- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 26 2011,10:38)
MikeAll that scripture means is Jesus could not die again not that death could hold him.
Hi Keith,And does saying “God cannot die AGAIN” make any kind of sense at all? God couldn't die in the first place. Do you really think that the Almighty Creator of the Universe could be killed at the hands of mere mortal human beings?
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 26 2011,10:38)
If Jesus had the power to lay down his life and to take it up agian “iregardless as to whether the Father gave it to him” then that means that death never had any power over him.
Wrong. What it means, just like the scripture says, is that death DID at one time have power over Jesus. But since the God of Jesus snatched him away from death, death NO LONGER has power over Jesus. Because nothing can snatch Jesus out of God's hands, for He is greater than all.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 26 2011,10:38)
Jesus “ABOLISHED” death and rose again.
And “abolished” is a poetic and symbolic way of saying that, thanks to Jesus' God, death has no hold over him. You MUST know it is poetic, since death STILL exists. Something that was “abolished” no longer exists, Keith.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 26 2011,10:38)
“Destroy this Temple and I will raise it again“
Keith, do you really want to do this? Do you want to compare ONE metaphorical statement by Jesus to the MANY scriptures that clearly tell us how Jesus' GOD raised Jesus from the dead?mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 27 2011,04:41) Quote (942767 @ Feb. 26 2011,11:47) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 27 2011,03:39) Quote (942767 @ Feb. 26 2011,11:28) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 26 2011,08:18) Quote (942767 @ Feb. 25 2011,15:54) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 26 2011,06:31) Quote (942767 @ Feb. 25 2011,11:14) I do not see God confirming what is being taught with miracles and signs and wonders following.
MartyCan you point me to any anti Jesus is God people that are saving people and feeding the poor and healing the sick or where there are signs and wonders following.
If the Trinity Doctrine is such a damnable doctrine then why is it that it is mostly the Trinitarians whom God is working through?
Are the signs and wonders working through you, if so why don't you tell us about it and then explain to us it is because you don't believe in the “Trinity”?
WJ
Hi Keith:The “Trinity doctrine” is a misunderstanding of scripture, and is the cause of many Jews and Muslims not being open to hear the gospel message.
God has shown me that He intends to use me as an overseer in the church. He said that He would put me in this postion, and I will wait for Him to do what He said. In a recent dream, He has shown me who He will use to lay hands on me and ordain me in this position, and He has spoken to me recently telling me that what He has promised me is near.
In that position of authority, He will confirm what I am teaching.
Love in Christ,
Marty
MartySo the Lord has shown you who is going to lay hands on you and ordain you?
Is he a member of the Church?
If he is then you are telling me that God is going to use a heretic to ordain you isn't that right?
WJ
Hi Keith:He is a member of the Lord's church, and I am just telling you what the Lord has shown me.
Love in Christ,
Marty
MartyIs that Church your Church? Is it a Trinitarian Church?
WJ
Hi Keith:The Lord said: “Upon this rock, I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.”
I am a member of his church, and so, is the pastor who he has shown me will lay hands on me and ordain me for the position that he has shown me.
Jesus did not make any mention of a “Trinitarian church”.
Love in Christ,
Marty
MartyWhy are you evading the question?
I asked if he goes to your church and if he is a Trinitarian and you don't seem like you want to answer that. Why?
WJ
Hi Keith:You alway accuse me of evading your questions, but no, I have not. I said I am a member of the Lord's church and so is he. I am not a member of the church where I currently worship, and neither is he. He is a pastor of a church in different city from where I live. Whether he believes in the Trinity doctrine or not I do not know. God has used him to correct me and also, to give me direction some time in my past, and I know that the Holy Ghost dwells within him. But also, I am not going looking for him. God said that he would use him to lay hands on me at the appropriate time, and so, I am not going to go trying to make it happen. If God said it, He will surely bring it to pass, and I know that He said it.
But your questions are aimed at me trying to discredit me and to cast doubt on what I have said. But it doesn't matter, because I know what God has said and you will also know it.
God can use whomever he chooses, but He did not say anything about a “Trinitarian church”.
Quote 2 Timothy 2:19-22 (King James Version) 19Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.
20But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.
