- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi TT,
Yes it is a pity you did not listen to scripture before you made your mind up.Following blind men only leads to their pit.
Quote (thethinker @ July 30 2009,03:46) Paladin said: Quote John 1:18 No man hath seen [ewraken (oraw) = indicative perfect active 3rd person singular] God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. To All,
First, John clearly says that Jesus is the exception.Quote “No man has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.”
Paladin conveniently omits that the Son is in the bosom of the Father. Therefore, the Son is the exception.Second, John meant that no man has comprehended God with the understanding. This is the way inwhich no man has “seen” God. This is substantiated by the fact that John said that the Son has “explained” him. The word “explained” is the Greek “exegesis.”
John was NOT saying that no man had seen God with His eyes. Jacob had seen God with his eyes,
Quote Genesis 32:30: So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel:[a] “For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” Footnotes:
[a] Genesis 32:30 Literally Face of GodJacob had seen the face of God with his own eyes. It's back to the drawing board for Dr. Paladin.
thinker
If you are going to give immature responses, that is the way you will be treated; like a pouty kid.What is this pouty kid response supposed to mean?
Quote Paladin conveniently omits… Did you “conveniently omit” the fact that Noah survived the rains of the flood? Or could it be (gasp) the simple fact it is irrelevant?
Quote … that the Son is in the bosom of the Father. Therefore, the Son is the exception. It is irrelevant BECAUSE – In 96 a.d., when John wrote his gospel, Jesus was in the “bosom of the father.” He was NOT “in the bosom of the Father” during his own lifetime, or before. He was “in the bosom of the Father” after the ascension in 96 a.d., though John references it as a fact in John 1:18.
Stop with your stupid remarks about what Paladin
“conveniently left out.” It has NEVER applied yet.Paladin said:
Quote Did you “conveniently omit” the fact that Noah survived the rains of the flood? Or could it be (gasp) the simple fact it is irrelevant?
What has Noah and the flood have to do with anything? Jacob saw God face to face AFTER the flood.Paladin said:
Quote Stop with your stupid remarks about what Paladin
“conveniently left out.” It has NEVER applied yet.I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt once by asking you why you ommited something and you din't like that either. You did not answer me then. Okay, I will no more say you conveniently leave out something. I will go back to asking why.
Why did you leave out the part about Jesus being in the bosom of the Father? This clearly infers that He is the exception to the statement “No man has seen (comprehended) God.”
Why did you cite only part of the verse?
thinker
Hi TT,
So you would say Jesus did not speak the truth and you know better?Are the words of Jesus only helpful when they support your greater catholic doctrines?
Quote (thethinker @ July 31 2009,02:30) Paladin said: Quote Did you “conveniently omit” the fact that Noah survived the rains of the flood? Or could it be (gasp) the simple fact it is irrelevant?
What has Noah and the flood have to do with anything? Jacob saw God face to face AFTER the flood.Paladin said:
Quote Stop with your stupid remarks about what Paladin
“conveniently left out.” It has NEVER applied yet.I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt once by asking you why you ommited something and you din't like that either. You did not answer me then. Okay, I will no more say you conveniently leave out something. I will go back to asking why.
Why did you leave out the part about Jesus being in the bosom of the Father? This clearly infers that He is the exception to the statement “No man has seen (comprehended) God.”
Why did you cite only part of the verse?
thinker
Read previous post. Already asked and answeredQuote (Paladin @ July 31 2009,10:50) Quote (thethinker @ July 31 2009,02:30) Paladin said: Quote Did you “conveniently omit” the fact that Noah survived the rains of the flood? Or could it be (gasp) the simple fact it is irrelevant?
What has Noah and the flood have to do with anything? Jacob saw God face to face AFTER the flood.Paladin said:
Quote Stop with your stupid remarks about what Paladin
“conveniently left out.” It has NEVER applied yet.I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt once by asking you why you ommited something and you din't like that either. You did not answer me then. Okay, I will no more say you conveniently leave out something. I will go back to asking why.
Why did you leave out the part about Jesus being in the bosom of the Father? This clearly infers that He is the exception to the statement “No man has seen (comprehended) God.”
Why did you cite only part of the verse?
thinker
Read previous post. Already asked and answered
Originally you left it out. So don't play that with me.Paladin said:
Quote It is irrelevant BECAUSE – In 96 a.d., when John wrote his gospel, Jesus was in the “bosom of the father.” He was NOT “in the bosom of the Father” during his own lifetime, or before. He was “in the bosom of the Father” after the ascension in 96 a.d., though John references it as a fact in John 1:18. No! All the new testament was written before AD70. It doesn't matter anyway. Jesus “explained” the Father to men throughout His earthly ministry. Therefore, He had previously proceeded from the Father's bosom. John's statement “No man has seen God” means that “No man has comprehended God. The only begotten Son ,who is in the bosom of the Father, He has exegeted Him.”
