- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 04 2011,15:23)
He is not the same person but is the same “being”, human because “Adam” means mankind.
Okay, that's what I was after. So you are following Jack's absurdity because you think that's the only option you have. Keith, look at this from Dictionary.com:
6. a human being; person:Do you see the indefinite article there? A human being = A person.
From World English Dictionary:
4. a person; human beingAgain we see the word “A”, as in ONE OF MANY. But now, in direct opposition to everything you've ever known about the word “being”, you have jumped on Jack's absurdity wagon to keep from accepting the truth. Keith, let's put an end to this.
Keith and Jack, HOW MANY HUMAN BEINGS ARE THERE ON THIS PLANET?
Realize that first you have to answer “ONE” in order to keep this absurdity going. Then realize that you will have to find some credible source that claims the same thing as you do. But you won't, so let me just nip this in its absurdity bud right now, okay?
Are you listening Jack?
spe·cies
–noun
1. a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind.6. the species, the human race; mankind: a study of the species.
in·di·vid·u·al
–noun
1. a single human being, as distinguished from a group.
2. a person: a strange individual.
3. a distinct, indivisible entity; a single thing, being, instance, or item.We have all known this since we were about 9 or 10 years old. Almost EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING over the age of 10 knows this stuff, guys. Makind is a SPECIES made up of many different INDIVIDUAL BEINGS. And each BEING who is a member of the SPECIES of mankind is an INDIVIDUAL ENTITY.
I simply cannot believe the depths of absurdity to which you guys will sink to avoid dealing with this following very simple FACT:
If God was a species, then Jesus would be equally “Godkind”, but still not the same individual BEING that begot him as a Son. And Jesus and his Father would be only two of MANY that made up this “species”. So even if you guys are desparate enough to claim God as a species, Jesus STILL WOULDN'T BE THE SAME BEING AS HIS FATHER.
Now if God is NOT a species, but a SINGLE INDIVIDUAL BEING – like we all know and ALL have claimed on this site and since creation, and Jesus is the Son OF this SINGLE INDIVIDUAL BEING, as the scriptures CLEARLY and MANY TIMES teach us……………….then Jesus cannot possibly BE the SINGLE INDIVIDUAL BEING of God if he is the Son OF that One.
And don't even pull the “plural God” crap, because I didn't say SINGULAR being – I said SINGLE, as in there is only ONE of them. If we all agree that there is only ONE God, then we simultaneously agree that God is a SINGLE being.
And Jesus, as the Son OF this SINGLE BEING, cannot be that being.
mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 04 2011,07:28) 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
If I can hold a rock in each hand, I have 2 rocks.
They are both rock (as in nature) but each rock is an individual rock.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 04 2011,15:23)
These are your own words Mike…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..
Keith, could you show the link to where you found this statement? I feel like maybe you “inadvertently” quoted me out of context.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 04 2011,15:23)
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?
Keith, I have said this many times and even posted it my “don't have to refute” thread. YOU ARE EXACTLY CORRECT. Based on ONLY the word “theos”, 1:1c COULD BE referring to Jesus as “God Almighty”, but it DOESN'T HAVE TO BE. We have THOROUGHLY ESTABLISHED THIS POINT OVER AND OVER NOW.So, DOES IT REFER TO JESUS AS “GOD ALMIGHTY”? Well, let's see. It calls Jesus by the title “theos”, which could go either way, right? But it says that “theos Jesus” was with THE theos in the beginning. So let's weigh the pros and cons:
Pros for Jesus being “God Almighty” in John 1:1;
1. Jesus is called by the title “theos”.
2. …………..I can't think of anything else, can you?Cons for Jesus being “God Almighty” in John 1:1;
1. The title “theos” is used for others besides God Almighty.
2. In the same scripture, there is a “THE theos” mentioned.
3. Jesus was said to be WITH that One.Can the SINGLE BEING of “God” be said to be WITH the SINGLE BEING of “God”? No. Can another besides THE God, who also has the title of “god” be said to be WITH “THE God”? Yes.
But here's the real bottom line of it Keith: Jesus is the Son OF God, the High Priest OF God, the King that God set upon Zion, the Mediator BETWEEN God and man, the Lamb OF God, the Holy Servant OF God, one of the messiahs OF God, etc, etc, etc.
Any ONE of these things by itself is enough to tell any sane person that Jesus cannot be the God he is all these things OF. Add to that the fact that Jesus says the Father is greater than him. And that our God is also his God. And that he prays to and worships his God. And the fact that he still calls that One “my God”, even after he was exalted.