21If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (942767 @ Feb. 28 2011,15:55) But your questions are aimed at me trying to discredit me and to cast doubt on what I have said. But it doesn't matter, because I know what God has said and you will also know it.
MartyNo, my question is designed to know the truth. You seemed vague. Now you are saying…
Quote (942767 @ Feb. 28 2011,15:55) God has used him to correct me and also, to give me direction some time in my past, and I know that the Holy Ghost dwells within him.
Yet you have never asked him about the Trinity since you believe he has the Holy Spirit and has given you direction before?Does the Church he Pastors believe in the Trinity? Is it a Trinitarian Church?
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 01 2011,08:04) Quote (942767 @ Feb. 28 2011,15:55) But your questions are aimed at me trying to discredit me and to cast doubt on what I have said. But it doesn't matter, because I know what God has said and you will also know it.
MartyNo, my question is designed to know the truth. You seemed vague. Now you are saying…
Quote (942767 @ Feb. 28 2011,15:55) God has used him to correct me and also, to give me direction some time in my past, and I know that the Holy Ghost dwells within him.
Yet you have never asked him about the Trinity since you believe he has the Holy Spirit and has given you direction before?Does the Church he Pastors believe in the Trinity? Is it a Trinitarian Church?
WJ
Hi Keith:I already told you that there is no “Trinitarian church”, and I don't know if he believe in the “Trinity doctrine” or not. You know that I do not, and I have already discussed all of this with you.
If God is going to ordain me for the position of an overseer and has shown me that He will correct the church through me, and if He confirms what I teach at that time, then it will be Him that is saying that what I am teaching is correct.
Ultimately, it isn't what you or I say, but what He says that matters.
That is all I have to say on this matter. I have already answered your questions. You remind me of the Pharisees who were constanly trying to trip Jesus up in something that he said so that they could accuse him.
The following statement made by you is what you are trying to get me to admit, but I just told you what God has said. He can use whomever He chooses.
Quote If he is then you are telling me that God is going to use a heretic to ordain you isn't that right? Love in Christ,
Martyt8 said:
Quote WJ, feel free to admit defeat with this debate.
Or feel free to say you will give a reply, when you have some time on your hands.
t8,You're pulling an arrogant Mikeboll thing now. You took four months to answer my last rebuttal in our debate and I said nothing at all about you admitting defeat. I don't think like that and you shouldn't either. Mikeboll's chest beating is rubbing off on you. Chill dude!
Besides, you have already defeated yourself in saying that Christ is God qualitatively. This means that he is God. So WJ doesn't need to defeat you because you have already given him the debate on a silver platter.
KJ
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 01 2011,16:54) t8, You're pulling an arrogant Mikeboll thing now. Mikeboll's chest beating is rubbing off on you.
Jack,Don't confuse “arrogance” with “confidence”. Two years ago, when I started debating with you, I was a scared little puppy who knew very little about scripture. God has given me all the confidence that I now have by leading me to every truth that has shut down every one of your trinitarian claims so far.
And maybe I'd stop “beating my chest” if you'd stop giving me things to beat it about.
mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 02 2011,09:54) t8, You're pulling an arrogant Mikeboll thing now. You took four months to answer my last rebuttal in our debate and I said nothing at all about you admitting defeat. I don't think like that and you shouldn't either. Mikeboll's chest beating is rubbing off on you. Chill dude!
Besides, you have already defeated yourself in saying that Christ is God qualitatively. This means that he is God. So WJ doesn't need to defeat you because you have already given him the debate on a silver platter.
KJ
Not that is not true KJ.I gave WJ 2 options and only required the answer 1) or 2).
The second option that he chose now means that I know he will answer at some point, and I don't mind that at all. He can answer in 6 months and I will still be happy.Before I asked, I had no idea if I was going to get a reply or not. I only wanted clarification, not a speedy answer.
So you got that wrong KJ.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 01 2011,20:24) God has given me all the confidence that I now have by leading me to every truth that has shut down every one of your trinitarian claims so far.
You mean like Matthew 28:19 and John 1:1?
WJ
You don't understand the book of John WJ, because the book was written for the specific purpose of leading one to believe that Jesus is the son of God and the Christ. Yet for you it appeared to be written to prove that Jesus is God?
