- This topic has 6,304 replies, 115 voices, and was last updated 2 years ago by
.
- Posts
i dislike your stupid games!
Quote (soxan @ Nov. 20 2005,04:51) thats it t8 run away like you all ways do.
Actually, I'm going to agree with Soxan this time. I think he made a fair call. What I asked t8 for was perfectly reasonable – but he ignored me and changed the subject. T8, I look forward to YOUR reply – and yes I have done exegetical due diligence on those verses, and yes they do mean exactly what the text records.its not just t8, they all do it, they challange than jump out of the ring. Than the bloody thing is that they accuse the prize fighter[the champ!] of running away! the bloody nerve! that busts my balls to no end!
Hi david,
Scripture does not teach any divine trinity.
Scripture does not teach Jesus is Michael the archangel.You rightly reject the first but you support the second?
Why do you apply different standards of proof in these matters?Hi,
Rom 8.9
“..if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not havre the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him”
Does anyone seriously think these two references to the Spirit are to different Spirits?
If you read the whole of Romans 8 you will also see written
“Spirit of life in Christ Jesus”v 2
“the Spirit”
“the Spirit”
“the Spirit”
“the Spirit”
“the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead”
“His Spirit”
“the Spirit”
“the Spirit of God”
“the Spirit”
“the Spirit”
“the Spirit”
“the Spirit”
“the Spirit”v27Scripture also speaks of “the Holy Spirit and “My Spirit”
The Spirit is one Spirit. But there are many ways the Spirit can be described. Elisha prayed that a double portion of the Spirit in Elijah would fall on him[2Kings 2.9]. John the Baptist came in the spirit of Elijah too.So the portion of God's Spirit that dwelled in Christ is the same portion that was sent to fill the Body of Christ on earth. That is why it says in Jn 7.39
“the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified”And because the Spirit of God dwelled in Christ it was also called the Spirit of Christ.
So Jesus was able to say in Jn 14.20f
” In that day you will know that I am in the Father and the Father is in me….If anyone loves me he will keep my word; and my Father will love him, and WE will come to him and make OUR abode with him””Quote (Is 1:18 @ Nov. 21 2005,00:01) Quote (soxan @ Nov. 20 2005,04:51) thats it t8 run away like you all ways do.
Actually, I'm going to agree with Soxan this time. I think he made a fair call. What I asked t8 for was perfectly reasonable – but he ignored me and changed the subject. T8, I look forward to YOUR reply – and yes I have done exegetical due diligence on those verses, and yes they do mean exactly what the text records.
To Is 1:18,Judge lest you be judged by the same measure. Never once in the whole Heaven Net Forum have I seen you or anyone else give an explanation to many scriptures that we quote that show that God is the Father and that our God is also Jesus God. All you do is throw up other scriptures that appear to back what you say and when they are shown that they do not, I get hit with Greek philosophy and how I see the truth fit in that frame work. I have seen this pattern not just from yourself but by many others too. But to this day, I still await the supposed reasons why I believe in error that God is the Father and his son is Jesus.
So you have judged yourself. For you have never given an explanation to the scriptures that we teach. I am still waiting and have been waiting since the creation of the Heaven Net Forum.
For me, I obviously cannot answer every question that is raised in this Forum, but I endevour to answer what I can given the time that I have. And it may be a surprise to you, but I do not read everything written here. When I get the change I read the latest stuff and answer from there. You will also notice that I take time and care in my answers lest I make an error which is easy to do when one is in a hurry. So I guess some fruits of the Spirit such as patience and some understanding would be in order.
But going by memory I don't remember you asking any questions, I thought you made a bunch of statements that I didn't obviously agree with. Perhaps you can re-ask the questions that I appear to have missed and in the appropriate discussion if possible. If you were waiting for my take on your statements, then I can give you your answer now. I don't agree with most of them. They do not matchup with scripture.
thx
Quote (soxan @ Nov. 21 2005,00:11) its not just t8, they all do it, they challange than jump out of the ring. Than the bloody thing is that they accuse the prize fighter[the champ!] of running away! the bloody nerve! that busts my balls to no end!
