Was jesus always superior

[terraricca]

JA

is not Christ “the word” the one trough witch all things are and have been created,like i have said before does not mean that no others were used,

it would be insane to me ,to think that God would only create standby ,not so i believe has things were created trough Christ,and they were used according to there usefulness in creation,and so be part taking in the work of God trough Christ,

it is so in the gospel as well ,as one become mature he is used to help others and so on.

God creation is a never ending work,just stalled until all things are back under Gods rule.

Pierre

[JustAskin]

Terra, brother,

I can't say I completely understand what you just wrote but I do believe that God created the 'everything' through Jesus.

I have illustrated this many times.

Do i need to express it everytime it is mentioned? Do posters here not know my views? How many times have i illustrated my belief in words and diagrams.

I am the only one who has done so in 'long hand' for i am not 'afraid' to do so.

I asked others to do so but they outrightly refuse…why?

Scriptures clearly states that 'all things' came through Jesus…it is the refinement that is causing division.

What exactly is 'ALL Things'?

Look, look, look at the verse. What 'Things' are mentioned.

The things mentioned are not 'Sentient beings', they are all 'Inanimate', 'THINGS'..'Powers', 'Authorities', 'Principalities'…where is there mention of any 'Animate object', 'Spirits without Flesh', 'Flesh with Spirit'…where…No where….

Because LIFE is from God and God alone.

Jesus can 'build the house' but the LIFE in that house was not in Jesus' power, the Spirit of the being is from God.

Show me where Jesus says, 'I created you', never, because there is no such thing.

Further, does it take one person to build a mansion house, one person to make an epic film?

No. How many? Tens, Hundreds, Thousands.

But out of all of the tens, hundreds, thousands, how many, at the end, are mentioned in the presentation of the house or film? How many? Two…

What i am doing is bringing in the aspect of what part Lucifer played.

Certainly, the Angels were not passive bystanders, else why were they created?

Lucifer is described, viewed if nothing else, as a very powerful Angel, Cherub, an Anointed Cherub at that…does that mean nothing…please..don't dismiss such a blessing. Before Sin was found in him he was blessed by God. How is he described, 'Perfect'…and 'Glorious, arrayed in all the precious Jewels of the earth'.

In fact, so glorious and piwerful was he, so blessed was he, standing in the presence of God, so enarmoured was he by his power and authority, that he thought that he was worthy of obtaining the worship of mankind, the same as his God. And not only the thought, but he sought the act.

How can he have done so if he had not had an ability to do so.

Mike frivolously throws in, 'we can all challenge God'. Mike, don't make me laugh more than you already do..yeah, we can all 'try'…that's not the same as actually MOVING God to say, 'Go ahead', foolishness is the basis if that jibe!!!

And further more…Lucifer did not challenge Jesus, did he…why??

Surely, if he wasn't as powerful as Jesus, he would have had to challenge Jesus first…
If he was created by Jesus …. He would have to challenge his creator…

Please people, for this reason and others, i ask you to sketch out what you trying to say, end to end…not just take bitty bits at a time….
Doing the bitty thing you will agree or disagree with individual bitty text with indifference to what you disagreed or agreed with elsewhere….

Mike refuses to sketch out, preferring to argue bitty bit so he can wriggle out if he is shown to be wrong.

JustAskin lays his belief open end to end for all to see. JustAskin does not hide behind bitty… Caution, yes, for noone holds all Scriptural knowledge.

[shimmer]

Good posts JA,

Mike, dont you find this less confusing than what others all say ?

[terraricca]

Quote (JustAskin @ Nov. 06 2010,12:52)

