- This topic has 19,164 replies, 120 voices, and was last updated 1 year ago by
.
- Posts
It would be a blessing if Pastry, Pierre, t8, and Mike would completely ignore my post and not respond to them!
Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Dec. 21 2011,17:00) It would be a blessing if Pastry, Pierre, t8, and Mike would completely ignore my post and not respond to them!
FRANK
it would be rather a curse to you ,but you can not see it,this is your choice you can stop put them up ,and start by being truthful,and honest ,and stop try to make us believe what you are not ,and the rest will be easy after that ,
this site is all about learning Gods word and increase our knowledge to be strong in our true faith ,
Pierre
Then who would be left here, Frank? You posting drivel, and Gene saying “You got that right, brother!”?
We've known all along that is what you want. You don't want anyone showing you scripturally where you're wrong, because you like what you believe, whether or not it is supported by the scriptures. You and Gene are two peas in a pod in that respect.
Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Dec. 20 2011,16:53) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 21 2011,09:34) Do you hear that, Frank? You are not allowed to post the same quotes over and over. We've got our eyes on you from here on out.
(Whatever will you do if you can't just keep re-posting the same drivel? Might you actually have to DISCUSS the issue with us in your own words?
)
Mike,What did you say? I can't hear!
Go ahead and flood the thread with the same posts again. Then I'll say it with sign language – in the form of another tile. Do you think you'll be able to hear that?Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 21 2011,10:25) Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Dec. 20 2011,16:53) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 21 2011,09:34) Do you hear that, Frank? You are not allowed to post the same quotes over and over. We've got our eyes on you from here on out.
(Whatever will you do if you can't just keep re-posting the same drivel? Might you actually have to DISCUSS the issue with us in your own words?
)
Mike,What did you say? I can't hear!
Go ahead and flood the thread with the same posts again. Then I'll say it with sign language – in the form of another tile. Do you think you'll be able to hear that?
Mike,You simply can not ignore my posts, can you?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 21 2011,10:22) Then who would be left here, Frank? You posting drivel, and Gene saying “You got that right, brother!”? We've known all along that is what you want. You don't want anyone showing you scripturally where you're wrong, because you like what you believe, whether or not it is supported by the scriptures. You and Gene are two peas in a pod in that respect.
Mike,I welcome someone showing me where I am wrong in accordance with what Scripture truly teaches so that I cold correct such a wrong, but you have yet to do so!
I am certainly for reproof and correction!
All Scripture [is] given by inspiration of Yahweh, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of Yahweh may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all righteous works (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
To tell you the truth, Frank, it irritates me. Not that you quote other sources, because we all do that. But because you have never had any intention of discussing scriptures or defending what the sources you copy say.
You have your own site where anyone can go read the stuff you post. Why clutter up a DISCUSSION site with it?
This site is for people who want to DISCUSS scriptures in an effort to gain a better understanding. I don't think this site was intended to be a bulletin board for your propaganda.
You should either be willing to defend what you post, or not post it at all, IMO.
Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 21 2011,10:22) Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Dec. 21 2011,17:00) It would be a blessing if Pastry, Pierre, t8, and Mike would completely ignore my post and not respond to them!
FRANK
it would be rather a curse to you ,but you can not see it,this is your choice you can stop put them up ,and start by being truthful,and honest ,and stop try to make us believe what you are not ,and the rest will be easy after that ,
this site is all about learning Gods word and increase our knowledge to be strong in our true faith ,
Pierre
Pierre,It would be a very special blessing if you ignored my posts and no longer responded to them!
Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Dec. 20 2011,17:39) Mike, I welcome someone showing me where I am wrong in accordance with what Scripture truly teaches so that I cold correct such a wrong, but you have yet to do so!
I've done so many times already. But instead of discussing, you say, “I've told you over and over that I have no intention of discussing the scriptures with the likes of you!”That is your cop-out line when you can't refute what I've shown you.
But put your money where your mouth is, Frank. Are you ready to take Pierre, t8, and me on scripturally?
