- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (jammin @ April 24 2013,21:25) IT SAYS THERE THE EXACT REPRESENTATION OF HIS NATURE!
Exact representation of WHOSE nature, jammin? God's, right?
Did you read the rest of the passage?
3 After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.
Who is “the Majesty in heaven”? Whoever it is, Jesus must be pretty dang special to be allowed to sit at His right hand, huh?
And when did God Almighty Himself ever become INFERIOR to any of His angels to the point that He had to be made SUPERIOR to them again?
And from WHOM did God Almighty “inherit a name”? Doesn't scripture say it was God who gave His holy servant Jesus Christ a name above all others? Hmmmm……………
Your doctrine is nonsense, jammin.
Quote (jammin @ April 24 2013,21:25) THAT IS A VERY SIMPLE ENGLISH WORD AND YOU CANT UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF BEING?
Oh, I believe we both understand it just fine. Your last post proved that you understand it exactly like I do. It's just that it sometimes hurts your doctrine to ADMIT you understand it, so you play games instead. But we've all got your number, jammin. You're not too hard to figure out.Anyway, back to Gen 1:26………….
I believe God was talking to his divine counsel of angels. I have shown you the commentary from 25 TRINITARIAN scholars who agree with me. The JWs believe God was talking to the first of His creation – the one God ultimately created all things THROUGH. That would also fit the context – and the rest of the scriptures.
You, on the other hand, seem to be afraid (once again) to come right out and SAY what you believe – because you already KNOW it will have the rest of us rolling on the floor laughing. But I'd like to hear you say it anyway.
jammin, who do YOU think our ONE God was talking to in Gen 1:26?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 26 2013,12:18) Quote (jammin @ April 24 2013,21:25) IT SAYS THERE THE EXACT REPRESENTATION OF HIS NATURE!
Exact representation of WHOSE nature, jammin? God's, right?Did you read the rest of the passage?
3 After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.
Who is “the Majesty in heaven”? Whoever it is, Jesus must be pretty dang special to be allowed to sit at His right hand, huh?
And when did God Almighty Himself ever become INFERIOR to any of His angels to the point that He had to be made SUPERIOR to them again?
And from WHOM did God Almighty “inherit a name”? Doesn't scripture say it was God who gave His holy servant Jesus Christ a name above all others? Hmmmm……………
Your doctrine is nonsense, jammin.
Quote (jammin @ April 24 2013,21:25) THAT IS A VERY SIMPLE ENGLISH WORD AND YOU CANT UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF BEING?
Oh, I believe we both understand it just fine. Your last post proved that you understand it exactly like I do. It's just that it sometimes hurts your doctrine to ADMIT you understand it, so you play games instead. But we've all got your number, jammin. You're not too hard to figure out.Anyway, back to Gen 1:26………….
I believe God was talking to his divine counsel of angels. I have shown you the commentary from 25 TRINITARIAN scholars who agree with me. The JWs believe God was talking to the first of His creation – the one God ultimately created all things THROUGH. That would also fit the context – and the rest of the scriptures.
You, on the other hand, seem to be afraid (once again) to come right out and SAY what you believe – because you already KNOW it will have the rest of us rolling on the floor laughing. But I'd like to hear you say it anyway.
jammin, who do YOU think our ONE God was talking to in Gen 1:26?
what is being mike?do you agree that being also means nature?
yes or no?Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 26 2013,00:57) Jammin………..I gave you verses and Scriptures but you just ignored them , So what are the SEVEN SPIRITs of GOD that go out into “ALL” the EARTH, if those Sprit are not in all of God's CREATION> Then what do they do? Your problem is like most, you have no idea what a SPIRIT, REALLY, “IS” Boy. IMO
peace and love to you and yours…………………………..gene
your verse is irrelevant,give me version that says in gen 1.26 that God is talking to the 7 spirits.
ill give you 1000yrs to find one
jammin,
I've asked a few questions in my last post. When you answer them, I'll begin to answer some more of yours. Our relationship has become one-sided. You ASK questions, and I ANSWER them. Over, and over, and over.
It's time for YOU to answer some questions once in a while, okay?
