- This topic is empty.
- Posts
WJ said to Mikeboll:
Quote You my friend preach the wrong Jesus!
Keith,You're right again. Mike says that Jesus is a god in the “same sense” as satan. This is not the Jesus of the Bible and Mike is in deeeeep doo doo with the Father.
Jack
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 03 2010,19:16) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 03 2010,15:50) Quote (Ed J @ June 02 2010,22:52) Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 31 2010,16:14) Quote (t8 @ May 31 2010,13:07) Hey at least he changed his name from the thinker (which didn't suit) to something more accurate. After all, he does jump around quite a bit trying to dodge difficulties.
I don't see it that way. Jack is an anomaly in this forum – he consistently and cogently answers questions. He answers the whole post and doesn't cherry pick. I haven't seen him run from anyone.
Ask him, he'll tell you: When ever I ask him to explain inconsistencies in what he presents,
he ignores those Posts, instead choosing to engage in endless arguments with those who knowingly disagree with him.
Well if all he wanted to do was to “engage in endless arguments with those who knowingly disagree with him”, then you would think he would ablige you.But there are obvious reasons why he ignores you and it is not because he is running away!
WJ
Thanks Keith,I have no interest whatsoever in discoursing with ED J. That's all there is to it. I will post a reply to him once in a while when I deem it beneficial.
Jack
Hi Kang,You mean your not interested in helping others see past the inconsistencies you Post,
only in Posting endless disputes with those you don't seek agreement with you; how very sad.
I have also asked for your views here, but that doesn't interest you as well either; huh?
I guess there's no benefit in these things for you then. But wait a minute: where's the benefit in perusing endless arguments?Ed J
Hi All
The Trinitarian debate may be an unending debate untill the Lord returns, but discussing scriptures is always a learning process no matter how long you discuss a particular topic! I have found the more I study these things the more it reinforces my belief. I am sure others can say the same thing.
Not only that but there are always new comers that may have not heard your views on a particular topic!
So regardless of what some would infer about it being a waste of time, I believe they are wrong!
WJ
Quote (Lightenup @ June 03 2010,01:23) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 03 2010,01:01) Quote (Ed J @ June 03 2010,00:50) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 03 2010,16:37) Quote (Ed J @ June 03 2010,00:27) Yea, it's because I seek agreement and continuity in the body of Christ, while others don't; (Philip.1:15)
EDYou seek no such thing and the words in your post prove it.
You just proved my point!
WJ
Hi WJ,How so?
I also asked you why you said I was hypocritical, but you have yet to explain that either. (Rev.12:10)
Ed J (Joshua 22:34 / Isaiah 54:17)
EDIf you can't see the obvious in your post then why should I waste my time getting into an argument with you?
Your post was accusing, and patronizing was full of ad hominems toward me, yet you say…
Quote (Ed J @ June 03 2010,00:27) Yea, it's because I seek agreement and continuity in the body of Christ, while others don't; (Philip.1:15)
See it now? As far as you being a hypocrite, your post IMO reveals that also.But this is why Jack or myself do not like to have dialoge with you just like others here is because your post is always critical and end up with ad hominems and lame accusations and attacks on the person rather than a scriptural debate.
So don't expect me to carry this useless conversation with you any further for it just becomes a mind game with you.
WJ
WJ,
You are right on there! Ed J seeks unity with only part of the body of Christ…the part that doesn't stand up to expose his deceitfulness. He is deceiving even himself to think that he seeks unity with the whole body of Christ. He sent me a nasty un-called for PM telling me basically how he is not going to have anything to do with me if I say anything to him, all because I stood up to him about his re-wording my posts. So much for his seeking unity.Unity will not come without love and humility (admitting when you are wrong as part of that humility). Love and humility is a high road towards unity, imo.
KathiThanks and I agree! We all get personal at times because that is human nature. But when a person can do or say nothing but critisize, belittle, patronize, accuse and attack the person in every post, I would rather not deal with them because it only ends up being a contest of the mind rather than a healthy debate about the scriptures. IMO.
