- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 23 2011,01:56) Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 21 2011,18:14) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 22 2011,08:03) ED “Please tell us “what kind of creature is Jesus” if he is the literal and Only Begotten Son of God?
“Do you know what and who he is?“
WJ
Hi Mike,Why Yes I certainly do.
He was born as a “Half Breed”;
but he would look no different from us,
because we were all created in YHVH's image!
That's why He is our go-between, There's only ONE God!1Tm.2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator
between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Hope this helps you to understand better!
EdIf he is a half breed then he is neither God or man, right?
The scripture you just quoted says he is a man.
WJ
Hi WJ,Believe “The Bible and Loose the religious brainwashing!
The systems of religion and traditions of men communicate…
distortions of truth, confusion of mind, and distractions of spirit.At Jesus birth he was 50% of each. (Matt.1:18 / Matt.1:20 / Luke 1:35)
But at his baptism, he was filled with God beyond measure. (John 3:34)If a person is “Mulatto” (which is 50% white and 50% black),
they are called “black”. DO YOU SEE A CONNECTION HERE?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 23 2011,01:53) Jesus has to be both fully human after the flesh and fully God after the Spirit to save us!
Back up scripture please.Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Feb. 23 2011,03:16) Thank you Mike! You said that “Jesus is CLEARLY called God” and you're going to destroy the trinity doctrine?
Ye are theos/elohim, ye are all sons of the Most High.That destroys the Trinity doctrine because they are not God.
You need to be able to cater for all of scripture and if your doctrine cannot, then you need to go back to the drawing board.
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 22 2011,16:58) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Feb. 23 2011,03:16) Thank you Mike! You said that “Jesus is CLEARLY called God” and you're going to destroy the trinity doctrine?
Ye are theos/elohim, ye are all sons of the Most High.That destroys the Trinity doctrine because they are not God.
You need to be able to cater for all of scripture and if your doctrine cannot, then you need to go back to the drawing board.
t8Yea they were not gods and in fact are not even “qualitatively” God because they were wicked fallen judges that would die like men.
Is that all you have t8? Notice that Jesus merely quoted the Psalmist who is the one that said “Ye are gods” as a rebuke to them that would die like men. Jesus didn't say “ye are gods” did he? He quoted the Psalmist.
Jesus did this to rebuke the Jews of their Hypocrosy and for their Polytheism that was written in “Their law”.
WJ
WJ said:
Quote Yea they were not gods and in fact are not even “qualitatively” God because they were wicked fallen judges that would die like men.
And Mike thinks he's going to topple the trinity doctrine and t8 thinks he stands a chance against you in two debates.
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 23 2011,08:07) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 23 2011,01:53) Jesus has to be both fully human after the flesh and fully God after the Spirit to save us!
Back up scripture please.
Hi T8,He will only offer human logic.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgI can't believe it. Not one single coment on my post about “Son of Man/Son of God”?
Of course, what CAN you say?Cain could be called “son of adam” and actually BE “adam”, because he was mankind. But because Cain was the SON OF Adam, the being, he could not possibly BE Adam, the being.
Jesus is not the son of some “species of Godkind”. He is the Son of God, the BEING. And as the son OF God, the BEING, he cannot possibly BE God, the BEING, anymore than Cain could have been Adam, the being.
Jack, did you notice how I DESTROYED your whole “son of man = man/Son of God = God” logic? Did I destroy it solidly, swiftly, logically, scripturally, and completely?
Sure I did. And that's the BEST you've ever come up with. The rest of your trinity “proofs” are even easier to destroy. In fact, they've all already BEEN destroyed, it's just that you guys won't accept the defeat that the actual scriptures have handed you.Quote Furthermore, Mike just admitted that Christ is called God in scripture. Mike said:
Quote To Jack and Keith, see my thread on Titus 2:13. We've discussed it many times. Even if you INSIST it MUST be calling Jesus “theos”, so what? He is CLEARLY called “theos” in 1:1, 1:18, and 20:28.
Thank you Mike! You said that “Jesus is CLEARLY called God” and you're going to destroy the trinity doctrine?
Jack, you're pushing the edge again. I've blocked you for this before, and I will do it again if you keep it up. You have posted my own words saying that Jesus is called “theos”, but then sent out a headline claiming that I admitted Christ is called God, with a capital “G”. That's not what I said now, is it?This is the point where something on HN has to change. Because you and Keith and Francis and Dennison have ALL acknowledged that there are those in scripture who are called “elohim” and “theos”, who are neither God Almighty NOR “false gods”. You have acknowledged that some of them were even vice-regents of YHVH, and were therefore neither God nor a false god.
I spents weeks on this point in the “Mike vs. Francis” thread until I got you all to CLEARLY ACKNOWLEDGE it. And when you all finally DID acknowledge it, I took all kinds of flak from each of you because you all claimed “THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG, MIKE!”, like I was some kind of an idiot or something.