First up: Who is “the Majesty in heaven” that Jesus sits at the right hand of?
that is just your excuse. i already answered lots of your questions but you ignore my questions.
ill repeat boy
do you agree that being also means nature? yes or no?>Quote (jammin @ April 26 2013,13:42) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 26 2013,00:57) Jammin………..I gave you verses and Scriptures but you just ignored them , So what are the SEVEN SPIRITs of GOD that go out into “ALL” the EARTH, if those Sprit are not in all of God's CREATION> Then what do they do? Your problem is like most, you have no idea what a SPIRIT, REALLY, “IS” Boy. IMO
peace and love to you and yours…………………………..gene
your verse is irrelevant,give me version that says in gen 1.26 that God is talking to the 7 spirits.
ill give you 1000yrs to find one
Jammin……..They are more relevant then yours are , show me one scripture in genesis that says Jesus was even there, you are forcing the text to say what in fact it does not actually say. But then all Trinitarians and Preexistences here do that Boy. IMOPeace and love to you and yours……………………………gene
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 25 2013,19:57) Jammin………..I gave you verses and Scriptures but you just ignored them , So what are the SEVEN SPIRITs of GOD that go out into “ALL” the EARTH, if those Sprit are not in all of God's CREATION> Then what do they do? Your problem is like most, you have no idea what a SPIRIT, REALLY, “IS” Boy. IMO
peace and love to you and yours…………………………..gene
Gene,Traditionally it is the 7 archangels, the Watchers. The wandering stars, which are the Sun, the Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn.
Quote Jewish sources of the Greco-Roman period expand on the traditions of angels found in the Hebrew Scriptures. We especially see the first systematic organization of Biblical hosts of heaven into a hierarchy of different castes of angels governing and serving on different levels of heaven. Zechariah's reference to the seven eyes of God (4:10) is understood to refer to either seven archangels, or the seven angel hosts in the seven heavens (I Enoch 61; Testament of the Patriarchs, Levi). Here is my source.
Quote (jammin @ April 25 2013,21:12) that is just your excuse. i already answered lots of your questions but you ignore my questions. ill repeat boy
do you agree that being also means nature? yes or no?>
I agree with the following uses of the word “being” that YOU YOURSELF wrote:Quote (jammin @ April 23 2013,23:02) second, Christ is the exact likeness of God's being Quote (jammin @ April 23 2013,23:02) therefore in gen 1.26, God is not talking to his angles but to the being with the same image and likeness. In which one of your two quotes does the word “being” mean “nature”?
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 27 2013,02:13) Quote (jammin @ April 26 2013,13:42) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 26 2013,00:57) Jammin………..I gave you verses and Scriptures but you just ignored them , So what are the SEVEN SPIRITs of GOD that go out into “ALL” the EARTH, if those Sprit are not in all of God's CREATION> Then what do they do? Your problem is like most, you have no idea what a SPIRIT, REALLY, “IS” Boy. IMO
peace and love to you and yours…………………………..gene
your verse is irrelevant,give me version that says in gen 1.26 that God is talking to the 7 spirits.
ill give you 1000yrs to find one
Jammin……..They are more relevant then yours are , show me one scripture in genesis that says Jesus was even there, you are forcing the text to say what in fact it does not actually say. But then all Trinitarians and Preexistences here do that Boy. IMOPeace and love to you and yours……………………………gene
i dont need your opinion. i want verse.give me a version that says in gen 1.26 that God is talking to seven spirits. if you cant find one then stop talking
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 27 2013,09:15) Quote (jammin @ April 25 2013,21:12) that is just your excuse. i already answered lots of your questions but you ignore my questions. ill repeat boy
do you agree that being also means nature? yes or no?>
I agree with the following uses of the word “being” that YOU YOURSELF wrote:Quote (jammin @ April 23 2013,23:02) second, Christ is the exact likeness of God's being Quote (jammin @ April 23 2013,23:02) therefore in gen 1.26, God is not talking to his angles but to the being with the same image and likeness. In which one of your two quotes does the word “being” mean “nature”?
not me boy but the bible.you should be careful of your words.
i say what is in the bible., im not like you boy who tells stories.
the dictionary tells us that being also means nature. i cant understand why you dont know this.
you need to go back to school boy
Quote (jammin @ April 26 2013,09:12) that is just your excuse. i already answered lots of your questions but you ignore my questions. ill repeat boy
do you agree that being also means nature? yes or no?>
jamminyou can not defend your views and try to play it down with a question is that question not been answered to you many times already
yes it is ,but you are stuckQuote (terraricca @ April 27 2013,11:54) Quote (jammin @ April 26 2013,09:12) that is just your excuse. i already answered lots of your questions but you ignore my questions. ill repeat boy
do you agree that being also means nature? yes or no?>
jamminyou can not defend your views and try to play it down with a question is that question not been answered to you many times already
yes it is ,but you are stuck
you call that answered questions? LOLyou cant even give me version that says Christ is the first creation of God.
do you know what you are saying boy?
could you pls try reading again the whole page of this thread. maybe you are out of your mind.
ill repeat,
where can you read in col 1.15 that christ is the first creation of God?
