- This topic is empty.
- Posts
JA
here is one of my reply you do not read;2Ti 3:1 But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days.
2Ti 3:2 People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy,
2Ti 3:3 without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good,
2Ti 3:4 treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God—
2Ti 3:5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them.
2Ti 3:6 They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over weak-willed women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires,
2Ti 3:7 always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth.
2Ti 3:8 Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these men oppose the truth—men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected.i would like to ask you a question here it is;;1Co 15:28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
what is Christ now,beside being the priest forever.???
Pierre
Hi Shimmer,
Funny, yes, I can be.'Firstborn over all creation', now what does really mean, and to what period of time is it directed at: When 'Jesus' came into being, or, after he was raised up?
'Firstborn over All creation'
'Firstborn of All Creation''First [re]born [from the dead] over all [human] creation [of God]'?
The first and the preeminent Son of God, first born in the spirit from one of mankind. Preeminent over all of mankind and the Angels.Mike doesn't seem to be putting up much of a defence…just keeps harping on about being insulted…a pointless distraction for one who makes such bold claims that i am wrong.
He will eventually go away, slip and slide, in a sidewinder fashion, under a rock until it is safe to come out again…when he thinks everyone has forgotten his disasterous error.
Mind you, before he does that he will agree with you more and more, little by little, until he says he was ALWAYS saying that which we telling him now and he's saying 'not'.
This is the sneaky Mikeboll 'I'll agree with you if…'. He'll never say, 'I was wrong'…just subtly agree and incorporate his new realisation in his next debacle as if it was what he was always saying.
But JA, i'm trying to figure this out, which Mike asked
Quote 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. Now if the first “all” in this scripture means “ALL”, like we know it does, for “ALL” things came from God, then the second mention of “all” must also mean “ALL”, for the same “all” is spoken of both times.
And don't forget that John says “NOT ONE THING came into existence without him”. (John 1:3)
So what do you say Shimmer? Do you have any scriptural reason whatsoever to think the angels were not created through God's Son as the scriptures clearly tell us?
If ALL things were created through Jesus, would that also mean the Angels ? It would, wouldnt it ?
So JA, if that was true, that all things, including the Angels, were created through and for Him, then, Jesus could still have been an Angel, created by God, as Adam was created by God…the other Angels created after Him, as others were (procreated) after Adam…sort of thing ? Just my thoughts dont worry if they dont make sense at all.
Terra,
You doing the thing to me that others have accused you of…just posting scripture posts out of context.What you posting to me has nothing to do with what we discussing…this is three times now.
In fact, i have no idea what it is you are asking in context of the topic of this thread.
AJ
this are your words;Terra, what we primarily discussing is 'was Jesus Always Superior'…
Superior to whom?my answer was ;that since Christ is the firstborn of all creation this would mean;; God to Christ and trough (not from )the rest of all creation;
so since God created Christ first how was he made ? i do not know,what is his real nature be side being of spirit i do not know,but what we know ;is that he is the only one created or made or begotten ect,from God, now this alone would put Christ in a position above all others because he is first,elder,first born,first choice to pick,ect
so is glory would be to be the son of God,this is a honor received by birth.
the glory he received later is earned this is the big difference.and so became superior to all exept God who as given this superiority.this i told you in previous posts
Pierre
Shimmer,
Yes, if Jesus created the Angels…
But, in fact, there are no scripture verses that say that…Principalities… Mike is stressing to me saying it means 'Angels'. But yet Romans 8:38 clearly says, '…neither death, nor life, nor ANGELS…nor PRINCIPALITIES, nor POWERS, nor thing PRESENT (Seen), nor things to come (Unseen), …… nor any other created…'
So Mike can answer his own question he keeps popping away at. I notice he ignored the verse when I posted it to him while still claiming that I never answer him (How many others have accused of him of that in this forum, and how many times over and over again?)
Romans 8:29 also confirms that Jesus, emptied of his heavenly divine nature, became a man, a sinless man so that he might suffer like us, for us and be the lead, become the FIRSTBORN over many predestined brethren.