Here is the proof that your conclusion is wrong:
John 20:30-31.
30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. “So as you can see WJ, your conclusion is different to John and many of us here agree with John while you have arrived at a different conclusion.
Does this not bother you?Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 07 2011,15:47) You mean like Matthew 28:19 and John 1:1?
28:19 was never a trinity proof text in the first place. Nor was this formula ever used by any of Jesus' Apostles.But YES, I DO mean like John 1:1.
Because of your own words, “just because Jesus is called God does not mean he is God”, 1:1 is simply a scripture where one who was called by the title of “god” happened to be WITH THE GOD in the beginning.
There is absolutely NOTHING in 1:1 that even remotely teaches that the Word who was WITH the God IS the God. All you've ever had with that scripture was your weak claim that “Jesus is CALLED god, so he IS God”.
But your own words above have now forfeited that claim, my friend.
Oh, life is so sweet. mike
Mike said:
Quote There is absolutely NOTHING in 1:1 that even remotely teaches that the Word who was WITH the God IS the God. All you've ever had with that scripture was your weak claim that “Jesus is CALLED god, so he IS God”.
Mike,First, your buddy t8 disagrees with you. He has REPEATEDLY said that John 1:1 teaches that Jesus is God qualitatively. This means that He is God. So maybe you should have some private discussions with t8 so you can straighten him out.
Second, in our second debate I disproved your freak Greek grammar of John 1:1. You said:
Quote You'll notice that John distinguishes between the two mentions of the word “god”. One of them has the definite article “THE” in front of it, while the other one does NOT have the definite article “THE” in front of it. As I have tried to explain, the Koine Greek didn't use the indefinite article “a”. The “a” was implied and English translations have to insert it to make it understandable to us. I mentioned John 8:44 where Satan is called “a” manslayer and “a” liar. It is laid out in the Greek just like John 1:1,
that (one) man killer was from beginning
because liar he is and the father of it
You can see that the way they are laid out is almost identical. The adjectives that describe the noun (man killer and liar) precede the verbs (was and is) and the indefinite article “a” is missing. It's the same with John 1:1. The adjective (god) precedes the verb (was) and the indefinite article “a” is missing. What do the English translations all do in John 8:44? They switch around the noun, adjective and verb and add the “implied” indefinite article “a” and come up with “That one was a manslayer from the beginning” and “he is a liar and the father of lies”. Okay, I finally muddled through all the non-topical stuff; now for the topic this debate is supposed to be about.I destroyed your freak Greek grammar above and you never recovered from it. I said:
Quote Wrong! Mike says that John 8:44 is laid out “identically” with John 1:1. This is blatantly false and proves that the NWT translators were not Greek grammarians as WJ has shown. In John 1:1 the predicate is placed before the subject which is NOT the case in John 8:44. It does not say, “manslayer (predicate) was he (subject). It says, “he (subject) manslayer (predicate) was.” But in John 1:1 the predicate is before the subject placing emphasis on the predicate. “And GOD (predicate) was the Word (subject). Third, verse 3 says that “all things came into being by (dia) Him” (Jesus). There is no intermediate agent mentioned. It does not say, “God brought all things into being through Him.” Since there is no intermediate agent the preposition “dia” means that Jesus is the immediate agent in creation. Yet you say there is not anything that even “remotely” says that Jesus is God. Come on! Please stop insulting WJ's intelligence. It would have been easier to swallow if you had said, “There is nothing that conclusively says that Jesus is God.” But for you to say that there is nothing that even “remotely” suggests that Jesus is God is a biased and stupid remark.
It clearly says that “all things came into being BY Him” (no intermediate agent). Jesus is God Mike!
Jack
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 07 2011,18:08) You don't understand the book of John WJ, because the book was written for the specific purpose of leading one to believe that Jesus is the son of God and the Christ. Yet for you it appeared to be written to prove that Jesus is God?
Interesting t8John starts the book saying the “Word was God” and in the last few verses of the book records Thomas calling Jesus his Lord and God. Doesn't that bother you?
You should study the history of what it meant to the Jews in Jesus day to claim that God was his own Father and that he was the Only Begotten Son of God and what to the Jews and John that meant.