Terra, brother, I can't say I completely understand what you just wrote but I do believe that God created the 'everything' through Jesus. I have illustrated this many times. Do i need to express it everytime it is mentioned? Do posters here not know my views? How many times have i illustrated my belief in words and diagrams. I am the only one who has done so in 'long hand' for i am not 'afraid' to do so. I asked others to do so but they outrightly refuse…why? Scriptures clearly states that 'all things' came through Jesus…it is the refinement that is causing division. What exactly is 'ALL Things'? Look, look, look at the verse. What 'Things' are mentioned. The things mentioned are not 'Sentient beings', they are all 'Inanimate', 'THINGS'..'Powers', 'Authorities', 'Principalities'…where is there mention of any 'Animate object', 'Spirits without Flesh', 'Flesh with Spirit'…where…No where…. Because LIFE is from God and God alone. Jesus can 'build the house' but the LIFE in that house was not in Jesus' power, the Spirit of the being is from God. Show me where Jesus says, 'I created you', never, because there is no such thing. Further, does it take one person to build a mansion house, one person to make an epic film? No. How many? Tens, Hundreds, Thousands. But out of all of the tens, hundreds, thousands, how many, at the end, are mentioned in the presentation of the house or film? How many? Two… What i am doing is bringing in the aspect of what part Lucifer played. Certainly, the Angels were not passive bystanders, else why were they created? Lucifer is described, viewed if nothing else, as a very powerful Angel,  Cherub, an Anointed Cherub at that…does that mean nothing…please..don't dismiss such a blessing. Before Sin was found in him he was blessed by God. How is he described, 'Perfect'…and 'Glorious, arrayed in all the precious Jewels of the earth'. In fact, so glorious and piwerful was he, so blessed was he, standing in the presence of God, so enarmoured was he by his power and authority, that he thought that he was worthy of obtaining the worship of mankind, the same as his God. And not only the thought, but he sought the act. How can he have done so if he had not had an ability to do so. Mike frivolously throws in, 'we can all challenge God'. Mike, don't make me laugh more than you already do..yeah, we can all 'try'…that's not the same as actually MOVING God to say, 'Go ahead', foolishness is the basis if that jibe!!! And further more…Lucifer did not challenge Jesus, did he…why?? Surely, if he wasn't as powerful as Jesus, he would have had to challenge Jesus first… If he was created by Jesus …. He would have to challenge his creator… Please people, for this reason and others, i ask you to sketch out what you trying to say, end to end…not just take bitty bits at a time…. Doing the bitty thing you will agree or disagree with individual bitty text with indifference to what you disagreed or agreed with elsewhere…. Mike refuses to sketch out, preferring to argue bitty bit so he can wriggle out if he is shown to be wrong. JustAskin lays his belief open end to end for all to see. JustAskin does not hide behind bitty… Caution, yes, for noone holds all Scriptural knowledge.

hi brother JA

good post ,yes what i have tried to explain is even God used Christ how i still do not know,but it looks like for some reason
all things were created seen and unseen ,powers ect;

you are saying they are all inanimate,this i do not agree with

for powers,authorities, are not inanimate unless they are no longer in existence,right ?because powers are coming and going,and one more thing in revelation NO ONE is denying that Christ is the one to go as the lamb of God and no one opposed wen he comes back after is sacrifice to take the seat at the right side of his father.is this not make him above all others??yes why can he be in that position unless he was the first born of all creation ,

I believe that all including all the angels were created trough Christ ,
but Christ wisdom is like David and king Saul,wen he became king,is attitude was full of respect of what god has put forth

and so not interfered with what is not is,and waited until God take action,

look what happen with Sara she did not believed the angel of God and this gives birth to Ismael,

so Jesus stay humble at all times,knowing that all is from God,this is not what Satan did,he became proud and self centered.and so fall,

i agree with you that no one can challenge God, only refuse to go along with him.within our own capability,Lucifer as a arch angel and men has men ,no more.

and if do so the end would be disastrous for that one doing it.this we all know.

Pierre

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ Nov. 05 2010,16:04)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 05 2010,12:57) I forgot one point JA. Why do you ASSUME the “all things invisible” in Col 1:16 excludes angels in the first place? mike Hi Mike, Why do you ASSUME (it was Jesus that made) the “all things invisible” in Col 1:16 but then exclude YHVH as part of “ALL”? If YHVH does not fall under the category of “things invisible”, then he would be non-existent; right? God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

Really Ed? Was JHVH “created”? That is a no-brainer IMO. The key words in both Col 1:16 and John 1:3 are “created” and “came into existence”. If God was neither “created” nor “came into existence”, then I don't think He is included in these scriptures, do you?