Or will you continue to hide behind your cop-out line?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 21 2011,10:41) To tell you the truth, Frank, it irritates me. Not that you quote other sources, because we all do that. But because you have never had any intention of discussing scriptures or defending what the sources you copy say. You have your own site where anyone can go read the stuff you post. Why clutter up a DISCUSSION site with it?
This site is for people who want to DISCUSS scriptures in an effort to gain a better understanding. I don't think this site was intended to be a bulletin board for your propaganda.
You should either be willing to defend what you post, or not post it at all, IMO.
Mike,I most certainly have never gained a better understanding of what Scripture teaches from you! In fact, the exact opposite is true concerning anything that you have posted here
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 21 2011,10:44) Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Dec. 20 2011,17:39) Mike, I welcome someone showing me where I am wrong , but you have yet to do so!
I've done so many times already. But instead of discussing, you say, “I've told you over and over that I have no intention of discussing the scriptures with the likes of you!”That is your cop-out line when you can't refute what I've shown you.
But put your money where your mouth is, Frank. Are you ready to take Pierre, t8, and me on scripturally?
Or will you continue to hide behind your cop-out line?
Mike,No, you have not shown me where I am wrong in accordance with what Scripture teaches. I know that you can not, is why I have no desire whatsoever to discuss anything with you concerning what Scripture truly teaches.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 21 2011,10:41) To tell you the truth, Frank, it irritates me. Not that you quote other sources, because we all do that. But because you have never had any intention of discussing scriptures or defending what the sources you copy say. You have your own site where anyone can go read the stuff you post. Why clutter up a DISCUSSION site with it?
This site is for people who want to DISCUSS scriptures in an effort to gain a better understanding. I don't think this site was intended to be a bulletin board for your propaganda.
You should either be willing to defend what you post, or not post it at all, IMO.
Mike,The truth is, your irritation comes from within yourself and has nothing whatsoever to do with me!
Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Dec. 21 2011,10:00) It would be a blessing if Pastry, Pierre, t8, and Mike would completely ignore my post and not respond to them!
OK.All happy now aye!. (Poly wants a cracker.)
You don't need iron to sharpen you because you have assessed that you are already sharp, and we will continue to get sharper because we are open to scrutiny and give answers to what we Believe in order to see if we need to relearn or improve.
Quote (t8 @ Dec. 21 2011,11:06) Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Dec. 21 2011,10:00) It would be a blessing if Pastry, Pierre, t8, and Mike would completely ignore my post and not respond to them!
OK.All happy now aye!. (Poly wants a cracker.)
You don't need iron to sharpen you because you have assessed that you are already sharp, and we will continue to get sharper because we are open to scrutiny and give answers to what we Believe in order to see if we need to relearn or improve.
t8,I tested what you refer to as “iron” and found that it was nothing but pot metal!
Is Not Christ The Firstborn?
At this point the reader might become a little impatient, and desire to press upon our attention Bible references that seem to give some support to the pre-existence theory.
We are not ignorant of those passages, but claim that none of them give support to the theory if they are properly interpreted. It is unfortunately true, however, as the Bible itself states, that some take passages of Scripture that are “hard to be understood” and proceed to “wrest them unto their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:16).
Such a reference is Colossians 1:15. It describes Jesus Christ as “the firstborn of every creature,” and some have advanced this in support of the pre-existence theory. If Jesus is firstborn, he must have existed before all others, they claim.
But does not that set Scripture against Scripture? If he is literally “firstborn” in the sense implied by the theory, how can the Bible claim that he is the “son of Abraham and David” (Matthew 1:1)?
And consider the statement itself: “firstBORN of every creature.” Does not that demand a mother? Who was the mother who gave birth to him before all others?
These difficulties are solved, and the passage simply and beautifully explained, when the Bible doctrine of the “firstborn” is understood. In the Bible, “firstborn” is a legal term, describing pre-eminence of position or status, though not necessarily of birth. There were special privileges granted the legal firstborn in a family. He represented his father, he acted as a priest, he received a double portion of the family inheritance (see Deuteronomy 21:17).
