- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 02 2011,08:52) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 01 2011,10:25) Hi Keith, Mike just won't accept that all men are the same being, that is, they are the same entity.
Hi Jack,You are right…………I WON'T accept that – because it is bunk. Individual men are individual beings. What source tells us they're not?
mike
Hi Mike,You can clearly Jack is using the word “Entity” INCORRECTLY!
Entity:
1 a: BEING, EXISTENCE; esp : independent, separate, or self-contained existence
b: the existence of a thing as contrasted by its attributes
2: something that has separate and distinct existence and objective or conceptual realityWe must define the words we use for confusion to cease!
Jack uses the word “Person” in a confusing manor;
which is what I told you right from the getgo.“Lord” (in the bible) means “OWNER”
“The LORD JEHOVAH”(151) is “The Owner”.
“Jesus Christ”=151 (Lord) is “owner”,
but not “The Owner”(God is)!Owner is < or ≠ to The Owner
Jesus(74) Christ(77)=151 ↔ 151=The(33) LORD(49) JEHOVAH(69)
T8 said to WJ:
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 22 2011,00:43)
The other thing you missed is that to be equal to something is also a confession that you are not that thing. (3+2)=(1+4). In identity the numbers are different. In nature, quality, quantity, they are the same.It goes back to being able to differentiate between identity and nature. You have proven in the past that you don't know the difference. This point is beyond you and hence why you repeat the same error.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgMike,
If a sculptor takes a big rock being and saws it in half and then from each half makes an individual sculpture, do the sculptures by their individuality become two separate beings?
Suppose the sculptor makes an image of the The Thinker from one half of the rock being and then makes an image of Homer Simpson from the other half. Do the two images become two separate beings? No! They are one being but two individual images existing in two separate forms.
I rest my case.
BTW, the word “person” as it is used in modern times originated with a Trinitarian by the name Tertullian:
Quote Tertullian thereby launched the modern understanding of the word “person.” The modern meaning originates in the Christian theological explanation for how God exists in Himself – God is three Persons. Because Christians see mankind as being in the “image and likeness of God” (Genesis), thinking of God as three “Persons” meant we could also think of men as “persons” and, for that matter, angels as well. “ Observe, then, that when you are silently conversing with yourself, this very process is carried on within you by your reason, which meets you with a word at every movement of your thought … Whatever you think, there is a word … You must speak it in your mind …
Thus, in a certain sense, the word is a second person within you, through which in thinking you utter speech … The word is itself a different thing from yourself. Now how much more fully is all this transacted in God, whose image and likeness you are?…Before all things God was alone … He was alone because there was nothing external to him but himself. Yet even then was he not alone, for he had with him that which he possessed in himself—that is to say, his own Reason.
… Although God had not yet sent out his Word, he still had him within himself …
I may therefore without rashness establish that even then, before the creation of the universe, God was not alone, since he had within himself both Reason, and, inherent in Reason, his Word, which he made second to himself by agitating it within Himself. – Tertullian, (Against Praxeas 3)
”As can be seen, Tertullian's explanation depends not only on existence of Reason and Word within the Godhead, but also on the relationships between them. This aspect of “person” continued to be emphasized throughout the centuries of subsequent discussion. According to this understanding, a person is (1) that which possesses an intellect and a will, (2) defined in part by relationships. Since there is only one God, every Person of the Godhead is fully God. The only thing which distinguishes the three Persons of the Godhead is the relationships: Father to Son (Begetting to Begotten), Son to Spirit (Begotten to Breathed, or spirated), and Father to Spirit (Begetting to Breathed, or spirated).
Although Tertullian had now introduced the terms and given a basic explanation for how they interacted, a more precise explanation of “person” and “substance” was necessary. In response to various misunderstandings of what constitutes a “person”, the first six Catholic Ecumenical Councils attempted to define the boundaries and meaning of the word more completely. Much of the context of these disputes centered around differences in translation and nuance between the various Greek and Latin technical terms used to explain “person” and “substance.”