Shimmer, if these predestined brethren are to be like Christ, then Christ was originally, as man, like them but sinless.
Therefore, as God will make them 'Sons of God, in the Spirit, so Jesus was also made 'Son of God, in the Spirit'…as man, as they are men.Mike cannot, actually he can but knows that would mean 'defeat'(Acceptance of truth, Mike, is only Defeat to Sin), so he keeps the line of thought that there is only one interpretation of Son of God.
Even reading Scriptures where Angels are called 'Sons of God' and saying …admitting that Jesus was Angel, still doesn't convince him that:
'Angelic Son of God'
is not the same as:
'Human Son of God',
is not the same as:
'Man in Spirit Son of God'Terra,
Do not set me alongside Kerwin…else it really shows that you are not understanding who i am and what i believe.
Seeing that I only use Scripture to attest to my claims, seeing that i can display diagramatically what I believe, seeing that I have no major changed views, how do you see me differently from how i was before?
Who else can show, openly display their belief, end to end….Terra, show me…and align it with Scriptures…
Terra, it is easy to select a verse, a theme, a setting, and idea, and debate, discuss, argue it…in isolation and find text or verses to say what you want it to say….but it is a lot harder to take the whole and discuss the whole, reconciling all points with supporting Sriptures.
Can you do that?
Does Mikeboll do that?
Who does that, who else?
WJ and TT and the Trinitarians…did they do that…no, it was obvious that Trinity is false…and what do you see now..do you see Trinity being discussed…no, why? Why Terra.
I came on this site for that purpose. Trinity falseness was what brought me here, and who was king here? WJ…WJ was here how long, and swore to me, 'Trinity has been going for 2000 years and you have the audacity to come here and say you will tear it down?'
Terra, where is Trinity in HeavenNet today? Would Satan tear down his own chief false teaching?Terra,
How on earth do you read 'begotten' to mean 'when Jesus was created'.
Man, this is where you and Mike are going wrong.
All the cases of 'Begotten' are pertaining to his being adopted by God as 'Spirit Son from Flesh Son' at his rising from the dead.
Where are you reading that Jesus was 'begotten' as Angel? Meaning he was 'begotten as a created being'?
Check your understanding….check your real understanding.
You have built a picture, pictures, made them into a film, running it through your head… Tear it out, start again, use the new knowledge that is the revelations available to you today.Where does it say 'Begotten' in Scriptures…. Terra, don't read in isolation…link everything to everything where it can…and don't forcefit anything…if it doesn't fit neatly, securely, then leave it out…if you do a jigsaw puzzle, do you force pieces into place because you get frustrated not finding the right pieces? No…everyone finishes the puzzle sooner..or later…
Yes, pieces go missing, but are never lost…you just need to search harder to find them…and then there are 'added' false pieces to test whether you will force it to fit..yeah it looks similar, almost perfect…use it…no Terra, it's not the right piece.Terra, this 'Begotten' is one of the 'false pieces'.
John is writing about 'Begotten' as Jesus already risen, already in heaven, hence he says 'the Begotten Son', and the main clue is that he also says, 'the man who is in heaven'…this clearly shows that he is alluding to Jesus after he was risen.
And Terra, there is still the question of, 'if Lucifer was an inconsequential creation, and had no part in the creation process, how , oh, how, did he ever come to believe that he should be Worshipped by the creation?
Terra, answer this question, if nothing else.
Satan allowed sin to grow in him…for what purpose? For something he did not do? Because Jesus did it all, Jesus created EVERYTHING and no one else?Terra, how does someone who did nothing…claim the highest glory of all, that God Almighty, alone, is worthy of?
Terra, even Jesus did not claim worship, and you say he created all.
Terra, focus on this…what is a criteria for claiming a prize, in fact, the first prize?
Is it not he who wins the race? Does the best? Is SENIOR in RANK when the war is won?So, Lucifer felt that 'as Senior' he too deserved the glory that was worthy only to his God (to Mike…theory…)
And Jesus, modest, righteous, compliant, a quiet force in complete unity with the word of his God, the other Angels were lacklustre in their performance in comparison.How could Lucifer perform such powerful acts unless he was at least as powerful as 'Jesus', even given his own Kingdom BEFORE Jesus, hence he could offer it to Jesus…
Terra, please, gather the evidence.