Now JA asked one that deserves at least “passing” consideration. He asked if JESUS was one of those “all things”. Well, of course Jesus is a “thing” just as we all are. A living being is a living “thing”. The fact that some living things are also persons doesn't change the fact that we are all “things”.

So, is Jesus a “thing”? Of course he is. Can he be one of the “all things” that were created THROUGH him? The answer seems a obvious to me. I can't see how someone can be created THROUGH himself. JA got upset about the NWT inserting the word [other], but I guess I can see why they did it. To me, it seems common sense that the scripture means “all [OTHER] things”, because Jesus cannot come into existence through himself. But apparently, not all of us see this as “common sense”, so I guess the NWT is justified for inserting the [other] for clarification.

Btw Ed, I don't claim that Jesus “made” anything. Everything came THROUGH him. That is what scriptures say. Speaking of which, we can also add 1 Cor 8:6 to the list:

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.

I suppose that's yet another “all things” that doesn't include the angels, huh?

peace and love,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (shimmer @ Nov. 06 2010,08:22)

Good posts JA, Mike, dont you find this less confusing than what others all say ?

Hi Shimmer,

You have applauded JA's last three posts.  Could you tell me exactly what parts are “good”?  Which claim has he made that is so logical and easy to understand that you applaud this quality?  And which scripture will YOU show that backs that claim?

I'm just curious, because to me it's just “the world according to JA”.  He posts like Keith and Kangaroo Jack.  He makes claims, but then when confronted with scriptures that refute those claims, instead of answering them, he just make more claims.  Or, he just makes claims that are not supported by any scripture at all.  

For example, “Satan was God's REAL firstborn son”.  Shimmer, do you believe this?  Why?  Can you show me supporting scriptures?

Another example, JA said:

Quote

The things mentioned are not 'Sentient beings', they are all 'Inanimate', 'THINGS'..'Powers', 'Authorities', 'Principalities'…where is there mention of any 'Animate object', 'Spirits without Flesh', 'Flesh with Spirit'…where…No where….

What is a “power” Shimmer?  How about an “authority”?  Here's the definition of “principalities”:

prin·ci·pal·i·ty   /ˌprɪnsəˈpælɪti/  Show Spelled
[prin-suh-pal-i-tee]

–noun, plural -ties.  
1. a state ruled by a prince, usually a relatively small state or a state that falls within a larger state such as an empire.
2. the position or authority of a prince or chief ruler; sovereignty; supreme power.
3. the rule of a prince of a small or subordinate state.
4. the Principality, British . Wales.
5. principalities, Theology .
a. an order of angels. Compare angel ( def. 1 ) .
b. supramundane powers often in conflict with god. Ephes. 6:12.

Do you see “angels” specifically mentioned in the definition?  These are one of the “all things” SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the Col 1:16………….yet JA says the “all things” doesn't include angels.  Hmmmm………..is that the part you give him kudos for?

Let's check out the scripture that Dictionary.com listed:

NKJV Eph 6:12
For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places .

“Principalities”, “powers”, “rulers/authorities/thrones/dominions”.  Aren't all three of these things specifically listed in Col 1:16 Shimmer?  Let's double check:

Colossians 1:16 (King James Version)

16For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Yep, they sure are.  Shimmer, why is it that you always show up supporting the one who is posting unscripturally?

That's just a couple of the claims he's made here Shimmer.  By the time we're done, you'll see the light about some of the others too.

peace and love,
mike

[mikeboll64]

JA:

Quote

NetBible…if, netBible were your God Bible, why do you struggle against JustAskin who uses nothing but the Scriptures.

That's not exactly accurate though, is it JA?  You use scriptures AND those of us who use NETBible and other sources.  That's why I suggested you just log on to it yourself instead of asking us questions that we easily answer by logging on to NETBible or some other source.

JA:

Quote

You posted a 'Mikeboll64' style, 'point by point' post which, history in this forum, has shown to fall into chaos, more often never getting past point 1,

I couldn't agree more.  I hate the long drawn out posts, but you were chirping to Shimmer about your points going unanswered, so I hit them all at once.