Blessings Keith
Quote (Lightenup @ June 03 2010,00:21) Hello,
This might help understand Col 1:15, just read the verses here and see the definitions of firstborn and creation:Deut 21:17 NET
Rather, he must acknowledge the son of the less loved wife as firstborn and give him the double portion of all he has, for that son is the beginning of his father’s procreative power – to him should go the right of the firstborn.Col 1:15 NET He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation,
1:16 for all things in heaven and on earth were created by him – all things, whether visible or invisible, whether thrones or dominions, whether principalities or powers – all things were created through him and for him.
1:17 He himself is before all things and all things are held together in him.In Deut 21:17 we see the natural definition of what a firstborn is: the beginning of a father's procreative power. And in Col 1:16 we see what is meant by the word “creation” in v. 15: all things in heaven and on earth (which obviously does not include the Father or the Son since they were already present within the context. So if we plug those definitions into Col 1:16 it is paraphrased like this:
1:15 27 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn, the beginning of the Father's procreative power, over all things in heaven and on earthFurthermore, Col 1:16 tells us that all things were created by the Firstborn and therefore the Firstborn was obviously procreated before the Firstborn created everything in heaven and on earth which includes mankind but is not limited to mankind, it also includes angels for instance.
That is how I understand this verse.
KathiFirst of all an infinite God cannot be compared with man, so the example in Deut falls short. Not only that the NET says…
Heb “his generative power” (אוֹן, ’on; cf. HALOT 22 s.v.). Cf. NAB “the first fruits of his manhood”; NRSV “the first issue of his virility.”
So it could be read…
He is the image of the invisible God, “his generative power” over all creation, Col 1:15 NET
In other words Jesus is the source of power over all creation or the beginning of the creation of God!
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. Rev 1:8
The titles Alpha and Omega the beginning and the end is a title for both the Father and Jesus which simply means they are the “Beginning (Greek, archē – origin or cause)” of all things that were created!
And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the “beginning (Greek, archē – origin or cause)” of the creation of God; Rev 3:14
Again if Jesus was “Procreated” or is “Begotten” (to bear after its own kind) like you say, then there is still a redefining of the words and the principle of “each kind bearing after its own kind”.
The NET also commentates over Col 1:15…
The Greek term πρωτότοκος (prwtotokos) could refer either to first in order of time, such as a first born child, or it could refer to one who is preeminent in rank. M. J. Harris, Colossians and Philemon (EGGNT), 43, expresses the meaning of the word well: “The ‘firstborn’ was either the eldest child in a family or a person of preeminent rank. The use of this term to describe the Davidic king in Ps 88:28 LXX (=Ps 89:27 EVV), ‘I will also appoint him my firstborn (πρωτότοκον), the most exalted of the kings of the earth,’ indicates that it can denote supremacy in rank as well as priority in time. But whether the πρωτό- element in the word denotes time, rank, or both, the significance of the -τοκος element as indicating birth or origin (from τίκτω, give birth to) has been virtually lost except in ref. to lit. birth.” “In Col 1:15 the emphasis is on the priority of Jesus’ rank as over and above creation (cf. 1:16 and the “for” clause referring to Jesus as Creator)“. NET
Lets forget for a moment your belief that Jesus is like God in everyway except for age, which BTW as Jack has pointed out is far more commendable than the Arians on this sight that compare Jesus to being “a god” in the same sense that satan is “a god”.
God is infinite, so did he procreate an infinite God? If he didn't then the words “Born” or “Beget” or “Procreate” do not apply unless you reinvent the meaning of the words and principle of “Each kind bearing after its own kind”!
WJ
Kathi said:
Quote He sent me a nasty un-called for PM telling me basically how he is not going to have anything to do with me if I say anything to him,
Hi Kathi,I am not surprised to learn that ED J sent you a nasty pm. He is that kind of person. t8 has shown wisdom in not granting him editing rights because he cannot be trusted. I believe he is capable of editing our words in “quotes” and then post them as our original words. I do not trust ED J at all.