The First Council of Nicaea established that the person of Christ was not just of a similar substance of divinity, but was actually of the same substance of divinity as the Father. This establishes the basis of personhood for the second Person of the Trinity.
The First Council of Constantinople established that the person of the Holy Spirit was, indeed, divine. This establishes the basis of personhood for the third Person of the Trinity.
The Council of Ephesus confirmed that Mary was actually the mother of a person, the second Person of the Trinity, and did not merely conceive and give birth to the divine nature. This establishes how persons come into the world. It also settled the question Nestorianism raised: were there two persons in Christ or only one? The Council decided there could be only one person, but this divine person possessed two full and complete natures, thus helping to settle several issues raised by translation problems at Nicaea.
The Council of Chalcedon established that Christ was a single divine person, yet possessed two complete natures – the complete divine nature composed of the one divine intellect and the one divine will, and a complete human nature composed of the human soul (human intellect and human will) and human body. This solved several additional translation and definition problems concerning personhood raised at Nicaea.
The Second Council of Constantinople settled the question of monophysitism – how nature related to person. It reaffirmed that Christ's person did, indeed, have two full and complete natures; his human nature did not disappear, nor was it mixed with or subsumed by the divine nature. The two natures were completely separate (like two banks of a river), joined only by the person of Christ. It is the person of Christ which joins the two, thus one of Christ's titles is drived precisely from his personhood: he is the Pontifex, or “bridge,” between God and man.
The Third Council of Constantinople settled the question of whether it is the person or the human nature which possesses a will. Monothelitism argued that since Christ was a divine person, He possessed only the divine will, and did not need or possess a human will. The Council rejected this notion, pointing out that a complete human nature included both a human intellect and a human will. Since the person of Christ possessed a complete human nature, he therefore possessed a human will. However, in deference to the definition established at Ephesus, which established that he is a divine person and not a human person, Christ is the only person who possesses a complete human nature, yet is not himself a human person. As Tertullian pointed out, personhood is, in part, defined by relationship. Because Christ is already a divine person, he did not need to be a human person in order to be in relationship with God.
As can be seen, the connections between person, nature, intellect and will were quite complex. By the fifth century, Boethius gave the definition of “person” as “an individual substance of a rational nature” (“Naturæ rationalis individua substantia”). By the thirteenth century, Thomas Aquinas gave a more thorough and precise definition to the various words in Boethius' definition, allowing a much greater degree of precision. Although disagreement about various aspects of “personhood” continued, the Christian understanding of the word was the bedrock foundation to Western legal, philosophical and theological thought through the Enlightenment. Indeed, the idea of “inalienable rights” found in the United States Declaration of Independence is rooted in the idea that God has rights and man is a person in God's image, so man has rights.
Late twentieth century philosophy and science is currently working to redefine “person” so as to remove the theological references and create an entirely empirical, secular understanding of the concept.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PersonJack
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 03 2011,03:14) Mike, If a sculptor takes a big rock being and saws it in half and then from each half makes an individual sculpture, do the sculptures by their individuality become two separate beings?
Suppose the sculptor makes an image of the The Thinker from one half of the rock being and then makes an image of Homer Simpson from the other half. Do the two images become two separate beings? No! They are one being but two individual images existing in two separate forms.
Jack
Hey Jack,Even identical twins are different;
your logic then, is severely lacking.
A sculpture can NEVER be 'a being'!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Mar. 03 2011,04:29) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 03 2011,03:14) Mike, If a sculptor takes a big rock being and saws it in half and then from each half makes an individual sculpture, do the sculptures by their individuality become two separate beings?
Suppose the sculptor makes an image of the The Thinker from one half of the rock being and then makes an image of Homer Simpson from the other half. Do the two images become two separate beings? No! They are one being but two individual images existing in two separate forms.
Jack
Hey Jack,Even identical twins are different;
your logic then, is severely lacking.
A sculpture can NEVER be 'a being'!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
A 'being' is anything that has existence.being 1. existence (Webster's)
being 1. existence as opposed to non-existence (Funk and Wagnall's)
Note that the FIRST definition of the word 'being' by the two lexographers above is 'EXISTENCE.”
