- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Dec. 08 2010,22:25) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 08 2010,08:08) Btw D, you know that Satan is the “god of this age”, right? Do you believe that Satan truly exists? Then you too “believe in” more than one god, right? mike
So you Claim that Satan is another god that you believe in?I wouldnt claim that Satan is a god, and scriptures are very clear that he is an angel, nothing more.
Scriptures are clear that there is only One God.If we were to start to believe in “many gods” and than this “almighty god” than there is no difference between what you believe and what pagans believe.
just to explain that, makes no sense at all.
SFso you can see how pervert are your questions,
this is why i did not want to answer your question,
and this is also why i told you you do not know God ,and you prove me right with this answer.
and the answer is availlable to you if you give yourself the time to read the quotes,
but like most of the new generation of so called believers they WANT IT NOW AND THE WAY THEY SEE IT.
yeah you have much love but it is not godly love,
power love
Pierre
Quote (Tim Kraft @ Dec. 07 2010,20:35) Quote (mikeangel @ Dec. 04 2010,23:38) That while I am on this earth I will proclaim to them what I feel is wrong, and not participate in anything in the RCC that I feel is wrong, and embrace the things that are good. Also I want to follow Jesus' commands and try to be in fellowship with other christians no matter what church they go to. I want to build up, not tear down. I want to forgive as I have been forgiven. I want to not judge others so I am not judged. I want to show mercy so that I will be shown mercy. I want to love and be loved. Love- Mark
Mikeangel: Hey Mark, just for the record your post is beautiful. If you remain in the words of Jesus,they are from God and they will transform your thinking to align with God/Jesus. You will become a God/Man.Your dedicated attitude toward embracing truth no matter who else or what else happens will defend you from the fiery darts of deception. You will win with your attitude of I must be convinced of truth for myself. Jesus/God will honor that with truth.
The love that you show in your post, building up with truth not tearing down with destructive words, forgiving and not juding and showing mercy is nearly the total summation of a God/Man.
I don't have to know you physically to love your heart. Your post of love aligns with my love and we are one. Don't let go ever of your truth. Stand fast against trickery and cunning words of destruction, sin and degradation. Be upheld by the good news/gospel of Jesus alone. You win! God bless you, TK
Tim,Thanks Tim. I am a worthless, useless servant. I hope I merely do my duty, if I am more than that, God will have to tell me himself. I have no idea what Jesus' followers will become in the next age, but if I am a toilet scrubber in heaven that will be fine with me. Godbless Tim-Mark
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Dec. 08 2010,15:19) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 08 2010,07:55) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Dec. 08 2010,06:51) but these people most likely will respond to you,
What people?
I meant to say the group “path of Truth”
Okay, thanks to you and Ed. I'll check it out soon. I haven't even found time yet to visit your new thread D. Soon!
mike
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Dec. 08 2010,15:25) I wouldnt claim that Satan is a god, and scriptures are very clear that he is an angel, nothing more.
Hi D,2 Corinthians 4:4 NIV
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.Hmmmmmm…………..yet Paul calls him a god.
mike
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Dec. 08 2010,15:27) Mike,
Im surprised that you dont force Irene and Pierre to answer the Question directly.dont you agree its unfair that i asked a direct question that they couldnt even give me a direct answer?
when I, WJ, KJ, Or LU dont answer your question directly, you put a big fit, dont you think we should deserve the same respect?Thank you for your answer BTW at least your upfront about it =)
They answer MY questions D!
Btw, so does Kathi. I've never had a problem with her not answering a question I've asked. At least not that I remember.
Do what you have to do man. If someone doesn't answer, keep asking. That's what I do.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 09 2010,18:32) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Dec. 08 2010,15:27) Mike,
Im surprised that you dont force Irene and Pierre to answer the Question directly.dont you agree its unfair that i asked a direct question that they couldnt even give me a direct answer?
when I, WJ, KJ, Or LU dont answer your question directly, you put a big fit, dont you think we should deserve the same respect?Thank you for your answer BTW at least your upfront about it =)
They answer MY questions D! Btw, so does Kathi. I've never had a problem with her not answering a question I've asked. At least not that I remember.
Do what you have to do man. If someone doesn't answer, keep asking. That's what I do.
mike
Mike Pierre
Mike
“””God is the only Saviour.
“I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.” Isaiah 43:11″””Yes, it is God that saves, but only through Jesus, because Jesus died in our stead, as you said.
“””…the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. 1 John 4:14
Neither is there salvation in any other (than Jesus): for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
–Acts 4:12″””Only through our faith in Jesus, can we be saved.
“””God Jesus
God created the universe and earth by Himself.
I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself. Isaiah 44:24″””God, through Jesus, created all things, Col. 1:16.