I read your posts to ED J about his misrepresentations and thought that you were perfectly in order for calling him on it and that you were an example to me in the way you dealt with him. I am very displeased that he responded by sending you a nasty pm.
the Roo
Hi Keith and Roo,
The guy needs help and we can pray for him. I wish I saw a glimmer of humility. I'm sorry he has chosen the path he has and I encourage you to ask a moderator to step in to maybe help him see the error of his ways when he hacks up your quotes and misrepresents your words. Maybe eventually he will see the light. I will continue to do so in an effort to restore him to integrity which is a loving thing, btw. I got another nasty arrogant PM today from the man. Foolishness! I don't care to discuss this any further.Carry on…
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 03 2010,10:42) Quote (Lightenup @ June 03 2010,00:21) Hello,
This might help understand Col 1:15, just read the verses here and see the definitions of firstborn and creation:Deut 21:17 NET
Rather, he must acknowledge the son of the less loved wife as firstborn and give him the double portion of all he has, for that son is the beginning of his father’s procreative power – to him should go the right of the firstborn.Col 1:15 NET He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation,
1:16 for all things in heaven and on earth were created by him – all things, whether visible or invisible, whether thrones or dominions, whether principalities or powers – all things were created through him and for him.
1:17 He himself is before all things and all things are held together in him.In Deut 21:17 we see the natural definition of what a firstborn is: the beginning of a father's procreative power. And in Col 1:16 we see what is meant by the word “creation” in v. 15: all things in heaven and on earth (which obviously does not include the Father or the Son since they were already present within the context. So if we plug those definitions into Col 1:16 it is paraphrased like this:
1:15 27 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn, the beginning of the Father's procreative power, over all things in heaven and on earthFurthermore, Col 1:16 tells us that all things were created by the Firstborn and therefore the Firstborn was obviously procreated before the Firstborn created everything in heaven and on earth which includes mankind but is not limited to mankind, it also includes angels for instance.
That is how I understand this verse.
KathiFirst of all an infinite God cannot be compared with man, so the example in Deut falls short. Not only that the NET says…
Heb “his generative power” (אוֹן, ’on; cf. HALOT 22 s.v.). Cf. NAB “the first fruits of his manhood”; NRSV “the first issue of his virility.”
So it could be read…
He is the image of the invisible God, “his generative power” over all creation, Col 1:15 NET
In other words Jesus is the source of power over all creation or the beginning of the creation of God!
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. Rev 1:8
The titles Alpha and Omega. the beginning and the end is a title for both the Father and Jesus which simply means they are the “Beginning (Greek, archē – origin or cause)” of all things that were created!
And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the “beginning (Greek, archē – origin or cause)” of the creation of God; Rev 3:14
Again if Jesus was “Procreated” or is “Begotten” (to bear after its own kind) like you say, then there is still a redifineing of the words and the principle of “each kind bearing after its own kind”.
The NET also commentates over Col 1:15…
The Greek term πρωτότοκος (prwtotokos) could refer either to first in order of time, such as a first born child, or it could refer to one who is preeminent in rank. M. J. Harris, Colossians and Philemon (EGGNT), 43, expresses the meaning of the word well: “The ‘firstborn’ was either the eldest child in a family or a person of preeminent rank. The use of this term to describe the Davidic king in Ps 88:28 LXX (=Ps 89:27 EVV), ‘I will also appoint him my firstborn (πρωτότοκον), the most exalted of the kings of the earth,’ indicates that it can denote supremacy in rank as well as priority in time. But whether the πρωτό- element in the word denotes time, rank, or both, the significance of the -τοκος element as indicating birth or origin (from τίκτω, give birth to) has been virtually lost except in ref. to lit. birth.” “In Col 1:15 the emphasis is on the priority of Jesus’ rank as over and above creation (cf. 1:16 and the “for” clause referring to Jesus as Creator)“. NET
Lets forget for a moment your belief that Jesus is like God in everyway except for age, which BTW as Jack has pointed out is far more commendable than the Arians on this sight that compare Jesus to being “a god” in the same sense that satan is “a god”.
God is infinite, so did he procreate an infinite God? If he didn't then the words “Born” or “Beget” or “Procreate” do not apply unless you reinvent the meaning of the words and principle of “Each kind bearing after its own kind”!