But now that the same subject has come up a month later in a differernt thread, I'm right back where I started from in the “Mike vs. Francis” thread. Do we have to go through all of this every single time? Must I spend another couple of weeks going back and forth with you in THIS thread before you again acknowledge what you already HAVE acknowledged in the other thread? Will you then all yell at me and tell me you've been saying this the whole time again? I can't deal with this same crap over and over each time. Something needs to be done, and I think I have the perfect idea. (Coming soon to a thread near you.)
1. Jack AND Keith, do you acknowledge that vice regents of God Himself have been called by the title of “elohim” or “theos” in scripture? YES or NO?
2. Assuming your answer is “YES” to the first question, based on the fact that you've both already answered “YES” to it in another thread………….Do you then acknowledge that being called by the title of “elohim” or “theos” does not, IN AND OF ITSELF, prove that the one called by that title is God Almighty? YES or NO?
3. Jack AND Keith, do you acknowledge that Jesus will reign forever from the throne of DAVID? YES or NO?
4. Do you both acknowledge that “Son of Man” refers to Jesus being a member of the human race, and that “Son of THE Living God” refers to Jesus being the Son of the BEING OF GOD? YES or NO?
5. Do you both acknowledge, that according to Matthew 20:20-23, the position at the right hand of a ruler is GRANTED to someone by the one in power? YES or NO?
6. Do you both acknowledge that according to Acts 5:31, Jesus was EXALTED TO the right hand of his God as Prince………..BY his God? YES or NO?
7. Do you both acknowledge that Titus 2:13 could honestly and accurately be translated as, “the Great God, AND our Savior Jesus Christ”? YES or NO?
8. Even when it is translated as, “the great god and savior of us, Jesus Christ”, knowing what you've both already acknowledged about the use of “elohim” and “theos” in scripture, would that scripture then be ABSOLUTE PROOF that Jesus is “God Almighty Himself”? YES or NO?
9. Or could it mean simply that Jesus is called “theos” because he is a vice regent OF God Almighty? YES or NO?
Please answer all 9 questions DIRECTLY and HONESTLY. Yeah, do that and watch your trinity doctrine slowly go bye-bye.
Because the problem is not that the trinity cannot be debunked. That part is easy. The problem is that you guys will “recirulate” the same lame “proof texts” over and over again. And when one of us finally CORNERS you into acknowledging the truth of one of them, you divert the discussion with other tired “proof texts” until enough time has passed…………..and then bring the one you already acknowledged back up as if it's new again.And you've BOTH just done it today on this thread, because here we are AGAIN, discussing whether or not being called “elohim” or “theos” means that one is God Almighty. I mean, look at Jack's post. He has the funny little graphic going, and he's THANKING me for “admitting” Jesus was called “theos” in the scriptures, as if I've just admitted that Jesus is God Almighty Himself. And then here I go AGAIN discussing the ALREADY ACKNOWLEDGED BY YOU SCRIPTURAL FACT that being called “elohim” or “theos” does NOT, in and of itself, mean that one is God Almighty.
I'm about to put an end to this circling that you guys do. Just watch and see.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 23 2011,10:36) I can't believe it. Not one single coment on my post about “Son of Man/Son of God”? Of course, what CAN you say?mike
Hi Mike,Diversions, distractions, and distortions, what did you expect?
They attempt to switch the “Focus” to one of equality,
which is “NOT” THE TOPIC of this thread.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 22 2011,16:04) Quote (t8 @ Feb. 22 2011,16:58) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Feb. 23 2011,03:16) Thank you Mike! You said that “Jesus is CLEARLY called God” and you're going to destroy the trinity doctrine?
Ye are theos/elohim, ye are all sons of the Most High.That destroys the Trinity doctrine because they are not God.
You need to be able to cater for all of scripture and if your doctrine cannot, then you need to go back to the drawing board.
t8Yea they were not gods and in fact are not even “qualitatively” God because they were wicked fallen judges that would die like men.
Is that all you have t8? Notice that Jesus merely quoted the Psalmist who is the one that said “Ye are gods” as a rebuke to them that would die like men. Jesus didn't say “ye are gods” did he? He quoted the Psalmist.
Jesus did this to rebuke the Jews of their Hypocrosy and for their Polytheism that was written in “Their law”.
WJ
But Keith, you said the following in the “Mike vs. Francis” thread:Quote 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.
And when I asked you if there were those in scripture called “elohim” who were neither God Almighty nor “false gods”, you said:
Quote Mike, Yes.
So what are you doing now? Are you trying to go back on what you've already acknowledged?
You have acknowledged to me that you clearly understand that Deborah and others who were VICE REGENTS of God Almighty were called “elohim/theos”. Yet now, it seems as if you're reverting back to the old, “If Jesus is CALLED god, then he IS God Almighty.”Keith, do you and Jack STILL acknowledge (like you clearly did before) that vice regents OF God were sometimes called by the title “god”………….or will you go back on your word?
mike
Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 22 2011,18:46) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 23 2011,10:36) I can't believe it. Not one single coment on my post about “Son of Man/Son of God”? Of course, what CAN you say?mike
Hi Mike,Diversions, distractions, and distortions, what did you expect?
They attempt to switch the “Focus” to one of equality,
which is “NOT” THE TOPIC of this thread.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
I know Ed,I'm racking my brain to come up with a way so that when we have solidly refuted a particular trinity “proof text”, they cannot ever bring that one up as “proof” again.