Therefore, a rock is a 'being' because it has existence.
If a sculptor takes a big rock being and cuts it in half and then from each half makes an individual sculpture, do the sculptures by their individuality become two separate beings?
Suppose the sculptor makes an image of the The Thinker from one half of the granite being and then makes an image of Homer Simpson from the other half. Do the two images become two separate beings? No! They are the same being but now two individual images existing in two separate shapes.
What is so hard to understand about this? You guys are confused by your own “wisdom.” My daughter understands this.
SO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS ED: DOES A ROCK BECOME TWO 'BEINGS' AFTER IT IS CUT IN HALF AND FORMED IN TO TWO INDIVIDUAL IMAGES? OR IS IT THE SAME 'BEING' BUT NOW EXISTING IN TWO SEPARATE SHAPES?
THESE ARE NOT 'TRICK' QUESTIONS EDDIE BOY.
KJ
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 03 2011,07:26) Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 03 2011,04:29) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 03 2011,03:14) Mike, If a sculptor takes a big rock being and saws it in half and then from each half makes an individual sculpture, do the sculptures by their individuality become two separate beings?
Suppose the sculptor makes an image of the The Thinker from one half of the rock being and then makes an image of Homer Simpson from the other half. Do the two images become two separate beings? No! They are one being but two individual images existing in two separate forms.
Jack
Hey Jack,Even identical twins are different;
your logic then, is severely lacking.
A sculpture can NEVER be 'a being'!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
A 'being' is anything that has existence.being 1. existence (Webster's)
being 1. existence as opposed to non-existence (Funk and Wagnall's)
Note that the FIRST definition of the word 'being' by the two lexographers above is 'EXISTENCE.”
Therefore, a rock is a 'being' because it has existence.
If a sculptor takes a big rock being and cuts it in half and then from each half makes an individual sculpture, do the sculptures by their individuality become two separate beings?
Suppose the sculptor makes an image of the The Thinker from one half of the granite being and then makes an image of Homer Simpson from the other half. Do the two images become two separate beings? No! They are the same being but now two individual images existing in two separate shapes.
What is so hard to understand about this? You guys are confused by your own “wisdom.” My daughter understands this.
SO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS ED: DOES A ROCK BECOME TWO 'BEINGS' AFTER IT IS CUT IN HALF AND FORMED IN TO TWO INDIVIDUAL IMAGES? OR IS IT THE SAME 'BEING' BUT NOW EXISTING IN TWO SEPARATE SHAPES?
THESE ARE NOT 'TRICK' QUESTIONS EDDIE BOY.
KJ
Hi Jack,Why are you saying the same thing on two different threads? (Click Here)
You are being very difficult here, with your strange word usages.
Here's a question: What grade did you attend school to?“A being” implies life, you seem to overlook this.
A rock is NOT 'a being'! A rock HAS being.
Look up all the other definitions.
Your truth confuses others.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgHey Jack,
Did you read the defintion of “entity” that Ed posted? How do you answer to those words like “independent”, “self contained”, “distinct” and “separate”?
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 03 2011,12:03) Hey Jack, Did you read the defintion of “entity” that Ed posted? How do you answer to those words like “independent”, “self contained”, “distinct” and “separate”?
mike
Humanity is a separate entity from from rock entity. You and I are the same entity but a separate entity from rocks. Logic 101 Mike! Are you saying that entity is not shared?Paul said, “that which from the earth is earth.” But terrestrial entity is separate from celestial entity.
The Father and the Son are the same entity but a separate entity from all other beings.
You guys are confused by your own “wisdom.”
Jack
Quote Hi Jack, Why are you saying the same thing on two different threads? (Click Here)
You are being very difficult here, with your strange word usages.
Here's a question: What grade did you attend school to?“A being” implies life, you seem to overlook this.
A rock is NOT 'a being'! A rock HAS being.
Look up all the other definitions.
Your truth confuses others.Ed,
Where do you get your narrow definition of the word 'being'? Your teacher robbed the tax payers!
