- This topic has 19,164 replies, 120 voices, and was last updated 1 year ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ June 12 2012,13:54) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 11 2012,13:14) I've started the thread, Nick. You need to answer the question or receive a tile.
Mike,Giving out free tiles? My bathroom floor needs one!
Fsory you will have to do with the three you have
Quote (terraricca @ June 12 2012,10:55) Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ June 12 2012,13:54) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 11 2012,13:14) I've started the thread, Nick. You need to answer the question or receive a tile.
Mike,Giving out free tiles? My bathroom floor needs one!
Fsory you will have to do with the three you have
Pierre,Ahh! You been peekin' in my bathroom!
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 11 2012,11:47) Quote (Ed J @ June 10 2012,18:10) Hi Mike, The Glory was Jesus' father's passed down to Jesus then to us.
God bless
Isaiah 42:8
“I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols.Your understanding does not align with scripture, Ed.
Nor does your post explain why the Holy Spirit, who you say IS God, would have the glory of God's Son, instead of the glory of God.
Mike…………Jesus Said GOD is a SPIRIT, Is HE HOLY? Is Spirt WORDS” according to Jesus they are , the words i am telling you “ARE SPIRIT” and LIFE. In the beginning was the WORD and the WORD WAS with GOD (WHY) becasue the WORD WAS GOD? simple and straight forward reading no need of “MYSTERY” (TWISTS) brought on by trinitarians and Preexistences> IMOpeace and love to you and yours Mike…………………………gene
Yeah………………. I don't really consider a teaching which calls for something to be WITH God, and also BE God at the same time to be “simple and straight forward”, Gene.
No single thing can be WITH itself, Gene. So for anything at all to be able to be WITH God, that thing can't actually BE God.
Even the TRINITARIAN scholars from NETNotes realize this, Gene. They write:
The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”)I understand it the same way, Gene. But perhaps you could give me a different example of something that can be WITH something else, and at the same time, BE that something it is WITH.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 15 2012,18:49) Hi MB,
Must scripture match your logic?
It is the ways of God and not those of men.
Nto say that ,you have first to accept God and his only son he send ,according to his words not yours
wen you are interpreting the words of God you are still a men and so becomes the words of men ,
so I would say that you believe in men more than Mike at the least he uses scriptures and references to guide you ,things you do not .you even reject Christ own words
Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 15 2012,21:09) Hi T,
You should not follow men like Mike
NI follow Gods word and the way of Christ ,and help anyone that do the same,
I am sorry to say I did not see this in you,you do not believe even the one you say you have faith in ,how can you believe in his father
or join any of his disciples,
many says they have faith but those are only words in the lips
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 15 2012,11:08) Yeah………………. I don't really consider a teaching which calls for something to be WITH God, and also BE God at the same time to be “simple and straight forward”, Gene. No single thing can be WITH itself, Gene. So for anything at all to be able to be WITH God, that thing can't actually BE God.
Even the TRINITARIAN scholars from NETNotes realize this, Gene. They write:
The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”)I understand it the same way, Gene. But perhaps you could give me a different example of something that can be WITH something else, and at the same time, BE that something it is WITH.
Hi Mike,Neither your understanding or those of you so-called experts
count as evidence. …do you have any biblical evidence?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (terraricca @ June 15 2012,14:21) Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 15 2012,21:09) Hi T,
You should not follow men like Mike
NI follow Gods word and the way of Christ ,and help anyone that do the same,
I am sorry to say I did not see this in you,you do not believe even the one you say you have faith in ,how can you believe in his father
or join any of his disciples,
many says they have faith but those are only words in the lips
Hi Pierre,So you admit God's word is not Christ then?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ June 15 2012,21:40) Quote (terraricca @ June 15 2012,14:21) Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 15 2012,21:09) Hi T,
You should not follow men like Mike
NI follow Gods word and the way of Christ ,and help anyone that do the same,
I am sorry to say I did not see this in you,you do not believe even the one you say you have faith in ,how can you believe in his father
or join any of his disciples,
many says they have faith but those are only words in the lips
Hi Pierre,So you admit God's word is not Christ then?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
edjyou are the specialist in confusion,
are you sure to be in the right forum may be you should be with CONFUSIUS
Confucius
First published Wed Jul 3, 2002; substantive revision Tue Sep 5, 2006
Confucius (551-479 BCE), according to Chinese tradition, was a thinker, political figure, educator, and founder of the Ru School of Chinese thought. His teachings, preserved in the Lunyu or Analects, form the foundation of much of subsequent Chinese speculation on the education and comportment of the ideal man, how such an individual should live his life and interact with others, and the forms of society and government in which he should participate. Fung Yu-lan, one of the great 20th century authorities on the history of Chinese thought, compares Confucius' influence in Chinese history with that of Socrates in the West.