So any ONE of these is enough to PROVE that Jesus is NOT God Almighty, but when you add them all together, along with all the many other things in scripture, such as the NT writers speaking of “the Father and God OF our Lord Jesus Christ” numerous times, I'm sorry, but you'd have to be either blind or an idiot to believe that Jesus is God.
Anyway Keith, the point of all this is to show you that with the enormous amount of things proving Jesus is NOT God, you can't just keep spouting off John 1:1, as if it's proof of anything. It is a scripture where Jesus is called by a title that many others in scripture were also called by. And that's it. There's nothing more to it for your side, although my side has the added benefit of it identifying someone other than Jesus as “THE theos”, and of it saying Jesus was WITH that One in the beginning.
So what you are doing every time you bring this scripture up is saying that, against all this other evidence, the fact that Jesus was called “theos” means something. It means no more than Moses and Deborah being called “elohim” means.
I'm tired of you bringing this up every time you get cornered on other issues. It says that Jesus was called by the title “theos”, and nothing more. Stop bringing it up as if it's proof of anything, okay?
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 04 2011,15:23) 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.
Keith,If Jesus is the “same kind” AS his Father, who is God, then he is NOT his Father, who is God. And since we are VERY CLEARLY taught in scripture that the Father is the ONLY true God, and Jesus is NOT the Father, then Jesus is also not “God”.
See? That word “AS” is much like the word “like”. It conveys a comparison. And any two things that are compared to each other cannot possibly be the same thing.
“This bread has the same texture AS dog food”. See, the word “AS” clearly establishes for us that the bread is NOT dog food.
“Mike is as ugly AS Keith.” Again, the word “AS” tells us that Mike is NOT Keith.
“The puppy is the same breed AS his mother”. Once more, the word “AS” tells us the puppy is NOT his mother.
So when you claim that Jesus is the “same kind AS God”, you are also claiming that Jesus is NOT God. Get it?
mike
ATTENTION ALL:
The English transliteration underneath the Hebrew words in Genesis 1:27 and 6:7 in the Hebrew Interlinear is “e adm” (the adam).
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen1.pdf
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen6.pdf
All men are “e adm” (the adam) and therefore have the SAME identity.
Identity 1. sameness of essential character (Webster's)
KJ
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 05 2011,19:19) ATTENTION ALL: The English transliteration underneath the Hebrew words in Genesis 1:27 and 6:7 in the Hebrew Interlinear is “e adm” (the adam).
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen1.pdf
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen6.pdf
All men are “e adm” (the adam) and therefore have the SAME identity.
Identity 1. sameness of essential character (Webster's)
KJ
All men are “the adam” because they have the same identity as the first AdamIdentity 1. sameness of essential character (Webster's)
Therefore, Christ is “the God” because He has the same identity as God. Hebrews 1 says that Christ is the “EXACT representation of the Father's substance” (or essence).
KJ
TO ALL,
I claim victory over my argument with Eddie because he failed to offer proof from the lexographers that a rock is not a being and because he would not answer my simple questions.
KJ
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 05 2011,19:28) TO ALL, I claim victory over my argument with Eddie because he failed to offer proof from the lexographers that a rock is not a being and because he would not answer my simple questions.
KJ
.
Jack the dog split a rock and in doing so created 'a being'.
HA HA Ha Ha ha ha ha.
Mike said to Keith:
Quote You all of a sudden start claiming that all humans are the same being to “save” your flawed doctrine.
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 all humans are the same being in the sense that they are the same substance.
Mike denies the metaphysics of scripture and of the philosophers. He denies also the definitions of the lexographers. In other words, Mike has his own language and definitions of things and he wants us to just accept what he says. No sale Mike!
KJ
Jack,
How many human beings inhabit the earth today?
Please address my post that defines “species” and “individual” at the top of this page. If you can't address that, then pipe down.
And if you can't show us all a translation that has “THE adam” in Genesis 6:7, then also pipe down about that.
mike
TO ALL:
I like this quote which I found on another discussion board
Quote Throw in the analogy of one Human Nature but 6.4 billion persons and you've got an easy transition to the more complex issues. If we can have one nature with 6.4 billion persons why is it so hard to fathom that God has one nature and three persons? 
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 05 2011,12:18) Jack, How many human beings inhabit the earth today?
Please address my post that defines “species” and “individual” at the top of page 7. If you can't address that, then pipe down.
And if you can't show us all a translation that has “THE adam” in Genesis 6:7, then also pipe down about that.
mike
Bump for the elusive “Jackaroo”.Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 05 2011,19:24) All men are “the adam” because they have the same identity as the first Adam Identity 1. sameness of essential character (Webster's)
Therefore, Christ is “the God” because He has the same identity as God. Hebrews 1 says that Christ is the “EXACT representation of the Father's substance” (or essence).
