- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 17 2011,01:26) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 15 2011,21:54) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 15 2011,19:34) Quote (shimmer @ Aug. 15 2011,03:24) And as for your warning, please note that LU continued it by bumping the post above, and also took it into another thread. I expect to see her tiled!
Hi Shimmer,I DID notice that and have already taken appropriate action.
I'm out of it now. If you three want to war, then war away.
Personally, I think posts back and forth about who is the “evil one” is a waste of time. I'd much rather see you guys go to war over the many unscriptural things that get posted here.
But Kathi seems to have now thrown her own hat into the ring. So as I see it, there is no longer an innocent party to protect, and therefore I no longer need to be in the middle of this war.
peace and love to all of you,
mike
Wow, I bumped a post and you have to take 'actions' Mike because shimmer thinks that is worthy of a tile? I have thrown my hat in because I bumped a post with an observation?Have you not been reading her posts since you warned her and then rewarned her?
I really don't think that bumping a post because the one it was addressed to didn't see it and it got covered up, is worthy of crying for me to be tiled. What rule is that breaking? Good grief!
KathiI agree. The obvious bias this moderator has if evident. It should not be so for a moderator.
WJ
WJ, I did not know you had a sense of humor.Just out of couriousity, and with a truthful answer, for a moderator to believe in duality of gods, this moderator would not favor their group.
Please to have an actual unbias view, the best would be Stuart.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 17 2011,02:26) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 15 2011,21:54) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 15 2011,19:34) Quote (shimmer @ Aug. 15 2011,03:24) And as for your warning, please note that LU continued it by bumping the post above, and also took it into another thread. I expect to see her tiled!
Hi Shimmer,I DID notice that and have already taken appropriate action.
I'm out of it now. If you three want to war, then war away.
Personally, I think posts back and forth about who is the “evil one” is a waste of time. I'd much rather see you guys go to war over the many unscriptural things that get posted here.
But Kathi seems to have now thrown her own hat into the ring. So as I see it, there is no longer an innocent party to protect, and therefore I no longer need to be in the middle of this war.
peace and love to all of you,
mike
Wow, I bumped a post and you have to take 'actions' Mike because shimmer thinks that is worthy of a tile? I have thrown my hat in because I bumped a post with an observation?Have you not been reading her posts since you warned her and then rewarned her?
I really don't think that bumping a post because the one it was addressed to didn't see it and it got covered up, is worthy of crying for me to be tiled. What rule is that breaking? Good grief!
KathiI agree. The obvious bias this moderator has if evident. It should not be so for a moderator.
WJ
Wj, do you really want to carry this on? I was finished with it. It wasnt me who started crying because they got a warning was it. Things like that never worry me. Seeing you are so blind, and deaf as well, please focus now, and see, that it was me who was ASKING for a tile. I wanted one. I still dont care if I get one.Funny you should bring it up today. I knew my post in 'Ancient Syriac Doctrines' would have a reaction. Haha., Thanks.
I'll repost it.
Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.”
The uniting word between the two is the word love.
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 15 2011,04:43) You can especially notice them who put up very angry sounding posts and then those who agree with those who put them up. Bitterness leaks from their words. Do they think no one notices? Blessings,
Kathi
People are noticing this from you Kathi.Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 17 2011,16:31) Just being truthful and respectful, not holding on to bitterness, t8. 
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 15 2011,21:36) Mike,
He likely got that name when He was begotten before creation. Not being given a name does not mean one does not exist.
Perhaps not Kathi,But it DOES mean that “Jehovah” didn't ALWAYS consist of both the Father AND the Son, right? Because at one time, the Son apparently did not have the name “Jehovah”, right?
Mike! Jesus name never was Jehovah…. that is His Fathers name alone…… always was and will be….
Psa 83:18 That [men] may know that thou, whose name alone [is] JEHOVAH, [art] the most high over all the earth.
Psa 68:4 Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name Jehovah, and rejoice before him.
Also Kathi did agree that the LORD throughout the Old Testament is Jehovah….. And I believe Georg when He told me that in Study Bible of KJV in the footnotes it says that the translators used LORD, in all capital letters,instead of Jehovah, because they didn't want to take Gods name in vain….
Peace Irene
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 15 2011,22:03) Mike,
I analyzed the Greek of John 17:12 which says this:
“While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled.The pronoun 'which' is written in the singular neuter form and refers to the 'name' which is also singular and neuter. The 'them' is plural and masculine so it definitely is the 'name' of His Father that was given Him in this verse and not referring to the 'them' as to what was given to Him.
see here: http://interlinearbible.org/john/17-12.htm
NASB is right again, NKJV wrong again.
Kathi
Hi Kathi,Well, what we need to know is if there was any time in the scriptures where more than one person was ever referred to with a singular pronoun.
Isn't that a riot, girl?