WJ
Hi WJ,The natural definition of what a firstborn is in all these translations, has the same understanding as the son being the beginning of his father's procreative power, whether you substitute 'procreative power' with generative power, first fruits of his manhood, or first issue of virility.
In the context of father/son, the meaning is always that the father procreated a child unless the context makes it clear that the term 'firstborn' is an exception to the natural meaning. In every instance where the term 'firstborn' clearly does not apply to the first procreative power of the father, in regards to man, the scripture makes it clear, if not we can assume the natural meaning of the word. Not one scripture makes it clear that the term 'firstborn' is the exception to the norm when it is applied to the Son of God aside from Him being the firstborn from the dead.
Quote Deuteronomy 21:17 NET ©
Rather, he must acknowledge the son of the less loved 1 wife as firstborn and give him the double portion 2 of all he has, for that son is the beginning of his father’s procreative power 3 – to him should go the right of the firstborn.NIV ©
He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father’s strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him.NASB ©
“But he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the unloved, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the beginning of his strength; to him belongs the right of the firstborn.NLT ©
He must give the customary double portion to his oldest son, who represents the strength of his father’s manhood and who owns the rights of the firstborn son, even though he is the son of the wife his father does not love.MSG ©
No, he must acknowledge the inheritance rights of the real firstborn, the son of the hated wife, by giving him a double share of the inheritance: that son is the first proof of his virility; the rights of the firstborn belong to him.BBE ©
But he is to give his first son his birthright, and twice as great a part of his property: for he is the first-fruits of his strength and the right of the first son is his.NRS
V ©
He must acknowledge as firstborn the son of the one who is disliked, giving him a double portion of all that he has; since he is the first issue of his virility, the right of the firstborn is his.NKJV ©
“But he shall acknowledge the son of the unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.Quote In other words Jesus is the source of power over all creation or the beginning of the creation of God! The Son is the first result of God's procreative/generative power, not the source. Otherwise, the Son would be the Father to Himself and that is not true.
Quote I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. Rev 1:8 The titles Alpha and Omega. the beginning and the end is a title for both the Father and Jesus which simply means they are the “Beginning (Greek, archē – origin or cause)” of all things that were created!
And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the “beginning (Greek, archē – origin or cause)” of the creation of God; Rev 3:14
I don't see the title 'Alpha and Omega' applied to creation in the context. I understand this to say that He is who He is, past, present and future.
Quote Again if Jesus was “Procreated” or is “Begotten” (to bear after its own kind) like you say, then there is still a redifineing of the words and the principle of “each kind bearing after its own kind”. Maybe we don't need to know exactly how the Father procreated the Son, just that He did. The 'how' is insignificant to us since we would obviously not procreate in the exact manner since we are man and require a male and a female for the purpose.
As far as what the NET says about the Son's rank over creation, I agree…His rank is over creation and it is as the Firstborn.
Quote God is infinite, so did he procreate an infinite God? If he didn't then the words “Born” or “Begat” or “Procreate” do not apply unless you reinvent the meaning of the words and principle of “Each kind bearing after its own kind”! God is who He is and will procreate whom He will procreate and that is enough for me to consider His Son as being the same nature of His Father and younger than His Father.
All for now…I have a houseful coming in for the weekend, even my Sunday School class is coming over for a potluck.
Have a good weekend!
LU, or anyone, or, everyone,
If you are having problems with anyone in this forum over issues outside of normal disputes then please report it to a moderator, either by a 'report this post…' or in a pm.
Quote (Lightenup @ June 03 2010,15:52) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 01 2010,22:06) Quote (Lightenup @ June 02 2010,10:15) Can Jehovah have an offspring begotten by Him before time and give Him His name, Jehovah. That doesn't make the offspring Jehovah the same Jehovah that gave Him life.