KJ
So how do you distinguish the person of Adam from the rest of humanity?If you call him Adam (the adam), then take a closer look at your statement.
If you call him A1 or something like that, then OK, but accrording to you, we all become A1 the person.
Na.
Back to the drawing board.
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Mar. 08 2011,18:52) TO ALL: I like this quote which I found on another discussion board
Quote Throw in the analogy of one Human Nature but 6.4 billion persons and you've got an easy transition to the more complex issues. If we can have one nature with 6.4 billion persons why is it so hard to fathom that God has one nature and three persons?
OK, so God is a species now?So all who have divine nature are God the person?
And when Jesus partook of human nature he became human, so are we Jesus? And if we partake of divine nature then we are God?
Looks like the Trinity will expand to the Millionity or Billionity if we draw a few logical conclusions from your teachings.
The more you guys argue for the Trinity the more we see how absurd it is.
Back to the drawing board please.
t8 said;
Quote OK, so God is a species now? So all who have divine nature are God the person?
And when Jesus partook of human nature he became human, so are we Jesus? And if we partake of divine nature then we are God?
Looks like the Trinity will expand to the Millionity or Billionity if we draw a few logical conclusions from your teachings.
The more you guys argue for the Trinity the more we see how absurd it is.
Back to the drawing board please.
t8,
Hey, isn't Mike the one who has suggested that God is a species by his assertions that God begat Jesus like a human father begets a son?
God is not a species because He cannot procreate. But hte scripture is very clear that the Son is the “radiance of His glory” and the “EXACT representation of the Father's substance” (nature).
KJ
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 09 2011,11:41) t8 said; Quote OK, so God is a species now? So all who have divine nature are God the person?
And when Jesus partook of human nature he became human, so are we Jesus? And if we partake of divine nature then we are God?
Looks like the Trinity will expand to the Millionity or Billionity if we draw a few logical conclusions from your teachings.
The more you guys argue for the Trinity the more we see how absurd it is.
Back to the drawing board please.
t8,
Hey, isn't Mike the one who has suggested that God is a species by his assertions that God begat Jesus like a human father begets a son?
God is not a species because He cannot procreate. But hte scripture is very clear that the Son is the “radiance of His glory” and the “EXACT representation of the Father's substance” (nature).
KJ
True JackThey are just sticking there head in the sand with all these smokescreens about nature and identity.
t8 does not understand that you cannot seperate nature from identity.
If I name my dog “Adam” and my best friend has the name “Adam” and I say “here boy” with a wistle, it is obvious who I am talking to, unless God forbid my friend replys by coming to me with a bark on all fours.
I have identified which Adam that I am talking too because of their nature.
If God is all powerfull and sits in a Throne ruling the Universe then I identify him as God or the Father.
If Jesus is called God and has all power and rules the Universe from Gods Throne then I identify him as God or the Son.
The problem with the anti-Jesus is God crowd is they can't find any difference in the nature of the Son from the Father or for that matter the Holy Spirit.
WJ
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Feb. 24 2011,06:33) t8, Yes I am the same being as the person who calls me son (my father). I possess the same qualities and constitution (Webster's). I have the same essential nature and substance (F & W).
KJ
Please let us know what your father's name is so we can call you by that.Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 10 2011,03:41) t8, Hey, isn't Mike the one who has suggested that God is a species by his assertions that God begat Jesus like a human father begets a son?
God is not a species because He cannot procreate. But hte scripture is very clear that the Son is the “radiance of His glory” and the “EXACT representation of the Father's substance” (nature).
KJ
There is the Divine, and there is divine nature.
Just as there is the Spirit and spirits.You say that all who have divine nature are actually God.
That is like saying that all who are spirits (angels) are the one Spirit.It is you who is pointing to God being a species.
Mike admits the truth that theos and elohim are used to describe others besides God in a legitimate way and it is you who says that divine nature makes you the Most High God.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 10 2011,07:20) They are just sticking there head in the sand with all these smokescreens about nature and identity.
Wrong.The distinction is very important.
Just as there is a distinction between Adam (the first man) and adam (all who share his nature).
It is the lack of this distinction that gets you guys into all sorts of doctrinal problems and confusion.
We do not wish to participate in your confusion.
WJ said;
Quote t8 does not understand that you cannot seperate nature from identity.
Keith,Yes they are running away from the truth of God. Jesus said,
“I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?”
They even run from “earthly things” regarding the unity of nature and identity because it in the least allows for the possibility of the Trinity God.
Identity 1. sameness of essential nature (Webster's)
Note Webster's first definition for identity. As I understand it the first definition listed reflects the primary sense.
Jack
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