Let's avoid what we both know will “fall into chaos” and take it one point at a time.  That means you have to deal with ONE point instead of posting the entire version of “the world according to JA”.

Let's start with the “principality” point I just posted to Shimmer.  It seems Paul specifically spelled out “angels” as being included in the “all things” that were created through Jesus.  What do you say about ONLY that ONE point?

peace and love,
mike

[shimmer]

Mike. I was so lost in all the pre-existance thread opinions, including my ideas on sheppard of hermas, I give up on those now, my fault for reading everything I suppose. The reason is I came here and read, and something with what JA said made sense, I cant right now go through it all and say “this and this”, it just did, but ok Mike, I will keep reading, I do see both of you are closer to scripture.

[GeneBalthrop]

Mike………..Jesus Never created anything nor did he ANY Miracles. Your elevating Jesus to the position of Creator is as wrong as wrong can be it complete denies GODS word saying that He “ALONE and by HIMSELF” Created everything. Trying to say GOD did it through some one is Just not true , GOD was Present (IN) Jesus and HE did all the healing and Miracles , evidently you do not believe Jesus when he said the FATHER (IN) Me (HE) DOTH the WORKS. We could say the same thing about Moses and Ezekiel, and Elijah and so on. God did not create a thing (THROUGH) (a word that cane be taken so many different ways that is is pathetic at best) Jesus. GOD was not working through Jesus GOD was (IN) Jesus. Jesus never took credit for, ANY CREATION of ANY KIND, only trinitarians and preexistences who are the descendent's of the Gnostic's think that. This separation and attributing Creating to Jesus is simply not true at all.You fail to see Jesus as a Human being just like we are and therefore fail to give GOD all the Glory for his work in Humanity.

This preexistence teaching is just as bad as any trinitarian teaching it serves the same purpose to separate Jesus from our likeness it is the Spirit (intellect) of Antichrist John was talking about. IMO

peace and love……………………………..gene

[JustAskin]

Mike,

You are struggling. Bringing in definition, which is good, i applaude that, should be used more often, though, is your undoing here.

'Order of Angels', is Michael not the Captain of the Host of Angels? So Jesus created his brothers, the Princes, and Lucifer, the fallen Prince, and Gabriel?

Mike, go back to basics and restart, fresh mindset.

Also, the thread question, …always…clearly not so…but we've risen above that base (For he was made a little lower than the Angels…in the form of man for the suffering and overcoming so he could be an example to all).

Terra, you missed this also. We not really talking about his overcoming and adoption as Son of God, establishment as 'King' over his father's kingdom, that is merely peripheral.

Thus, the real ground basic question is 'Was Jesus Always Superior Before he came to be in the flesh'.

Mike, why do you bring in an out of place theory of mine…because you can't see anything other way of refuting what I write?

I was exploring that theory against 'Scriptural Fractals'. You bring it in here as if i was saying it was 'Factual Scriptural'.

Terra, you say you believe that Jesus created the Angels. Can you show me something to validate that claim?

Mike, what does Revelation say about adding or taking away words from the Scriptures…?

Shimmer, do not be dissuaded from truthful beliefs, 'test the Spirit', and if it be of God, stick to it like a good wife cleaves to her husband, this 'husband' being the word of truth.
The 'muscleman', or the 'moneyman' that your eyes see when you look away from your husband, his time is short…and where will you go when he is gone? Will your husband take you back, 'for it is [impossible] for one, once having tasted the good word and then left it, to come back to the good word' (Mike, you know this from the JW views on fallen members)

And Gene…i see no point to your posts here. This is clearly a thread discussing 'a preExistent theme' and there is no space for 'ought else'. Should Stuart come here and say 'there is no God', no angels, no spirits, it's all chance, random monkeytypewritertapping evolution. Mind you, you not too far off claiming your 'morphing' thing…no one ever claimed Jesus 'morphed' nor argued against it…because it is so ludicrous, and shows you have no idea of what a spiritual entity can do, restrained as you are by the confines of the flesh, even in your thoughts which should, like the spirit, be greater than the act of the flesh. You can jump off a bridge and land safely..in your thought…don't test it without caution in your flesh…expand the example…

[terraricca]

JA

you say;;Terra, you missed this also. We not really talking about his overcoming and adoption as Son of God, establishment as 'King' over his father's kingdom, that is merely peripheral.