It took special revelation for Peter to even know that he was “The Son of God”.
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 07 2011,19:20) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 07 2011,15:47) You mean like Matthew 28:19 and John 1:1?
28:19 was never a trinity proof text in the first place. Nor was this formula ever used by any of Jesus' Apostles.But YES, I DO mean like John 1:1.
Because of your own words, “just because Jesus is called God does not mean he is God”, 1:1 is simply a scripture where one who was called by the title of “god” happened to be WITH THE GOD in the beginning.
There is absolutely NOTHING in 1:1 that even remotely teaches that the Word who was WITH the God IS the God. All you've ever had with that scripture was your weak claim that “Jesus is CALLED god, so he IS God”.
But your own words above have now forfeited that claim, my friend.
Oh, life is so sweet. mike
Here is the context of my statement to Mike….Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 22 2011,12:32) “Isn't that what Francis, D, and Jack and I have been saying but you will not let Francis discuss context as to why “God” in Hebrews 1:8 is God. Why do you keep beating this dead horse?
Everyone not just I are saying that just because Jesus is called God does not mean he is God.
We have been telling you all along it is all about context yet you keep saying that God (elohim or theos) only means ruler, or leader which defies the definition given for them depending on its context.
Go ahead Mike in every case where YHWH is called “elohiim or god” insert the word leader and see if it works and defines YHVH from all others. It won't and you know it.
<a href="https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=31;t=3694;st
=1170″ target=”_blank”>Found here!Here is my counter question to Mike and his answer…
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 22 2011,14:16) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 23 2011,04:32) When Jesus is referred to as “elohim” or “theos” does it absolutely and positively mean he is “Not” God Almighty?
I BELIEVE I SAID: “NO!So what has Mike proved? Mike also has made these statements…
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 06 2011,17:00) And I don't know of a scripture that calls Jesus “the true god”, but I agree that he is. And…
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 05 2011,18:35) Jesus is the god, or “powerful ruler” of all in heaven right now, and of the believer's on earth. So Thanks Mike for admitting that the word “God” in referring to Jesus can mean that Jesus is The True God and that he is your “true god”!
So what this means is you cannot say that John 1:1 does not mean Jesus is God becasue you have admitted that he is your “true god” and that you say “NO”, John 1:1 does not mean that he isn't God Almighty!
So what have you disproved again Mikey?
WJ
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Mar. 09 2011,06:25) First, your buddy t8 disagrees with you. He has REPEATEDLY said that John 1:1 teaches that Jesus is God qualitatively. This means that He is God. So maybe you should have some private discussions with t8 so you can straighten him out.
Wrong again.Jesus said “Ye are gods”. He was quoting, “Ye are gods, you are all sons of the Most High”.
Having divine nature or existing in the form of God, does not identify one as God, just as having human nature doesn't identify you as Adam, (the first man). Only the Father is God. He shares his nature and authority, and men as well as angels can be called elohim/theos for that reason.
You missed the mark again. Back to the drawing board KJ.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 09 2011,06:37) Interesting t8 John starts the book saying the “Word was God” and in the last few verses of the book records Thomas calling Jesus his Lord and God. Doesn't that bother you?
You should study the history of what it meant to the Jews in Jesus day to claim that God was his own Father and that he was the Only Begotten Son of God and what to the Jews and John that meant.
It took special revelation for Peter to even know that he was “The Son of God”.
WJ
Yes it is interesting how you conclude from the Book of John that Jesus is God, when John concludes that Jesus is the son of God and the messiah.
I of course concur with John's conclusion. You seem to have arrived at a different one.Quote (t8 @ Mar. 08 2011,15:38) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 09 2011,06:37) Interesting t8 John starts the book saying the “Word was God” and in the last few verses of the book records Thomas calling Jesus his Lord and God. Doesn't that bother you?
You should study the history of what it meant to the Jews in Jesus day to claim that God was his own Father and that he was the Only Begotten Son of God and what to the Jews and John that meant.
It took special revelation for Peter to even know that he was “The Son of God”.
WJ
Yes it is interesting how you conclude from the Book of John that Jesus is God, when John concludes that Jesus is the son of God and the messiah.