Quote 1. the fact of existing; existence (as opposed to nonexistence).
2. conscious, mortal existence; life: Our being is as an instantaneous flash of light in the midst of eternal night.
3. substance or nature: of such a being as to arouse fear.
4. something that exists: inanimate beings.
5. a living thing: strange, exotic beings that live in the depths of the sea.
6. a human being; person: the most beautiful being you could imagine.
7. ( initial capital letter ) God.
8. Philosophy .
a. that which has actuality either materially or in idea.
b. absolute existence in a complete or perfect state, lacking no essential characteristic; essence.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/beingNote definition #4 “something that exists: inanimate BEINGS “
The word “inanimate” means “Lacking the qualities of LIVING things” (Webster's).
You misrepresent the English language Eddie. So the question is this: Where did you go to school? Did your teacher tell you that words have only one meaning? If so then as a tax payer I want my money back!
Now that we know that a rock is a 'being' please answer my original questions:
DOES A ROCK BECOME TWO 'BEINGS' AFTER IT IS CUT IN HALF AND FORMED IN TO TWO INDIVIDUAL IMAGES? OR IS IT THE SAME 'BEING' BUT NOW EXISTING IN TWO SEPARATE SHAPES AND IDENTIES?
You guys are confused by your own “wisdom.”
KJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 03 2011,12:03) Hey Jack, Did you read the defintion of “entity” that Ed posted? How do you answer to those words like “independent”, “self contained”, “distinct” and “separate”?
mike
Entity 2. Existence as opposed to nonexistence (Funk and Wagnall's)Being 1. Existence as opposed to nonexistence (Funk and Wagnall's)
Jack
Entity 2. Existence as opposed to nonexistence (Funk and Wagnall's)
Being 1. Existence as opposed to nonexistence (Funk and Wagnall's)
Being 4. something that exists: INANIMATE BEINGS http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/being
Inanimate lacking the qualities of living things (Webster's)
Therefore, a rock is an entity is an inaminate being
So…
DOES A ROCK BECOME TWO 'BEINGS' AFTER IT IS CUT IN HALF AND FORMED IN TO TWO INDIVIDUAL IMAGES? OR IS IT THE SAME 'BEING' BUT NOW EXISTING IN TWO SEPARATE SHAPES AND IDENTIES?
KJ
TO ALL:
Beings in the PRIMARY sense are substances.
Quote The situation is the same, Aristotle claims, with the term ‘being’. It, too, has a primary sense as well as related senses in which it applies to other things because they are appropriately related to things that are called ‘beings’ in the primary sense. The beings in the primary sense are substances; the beings in other senses are the qualities, quantities, etc., that belong to substances. An animal, e.g., a horse, is a being, and so is a color, e.g, white, a being. But a horse is a being in the primary sense — it is a substance — whereas the color white (a quality) is a being only because it qualifies some substance. An account of the being of anything that is, therefore, will ultimately have to make some reference to substance. Hence, the science of being qua being will involve an account of the central case of beings — substances.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries….iQuaBeiBeings in the PRIMARY sense are substances. Substance refers to essential nature or qualities (Webster's).
So…
DOES A ROCK BECOME TWO 'BEINGS' AFTER IT IS CUT IN HALF AND FORMED IN TO TWO INDIVIDUAL IMAGES? OR IS IT THE SAME 'BEING' BUT NOW EXISTING IN TWO SEPARATE SHAPES AND IDENTIES?
KJ
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 04 2011,03:40) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 03 2011,12:03) Hey Jack, Did you read the defintion of “entity” that Ed posted? How do you answer to those words like “independent”, “self contained”, “distinct” and “separate”?
mike
Humanity is a separate entity from from rock entity. You and I are the same entity but a separate entity from rocks. Logic 101 Mike! Are you saying that entity is not shared?Paul said, “that which from the earth is earth.” But terrestrial entity is separate from celestial entity.
The Father and the Son are the same entity but a separate entity from all other beings.
You guys are confused by your own “wisdom.”