Terra, you say, Mike says, many say, 'Satan did this, Satan did that, Sata…Satan, Satan…'
Terra, who is Satan? 'Satan' is not a name, it is Title.
Terra, 'Son of Man' is a Title.
Terra, 'Satan' was not [a] Satan when he was created but became 'a Satan' when sin was found in him.
Terra, Jesus was not 'THE Begotten Son of God' when he was created but when he was 'raised up' by God.
Terra, you say 'Satan' of whom was not 'Satan', you call him Satan even before he was Satan…
Terra, John used 'Begotten' of Jesus Christ in his writing even before Jesus was Begotten.
Terra, how is it you accept, think nothing of 'Satan', knowing the difference between the Angel who BECAME Satan and the one who was Satan afterwards, but you can't accept that there was one who was not begotten before he became begotten?
Terra, how is it you are so easily confused?
Quote (shimmer @ Nov. 11 2010,05:57) But JA, i'm trying to figure this out, which Mike asked Quote 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. Now if the first “all” in this scripture means “ALL”, like we know it does, for “ALL” things came from God, then the second mention of “all” must also mean “ALL”, for the same “all” is spoken of both times.
And don't forget that John says “NOT ONE THING came into existence without him”. (John 1:3)
So what do you say Shimmer? Do you have any scriptural reason whatsoever to think the angels were not created through God's Son as the scriptures clearly tell us?
If ALL things were created through Jesus, would that also mean the Angels ? It would, wouldnt it ?
Ahhhhhh! There IS light at the end of the tunnel!
But it's not “what Mike said”, Shimmer…….it's what THE SCRIPTURES say.And how did JA answer the very clear scriptures that you asked about?
Quote Shimmer,
Yes, if Jesus created the Angels…
But, in fact, there are no scripture verses that say that…
Now you get to see first hand what I go through. You post the actual scripture, and STILL he says there's no scripture.
JA claims that the “principalities” are not living beings in Col 1:16. Yet when Paul mentions them in Eph 6:12, it is very clear that they are. But he refuses to simply tell me whether or not he agrees that they are in Eph……..because he knows what question is next. So he'll keep spouting useless stuff mixed in with many insults about me………..BUT HE DOESN'T ACTUALLY ANSWER TO THE SCRIPTURES THAT PROVE HIM WRONG.
Btw, the word translated as “prinipalities” is the Greek word “arche”, which depending on the context can either mean “ruler” or “beginning”. That's why we fight with the trinitarians about Rev 3:14. It says Jesus is the “arche” of the creation by God. I think it refers to the “beginning” of the creation by God, but it could just as easily mean the “ruler” of the creation by God.
But anyway, if we use the word “ruler”, which we all understand better than “principality”, in Col 1:16, then it is like the NIV, NASB, NRSV, etc. translate it:
NIV Col 1:16
For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.Now this is closer to the language we use today Shimmer. Is their any doubt that these invisible “RULERS, POWERS, AND AUTHORITIES” in heaven are angels? And these were created through Jesus.
JA thinks he is proving something with Romans 8:38, but here's how the NIV translates it:
38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons,[k] neither the present nor the future, nor any powers,
The footnote “K” says: Or nor heavenly rulers
The NETBible also uses “heavenly rulers” with this explanation:
Rom 8:38
BDAG 138 s.v. ἀρχή 6 takes this term as a reference to angelic or transcendent powers (as opposed to merely human rulers). To clarify this, the adjective “heavenly” has been supplied in the translation. Some interpreters see this as a reference to fallen angels or demonic powers, and this view is reflected in some recent translations (NIV, NLT).Now before JA starts crying about using NETNotes, let me point out again that the word used is “arche”. And since it can't logically mean “beginning” in this context, it MUST mean “rulers”. Whether they are heavenly rulers or earthly rulers or demons is up for debate. But his scripture does nothing to “erase” what Col 1:16, 1 Cor 8:6 and John 1:3 clearly tell us.