You've bent over backwards trying to “teach” us that it's no big deal to refer to more than one person using a SINGULAR pronoun……………and now that's come back to bite you in the butt! I'm sorry, but that's just TOO funny for me!Your whole point here is that since the SINGULAR pronoun was used, Jesus couldn't have possibly been referring to the MORE THAN ONE PERSON he had previously mentioned.
Can anyone say, “IRONIC”?
Seriously though, do you know for a fact that there weren't any times in the Greek scriptures where the pronoun was written in the singular form, but the context clearly speaks of more than one? This is the info needed to be sure about 17:12. I don't know enough about the Greek language rules to make this call, do you? I briefly searched through about 4 similarly worded scriptures and came up with plural pronouns for more than one person. And I don't want to take time out right now to do a more involved search because I'm already behind in my correspondence here.
I will say this: If you and the NASB are correct, then there are A LOT of scholars who are incorrect.
Apostolic Bible Polyglot
When I was with them in the world, I kept them in your name; whom you have given to me I guarded……………From Barnes:
Those that thou gavest me … – The word “gavest” is evidently used by the Saviour to denote not only to give to him to be his real followers, but also as apostles.From Gill:
I kept them in thy name; by his Father's authority and power, in his doctrine:those that thou gavest me I have kept; that is, those that were given him to be his apostles;
From Wesley:
17:12 Those whom thou hast given me I have guarded,From Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
12. I kept-guarded.them in thy name-acting as Thy Representative on earth.
none of them is lost, but the son of perdition-It is not implied here that the son of perdition was one of those whom the Father had given to the Son, but rather the contrary…..
Not one of these guys ever considered it to be a NAME that was given to Jesus.
peace,
mikeQuote (Pastry @ Aug. 16 2011,17:30) Mike! Jesus name never was Jehovah…. that is His Fathers name alone…… always was and will be….
Yes Irene,I am well aware of that. But thank you.
Hi Kathi,
I don't know if you ever answered this question:
If the Unity of the Father and Son is “Jehovah”, and we know the Son has the PERSONAL NAME of “Jesus”, what is the Father's PERSONAL NAME?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 16 2011,18:16) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 15 2011,21:36) Mike,
He likely got that name when He was begotten before creation. Not being given a name does not mean one does not exist.
Perhaps not Kathi,But it DOES mean that “Jehovah” didn't ALWAYS consist of both the Father AND the Son, right? Because at one time, the Son apparently did not have the name “Jehovah”, right?
Mike,
Jehovah was always the Father with the Son, whether within or alongside.Kathi
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 16 2011,18:42) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 15 2011,22:03) Mike,
I analyzed the Greek of John 17:12 which says this:
“While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled.The pronoun 'which' is written in the singular neuter form and refers to the 'name' which is also singular and neuter. The 'them' is plural and masculine so it definitely is the 'name' of His Father that was given Him in this verse and not referring to the 'them' as to what was given to Him.
see here: http://interlinearbible.org/john/17-12.htm
NASB is right again, NKJV wrong again.
Kathi
Hi Kathi,Well, what we need to know is if there was any time in the scriptures where more than one person was ever referred to with a singular pronoun.
Isn't that a riot, girl?
You've bent over backwards trying to “teach” us that it's no big deal to refer to more than one person using a SINGULAR pronoun……………and now that's come back to bite you in the butt! I'm sorry, but that's just TOO funny for me!Your whole point here is that since the SINGULAR pronoun was used, Jesus couldn't have possibly been referring to the MORE THAN ONE PERSON he had previously mentioned.
Can anyone say, “IRONIC”?
Seriously though, do you know for a fact that there weren't any times in the Greek scriptures where the pronoun was written in the singular form, but the context clearly speaks of more than one? This is the info needed to be sure about 17:12. I don't know enough about the Greek language rules to make this call, do you? I briefly searched through about 4 similarly worded scriptures and came up with plural pronouns for more than one person. And I don't want to take time out right now to do a more involved search because I'm already behind in my correspondence here.
I will say this: If you and the NASB are correct, then there are A LOT of scholars who are incorrect.
Apostolic Bible Polyglot
When I was with them in the world, I kept them in your name; whom you have given to me I guarded……………From Barnes:
Those that thou gavest me … – The word “gavest” is evidently used by the Saviour to denote not only to give to him to be his real followers, but also as apostles.From Gill:
I kept them in thy name; by his Father's authority and power, in his doctrine:those that thou gavest me I have kept; that is, those that were given him to be his apostles;
From Wesley:
17:12 Those whom thou hast given me I have guarded,From Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
12. I kept-guarded.them in thy name-acting as Thy Representative on earth.
none of them is lost, but the son of perdition-It is not implied here that the son of perdition was one of those whom the Father had given to the Son, but rather the contrary…..
Not one of these guys ever considered it to be a NAME that was given to Jesus.
peace,
mike
Mike,
This evidence that the pronoun is referring to the name is not just about it being singular, but singular AND neuter.Kathi
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 18 2011,12:17) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 16 2011,18:16) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 15 2011,21:36) Mike,
He likely got that name when He was begotten before creation. Not being given a name does not mean one does not exist.