Jack
Hi Mike,Here is more PROOF of Jacks misuse of words.
Rocks are not “Entities”, and rocks are NOT beings!
Jesus calling Peter a “Rock”, was only a figure of speech!Jack… Do you talk to rocks? since you believe they are beings?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 04 2011,04:08) Quote Hi Jack, Why are you saying the same thing on two different threads? (Click Here)
You are being very difficult here, with your strange word usages.
Here's a question: What grade did you attend school to?“A being” implies life, you seem to overlook this.
A rock is NOT 'a being'! A rock HAS being.
Look up all the other definitions.
Your truth confuses others.Ed,
Where do you get your narrow definition of the word 'being'? Your teacher robbed the tax payers!
Quote 1. the fact of existing; existence (as opposed to nonexistence).
2. conscious, mortal existence; life: Our being is as an instantaneous flash of light in the midst of eternal night.
3. substance or nature: of such a being as to arouse fear.
4. something that exists: inanimate beings.
5. a living thing: strange, exotic beings that live in the depths of the sea.
6. a human being; person: the most beautiful being you could imagine.
7. ( initial capital letter ) God.
8. Philosophy .
a. that which has actuality either materially or in idea.
b. absolute existence in a complete or perfect state, lacking no essential characteristic; essence.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/beingNote definition #4 “something that exists: inanimate BEINGS “
The word “inanimate” means “Lacking the qualities of LIVING things” (Webster's).
You misrepresent the English language Eddie. So the question is this: Where did you go to school? Did your teacher tell you that words have only one meaning? If so then as a tax payer I want my money back!
Now that we know that a rock is a 'being' please answer my original questions:
DOES A ROCK BECOME TWO 'BEINGS' AFTER IT IS CUT IN HALF AND FORMED IN TO TWO INDIVIDUAL IMAGES? OR IS IT THE SAME 'BEING' BUT NOW EXISTING IN TWO SEPARATE SHAPES AND IDENTIES?
You guys are confused by your own “wisdom.”
KJ
Hi Jack,Perhaps you missed this in my quote…
A rock is NOT 'a being'! A rock HAS being.
The question you ask is irrelevant, once you understand English word structures.
I repeat: What grade in school was the last grade you completed?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgBump for Keith
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 26 2011,13:42)
I have answered you but you don't like the answer so one more time I will answer then please don't ask me to change my answer to match yours.The answer is “NO” Cain is not the person “Adam”
I believe if you look back, you'll find that you DIDN'T actually answer it the first time. Now you have, sort of.
You say that Cain is not the PERSON “Adam”. What I originally asked, and I want to know is if Cain was the SAME BEING as “Adam”. YES or NO?
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 26 2011,13:42)
Jesus is the Spirit of God which is the Spirit of Christ, the Father and Jesus share the same Spirit or essence or that which makes God, God. There is Only One Spirit.
Keith, if there is only ONE Spirit, then wouldn't that be the SAME Spirit that runs, not only through Jesus, but through every living thing?Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 26 2011,13:42)
Refer back to John 1:1, God was with God who came in the flesh.
No, no, no. You are not allowed to bring up John 1:1 anymore, remember? You have very clearly said:Isn't that what Francis, D, and Jack and I have been saying………….
Everyone not just I are saying that just because Jesus is called God does not mean he is God.
And all John 1:1 teaches us is that Jesus is one who is called “theos”, who was with THE theos in the beginning. So I ask again:
Quote Is God Almighty “begotten” Keith? Even the simple term “only begotten god” should send up flares in your brain. 
This time, try to answer WITHOUT your fallback of John 1:1. Because your own words have solidly refuted that scripture as PROOF that Jesus is God Almighty.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 26 2011,13:42)
Did God have offspring that is not of his kind?
Absolutely not. God is a Spirit Being, as is the Son whom He begot.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 26 2011,13:42)
Is Gods Son a halfbreed or demi-god?