I do not do politics or change the orientation of a discussion ,so my answer to your question is NO ,because you have based your question on your believe
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 15 2012,11:08) Yeah………………. I don't really consider a teaching which calls for something to be WITH God, and also BE God at the same time to be “simple and straight forward”, Gene. No single thing can be WITH itself, Gene. So for anything at all to be able to be WITH God, that thing can't actually BE God.
Even the TRINITARIAN scholars from NETNotes realize this, Gene. They write:
The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”)I understand it the same way, Gene. But perhaps you could give me a different example of something that can be WITH something else, and at the same time, BE that something it is WITH.
Mike…………So are we to believe your words are not you then please inform us whose words are they if not you. Truth is your word not only is with you they ARE YOU> They are the expression of your VERY BEING, Just as GOD'S Words are Him and the “EXACT” expression of his very Being also. No Mystery twisted interpretations of what is written need Mike.Just read it and believe it just as it is written no need to add Jesus to it when it should be “OBVIOUS” if John meant to say Jesus He would have written Jesus there. Changing that text by adding Jesus is what you preexistences and trinitarians do to try forcing the text to meet your “MYSTERY RELIGIOUS” false interpretations. IMO
peace and love to you and yours……………………………………gene
Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 14 2012,21:00) Hi MB,
No and neither should we be polytheists.
Hi Nick,I asked you if Jehovah was the God of confusion. You answered “NO”. My first follow up question is: Who is the Bible here to benefit if not men?
As for your comment about polytheism, in which way do you mean it? To me, a polytheist is one who WORSHIPS more than one God. Using this definition of the word, “NO”, followers of Jehovah should NOT be polytheists.
But, as Keith has pointed out in the past, some definitions of “polytheist” require only the BELIEF that other gods exist. Using that definition, the majority of those who wrote the scriptures were polytheists.
The simple and plain scriptural truth of the matter is that many gods exist, both in heaven and on earth, but we are to worship and hold as “God” only Jehovah, the God of all those other gods, and the only One who created the heavens, the earth, and everything in them.
Quote (Ed J @ June 14 2012,21:37) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 15 2012,11:08) Yeah………………. I don't really consider a teaching which calls for something to be WITH God, and also BE God at the same time to be “simple and straight forward”, Gene. No single thing can be WITH itself, Gene. So for anything at all to be able to be WITH God, that thing can't actually BE God.
Even the TRINITARIAN scholars from NETNotes realize this, Gene. They write:
The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”)I understand it the same way, Gene. But perhaps you could give me a different example of something that can be WITH something else, and at the same time, BE that something it is WITH.
Hi Mike,Neither your understanding or those of you so-called experts
count as evidence. …do you have any biblical evidence?God bless
Ed J
Ed,Do YOU have any scriptural evidence that the Word who was with God was God Himself? (And I don't mean the AKJV translation of John 1:1, because that was merely men who decided to make 1:1 illogical and nonsensical when they had THREE different choices of translation.)
Ed, whether you are honest enough to admit it or not, the FACT of the matter is that 1:1c can be translated as “THE god (God)”, or as “a god”.
One of them makes perfect sense and matches every other scripture in the Bible. The other one is nonsensical and is shown to be false by many scriptures.
For example, something that WAS God cannot become someone who isn't God like Nick claims, unless God can somehow become “not God”. But “God never changes”, according to the scriptures, so that can't be the true understanding.
And your understanding cannot be true either, because it calls for God Himself becoming flesh and being killed by human beings. This also goes against many scriptures, such as the ones that tell us no one has seen God at any time.
On the other hand, the people who understand that Jesus was the Word who was with THE god, and was himself a god, have the entire Bible to fall back on. Because not only is there NO SINGLE SCRIPTURE that refutes this understanding, there are loads of them that clearly teach it.
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ June 15 2012,07:05) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 15 2012,11:08) Yeah………………. I don't really consider a teaching which calls for something to be WITH God, and also BE God at the same time to be “simple and straight forward”, Gene. No single thing can be WITH itself, Gene. So for anything at all to be able to be WITH God, that thing can't actually BE God.
Even the TRINITARIAN scholars from NETNotes realize this, Gene. They write:
The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”)I understand it the same way, Gene. But perhaps you could give me a different example of something that can be WITH something else, and at the same time, BE that something it is WITH.
Mike…………So are we to believe your words are not you then please inform us whose words are they if not you.
My words are not “me”, Gene. Nor are they a “who” at all.Were you able to find another instance in the history of creation where something was said to be with something else, and at the same time br that something else it was with?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 16 2012,10:09) Ed, Do YOU have any scriptural evidence that the Word who was with God was God Himself?
Hi Mike,Why do you insert the word “himself” into your question?
…to make your belief seem more plausible?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (mikeboll64 @ June 16 2012,10:09) Ed, And your understanding cannot be true either, because it calls for God Himself becoming flesh and being killed by human beings. This also goes against many scriptures, such as the ones that tell us no one has seen God at any time.
Hi Mike,I would be willing to discuss your misconceptions with you if you like?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