“””God Jesus
God is the Word.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God John 1:1
Jesus is the Word.
…the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us…John 1:14″””Jesus, not God Jesus, was the word that became flesh. Why did the apostle John refer to Jesus as the “word”? Jesus himself gives us the answer.
Jhn 5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
“NO ONE”, at “ANY TIME”, has heard the voice of the Father; so who's voice did they hear? the voice of the “WORD”, the voice of the “spokesman” of God, his Son Jesus.
“””God Jesus
God is the first and the last.”””There is no “God” Jesus, there is only “god” Jesus. How can God, meaning the Father, be first, first of what? did he too have a beginning? No, he always existed. Jesus is the “first and the last” the Father brought forth himself, all else was brought forth “through” the Son.
“”””[W]ho can forgive sins but God only?” Mark 2:7
Jesus forgives sins.
Jesus…said…”Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.” Mark 2:5″””Jesus forgives sins because the Father has given him the power to do so.
Jhn 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Mat 9:6 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.
“””1 Timothy 3:16
God was made manifest in the flesh. “””If this was to be taken literal, then what Jesus said earlier, John 5:37, could not be true. It was Jesus, representing the Father, who came to reveal the Father to us, that is meant by that.
Georg
Quote (Baker @ Dec. 12 2010,01:30) “””1 Timothy 3:16
God was made manifest in the flesh. “””If this was to be taken literal, then what Jesus said earlier, John 5:37, could not be true. It was Jesus, representing the Father, who came to reveal the Father to us, that is meant by that.
Hi Georg,Save your breath. Mark (mikeangel) has bailed from sight. He posted all these scriptures in the “Worship” thread, so I brought them over here to refute them one by one. But he decided he didn't want to know the truth about his “God #2” after all. He would rather turn a blind eye to the truth that Jesus is God's Son, and can therefore not be God Himself.
As far as 1 Timothy 3:16, know this from NETNotes:
i 3:163tc The Byzantine text along with a few other witnesses (אc Ac C2 D2 Ψ [88 pc] 1739 1881 Ï vgms) read θεός (qeos, “God”) for ὅς (Jos, “who”). Most significant among these witnesses is 1739; the second correctors of some of the other mss tend to conform to the medieval standard, the Byzantine text, and add no independent voice to the discussion. A few mss have ὁ θεός (so 88 pc), a reading that is a correction on the anarthrous θεός. On the other side, the masculine relative pronoun ὅς is strongly supported by א* A* C* F G 33 365 pc Did Epiph. Significantly, D* and virtually the entire Latin tradition read the neuter relative pronoun, ὅ (Jo, “which”), a reading that indirectly supports ὅς since it could not easily have been generated if θεός had been in the text. Thus, externally, there is no question as to what should be considered original: The Alexandrian and Western traditions are decidedly in favor of ὅς. Internally, the evidence is even stronger. What scribe would change θεός to ὅς intentionally? “Who” is not only a theologically pale reading by comparison; it also is much harder (since the relative pronoun has no obvious antecedent, probably the reason for the neuter pronoun of the Western tradition). Intrinsically, the rest of 3:16, beginning with ὅς, appears to form a six-strophed hymn. As such, it is a text that is seemingly incorporated into the letter without syntactical connection. Hence, not only should we not look for an antecedent for ὅς (as is often done by commentators), but the relative pronoun thus is not too hard a reading (or impossible, as Dean Burgon believed). Once the genre is taken into account, the relative pronoun fits neatly into the author’s style (cf. also Col 1:15; Phil 2:6 for other places in which the relative pronoun begins a hymn, as was often the case in poetry of the day). On the other hand, with θεός written as a nomen sacrum, it would have looked very much like the relative pronoun: q-=s vs. os. Thus, it may have been easy to confuse one for the other. This, of course, does not solve which direction the scribes would go, although given their generally high Christology and the bland and ambiguous relative pronoun, it is doubtful that they would have replaced θεός with ὅς. How then should we account for θεός? It appears that sometime after the 2nd century the θεός reading came into existence, either via confusion with ὅς or as an intentional alteration to magnify Christ and clear up the syntax at the same time. Once it got in, this theologically rich reading was easily able to influence all the rest of the mss it came in contact with (including mss already written, such as א A C D). That this reading did not arise until after the 2nd century is evident from the Western reading, ὅ. The neuter relative pronoun is certainly a “correction” of ὅς, conforming the gender to that of the neuter μυστήριον (musthrion, “mystery”). What is significant in this reading is (1) since virtually all the Western witnesses have either the masculine or neuter relative pronoun, the θεός reading was apparently unknown to them in the 2nd century (when the “Western” text seems to have originated, though its place of origination was most likely in the east); they thus supply strong indirect evidence of ὅς outside of Egypt in the 2nd century; (2) even 2nd century scribes were liable to misunderstand the genre, feeling compelled to alter the masculine relative pronoun because it appeared to them to be too harsh. The evidence, therefore, for ὅς is quite compelling, both externally and internally. As TCGNT 574 notes, “no uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century (Ψ) supports θεός; all ancient versions presuppose ὅς or ὅ; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading θεός.” Thus, the cries of certain groups that θεός has to be original must be seen as special pleading in this case. To argue that heretics tampered with the text here is self-defeating, for most of the Western fathers who quoted the verse with the relative pronoun were quite orthodox, strongly affirming the deity of Christ. They would have dearly loved such a reading as θεός. Further, had heretics introduced a variant to θεός, a far more natural choice would have been Χριστός (Cristos, “Christ”) or κύριος (kurios, “Lord”), since the text is self-evidently about Christ, but it is not self-evidently a proclamation of his deity. (See ExSyn 341-42, for a summary discussion on this issue and additional bibliographic references.)