Of course not. Jesus was directly begotten by his God. So like I said before, that makes him as much a spirit being as the One who begot him is. But just as Cain was equally human, but not the SAME BEING as the father who begot him, Jesus is equally spirit, but not the SAME BEING as the Father who begot him.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 26 2011,13:42)
Does the word “Begotten” have a whole new meaning Mike?Monogenēs…
1) single of its kind, only
a) used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)
No Keith, it DOESN'T have a “whole new meaning”. That's what I'VE been trying to tell YOU and JACK and JA for months. “Yalad” refers to the BRINGING FORTH OF OFFSPRING. When it is said that Adam “brought forth” a son, we immediately know that Cain came FROM Adam, and is a DIFFERENT BEING than Adam. Why would you then just assume that when it is said that God “brought forth” a Son, that this Son DIDN'T come FROM God as a DIFFERENT BEING than God?It is YOU who tries to give “begotten” a “whole new meaning”. Surely you must realize that God knew how His nation of Israel understood the word “yalad”, right? Yet He chose to use this very word to explain how he came to have a Son, right?
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 01 2011,20:00)
Hey Keith, I'm not rushing you. I've read that you are busy right now. I'm just trying to keep these last posts in the forefront.mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 25 2011,13:18)
MikeNo because if I say you are the “Exact representation of a human being” am I saying that you are not a human being?
Keith, look at your own words. I've already explained this to you. God is not some kind of “species”, of which there are many members. So don't use “A human being” in your analogy unless you intend to also use “A God” in the other half of it.God is ONE Being. So for you analogy to work correctly, you must say: If I say you are the “Exact representation of THE human being, John,” am I saying that you are not THE human being, John?
And my answer would be “YES”.
For Jesus to be the “exact representation” of our ONLY GOD, Jehovah the Father, then he CAN NOT BE our ONLY GOD Jehovah the Father. And there are no other Gods that we have except for Jehovah the Father. So if he is not THAT ONE, then he is not God.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 25 2011,13:18)
If you make an “exact representation” of a hammer then would you say it is not a “hammer”? That is what you are doing with your logic.
Yes Keith, let's DO discuss our logics here. You repeatedly add the indefinite article “A” in your analogies. Your analogy cannot work unless you then add the indefinite article “A” in the part about God. You can't say “A HAMMER” without equally saying “A GOD”.So once again, you must change your hammer analogy to fit. You must first assume that there is ONLY ONE hammer in the whole world. Only then can your analogy work as compared to our ONLY ONE God. So let's try it with equal scales, okay?
If you make an “exact representation” of THE ONLY HAMMER IN THE WORLD, would that “exact representation” BE “THE ONLY HAMMER IN THE WORLD”?
See Keith, THAT'S how an equal scaled analogy would have to be worded in order to compare to OUR ONE AND ONLY GOD. You keep comparing a species of MANY with a God of ONE. It just doesn't work that way.
Keith, please acknowledge that you understand what I'm saying about how the hammer in question would have to be THE ONE AND ONLY HAMMER IN EXISTENCE for your comparison to the ONE AND ONLY GOD IN EXISTENCE to work.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (Ed J @ Mar. 04 2011,09:06) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 04 2011,03:40) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 03 2011,12:03) Hey Jack, Did you read the defintion of “entity” that Ed posted? How do you answer to those words like “independent”, “self contained”, “distinct” and “separate”?
mike
Humanity is a separate entity from from rock entity. You and I are the same entity but a separate entity from rocks. Logic 101 Mike! Are you saying that entity is not shared?Paul said, “that which from the earth is earth.” But terrestrial entity is separate from celestial entity.
The Father and the Son are the same entity but a separate entity from all other beings.
You guys are confused by your own “wisdom.”
Jack
Hi Mike,Here is more PROOF of Jacks misuse of words.
Rocks are not “Entities”, and rocks are NOT beings!
Jesus calling Peter a “Rock”, was only a figure of speech!Jack… Do you talk to rocks? since you believe they are beings?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Ed,Where do you get your narrow definition of the word 'being'? Your teacher robbed the tax payers!
Quote 1. the fact of existing; existence (as opposed to nonexistence).