I have avoided answering his points for two reasons. First, because they are really “non-points” that do nothing to change the meaning of the very clearly written words in Col 1:16…….and second, because he stubbornly refuses to answer my ONE question I've been asking for a week.
Shimmer, you are on the scriptural track with 1 Cor 8:6. You see it clearly in your head and your heart. But JA has been a mentor to you, and I understand you want his input first, to see if maybe you're missing something – because you know he disagrees with it.
So okay. You've asked him about it. He has blown off your question with a flippant denial that there are any scriptures that say the angels were created through Jesus – even as the one you asked him about stares him directly in the face.
The last thing I am trying to do is drive a wedge between you and your friend, but there comes a time when you have to choose scriptural truth over the friend who is teaching in opposition to it.
Shimmer, go to NETNotes. Read the definiton of the Greek word “arche” for yourself. Verify for yourself that it means “ruler” in Col 1:16. And then ask yourself if the heavenly “rulers” who were created through Jesus are living beings………….or “inanimate objects” as JA claims.
Then finally, and above all, make sure you choose scriptural truth over the words of a man.
About begotten: I want to get to Acts and Hebrews 1 and 5 with you, but I'm still unclear what you believe. It has to be one of these three, I think:
1. Jesus became the only begotten Son of God before the worlds as the only being directly brought forth from God……then everything else was created through him.
2. Jesus became the only begotten Son of God when God impregnated Mary by means of His Holy Spirit.
3. Jesus became the only begotten Son of God when he received that “title” after he was raised from the dead.
I strongly believe the first one. Which of the second two are you saying you believe? It can't be both.
peace and love,
mikeTerra,
John 1:18…. What is John saying here?
Is he not, again, pointing to the RISEN Christ in present tense.
“…the only begotten who IS AT the father's side…'Terra, is that not 'present tense'?
Is John not saying, 'He who is now begotten and now sitting at the father's side'?Keep reading 'John' with this 'present tense' in mind…
Mikeboll,
You really made me laugh tonight…
So Jesus created Rulers of Angelic Spirits.
You twist and turn until you slither a way out, claiming now that words don't mean what they mean but what you mean (the Queen in Alice in Wonderland)
Which Ruler Angels are there?
Were they sinful Ruler Angels when they were created?
Where are these Ruler Angels ruling?
What are they ruling?
Who are they?Why did you change 'Principalities' to Rulers,
when the verse mentions BOTH 'Principalities' AND 'Rulers'?Quote (JustAskin @ Nov. 11 2010,16:48) Terra, Do not set me alongside Kerwin…else it really shows that you are not understanding who i am and what i believe.
Seeing that I only use Scripture to attest to my claims, seeing that i can display diagramatically what I believe, seeing that I have no major changed views, how do you see me differently from how i was before?
Who else can show, openly display their belief, end to end….Terra, show me…and align it with Scriptures…
;.
Can you do that?
Does Mikeboll do that?
Who does that, who else?
WJ and TT and the Trinitarians…did they do that…no, it was obvious that Trinity is false…and what do you see now..do you see Trinity being discussed…no, why? Why Terra.
I came on this site for that purpose. Trinity falseness was what brought me here, and who was king here? WJ…WJ was here how long, and swore to me, 'Trinity has been going for 2000 years and you have the audacity to come here and say you will tear it down?'
Terra, where is Trinity in HeavenNet today? Would Satan tear down his own chief false teaching?
JUSTASKINyou have now created by your own ways and slander me with all kind of wrong doing ,things i have not said or not debate,
but you who debate all things that comes to nothing beside words,if i did tell lies and make scriptures lie please you have 5000,quotes show me what i have said wrong in scriptures.
you like to go all over ;Terra, it is easy to select a verse, a theme, a setting, and idea, and debate, discuss, argue it…in isolation and find text or verses to say what you want it to say….but it is a lot harder to take the whole and discuss the whole, reconciling all points with supporting Scriptures
the reasons i do not do this is that it is useless because we never see the entire quote any way,and so forget most of it ,
but it is the intention of the one that quotes not to be clear in is questions or what he want to say,or describe,
you know love is a two way street and meet in the center,the only difference between a loving couple is that one has loved first.
of cause you now wander why do i say this ,??
well it is for the same reason that the scriptures says that God loved us first,and we should act the same way,now why would i continue to discus things were we have to fight our understanding,this i will not do,
so this is the end for us my friend.
i am well versed in the scriptures and there is no need for showing of what you can or can not do this is called ego,
not for me.thank you.Pierre
Quote (JustAskin @ Nov. 11 2010,18:11) Terra, John 1:18…. What is John saying here?