But the law of God provided that the eldest son of a family could forfeit his position as legal firstborn, if guilty of misconduct or inability to perform the necessary duties, and be supplanted by a younger son. In other words, it was not necessary for Jesus to be the first of God's creation to be eligible for the position of legal firstborn.
For example, consider 1 Chronicles 5:1:
“Reuben the firstborn of Israel . . . but forasmuch as he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph, and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright!”
Reuben's lewd conduct earned the rebuke of his father, who deposed him from his legal status of firstborn, and gave the position to a much younger son: Joseph.
Other examples could be multiplied. Ephraim was blessed as firstborn by Jacob, even though he was younger than Manasseh his brother (Genesis 48:14-19), and God endorsed the appointment by describing Ephraim as “His firstborn” (Jeremiah 31:9). Jacob was given the birthright over his older brother Esau (Genesis 25:32-34). Simri was appointed to the position even though he was younger in years than his brethren (1 Chronicles 26:10).
These examples (and they could be multiplied) clearly show that it was often the practice for a younger son to be elevated to the position of legal firstborn in a family. In fact, this was so common that the Mosaic Law prohibited the elevation of a younger son to this position on the mere whim of his father, because of favoritism. It commanded:
“It shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated . . . ” (Deut. 21:17).
This prohibition shows that a legal firstborn could be a younger son, and therefore has a great bearing on the interpretation of Colossians 1:15.
The Bible refers to two notable “sons of God”: Adam and Christ (see Luke 3:38). The “first Adam” forfeited the right of inheritance, the position of firstborn of the human race, because of sin; but God raised up a younger Son (called in 1 Cor. 15:45 “the last Adam”) whose complete obedience to the will of his Father proved him worthy of the preeminence. He was thus elevated to the position of firstborn of the human race, which means that he receives “a double portion of the inheritance,” and that he acts as priest in the family of God. The Lord Jesus Christ is firstborn, not by fact of longevity (which confers no merit) but by virtue of his moral excellence.
His elevation was predicted in the Old Testament. God declared concerning him:
“I WILL MAKE HIM My firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth” (Psalm 89:27).
The use of the future tense in this prophecy shows that the Lord Jesus is not firstborn by birth but by appointment; otherwise God should have said, “He IS My firstborn.”
The resurrection of Jesus was the seal of the Father's approval on the Son (Rom. 1: 1-4). This constituted him the Firstborn. Paul wrote: “He is . . . the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the pre-eminence” (Col 1:18), the “firstborn among many brethren” (Rom. 8:29). [The followers of the Lord are also described as a “kind of firstfruits” to God (James 1:18; Rev. 14:4), and as “the congregation of firstborns” (Heb. 12:23 – Greek. See Diaglott). Therefore, if the title “firstborn” teaches the pre-existence of Christ, it must do so also in relation to his followers. All the privileges of the firstborn that rest on the Lord, apply to a lesser extent to his followers. They will receive a double portion of inheritance in the Age to come, even immortality (1 Cor. 15:52-54), and they will act as a royal-priesthood (Rev. 5:9-10) in relation to the mortal population that will remain (see Zech. 14:16) during the period of Christ's millennial reign (Rev. 20:6).
These expressions show conclusively that the apostle did not mean, by his use of the term, that Jesus pre-existed.
In The Beginning Was The Word (John 1)
John's Gospel commences with this statement, and goes on to state that this word was with God and was God, and made all things (vv. 1-4). And because the title, Word of God, is applied to the Lord Jesus in Revelation 19:13, it is claimed that these verses in John relate to a pre-existent Christ.
If this were so, however, it would make the Bible appear hopelessly contradictory, for such reference as: “I will be his Father, and He shall be my son,” “I will make him My firstborn,” “Jesus Christ the son of Abraham the son of David” are at variance with the teaching that represents Jesus as already living.