I of course concur with John's conclusion. You seem to have arrived at a different one.
t8Know you don't concur with Johns conclusion or you would not only be saying Jesus is the “Only Begotten Son of God” but also that he is God according to John 1:1 and 20:28.
Why do you reject Johns and Thomas words?
WJ
I don't. I know that scripture if it is true has no contradictions.
Scripture is clear that the only true God is YHWH and it was he that sent his son.
We know that there is one God the Father, and therefore YHWH is the father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Just because there are 2 verses that could be taken to contradict that truth, does not mean that we should.No, a wise man will concur with the truth in scripture and figure out the true meaning of the few verses that could be taken as a contradiction.
So the onus is on you WJ, because I concur with all scripture, by beleiving that there is one God the Father and you appear to maybe concur with 2 scriptures if you take them with your understanding and contradict hundreds of others in that process.
Here are 100 that contradict your understanding:
http://www.heaven.net.nz/writings/trinity-11.htmYet by believing that there is one God the Father, I can read all scripture in harmony. You cannot WJ.
So instead of asking me why I don't believe your take on 2 scriptures, ask yourself why you do not believe what the bible says.
Remember that saying, “”Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?”.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 08 2011,16:17) Yet by believing that there is one God the Father, I can read all scripture in harmony. You cannot WJ.
t8You mean by making the scripture say something else like…
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was [divine]. John 1:1 t8s interpretation.
These are your words…
John 1:1 shows us that the Word was god (divine), not (the Word was/is the God, Yahweh) which many seem to think it says.
However that is not how the text reads. The word “Divine” is not there but the word “theos” God is.
….and the Word was God.
Do you see how you wrest the scripture? You do realize that you will give account for changing the meaning of the scriptures by changing the text don't you?
WJ
Jack and Keith,
There's really nothing more to be said on the matter of John 1:1, is there?
You both agree that being called “god” does not make that one God Almighty.
Add to that the fact that one is called “god” while the other is called “THE God”. The indefinite article is added into scripture over 9000 times, to make the words understandable in the English language. This is the ONE time out of all of those where it SHOULD BE added, but is not by trinitarian translators. The meaning is clear that the Word was A mighty one who was with THE Almighty One in the beginning.
Add to that the fact that God is ONE SINGLE BEING, in that there is only ONE God Almighty. If the Word was WITH the ONE BEING of God Almighty in the beginning, then the Word couldn't very well BE the ONE BEING of God Almighty. The ONE SINGLE BEING of God cannot be said to be WITH the ONE SINGLE BEING OF GOD. (Remember, it doesn't say the Word was with “the Father”, but with “THE GOD“.)
To us, this is just simple common sense. But the god of this age has blinded your minds in an effort to have you worship someone besides God – in direct violation of both God's AND Jesus' commands.
So Keith, to answer your points: YES, being called “god” COULD mean that one IS God, and many times we know this is true in scripture. But when the one who is being called “god” is said to be WITH the One who is called “THE God”, your opportunity just flew out the window.
And that's only considering what is said in that one verse. Add in all the other things we know about the Jesus/God relationship, and you don't have a prayer.
Jack, to answer your points: The indefinite article is added over 9000 times. For you to INSIST it cannot be added in 1:1 is simply a matter of you closing your eyes to the truth. You KNOW that the “A” is not only grammatically possible, but also probable. The NWT has this one right, and there is NO rule of Greek grammar you can conjure up to say it CAN'T be the way they translate it. You can PREFER it another way, but you absolutely cannot DENY the fact that their way is a grammatical possibility.
And to your other point: Are you saying that for “dia” to be rendered as “through”, another MUST be mentioned in the same sentence? Are you saying that the Greeks could not possibly use a sentence with the word “through” unless they included another person?
I believe you to be wrong on that matter.
John 1:17 NIV
For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.We all know that God is the one who gave the Law. He did this THROUGH His servant Moses, as is said many times in scripture. But according to YOUR new rule, it was Moses himself who GAVE, or MADE the Law in the first place, because God is not mentioned in this sentence.
Both of these “throughs” above are the word “dia”………….just like in 1:3. Your claim that John could not have said that all things came THROUGH Jesus without mentioning God in the same sentence is false. Simple as that.
mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
