one”, I don't understand the dilemma here.  Jesus is “a mighty one” who is the Son of THE ALMIGHTY ONE. 2)  Jehovah is “compared” to angels, and so are men.  I don't get your point here. peace and love, mike

Mikeboll,

good call

barley

[barley]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 16 2010,13:33)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 16 2010,05:16) No it doesn't change the meaning at all. Are you blind?  One says YHVH will be a sanctuary and a stumbling stone to Israel and Judah.  Kind of a contradiction, eh? The other says IF YOU TRUST IN YVHV, He will be your sanctuary and you WON'T stumble on the stone he placed in Zion.  No contradiction there, right? Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 16 2010,05:16) For YHVH is still the “Stumbling stone” and the “Rock of offence” that they stumbled over. Not according to Paul and Peter.  They say that YHVH LAID that stone in Zion……….not that He WAS that stone. Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 16 2010,05:16) Yet Jesus is called “The Rock” and both Peter and Paul point to these scriptures as refering to Jesus as being the Rock, not to mention 1 Cor 10:4. Yes Keith.  And Jesus himself named Simon “Rock”.  And he said that Simon's revelation that Jesus was God's SON, not God Himself, was “the Rock” on which he would build his church. Also Jesus was the “stone” that would cause some to stumble and that would crush those it falls on.  In Zech 12:3, Jerusalem is also called an “immovable stone” that would cause people to be hurt. But what else is YHVH supposedly called in Is 8:14?  A “trap” and a “snare”? Judges 2:3 NIV And I have also said, ‘I will not drive them out before you; they will become traps for you, and their gods will become snares to you.’” OH NO!  The Canaanite gods were also called “snares”!  They must be YHVH God Almighty too!  You tried this with Pierre and the word “good” Keith.  Just because God is called “good” and Jesus is called “good” does not mean Jesus is God.  Jesus is God's Son and the second most powerful being in existence.  It stands to reason that some words that describe YHVH would also be used to describe His Son who is the exact representation of Him. And more than just Jesus are “saviors” in the scriptures Keith.  See my answer to that in the “Scriptures that prove Jesus is God” thread that you have avoided like the plague because you would rather just keep posting scriptures that “sound good” than discuss them with someone.  Because you know for a fact that were we to actually discuss them one at a time, your straw house would burn very easily when scriptural fire is applied to it. Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 16 2010,05:16) while we wait for the blessed hope–the glorious appearing of “our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who GAVE HIMSELF for us to redeem us from all wickedness and “to purify “FOR HIMSELF” a people that are “HIS VERY OWN“, eager to do what is good.Titus 2 13, 14 Verse 14 is proof that Paul viewed Jesus as his Great God and Savour for he knew that only YHVH was his Savour. I also started a Titus 2:13 thread for just you and SF which  neither of you ever visited. But this is from the CEV, one of the versions you touted as being translated by “50+ Scholars” – and it says the same thing I've been saying. 13We are filled with hope, as we wait for the glorious return of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ. [a] Footnote “a” says, Titus 2:13 – the glorious return of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ: Or “the glorious return of our great God and our Savior Jesus Christ” or “the return of Jesus Christ, who is the glory of our great God and Savior.” Again, you have nothing. Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 16 2010,05:16) Jesus and the Father are one. Yes they are.  They are one in purpose and desire.  Jesus hopes for us to also someday be “one” with them.  Will the “Godhead” be gaining some new members soon, Keith?   Keith, I can set scriptural fire to your straw houses all day long.  But it gets old because you never stand and defend any of the points that are refuted.  You just go away and live to post the same stupid things in another thread at another time.  And I'm not going to run thread to thread refuting the same things that many of us here have SCRIPTURALLY refuted time and time again. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE SCRIPTURES THAT COMES CLOSE TO TEACHING THAT JESUS IS GOD ALMIGHTY, KEITH. peace and love, mike

Mikeboll,

You are doing a fine job with that.

I need not add anything, as if I could.

barley

[Author]

Posts