He he, all I here is just a whole lotta nagging. Really guys, this is quite funny. You put a smile on my face.
All you hear is WHAT you WANT to HEAR.
Hi soxan,
We listen to you but all we hear is abuse.Is that all you have to offer?
That does not sound like one of the fruits of the Spirit.
t8,Nov. wrote:[/quote]
Quote To Is 1:18, Judge lest you be judged by the same measure.
I just pointed out the facts. Soxan was right I thought.Quote Never once in the whole Heaven Net Forum have I seen you or anyone else give an explanation to many scriptures that we quote that show that God is the Father and that our God is also Jesus God.
This is untrue. Go back and review your exchange with Global (pg 24f in the trinity thread) and you will see that he gave very sound Biblical answers to every objection you raised. Others have done this too t8, but it appears that your pre-suppositions blind you from recognising a solid answer when you get one. Actually, if you recall I spend many hours reading the entire trinity thread once, and one thing that struck me was your evasiveness with Global. He faithfully provided answers to every question you threw at him, but when the foot was on thre other foot you ducked and dived. It was a clear mis-match intellectually (in Global's favour) mind you, maybe that explains some of it – but it still spoke volumes to me about the soundness of your theology.Quote All you do is throw up other scriptures that appear to back what you say and when they are shown that they do not, I get hit with Greek philosophy and how I see the truth fit in that frame work. I have seen this pattern not just from yourself but by many others too.
Another untruth. I have never shirked a question from you. You cannot say the same.Quote But to this day, I still await the supposed reasons why I believe in error that God is the Father and his son is Jesus.
Straw men being erected here. Show me where I have denied that Jesus is God's Son. I refute that the pre-incarnate Word is God's Son. That is because it's unscriptural. According to the NT writers Jesus became a Son at His incarnation. Obviously the Father became a Father then too. That's what the Bible actually affirms t8. If you study the NT applications of Ps 2:7, you will see this too.Quote So you have judged yourself. For you have never given an explanation to the scriptures that we teach. I am still waiting and have been waiting since the creation of the Heaven Net Forum.
Not true – read above. When are we going to have some honesty from you t8??Quote For me, I obviously cannot answer every question that is raised in this Forum, but I endevour to answer what I can given the time that I have.
I am prepared to wait – as I always do with you.Quote And it may be a surprise to you, but I do not read everything written here. When I get the change I read the latest stuff and answer from there.
Well t8, you tendered an answer (an evasive change of topic) so it was natural for me to assume that you did read my post. I look forward to your answers to the following q's:1. What kind of being was Jesus before His incarnation?
2. An explanation of how you understand the verses I cited in the third post on pg 25 in the Holy Spirit thread (here)Quote And it may be a surprise to you, but I do not read everything written here. When I get the change I read the latest stuff and answer from there. You will also notice that I take time and care in my answers lest I make an error which is easy to do when one is in a hurry. So I guess some fruits of the Spirit such as patience and some understanding would be in order.
Take all the time you need. I won't forget what I asked you.Quote But going by memory I don't remember you asking any questions, I thought you made a bunch of statements that I didn't obviously agree with. Perhaps you can re-ask the questions that I appear to have missed and in the appropriate discussion if possible.
Read above.Quote If you were waiting for my take on your statements, then I can give you your answer now. I don't agree with most of them. They do not matchup with scripture.
That's fine, your entitled to think that. But it doesn't change the fact that I have evidence to support my premise that the title “Son of God” speaks of Jesus' earthly existence, and you have offered nothing to support your premise that He became a Son before this. You have come up empty.I said:
“but when the foot was on thre other foot”I meant:
“but when the boot was on the other foot” (i.e. when it was your turn to answer some of his….)Quote (Is 1:18 @ Nov. 20 2005,19:25) I refute that the pre-incarnate Word is God's Son. That is because it's unscriptural. According to the NT writers Jesus became a Son at His incarnation. Obviously the Father became a Father then too. That's what the Bible actually affirms t8. If you study the NT applications of Ps 2:7, you will see this too.
I have evidence to support my premise that the title “Son of God” speaks of Jesus' earthly existence, and you have offered nothing to support your premise that He became a Son before this. You have come up empty.