Hi Kathi,But they didn't name him Zacharias. Can you find one person in the entire Bible who DOES have the same name as their father?
peace and love,
mike
Hi Mike,
Whenever you see “son of…” that is part of the person's name and includes the father's name.See here:
A Hebrew name begins with a given name, followed by ben (son of) or bat (daughter of), followed by the person's father's Hebrew name. If the person is a kohein (descendant of Aaron), the name is followed by “ha-Kohein.” If the person is a Levite (descendant of the tribe of Levi), the name is followed by “ha-Levi.” If the person or his father is a rabbi, some follow the name with “ha-Rav.” This format of naming is seen as early as the Torah where, for example, Moses' successor Joshua is repeatedly referred to as Yehoshua ben Nun (Joshua, son of Nun). Note that the surname is not the same from generation to generation: Abraham's son Isaac is Yitzchak ben Avraham; Isaac's son Jacob is Ya'akov ben Yitzchak, and so forth. Moses' Hebrew name would be Moshe ben Amram ha-Levi (because he is a member of the tribe of Levi but not a descendant of Aaron), while his brother Aaron would be Aharon ben Amram ha-Kohein (because Aaron was a priest).Found here: http://www.jewfaq.org/jnames.htm
Hi Kathi,So based on your info, the Christ's name is “Jesus, Son of Jehovah”, not Jehovah the Son, right?
peace and love,
mikeHi WJ,
Shadows and dust, eh? Is that code for “truth”?
You said:
Quote The scriptures you quote concerning the Father as being the “One True God” is what we believe. But we also believe that the term “One True God” is not exclusive to the Father just as the Only Lord and Master is not exclusive to the Son. But when Jesus called the Father the “only true God”, doesn't the word “ONLY” imply “to the exclusion of all others”? When did Jesus pray to or call the Holy Spirit God?
You said:
Quote For you say that Jesus is “a god” (Polytheism) but not your God. Though the scriptures claim he is God, and if he is God then he can only be “The True God” and if he is God then he is someone’s God but not yours! By your reasoning, Satan is also “The True God”, for he is called god too.
Before moving on to Ignatius, answer my two questions about Eusebius. Why are you and Roo avoiding them?
peace and love,
mikeQuote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 03 2010,19:19) WJ said to Mikeboll: Quote You my friend preach the wrong Jesus!
Keith,You're right again. Mike says that Jesus is a god in the “same sense” as satan. This is not the Jesus of the Bible and Mike is in deeeeep doo doo with the Father.
Jack
Come on Jack. You've been running around thread to thread crying for 2 weeks about this now, but you have yet to prove me scripturally wrong.And the ones in “deep doo doo with the Father” are the ones who are preaching a different Jesus than taught in the Bible.
Obviously Jesus is a much different entity than Satan. Jesus is a servant of his God who always pleases Him, while Satan decided he didn't want to serve his God and do His will anymore.
Jesus is superior to the angels, of which Satan is one.
But the title “god” was given to “mighty ones” along with the Almighty One. Satan is NOT the Almighty God, therefore he is “a god”. Jesus is NOT the Almighty God, therefore he is “a god”. Therefore Jesus has the title “god” in the same sense that Satan has the title “god”. In the sense that they are both “mighty ones” who are NOT the Father.
Do you understand this? Or are you going to keep crying until someone pays attention to you and kisses your boo boo?
It seems like I'm in a 1950's movie and I said the word “pregnant” or something. Sheesh!
peace and love,
mikeQuote (WorshippingJesus @ June 04 2010,01:53) The Trinitarian debate may be an unending debate untill the Lord returns, but discussing scriptures is always a learning process no matter how long you discuss a particular topic! I have found the more I study these things the more it reinforces my belief. I am sure others can say the same thing.
Right on, Keith.You are a necessary evil for my deeper understanding of scripture.
mike
Hi WJ,
You quoted:
Quote These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the “beginning (Greek, archē – origin or cause)” of the creation of God; Rev 3:14 Or it could be the first and most used definition for “arche” – beginning, right? The other 21 times John used the word “arche” it meant “beginning”. Why does it have to mean “origin” this time? Is there a scriptural reason, or a man-made doctrinal reason?
You said:
Quote Lets forget for a moment your belief that Jesus is like God in everyway except for age, which BTW as Jack has pointed out is far more commendable than the Arians on this sight that compare Jesus to being “a god” in the same sense that satan is “a god”. Oh brother! Do you need a tissue now, too? I'll tell you what: Instead of you and Roo taking pot shots, prove scripturally that what I said is incorrect. Do that, and I'll not only apologize, but I'll send you both a box of tissues.