The word “God” wasn't added into this scripture until the 2nd century. The scripture is about Christ being manifest in the flesh, not God. And this info is from a trinitarian website.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 11 2010,10:41) But he decided he didn't want to know the truth about his “God #2” after all. He would rather turn a blind eye to the truth that Jesus is God's Son, and can therefore not be God Himself.
MikeThis statement is totally uncalled for and cowardly IMO. What the heck do you know about his relationship with his God?
Not only that you misrepresent him because he has never said Jesus is not the “Son of God”.
Your statement “He would rather turn a blind eye to the truth that Jesus is God's Son, and can therefore not be God Himself.”…
Is a strawmans argument because the term “God” does not classify identity no more than saying I am the Son of a man does.
Is the term “Son of God” and “God” ANTITHETICAL? If so tell me how.
WJ
Hey Keith,
Would you like to start at the beginning of this thread and take Mark's scriptures one point at a time?
If not, then you popping in here and there with your “I and the Father are one” stuff doesn't get anyone anywhere.
As far as Mark's relationship with God, I know that he has been mislead into thinking that Jesus is God instead of the servant of God that he is. And any one with a third grade education is smart enough to know that the Son OF God cannot also be the God he is the Son of.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 11 2010,10:41) The word “God” wasn't added into this scripture until the 2nd century. The scripture is about Christ being manifest in the flesh, not God. And this info is from a trinitarian website.
MikeIt doesn't make any difference because Jesus is the “Word that was with God and Was God” that came in the likeness of sinful flesh.
You are correct the NET is Trinitarian and that shows you their honesty. You are so quick to jump on the NETs notes when you like it but what about all the scriptures that they disagree with you on? Shall we quote the NET on those?
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 12 2010,03:00) You are correct the NET is Trinitarian and that shows you their honesty. You are so quick to jump on the NETs notes when you like it but what about all the scriptures that they disagree with you on? Shall we quote the NET on those?
Hi Keith,My point is that if even the trinitarians think the word “God” is not in 1 Tim, then you guys should stop using that scripture as some kind of proof that Jesus is God.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 11 2010,11:03) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 12 2010,03:00) You are correct the NET is Trinitarian and that shows you their honesty. You are so quick to jump on the NETs notes when you like it but what about all the scriptures that they disagree with you on? Shall we quote the NET on those?
Hi Keith,My point is that if even the trinitarians think the word “God” is not in 1 Tim, then you guys should stop using that scripture as some kind of proof that Jesus is God.
mike
MikeI don't use it, because I know it is ambiguous, nevertheless it does fit with John 1:1 and others. Mark is new and doesn't know so your statement of judgment on him is unfair and uncalled for.
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 11 2010,11:00) As far as Mark's relationship with God, I know that he has been mislead into thinking that Jesus is God instead of the servant of God that he is. And any one with a third grade education is smart enough to know that the Son OF God cannot also be the God he is the Son of.
MikeYour statement is circular. JA is right. Only Mike knows everything that is true here.
It can't be possible that others are just as convinced of the truth as Mike, isn't that right? Isn't that the way you see it?
BTW Jesus is not the servant Messiah at this time Mike.
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 12 2010,03:10) BTW Jesus is not the servant Messiah at this time Mike.
But there are 4 scriptures in the Book of Acts that disagree with you.Btw, I started off on this thread with care and gentleness toward Mark. I told him on one of the first pages that this is not meant as some kind of “hate fest”, but just a respecful discussion. The statement your chiding me for was made to Georg, not Mark.
And according to Mark's own words, he has stopped reading and partaking in this thread Keith. But point taken. I will lay off the “God #2” talk. I have laid off it with you because you requested me to. You have no idea how many times I've posted “God #2” and then changed it to “the second person in the 'Godhead'” because of you.