Is he not, again, pointing to the RISEN Christ in present tense.
“…the only begotten who IS AT the father's side…'Terra, is that not 'present tense'?
Is John not saying, 'He who is now begotten and now sitting at the father's side'?Keep reading 'John' with this 'present tense' in mind…
JA
i have answered you but it seems you do not understand what i mean ,what say,what the scriptures are saying;YOU ARE STUCK ON ONE WORD=====BEGOTTEN ,I AM NOT READ IT AGAIN,but what we know ;is that he is the only one created or made or begotten ect,from God, now this alone would put Christ in a position above all others because he is first,elder,first born,first choice to pick,ect
so is glory would be to be the son of God,this is a honor received by birth.
the glory he received later is earned this is the big difference.and so became superior to all exept God who as given this superioritymany scriptures says that Christ was preexisting,do you want me to quote them all ,of cause not ,i think you know that much at the least that is what you have shown me so i take that in account with my answers i give you,or would you like some milk.with it all the time?
Pierre
Quote (JustAskin @ Nov. 11 2010,10:49) All the cases of 'Begotten' are pertaining to his being adopted by God as 'Spirit Son from Flesh Son' at his rising from the dead.
And this is where YOU are just reading stuff into the text to support your own belief.Tell me JA, why would someone read, “Jesus was begotten” and NOT think it meant the same kind of “begotten” as when Adam beget Cain? Do you understand what I'm saying? The word says “begotten”. What would make anyone assume it was used metaphorically in the first place? The same goes with “firstborn of every creature”.
Pierre and I are reading the words and accepting them as they are written, especially when there are many scriptures that support our literal understanding of the words.
Do you notice that you are doing what the trinitarians do here? For their OWN man-made reasons, they must “invent” claims that these words were only metaphorical, or that they didnt' really mean what they clearly and plainly state. You do the exact same thing, but for a different man-made reason.
You think I'm “scared” to debate YOU?
I'll happily debate you – aren't you the one who calls me the un-Christian-like name “Master deBator”? I'll debate anyone. I enjoy the challenge and the learning that goes along with each debate.
If you're not too scared to do it, let's go. I have only ONE rule. Each post can contain as many words about as many things as the posters wants………BUT………the poster may ask ONE question only that the responder MUST answer DIRECTLY. This particular question will be bolded. Once answered, the responder can then post whatever he wants, and can ask one question that MUST BE DIRECTLY ANSWERED by the other. And so on, and so on. If you refuse to directly answer the question asked, you forfeit the debate.
I will invite Pierre to act as judge…………but to say NOTHING unless one of us asks him to make a ruling about whether a question was answered sufficiently or not. If he rules it was not, the one who failed must attempt to answer it more DIRECTLY, and continue to do so until Pierre is satisfied that it has been sufficiently, COMPLETELY, and honestly answered.
Get it? One post, one “must answer” question. The opponent's post MUST contain the DIRECT answer to the bolded question asked, and MUST contain a question of his own. Other than that, each poster can fill their posts with as much info or nonsense as they wish to.
Are you in? Let me know.
mike
JA:
Quote Why did you change 'Principalities' to Rulers, when the verse mentions BOTH 'Principalities' AND 'Rulers'? To which verse do you refer?