give me version. ill wait.Quote (jammin @ April 26 2013,13:42) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 26 2013,00:57) Jammin………..I gave you verses and Scriptures but you just ignored them , So what are the SEVEN SPIRITs of GOD that go out into “ALL” the EARTH, if those Sprit are not in all of God's CREATION> Then what do they do? Your problem is like most, you have no idea what a SPIRIT, REALLY, “IS” Boy. IMO
peace and love to you and yours…………………………..gene
your verse is irrelevant,give me version that says in gen 1.26 that God is talking to the 7 spirits.
ill give you 1000yrs to find one
jammin………..Give me one that says he is talking about Jesus, in Genesis as the “us” and I'll give you 2000 yrs to find it boy or show me the word “trinity” in any scripture and I give you another 4000 yes, to find it boy , or better yet show me one scripture that says, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are all one and the same, or one scripture that say Jesus is a GOD of any kind, boy, I'll just lump them all together and give you say 10,000 yrs how's that boy.
Peace and love to you and yours……………..gene
Quote (jammin @ April 26 2013,18:25) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 27 2013,09:15) Quote (jammin @ April 25 2013,21:12) that is just your excuse. i already answered lots of your questions but you ignore my questions. ill repeat boy
do you agree that being also means nature? yes or no?>
I agree with the following uses of the word “being” that YOU YOURSELF wrote:Quote (jammin @ April 23 2013,23:02) second, Christ is the exact likeness of God's being Quote (jammin @ April 23 2013,23:02) therefore in gen 1.26, God is not talking to his angles but to the being with the same image and likeness. In which one of your two quotes does the word “being” mean “nature”?
the dictionary tells us that being also means nature.
There. I've made my question bigger, just in case you didn't see it the first time.Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 28 2013,00:28) Quote (jammin @ April 26 2013,18:25) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 27 2013,09:15) Quote (jammin @ April 25 2013,21:12) that is just your excuse. i already answered lots of your questions but you ignore my questions. ill repeat boy
do you agree that being also means nature? yes or no?>
I agree with the following uses of the word “being” that YOU YOURSELF wrote:Quote (jammin @ April 23 2013,23:02) second, Christ is the exact likeness of God's being Quote (jammin @ April 23 2013,23:02) therefore in gen 1.26, God is not talking to his angles but to the being with the same image and likeness. In which one of your two quotes does the word “being” mean “nature”?
the dictionary tells us that being also means nature.
There. I've made my question bigger, just in case you didn't see it the first time.
Mike,Adam was the being that was created with the same image and likeness as the Elohim.
Genesis 1:26
King James Version (KJV)26 And God(elohim) said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Okay Kerwin,
And what about God's spirit sons, who not only came first, but were made higher than Adam?
Do you suppose that God first made His spirit sons in the image of something other than Him, but then decided to make man, who is LOWER THAN the angels, in His image?
If man, who is LOWER THAN the angels, was made in the image of God, but the spirit sons of God were NOT, wouldn't it mean that the spirit sons were made in an image HIGHER THAN God Himself?
Get it?
1. God…………………..
2. Man, who was made in God's image.
3. Angels, who are HIGHER THAN man.
If angels weren't first made in God's image also, then they have an image HIGHER THAN man, and therefore HIGHER THAN God Himself, in whose image MAN was made.
Mike,
Quote (jammin @ April 23 2013,23:02) therefore in gen 1.26, God is not talking to his angles but to the being with the same image and likeness. I was pointing out that jammin was using words applied to adam as meaning Jesus is Yawheh.
Let us look at:
Genesis 1:26
King James Version (KJV)26 And God(elohim) said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
It is the elohim, which is a plural word by nature, that stated “us”. Elsewhere it is written that man is a little lower than the elohim.
Who is in the unity of the elohim at the time man is made?
We know that Jesus, God's firstborn, and also myriads of angels were with God when He created the earth, and ultimately mankind.
He could have been speaking ONLY to the firstborn, through whom He then created the adam. Or He could have been speaking to the entire divine counsel of angels.
To whom do YOU think God was speaking?
Quote (kerwin @ April 29 2013,08:24) Let us look at: Genesis 1:26
King James Version (KJV)26 And God(elohim) said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
It is the elohim, which is a plural word by nature, that stated “us”. Elsewhere it is written that man is a little lower than the elohim.
Who is in the unity of the elohim at the time man is made?
Mike and Kerwin,
“Said God, make man image, likeness, rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the cattle all the earth…..”
There is no “let us” or “our” in the Hebrew.
The Lord said to Moses, “See, I have made thee God (אֶלהִים, Elohim) to Pharaoh, and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.” (Exodus 7:1)
Was Moses MORE than one being? No. Moses was one being!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