You said:
Quote God is infinite, so did he procreate an infinite God? Even if Jesus didn't have a beginning, your own words convict you. God is infinite, Jesus died. Therefore Jesus could not be God. Pretty simple, Keith.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (Lightenup @ June 04 2010,06:46) Hi WJ, The natural definition of what a firstborn is in all these translations, has the same understanding as the son being the beginning of his father's procreative power, whether you substitute 'procreative power' with generative power, first fruits of his manhood, or first issue of virility.
In the context of father/son, the meaning is always that the father procreated a child unless the context makes it clear that the term 'firstborn' is an exception to the natural meaning. In every instance where the term 'firstborn' clearly does not apply to the first procreative power of the father, in regards to man, the scripture makes it clear, if not we can assume the natural meaning of the word. Not one scripture makes it clear that the term 'firstborn' is the exception to the norm when it is applied to the Son of God aside from Him being the firstborn from the dead.
Hi Kathi,How wonderfully simple. I can never get an answer to why the title “Son of God”. You would think that if the two were equal God and one of them “lowered himself” to be man for a while, it would be God's “partner” or “brother” or something. But why Son?
Could it be becasue as the first of God's “procreative works” Jesus is actually God's Son – just like scripture teaches? Hey, what a concept!
Good job and have a great weekend. Say “Hi” to everyone for me.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (WorshippingJesus @ June 02 2010,07:21) Quote (Arnold @ June 01 2010,15:05) W.J. and K! What do you think in the beginning means? To me it means that Jesus did have a beginning.
Really? The Father was there with Jesus in the beginning! So does that mean the Father had a beginning?WJ
No that is not what it says. John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God and the Word was with God.
That deos not say that Jehovah God had a beginning. He was with Jesus who had a beginning….and what does firistborn mean…. He was born of God the Father, He came forth from God the Fathere it says in Proverbs 8. Let me see if I gaive birth to my firstborn Son and I was with Him does that mean now that I was born alsp, pretty silly…..Scriptures does not say any where that the Father had a beginning, but the Son did…..IreneQuote (mikeboll64 @ June 03 2010,15:20) Quote (Ed J @ June 03 2010,14:52) Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 31 2010,16:14) Quote (t8 @ May 31 2010,13:07) Hey at least he changed his name from the thinker (which didn't suit) to something more accurate. After all, he does jump around quite a bit trying to dodge difficulties.
I don't see it that way. Jack is an anomaly in this forum – he consistently and cogently answers questions. He answers the whole post and doesn't cherry pick. I haven't seen him run from anyone.
Hi Isaiah 1:18,He has ran away from me on numerous threads!
What about the Posts he doesn't answer at all (choosing to ignore)?
Ask him, he'll tell you: When ever I ask him to explain inconsistencies in what he presents,
he ignores those Posts, instead choosing to engage in endless arguments with those who knowingly disagree with him.God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Hi Ed,I hope you've been well. I missed you for a while there.
Jack ran out on our debate. He said it was at Is 1:18's urging because I am a heretic, but Paul and I have been discoursing daily ever since.
Hmmmm…..
Take care
mike
Hi Mike,It seems when others disagree with what they present,
their 'only' recourse seems to be to attack personally?
It's sad how many on this forum have stooped so low!1) Name calling
2) False accusations
3) And the list goes on and onGod bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgHi Ed,
It is sad. “Can't we all just get along?” – Rodney King
I have been discoursing with Simply Forgiven lately. Although he seems to lean towards the trinity, there are no harsh words. That proves that we can disagree without personal attacks.
Oh well, people will be people, including me and you.
peace and love to you
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ June 04 2010,12:54) Hi Ed, It is sad. “Can't we all just get along?” – Rodney King
I have been discoursing with Simply Forgiven lately. Although he seems to lean towards the trinity, there are no harsh words. That proves that we can disagree without personal attacks.
Oh well, people will be people, including me and you.
peace and love to you
mike
Hi Mike,I'm glad he's here as well!
God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