It is forever diversions with these guys. When you corner them, they divert to a different “proof text” that you've already solidly refuted.
It's an endless circle.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 23 2011,12:18) Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 22 2011,18:46) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 23 2011,10:36) I can't believe it. Not one single coment on my post about “Son of Man/Son of God”? Of course, what CAN you say?mike
Hi Mike,Diversions, distractions, and distortions, what did you expect?
They attempt to switch the “Focus” to one of equality,
which is “NOT” THE TOPIC of this thread.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
I know Ed,I'm racking my brain to come up with a way so that when we have solidly refuted a particular trinity “proof text”, they cannot ever bring that one up as “proof” again.
It is forever diversions with these guys. When you corner them, they divert to a different “proof text” that you've already solidly refuted.
It's an endless circle.
mike
Hi Mike,Start a new thread and pretend it never happened.
BD use to use this 'tactic' over and over again.
That is why I have stored all my responses,
so I can rePost them in the new thread.
Like it is just a fresh conversation??But now we can start threads
in “The Hot Seat”, documenting
this tactic that is used so that others
are at least aware of this. You can then
“LINK” your Post to “The Hot Seat” thread!Knowledge is power; so exposing this tactic will
weaken the effect it has on the unknowing readers!Your brother
in Christ, Jesus!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 22 2011,18:36) The problem is that you guys will “recirulate” the same lame “proof texts” over and over again. And when one of us finally CORNERS you into acknowledging the truth of one of them, you divert the discussion with other tired “proof texts” until enough time has passed…………..and then bring the one you already acknowledged back up as if it's new again.
MikeYou mean like the same tired ole straw man points that you make over and over again?
You mean like the same tired ole loaded questions that you ask over and over again?
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 22 2011,18:36) I'm about to put an end to this circling that you guys do. Just watch and see.
Bring it on O mighty one!WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 22 2011,18:36)
Jesus is not the son of some “species of Godkind”. He is the Son of God, the BEING. And as the son OF God, the BEING, he cannot possibly BE God, the BEING, anymore than Cain could have been Adam, the being.
MikeIt doesn't matter what your opinion is Mike because every one knows that for God to beget a Son would mean that his being would have to be the exact same in nature as the Fathers being.
It is real simple Mike and you have created a smokescreen and misapplied the use of the terms.
If God begets God then the God he begets is God just like the Man a Man begets is Man.
What is so hard to understand about that Mike? You talk about using logic but now you want to reinvent terms and words like “Beget” or “Son of Man” or “Son of God”.
Beget to you means that God begets a being that is not like him, but some sort of half breed.
YHVH set in order the “seed bearing” law, every kind bearing after its own kind.
So if it is Gods kind then Jesus is of the God kind meaning like the Father he is God, because he is the “Only Begotten Son or God”.
Just as a human is of the human kind and is human. Their “Beings” are identical. The Father and Jesus are identical and that means Jesus is God.
Add all this in with the fact that Jesus is “Sovereign” and sits in the “Throne of God” ruling as God, well what more can be said for you to see the truth?
Is there anything I just said unscriptural?
Mike, is the term “God” antithetical to the term “Son of God”? It is a yes or no question.
The reason I ask is because your theology and attitude toward Jesus seems to be saying that God is antithetical to the Son of God.
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 24 2011,01:32) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 22 2011,18:36) I'm about to put an end to this circling that you guys do. Just watch and see.
Bring it on O mighty one!WJ
Hi All
It seems to me that those who do not see Jesus as equally God in nature do not really see or know him as the “Only Begotten Son/God”, but it is more like they know a Jesus that is the opposite of God the Father like some sort of half breed as Ed calls him.
Those who do not see Jesus as God like his Father must believe that God had a Son that is entirely of another kind. How weak to say that God the Father cannot have a Son that is God like himself.
The downward spiral of the anti-Jesus is God crowd continues to belittle and denigrate the Son by making him some sort of demi-god or half breed.
WJ
WJ said to Mike:
Quote Beget to you means that God begets a being that is not like him, but some sort of half breed.
Keith,The genes part of “monogenes” is the word “genos.” It changes form when joined to the word “monos.” The two words monos and genos when joined together morph into monogenes.
The word “genos” is used in the Septuagint in Genesis which says, “Let each bring forth after ITS OWN KIND.
Mike doesn't stand a chance in his futile effort to topple trinitarianism. Minds much greater than Mike's pea brain have failed.
Jack
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 24 2011,02:04) Mike If God begets God then the God he begets is God just like the Man a Man begets is Man.
WJ
Hi WJ,Sounds like you might be beginning to grasp
the 50% nature of Jesus' lineage; but maybe not?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Feb. 23 2011,12:21) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 24 2011,02:04) Mike If God begets God then the God he begets is God just like the Man a Man begets is Man.
WJ
Hi WJ,Sounds like you might be beginning to grasp
the 50% nature of Jesus' lineage; but maybe not?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
If he is 50% God then he is not God. If he is 50% man then he is not man.Surely you can grasp this.
WJ
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