If you refer to Col 1:16, the Greek words included are:
1. Thronos, which means: 1) a throne seat
1a) a chair of state having a footstool
1b) assigned in the NT to kings, hence, kingly power or royalty
1b1) metaph. to God, the governor of the world
1b2) to the Messiah, Christ, the partner and assistant in the divine administration
1b2a) hence divine power belonging to Christ
1b3) to judges i.e. tribunal or bench
1b4) to elders2. Kuriotes, which means:
1) dominion, power, lordship
2) in the NT: one who possesses dominion3. Arche, which means:
1) beginning, origin
2) the person or thing that commences, the first person or thing in a series, the leader
3) that by which anything begins to be, the origin, the active cause
4) the extremity of a thing
4a) of the corners of a sail
5) the first place, principality, rule, magistracy
5a) of angels and demons4. Exousia, which means:
1) power of choice, liberty of doing as one pleases
1a) leave or permission
2) physical and mental power
2a) the ability or strength with which one is endued, which he either possesses or exercises
3) the power of authority (influence) and of right (privilege) 4) the power of rule or government (the power of him whose will and commands must be submitted to by others and obeyed)
4a) universally
4a1) authority over mankind
4b) specifically
4b1) the power of judicial decisions
4b2) of authority to manage domestic affairs
4c) metonymically
4c1) a thing subject to authority or rule
4c1a) jurisdiction
4c2) one who possesses authority
4c2a) a ruler, a human magistrate
4c2b) the leading and more powerful among created beings superior to man, spiritual potentates
4d) a sign of the husband's authority over his wife
4d1) the veil with which propriety required a women to cover herself
4e) the sign of regal authority, a crownBoy, don't you just love NETNotes?
And yes JA, it says that Jesus created the invisible heavenly rulers of angels like Michael and Satan as well as the angels they rule over.
mike
Mike 'master debator'…
Well, you said it…That's the problem Mike, you li,e tge debate, not the truth….the end of a debate scares you so you can never finish, never end.
“So, it is the [debate] you like. We are all ready to [debate]. It is the [ending of the debate] that you must prepare for!” (Paraphrase from 'Enter the Dragon')
And you are Scared…that is obvious…you refuse to check out truth by revelation because it would mean admitting you were wrong all this time…sad, so sad… I told you from the beginning, when you were 'debating' with TT that he was right and you were wrong, i told you in private even from then but you insisted on maintaining your position, your view…because you were going to trounce your adversary…Mike, i warned you, asked you, begged you, but you thought, 'i'm nearly there, nearly there, just a few more…'..balooom!!!,,,,(Red leader, Star Wars)
You maintained your view because you got drawn in by one of the oldest tricks: being unwilling to see truth in your adversary…only because he is your adversary…sad, so sad…a lesson for you to 'still' learn, my man.
“Hey, don't step there, I planted a landmine is under there”
“Ha, think you can fool me, eh?, You are my enemy, if you tell me to step here, i don't…if you tell me NOT to step there, then I step there…cos you my ene…” …kabloom….!!!!Mike, you won't gain your sought after position with your 'debacle pride in debating'. Debating is for saps who can't discuss honestly. Debates are for people who like arguing and want to give it an acceptable name…Douglas Adams wrote the part of the Mice in 'Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy' to become Chat Show hosts debating 'Life, the Universe and Everything', or was it just the answer to that question? Never the less, what was their desire, 'To be on the Gravy Train for life', disputing and refuting against each other with no intention of concorde.
Yes, Mike, this is your idea of godly worthyness.The deeds of Christ are preached, not of his being foremost from preexistence, but from from being foremost from raising up from the dead, 'first born Son over creation …of mankind…in his father's kingdom' with others of mankind to follow in his lead.
For, what purpose or value is it, that we should know that he is 'firstborn' of the angelic spirits? For, it is not by his angelic spirit that we are saved but by his being in the form of man, suffering with us, as one of us, showing us the way, and dying for us, raised up again and seated at the right hand of God his father.
Romans 8:38… '…nor ANGELS nor PRINCIPALITIES…nor POWERS…'.
'Sons of God', Romans 8:13-15, 'For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God [As Jesus was], these are sons of God'…'for you received the Spirit of Adoption by whom we cry out, 'Abba, Father'.'
ROMANS 8:29, 'for whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be CONFORMED to the IMAGE of His Son, that he MIGHT BE the FIRSTBORN amongst many brethren.'