Your statement that the Son was not in the Father's bosom until the ascension implies that He did not begin to exegete the Father until the ascension. We know that He explained the Father while He was here on earth. He could do this because He had ALWAYS been in the Father's bosom. The more you speak the more you appear uncredible. It is clear that you are making up your theology as you go along.
thinker
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ July 31 2009,11:09) Quote (Paladin @ July 31 2009,10:50) Quote (thethinker @ July 31 2009,02:30) Paladin said: Quote Did you “conveniently omit” the fact that Noah survived the rains of the flood? Or could it be (gasp) the simple fact it is irrelevant?
What has Noah and the flood have to do with anything? Jacob saw God face to face AFTER the flood.Paladin said:
Quote Stop with your stupid remarks about what Paladin
“conveniently left out.” It has NEVER applied yet.I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt once by asking you why you ommited something and you din't like that either. You did not answer me then. Okay, I will no more say you conveniently leave out something. I will go back to asking why.
Why did you leave out the part about Jesus being in the bosom of the Father? This clearly infers that He is the exception to the statement “No man has seen (comprehended) God.”
Why did you cite only part of the verse?
thinker
Read previous post. Already asked and answered
Originally you left it out. So don't play that with me.Paladin said:
Quote It is irrelevant BECAUSE – In 96 a.d., when John wrote his gospel, Jesus was in the “bosom of the father.” He was NOT “in the bosom of the Father” during his own lifetime, or before. He was “in the bosom of the Father” after the ascension in 96 a.d., though John references it as a fact in John 1:18. No! All the new testament was written before AD70. It doesn't matter anyway. Jesus “explained” the Father to men throughout His earthly ministry. Therefore, He had previously proceeded from the Father's bosom. John's statement “No man has seen God” means that “No man has comprehended God. The only begotten Son ,who is in the bosom of the Father, He has exegeted Him.”
Your statement that the Son was not in the Father's bosom until the ascension implies that He did not begin to exegete the Father until the ascension. We know that He explained the Father while He was here on earth. He could do this because He had ALWAYS been in the Father's bosom. The more you speak the more you appear uncredible. It is clear that you are making up your theology as you go along.
thinker
thinker
Assume for the sake of the illustration, the thinker has died and gone to the bosom of the Father, where all things are made clear.Assume, for the sake of the illustration, that the thinker has learned something hitherto not believed by the thinker, and he decides to share it with us through inspiration, as he
“thinks” it toward our receptive minds.In fairness to the thinker I will not assign definition to any particular doctrine, just something he has learned while in the bosom of the Father, that he thinks we need to know.
It can at that point, be said that the thinker, being in the bosom of the Father, knows doctrine “XYZ” and wants to share it with us.
There is no way we can understand that the thinker has always been “in the bosom of the Father” based solely on the fact that years later it is so stated that he “IS” in the bosom, not “was” as though it applies to all of time.
In 96 a.d. John speaks of resurrected Christ, even while he expresses to us the issues and events of the life of that same Christ, and tells us something he IS, while at the same time, expressing to us his understanding of many of the events of that magnificent man's life.
John, in 96 a.d., tells us Jesus “IS” in the bosom of the Father.
'wn is a present active participle, telling us of an event taking place in the time John is writing.John's writing is from a different perspective than that of present eye witness testimony. It is eye witness testimony of events long past.
Paladin said:
Quote Assume for the sake of the illustration, the thinker has died and gone to the bosom of the Father, where all things are made clear. Assume, for the sake of the illustration, that the thinker has learned something hitherto not believed by the thinker, and he decides to share it with us through inspiration, as he
“thinks” it toward our receptive minds.In fairness to the thinker I will not assign definition to any particular doctrine, just something he has learned while in the bosom of the Father, that he thinks we need to know.
It can at that point, be said that the thinker, being in the bosom of the Father, knows doctrine “XYZ” and wants to share it with us.
There is no way we can understand that the thinker has always been “in the bosom of the Father” based solely on the fact that years later it is so stated that he “IS” in the bosom, not “was” as though it applies to all of time.
In 96 a.d. John speaks of resurrected Christ, even while he expresses to us the issues and events of the life of that same Christ, and tells us something he IS, while at the same time, expressing to us his understanding of many of the events of that magnificent man's life.
John, in 96 a.d., tells us Jesus “IS” in the bosom of the Father.
'wn is a present active participle, telling us of an event taking place in the time John is writing.John's writing is from a different perspective than that of present eye witness testimony. It is eye witness testimony of events long past.
It is from the bosom of the Father He explained God. He explained God during His earthly ministry. Therefore, He had always been in the Father's bosom. See John 14:9,
Quote He who has comprehended Me has comprehended the Father [because it's from the Father's bosom I exegete Him] Words in brackets mine After He ascended the Spirit was sent to reveal all truth. If Jesus did not explain God before His ascension, and the Spirit reveals all things after His ascension, then John could not have said at all that Jesus IS in the bosom of the Father. Try again.
Btw, what is your scriptural evidence that John was written in ad96? All the internal evidence puts the dating of all the new testament writings BEFORE ad70 when Jesus returned.
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ July 31 2009,11:09) [/quote]
(thinker)Quote Why did you cite only part of the verse? thinker
(P) Read previous post. Already asked and answered
(thinker) Originally you left it out. So don't play that with me.
I would STILL leave it out, so I am not “playing that with you.” It has nothing to do with the issue.