Keith, I won't discuss the trinity with you anymore in the same way we always have discussed it. You jump from point to point without ever addressing the fact that not one of those points mean Jesus is God.
If you want to discuss trinity matters with me, then we can do it point at a time. If you would like to start at the beginning of this thead and address my rebuttal to Marks' first claim, then go ahead and do it. But I've grown tired of the cat and mouse game. You post a scripture and claim it means Jesus is God, and when I show that it doesn't mean that at all, you're already off an running to other scriptures without ever addressing the fact that your first scriptures in no way teach that Jesus is God Almighty.
I won't do it anymore.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 12 2010,03:10) Mike Your statement is circular. JA is right. Only Mike knows everything that is true here.
And just for the record, this kind of statement is worse than anything I've said to Mark.JA has also called you “a god in your own mind” and has said other derogatory things to and about you. Things that I personally addressed with him in pm's at the time Keith because he was wrong to be so personal and insulting.
What bearing would it have on OUR discussion for me to bring up things that JA has said about you and say “He was right about you Keith”?
If YOU think that I think I'm the only one with truth, then YOU should make that claim. Whether JA had ever said that or not should have no bearing on the matter. Agreed?
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 11 2010,11:36) Keith, I won't discuss the trinity with you anymore in the same way we always have discussed it. You jump from point to point without ever addressing the fact that not one of those points mean Jesus is God. If you want to discuss trinity matters with me, then we can do it point at a time. If you would like to start at the beginning of this thead and address my rebuttal to Marks' first claim, then go ahead and do it. But I've grown tired of the cat and mouse game. You post a scripture and claim it means Jesus is God, and when I show that it doesn't mean that at all, you're already off an running to other scriptures without ever addressing the fact that your first scriptures in no way teach that Jesus is God Almighty.
I won't do it anymore.
HaHa MikeYou are the master of diversions, dances, and rabbit holes. If you don't believe me just ask most on this sight.
You haven't even gotten past John 1:1.
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 11 2010,11:42) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 12 2010,03:10) Mike Your statement is circular. JA is right. Only Mike knows everything that is true here.
And just for the record, this kind of statement is worse than anything I've said to Mark.JA has also called you “a god in your own mind” and has said other derogatory things to and about you. Things that I personally addressed with him in pm's at the time Keith because he was wrong to be so personal and insulting.
What bearing would it have on OUR discussion for me to bring up things that JA has said about you and say “He was right about you Keith”?
If YOU think that I think I'm the only one with truth, then YOU should make that claim. Whether JA had ever said that or not should have no bearing on the matter. Agreed?
mike
MikeAs far as JA I agree, however my point is for you to make statements of judgment about someones faith as if you know their heart is wrong.
You come across as if only you are fully convinced of the truth and no one else is.
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 12 2010,03:48) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 11 2010,11:36) Keith, I won't discuss the trinity with you anymore in the same way we always have discussed it. You jump from point to point without ever addressing the fact that not one of those points mean Jesus is God. If you want to discuss trinity matters with me, then we can do it point at a time. If you would like to start at the beginning of this thead and address my rebuttal to Marks' first claim, then go ahead and do it. But I've grown tired of the cat and mouse game. You post a scripture and claim it means Jesus is God, and when I show that it doesn't mean that at all, you're already off an running to other scriptures without ever addressing the fact that your first scriptures in no way teach that Jesus is God Almighty.
I won't do it anymore.
HaHa MikeYou are the master of diversions, dances, and rabbit holes. If you don't believe me just ask most on this sight.
You haven't even gotten past John 1:1.
WJ
I take that as your usual, “No, I'm not equipped to defend the trinity if I can't flood the posts with many 'trinity supporting scriptures' all at once so they never get individually addressed and refuted.”I'm still waiting for Jack to come clean on the beating he took in the “Plural God” debate. And I'm still waiting for YOU to answer to my last post about John 1:1 and Micah 5:4 among other points.
You are right that WE have never got past John 1:1, but that is not because of me. That is because, although requested and invited, you blew off our first debate on the matter and even a recent request to join me the John 1:1-3 thread.
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 12 2010,03:52) Mike As far as JA I agree, however my point is for you to make statements of judgment about someones faith as if you know their heart is wrong.
You come across as if only you are fully convinced of the truth and no one else is.
WJ
Keith, if your faith tells you that Jesus is God Almighty, then not only your faith, but the common sense God Almighty gave you is flawed.If you found out that I worshipped an Asheroth Pole as a way of worshipping YHVH, wouldn't it be clear to you without knowing anything else about me that my faith and understanding of scriptures was flawed?
I'm just calling them as I see them. And my beliefs are founded on the scriptures Keith, so I KNOW they are right and they are the truth.
So when my beliefs come into conflict with yours, it is YOU that is wrong, not me.
mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