Perhaps not Kathi,But it DOES mean that “Jehovah” didn't ALWAYS consist of both the Father AND the Son, right? Because at one time, the Son apparently did not have the name “Jehovah”, right?
Mike,
Jehovah was always the Father with the Son, whether within or alongside.Kathi
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 16 2011,18:48) Hi Kathi, I don't know if you ever answered this question:
If the Unity of the Father and Son is “Jehovah”, and we know the Son has the PERSONAL NAME of “Jesus”, what is the Father's PERSONAL NAME?
They have many names…Jehovah is common to both of them. Like the word 'church' again…there is one church, yet there is the Church of Ephesus and the Church of Smyrna, etc.The mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand and of the seven golden lampstands is this: The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.
1 Corinth 12:27 Now you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it. 28And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues.
Jehovah as the name of the unity
Church as the name of the unity
Jehovah as the Father
Jehovah as the Son
Church of Ephesus
Church of SmyrnaThe church is also one in this way as the Father and Son are one. The name is not only for the unity but for that which make up the unity.
Kathi
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Aug. 17 2011,06:13) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 15 2011,13:22) Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 14 2011,20:18) Hi Jack, Here are three occurrences of virtually the same wording from Titus, I assume
that you believe the first two occurrences mentioned are God (YHVH) and Jesus.
Yet (virtually), the same wording in the third occurrence (according to Jack-a-roo)
is now asserted to be only Jesus; can you explain how you account for this shift?Paul, a servant of God, AND an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith
of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness; (Titus 1:1)To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace,
from God the Father AND the Lord Jesus Christ our Savior. (Titus 1:4)Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing
of the great God AND our Savior Jesus Christ; (Titus 2:13)God bless
Ed J
Good post Ed.I wonder if Jack will answer it this time.
It's already been covered in the op to this thread. I will reproduce the op for those who lack memory or comprehension skills.Heaven Net friends,
Titus 2:13 is a direct assertion that Jesus Christ is God,Quote Looking for that blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ Note this grammatical rule right from the textbook,
Quote If two substantives are connected by kai and both have the article, they refer to two different persons or things; if the first has the article and the second does not, the second refers to the same person (Syntax of the New Testament Greek, University Press of America, p.76). The textbook gives Titus 2:13 as an example of this rule,
προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
I put the article which comes before “great God” in bold for you. And I also put the Greek “kai” in bold. There is no article before “Savior”. This means that the substantatives “great God” and “Savior” (Jesus Christ) are ONE AND THE SAME.
This is right from the textbook!
Yet the New World translation inserts a second definite article before the word “Savior” to make a distinction between God and Savior.
Quote While we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of [the] Savior of us, Christ Jesus There is no second definite article before “Savior”. The NWT translators inserted the second article in brackets thus exposing their true agenda.
KJ
Hi Jack,Are you asserting that the “AKJV Bible” (according to Jack) got it wrong as well?
God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Lightenup @ Aug. 17 2011,12:17) Mike,
Jehovah was always the Father with the Son, whether within or alongside.Kathi
Then why did the Son have to be GIVEN the name “Jehovah”? Wouldn't he have already had that name from eternity if he always WAS Jehovah from eternity?Another chink in the armor, Kathi?
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 17 2011,12:20) Mike,
This evidence that the pronoun is referring to the name is not just about it being singular, but singular AND neuter.
That's it? That's all you have to say to the scholarly evidence – including your buddy Gill?Kathi, that post was the most fun I've ever had writing a post on HN!
This is my paraphrased version of what you said: The pronoun is SINGULAR, so therefore must refer to something SINGULAR……………………but only when it suits my doctrine!
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 17 2011,12:39) They have many names…Jehovah is common to both of them.
Okay. But Jesus has a PERSONAL name that is NOT common to both of them. Why doesn't the Father?Just like the common name “church”. But Smyrna has its own PERSONAL name and so does Ephesus, right? Why is it that only the Father is lacking a PERSONAL name that is NOT common to both of them?
The chinks have been showing for months, Kathi. You just refuse to admit they exist.
Mike wrote:
Quote Just like the common name “church”. But Smyrna has its own PERSONAL name and so does Ephesus, right? Why is it that only the Father is lacking a PERSONAL name that is NOT common to both of them?
Because the Father did not enter into human history and act. He had no personal involvement but did all things through His representative equal.KJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 18 2011,11:21) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 17 2011,12:39) They have many names…Jehovah is common to both of them.
Okay. But Jesus has a PERSONAL name that is NOT common to both of them. Why doesn't the Father?Just like the common name “church”. But Smyrna has its own PERSONAL name and so does Ephesus, right? Why is it that only the Father is lacking a PERSONAL name that is NOT common to both of them?
The chinks have been showing for months, Kathi. You just refuse to admit they exist.
MIke………Jesus and Joshua are the exact same Name , so are we to believe the same thing for Joshua the Son of Nun ?.peace and love………………………..gene
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