Here, Rom 8:29, we see Jesus becoming the 'Firstborn', not from 'antiquity', nor, everlasting, nor before all the creations of God but then, after he was raised up, an example, the perfected example, for those who were/are to follow.
The 'begotten Son' is the Son raised up from sinless man in the Flesh to perfected sinless man in the Spirit, just as those to follow will be raised up from sinful man in the flesh to perfected sinless man in the Spirit
JA:
Quote Debating is for saps who can't discuss honestly. Debates are for people who like arguing and want to give it an acceptable name
What?!? Weren't YOU the one taunting ME about a debate? Aren't YOU the one still calling me “scared”? Put your money where your mouth is JA. And you are the most argumentative poster on this site. Many others here disagree about things, but only you (since KJ left) must turn most of your posts into a very personal verbal fistfight. And where has it gotten you? I keep asking questions about scripture WHILE answering yours, and you keep slinging mud. Do you think all of us here are so blind that we can't see through the “insult charade”? Do you think we don't know that you CAN'T answer the question so you have no choice but to try to divert people's attention from the question by posting witty insults and belittlements? We all know JA.
And what else has this “bullying” got you? Well, it has gotten Shimmer to laugh along with you. You slam me, she says “Ha ha, you're funny JA”. Hmmmmmm…….what does scripture say?
Matthew 18:6 NIV
“If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.Not only do you cause her to stumble because of your words of Satan disguised as humor, but you further cause her to stumble when she has come to grips with 1 Cor 8:6 and you try to steer her away from the meaning of scripture.
And are you ever going to answer the question JA? In Eph 6:12, are the “principalities/rulers/whatever” that we struggle against living beings or inanimate objects?
It seems a fairly simple question. Why won't you answer it?
Listen JA, you need to either agree to the debate overseen by Pierre, answer the question I've been asking, or leave me alone. You haven't posted one single thing that isn't easily answered by scripture. But I refuse to keep answering your points while you ignore mine.
mike
Mikeboll64,
ANGELS DO NOT RULE OVER MANKIND.
Angels are messengers of God…worshippers of God, workers for God.
What RULERSHIP do angels have.
What RULERSHIP did Jesus have?
Did Jesus RULE over anything before he came as Man?
Satan, Lucifer, was 'given' the rulership of the earth when he chalkenged God….who was the Ruler of the earth before that.
And NetBible…Mike, find a 'EtherShredder' for it, it is leading you astray. In fact, you are reading more from it than you read from Scriptures, bad move, my man, bad move…
The fact that you even going to 'WIKEDPedia' shows how desparate you are.
I have not strayed ine step from Scripture and yet i can find all i need (Because the Holy Spirit is my Dictionary, my Guide, my Reminder)Even if I look something up, it is from Scriptures that i relate it at the last.
Now, Mike, you showed a list of words stating rank order of Angels, with Rulers, principalities, powers, etc, being Seraphims, Cherubims, ….dah..dih..dah..
But in Colossians 2:15, it says that Jesus 'Disarmed Principlalities and Powers and made a public spectacle of them, triumphing overthem in it'So, this means that, despite Jesus being their creator, we once again see him being compared to them, such that he is said to have ltriumphed over them'…but if he created them, he is greater than them anyway…what triumph is there in beating your baby child, your own creation, even 'made through him' he knows them because he created them. They don't know him (full ability) because they were made under him, no one makes someone or something equal or greater than themselves…
God, in perfection did not make Jesus equal or greater than himself, and God is wise. Why would Jesus do so if he does what his father does. Even mankind does not (read: Cannot) do that….please don't talk about human children, that is 'procreation', not 'creation', learn the difference…Hebrews 2:14 shows Jesus to be battling and destroying the one who has the 'power' of death, the devil.
When and from where did 'the devil' get the 'power' of death. Oh, yes, Jesus created the devil…that one didn't 'become' the devil tnrough fostering sin…no, Jesus created him, and Hitler, and the slave traders and the Abomination, the Romans, and The Trinity, yes, these are all 'Powers' and Jesus created them.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