2. conscious, mortal existence; life: Our being is as an instantaneous flash of light in the midst of eternal night.
3. substance or nature: of such a being as to arouse fear.
4. something that exists: inanimate beings.
5. a living thing: strange, exotic beings that live in the depths of the sea.
6. a human being; person: the most beautiful being you could imagine.
7. ( initial capital letter ) God.
8. Philosophy .
a. that which has actuality either materially or in idea.
b. absolute existence in a complete or perfect state, lacking no essential characteristic; essence.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/beingNote definition #4 “something that exists: inanimate BEINGS “
The word “inanimate” means “Lacking the qualities of LIVING things” (Webster's).
You misrepresent the English language Eddie. So the question is this: Where did you go to school? Did your teacher tell you that words have only one meaning? If so then as a tax payer I want my money back!
Now that we know that a rock is a 'being' please answer my original questions:
DOES A ROCK BECOME TWO 'BEINGS' AFTER IT IS CUT IN HALF AND FORMED IN TO TWO INDIVIDUAL IMAGES? OR IS IT THE SAME 'BEING' BUT NOW EXISTING IN TWO SEPARATE SHAPES AND IDENTIES?
You guys are confused by your own “wisdom.”
KJ
Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 04 2011,09:06) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 04 2011,03:40) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 03 2011,12:03) Hey Jack, Did you read the defintion of “entity” that Ed posted? How do you answer to those words like “independent”, “self contained”, “distinct” and “separate”?
mike
Humanity is a separate entity from from rock entity. You and I are the same entity but a separate entity from rocks. Logic 101 Mike! Are you saying that entity is not shared?Paul said, “that which from the earth is earth.” But terrestrial entity is separate from celestial entity.
The Father and the Son are the same entity but a separate entity from all other beings.
You guys are confused by your own “wisdom.”
Jack
Hi Mike,Here is more PROOF of Jacks misuse of words.
Rocks are not “Entities”, and rocks are NOT beings!
Jesus calling Peter a “Rock”, was only a figure of speech!Jack… Do you talk to rocks? since you believe they are beings?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Ed said:
Quote Hi Jack, Perhaps you missed this in my quote…
A rock is NOT 'a being'! A rock HAS being.
The question you ask is irrelevant, once you understand English word structures.
I repeat: What grade in school was the last grade you completed?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Ed,That's what you say. The dictionary says that a being may be an “inanimate being.” An inanimate being is a being that lacks the qualities of living things. Therefore, a rock is a non living BEING.
Quote 1. the fact of existing; existence (as opposed to nonexistence).
2. conscious, mortal existence; life: Our being is as an instantaneous flash of light in the midst of eternal night.
3. substance or nature: of such a being as to arouse fear.
4. something that exists: inanimate BEINGS.
5. a living thing: strange, exotic beings that live in the depths of the sea.
6. a human being; person: the most beautiful being you could imagine.
7. ( initial capital letter ) God.
8. Philosophy .
a. that which has actuality either materially or in idea.
b. absolute existence in a complete or perfect state, lacking no essential characteristic; essence.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/beingYou purposefully ignore definition #4 above and ask me to accept your definitions. I side with the dictionaries over your definitions Ed. A being may be inaminate or non living. So you can SCREAM all you want. I have lexographical support. You know very well that if you admit that a rock is a non living BEING, then you will not be able to answer my questions.
DOES A ROCK BECOME TWO 'BEINGS' AFTER IT IS CUT IN HALF AND FORMED IN TO TWO INDIVIDUAL IMAGES? OR IS IT THE SAME 'BEING' BUT NOW EXISTING IN TWO SEPARATE SHAPES AND IDENTIES?
KJ
Hi Mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 03 2011,17:17) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 26 2011,13:42)
I have answered you but you don't like the answer so one more time I will answer then please don't ask me to change my answer to match yours.The answer is “NO” Cain is not the person “Adam”
I believe if you look back, you'll find that you DIDN'T actually answer it the first time. Now you have, sort of. You say that Cain is not the PERSON “Adam”. What I originally asked, and I want to know is if Cain was the SAME BEING as “Adam”. YES or NO?