In 55 a.d. Paul is speaking of events that come right out of prophecy, i.e., Messiah will come of the seed of man, and will be the second Adam. BUT, it should be understood, the “Spiritual” Adam was NOT FIRST, BUT the Fleshly Adam was first, THEN the spiritual.
The fact that by the time Paul speaks of the event, Jesus is in heaven, only serves to confuse you, as will be evident from your post, so I do not include it, because it is not relevant to the issue.
So I STILL LEAVE IT OUT.
Hi P,
So for you the Messiah has yet to come?
Scripture tells us CHRIST means MESSIAH.
Jesus has come and said he is the Christ.On another thread bodhitharta said:
Quote Moses was called the saviour to and so was every other messenger sent to redeem God's people. Jesus is “counted worthy” of far more glory than Moses.
Quote 3 For this One has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as He who built the house has more honor than the house. 4 For every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God. 5 And Moses indeed was faithful in all His house as a servant, for a testimony of those things which would be spoken afterward, 6 but Christ as a Son over His own house, whose house we are if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm to the end. Jesus is “counted worthy” of the glory of the builder. The builder is God. Therefore, Jesus is counted worthy of glory equal to God.
thinker
Hi TT,
If you could offer suggestions without THEREFORE it would seem more likely you were depending on scriptural revelation rather than on weak greek logicQuote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 01 2009,20:20) Hi TT,
If you could offer suggestions without THEREFORE it would seem more likely you were depending on scriptural revelation rather than on weak greek logic
Jesus is “counted worthy” of the glory of the builder. Yes or no? The builder is God. Yes or no?thinker
thinker………..Where does it say Jesus is the builder of (ALL) things, He is counted (WORTHY) of (MORE) Glory then (the servant) of the House is, thats the issue here. Your making it something else altogether. Stick to the context of what being said, don't add to it, Trinitarian delusions. IMO
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 01 2009,14:05) Hi P,
So for you the Messiah has yet to come?
Scripture tells us CHRIST means MESSIAH.
Jesus has come and said he is the Christ.
Jersus came the first time to save mankind, will return in judgment.Quote (thethinker @ Aug. 01 2009,19:33) Paladin, Please answer my last post or concede by default.
thinker
Sorry, I quit reading the thread when you quit reading it.thinker, Paladin, Gene and Nick! I read most of the tread and I have to say this. First of all, no one wants to believe that Jesus not only was in the bosom of the Father, but was there as a Spirit being.
Col 1:15-17
Rev. 3:14
shows that He preexisted His birth as a Human being. He was the firstborn of all creation. He than created all by the power of the Father. Jesus never did anything by Himself without the knowledge of the Father.
John 17:5 says this:” And now O Father, glorify me together with Yourself with the glory I had with You before the world was.”
Some of you tho want to ignore that Jesus was called God by the Father this in
Hebrew 1: 8 ” Your throne O God is foreverand ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your Kingdom.
verse 9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”
Also in John 1:1 most of you want to do away with this Scripture where it says that Jesus or He that was the Word at the time. And was called God. Jesus and the Father had also other names. When you take the Word God and look at it like I do, there is no problem. God IMO is a title. Ore a Family name. My name is Paul Henry Smith( made up name) our Sons last name is Smith also and after that all offsprings are called Smith. It is the title of our Family. That is the way I look at with God. When you do this all of a sudden all falls into place. God the Father is above all and by Jesus own words greater then He is. I don't think that because He went back to being a Spirit being erases that fact. I said this on another tread, that when the translators took all the pieces of the Apostles letters and put into a Biook, they were afraid to misspell their names and used the title God. Now this is not written in blood and I am always open to another believe of Scriptures if one can prove it. Right now tho this makes sense to me. Somewhere I have read this information, But I can't remember where I did. The Father God was also called Jehovah. Jesus too had another name in the Old Testament times besides God He was called Yeshua. I do not ignore these Scriptures that states that Jesus is called by His Father ” God.”
To me all is clear, even if some of you will not agree unless you have a better way. My Husband agrees with that.
Peace and Love IreneIrene……..Changing the text to say what it does (NOT) say is what Trinitarians do . No where in John 1:1 is the word Jesus, if John meant to say Jesus he would have written Jesus , he new how to spell Jesus and if that is what he want us to understand he would have simple written it. Simple logic would tell you that. Irene Just read the words for what they mean themselves and don't try to change there meanings. IMO
peace and love to you and Georg…………………gene
Quote (Gene @ Aug. 11 2009,03:27) Irene……..Changing the text to say what it does (NOT) say is what Trinitarians do . No where in John 1:1 is the word Jesus, if John meant to say Jesus he would have written Jesus , he new how to spell Jesus and if that is what he want us to understand he would have simple written it. Simple logic would tell you that. Irene Just read the words for what they mean themselves and don't try to change there meanings. IMO peace and love to you and Georg…………………gene
Did you read all of my post? Tead it again and ypu will see that I said :” WHO BECAME JESUS, NOT THAT HE WAS JESUS, I CORRECTED NYSELF.You did not read all of it.
Peace and Love Irene
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