Hi Is 1.18,
I agree the Father became the physical Father of Jesus at his conception-by the Holy Spirit of God.But that does not explain Ps 2 when Jesus quoted his Father about his begetting as son. The Son heard the Father so existed as a being then.
Neither does it explain how the Father sent the Son from heaven into the world[Jn 3.17]. If he was not a son till he was born then in what way was he sent as a son into the world?
Other sons of God are shown in Jb 38. Did they precede the Son of God in existence? So Jesus is not the firstborn Son through who came all creation?I believe the Word of God was with God in the beginning. The Word became flesh and dwelled among us[Jn 1.14] as the Christ. The same term “word” is used of him when he comes again as king in Rev 19. So the name did not change by his visiting earth in flesh.
Sons derive much from their fathers. The history of Israel is laid out in physical father/son relationships. Likewise parents help shape and guide the learning in all areas of the life of their sons. They feed and clothe and protect them till they can cope alone.
But could it be that Ps 2 refers to Phil 2.5-8? That in his submission to God's will he became a true son of God willing and able to obey the Father in all things-Jesus said that Satan was the father of the Pharisees for similar reasons?The context of Psalm 2 is post ascention. Specifically, it is an eschatological Psalm. Proof later – i'm at work.
Hi,
I hate those big theoplogical words. I am sure there are enough biblical words we can use and then know we are not being subtlely infuenced by the words invented by men, the human wisdom of rebellious theologians.Ps 2 certainly speaks of the battle between the foolish rulers and King Jesus at the end of the Millenium. But that makes no statement about when The Father spoke these words to His Son. They simply place the authority given to the Son as a foundation for the useless revealed folly of that rebellion.
“Theological” is also not a biblical word. The fact is everyone uses extra-biblical words – funny that it's always me that gets called for it.
Psalm 2 is indeed end times (echatological), manifestly so. The actual timing of the utterance is irrelevant because it's clearly said of the Father to the Son (Hebrews 1), and the NT writer's clearly denote that its context is the eartly existence of Jesus Christ.
NH, this is my last post to you for reasons i'll explain in a PM.
Quote (soxan @ Nov. 19 2005,23:51) thats it t8 run away like you all ways do.
So t8's a coward for refering to another thread to keep this one on topic?
Thanks Mr Bob,
Yes it does seem strange when we are persecuted for merely wanting to keep things tidy so that others who come here can choose a topic and get content based on that topic. This Forum is better when it is organised and not all over the place.
I too am simple folk and not that fond of big words that require dictionaries. Jesus' disciples spoke so people could understand. I've found that it's usually proud people that want to use their history of book learning to imply that anything they say is right and anything you say is wrong. I don't really get that feeling from Is 1:18 however.
Psalm 2:1,2
–First application at the time when Philistine kings tried to unseat annointed king David.
–Second application is clearly when Jewish religious leaders King Herod and Roman governor Pontius Pilate all played a part in having Jesus put to death.(Acts 4:23-30)
–Third application, and major fulfillment of Psalm 2 has been taking place since end of Gentile times and are indeed echalogi… echa… end time scriptures.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Nov. 21 2005,16:46) Hi,
I hate those big theoplogical words. I am sure there are enough biblical words we can use and then know we are not being subtlely infuenced by the words invented by men, the human wisdom of rebellious theologians.Ps 2 certainly speaks of the battle between the foolish rulers and King Jesus at the end of the Millenium. But that makes no statement about when The Father spoke these words to His Son. They simply place the authority given to the Son as a foundation for the useless revealed folly of that rebellion.
Yes, Nick,Some people like to hide behind big words in the hope that they can baffle their hearers in order to give an impression that they are above them in knowledge. A sort of scare tactic or leveller, when they cannot backup their teaching using scripture alone.
As Paul said, the Greeks love wisdom, but he gave them the simplicity of the gospel, an offence to their proud minds.
Keeping it simple is good. Venturing off into Greek philosophy doesn't benefit anyone. We are hear to teach and learn the truth. It is not a competition to see who knows more.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