Adam is a “human being” and Cain is a “human being” therefore they are both “Adam”. You do get this don’t you Mike?He is not the same person but is the same “being”, human because “Adam” means mankind.
Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of God and he only is One (being) with God the Father.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 03 2011,17:17)
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 26 2011,13:42)
Jesus is the Spirit of God which is the Spirit of Christ, the Father and Jesus share the same Spirit or essence or that which makes God, God. There is Only One Spirit.
Keith, if there is only ONE Spirit, then wouldn't that be the SAME Spirit that runs, not only through Jesus, but through every living thing?
The scriptures tell us the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son! That is the same Spirit that fills all things and upholds all things, he is called the Spirit of Christ or the Spirit of God.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 03 2011,17:17)
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 26 2011,13:42)
Refer back to John 1:1, God was with God who came in the flesh.
No, no, no. You are not allowed to bring up John 1:1 anymore, remember? You have very clearly said:Isn't that what Francis, D, and Jack and I have been saying………….
Everyone not just I are saying that just because Jesus is called God does not mean he is God.
And all John 1:1 teaches us is that Jesus is one who is called “theos”, who was with THE theos in the beginning. So I ask again:
Quote Is God Almighty “begotten” Keith? Even the simple term “only begotten god” should send up flares in your brain.
This time, try to answer WITHOUT your fallback of John 1:1. Because your own words have solidly refuted that scripture as PROOF that Jesus is God Almighty.
No, no, no. You are not allowed to deny John 1:1 as proof that Jesus is not God because of your own words.These are your own words Mike…
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. 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..
So I can easily say “your own words have solidly” proven that John 1:1c reveals Jesus is the “One True God”.
No my words have done nothing of the sort simply because you have taken my words out of their context.
I have never implied that the word God cannot mean God when referring to Jesus. It is about context and if you are honest you will admit that is what I am saying.
You yourself have admitted that the word God can be referring to the One True God so that means that by your own words that John 1:1c can be referring to the One True God, right?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 03 2011,17:17)
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 26 2011,13:42)
Did God have offspring that is not of his kind?
Absolutely not. God is a Spirit Being, as is the Son whom He begot.
Not so fast Mike. Angels are spirit beings as well as men and demons. Does that mean they are of “Gods kind”?Jesus is the “Only Begotten Son of God” therefore his kind since he is the Only Son is not like any other is he? Your failed logic makes Jesus into something other than Gods kind because if he isn’t of the same kind or nature as the Father God then he is a half-breed or a demi-god or freak of nature.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 03 2011,17:17)
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 26 2011,13:42)
Does the word “Begotten” have a whole new meaning Mike?Monogenēs…
1) single of its kind, only
a) used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)
No Keith, it DOESN'T have a “whole ne
w meaning”. That's what I'VE been trying to tell YOU and JACK and JA for months. “Yalad” refers to the BRINGING FORTH OF OFFSPRING. When it is said that Adam “brought forth” a son, we immediately know that Cain came FROM Adam, and is a DIFFERENT BEING than Adam. Why would you then just assume that when it is said that God “brought forth” a Son, that this Son DIDN'T come FROM God as a DIFFERENT BEING than God?
Ha Ha what we immediately know is those that produce “Offspring” is after its “Own Kind”.Man begets Man.
Dogs beget Dog.
God begets God.
Why is it that you completely deny this logic? Could it be because of your bias you have to make up straw man arguments by using deceptive and misleading examples?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 03 2011,17:17) It is YOU who tries to give “begotten” a “whole new meaning”. Surely you must realize that God knew how His nation of Israel understood the word “yalad”, right? Yet He chose to use this very word to explain how he came to have a Son, right?
Whenever something has “offspring” the offspring is always of the same kind and nature. This is elementary stuff man.If it looks like a Dog and barks like a Dog then it is a Dog.
Look again Mike how you have reinvented words because according to you Jesus is not of the “same kind” as the Father who is God.
WJ
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