The Greek term translated “word” is logos. It signifies the outward form of inward thought or reason, or the spoken word as illustrative of thought, wisdom and doctrine.
John is teaching that in the very beginning, God's purpose, wisdom or revelation had been in evidence. It was “with God” in that it emanated from him; it “was God” in that it represented Him to mankind [a similar expression is used by Christ in Matthew 26:28: “This is my blood” — that is, this represents my blood. Again in Matthew 13:20: “the same is he” signifies the same, “represents he.” “That rock was Christ” (1 Cor. 10:4), it represented Christ]; and it became the motive power of all that God did, for all was made with it in mind, and it presented the hope of life to mankind (see John 1: 3-4).
What John is stating, therefore, is that in the very beginning there existed the wisdom or purpose of God, and that it was revealed unto men to provide a way of life.
What did it proclaim?
The coming of one who would overcome sin and give reality to the hope of life. The promise of this was stated from the beginning in the Word or Doctrine of God (e.g. Genesis 3:15).
This Word, Wisdom or Doctrine found its reality, its substance, its confirmation (Romans 15:8) in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ; therefore John taught:
“The word was made (Greek-ginomai “became”) flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14).
The Word was made flesh, or became flesh, as it is expressed in the Greek. The Declaration of Divine wisdom found its substance and reality in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. Before his advent, it was a mere Word or Promise, but when he became manifested, it became a person.
The person did not exist before the birth of the child Jesus; but the promise and wisdom of God always existed.
That is the teaching of John. It does away with the embarrassment of teaching that an angel became an embryo in the womb of a woman, as demanded by the theory of a pre-existent Jesus.
We acknowledge that “Word” is personalized as “him”, in John 1:4, but that is a common Hebraism found throughout the Bible. Riches, Wisdom, Sin, and other subjects are similarly treated. Sometimes these are used to press the doctrine of pre-existence. For example, on several occasions, Jehovah's Witnesses have drawn attention to such passages as Proverbs 8:22, and applied them to their notion of a pre-existent Jesus. The passage reads:
“The Lord possessed me in the beginning of His way, before His works of old.”
The subject matter of the chapter is wisdom which is personified; but, unfortunately for the doctrine of the preexistent son, it is personified as a woman: “She standeth, she crieth” etc. (Prov. 8:1-3).
This and my previous post are excerpts from:
frank
Quote These expressions show conclusively that the apostle did not mean, by his use of the term, that Jesus pre-existed. why you do not go and get an excerpt from one who accept the preexistence of Christ you really don”t know what to believe right ??Pierre
Frank4Yahweh ………You have posted the absolute TRUTH regarding Jesus as the firstBORN in Position from among human kind. I see it the exact same way , My hope and Prayer is the T8 would come to see and understand this as well as others Here also.
peace and love to you and yours Frank…………………………………………………gene
Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Dec. 21 2011,11:12) t8, I tested what you refer to as “iron” and found that it was nothing but pot metal
Thanks. Pot metal is quick and easy to cast, where as you seem to be made of stone and cannot change shape when required.
A normal conversation in anyone's language consists of two or more people in dialogue.
Do you always shout or have one way conversations with people and then try to insult people when they want to converse rather than be shouted or dictated at?
That is your manner online and if that is how you communicate like that in every day life, then I suggest going on a course or some kind of therapy to find out the route cause.Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 21 2011,13:02) frank Quote These expressions show conclusively that the apostle did not mean, by his use of the term, that Jesus pre-existed. why you do not go and get an excerpt from one who accept the preexistence of Christ you really don”t know what to believe right ??Pierre
Pierre,Why would I promote an article by someone who believes that the Messiah pre-existed his birth when I myself do not believe such bull?
Yes, I do know what it is that I believe and I certainly do not believe the Messiah pre-existed his birth as an actual being! I believe that Yahshua was born (came into existence) as a man and di not pre-exist his birth as an “angel” or a “god”. I believe that Yahshua had the same origin as all other men. We certainly did not pre-exist our birth!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