Thus, the real ground basic question is 'Was Jesus Always Superior Before he came to be in the flesh'.

————————————————————————————–

you sure that it was i who mis the point??

my point was that it was imposible for anyone else to do what Christ did ,because he was the first in line to talk,
this eliminate the posibility for all others,and the only reason he had that authority was because he was the first born of all creation,his position was better than all others.

Mt 20:27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave—
Mt 20:28 just as the Son of Man

but everyone cannot be first it is only given according to the one to whom it is given.
the first ,first the second ect

Rev 5:2 And I saw a mighty angel proclaiming in a loud voice, “Who is worthy to break the seals and open the scroll?”
Rev 5:3 But no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth could open the scroll or even look inside it.
Rev 5:4 I wept and wept because no one was found who was worthy to open the scroll or look inside.
Rev 5:5 Then one of the elders said to me, “Do not weep! See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed. He is able to open the scroll and its seven seals.”
Rev 5:6 Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. He had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth.

Pierre

[mikeboll64]

Hi JA,

I agree with your response to Gene.  I was about to post something similar, but thought better about even wasting my time to do so.  Gene, this thread consists of a debate between people who DO believe Jesus pre-existed.  Your comments are better saved for the pre-existent thread, for I don't want this thread to become another pre-existent thread.

As far as what you posted to me JA, I thought we agreed no more “world according to JA” style posts.

Here's what's on your plate right now……please finish this before asking for something else.

Paul wrote:“For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.”

Do you think Paul is talking about “inanimate objects” in this scripture?

Paul aslo wrote:“For through him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created through him, and for him.”

If Paul is clearly NOT talking about “inanimate objects” in Ephesians, than what SCRIPTURAL reason do you have to claim that he is in Colossians?

The above bolded question is the ONLY question I'm asking of you JA.  Will you DIRECTLY answer it?

As far as Shimmer goes, I'm not trying to show her that my words are “greater” than yours JA.  I'm simply pointing out that what I claim aligns with scripture, while what you claim does not in this instance.

Shimmer, it is NOT the words of Mikeboll64, nor the words of JA that matter at all – but the words of God.  And what you are witnessing here is a case of someone who is usually in line with scriptures falling out of sync with them in order to further his own man-made doctrine that “All scriptures are Fractal”.  And just like others on this site, it is easy to recognize someone who is willing to rearrange or ignore scriptures in order to favor their own doctrine.  Just watch and see JA's response to my ONE question above.  Watch as the nonsensical words start to flow.  Watch as he tries to explain that “principalities” meant one thing in one scripture but something else in the other.  And pay close attention to the fact that he will base this claim – not on scripture itself – but on his own understanding that has been biased because of his insistence that all scriptures be fractal.

peace and love,
mike

[JustAskin]

Terra,

Do you read in the quote “[He] has triumphed”? This means AFTERWARDS… The thread topic is “Was he ALWAYS Superior”.

In effect, we can only talk about him Pre-Man, because we know he was not “superior” when he was man but “made a little lower than the angels”, then AFTERWARDS he was made Superior, so much more superior, than they.

Therefore, the focus is, as Mike is swaying towards “why was Jesus more Beloved by God than the others” and “Why are all things attributed to Jesus” (as in What did the the others do? Did they really do nothing at all, then why were they there? and What did Satan do to believe that he deserved worship from mankind…if really he did nothing? 'Look at me, aren't i splendid, –worship me!!'?)

[terraricca]

Quote (JustAskin @ Nov. 07 2010,12:52)

Terra, Do you read in the quote “[He] has triumphed”?  This means AFTERWARDS… The thread topic is “Was he ALWAYS Superior”. In effect, we can only talk about him Pre-Man, because we know he was not “superior” when he was man but “made a little lower than the angels”, then AFTERWARDS he was made Superior, so much more superior, than they. Therefore, the focus is, as Mike is swaying towards “why was Jesus more Beloved by God than the others” and “Why are all things attributed to Jesus” (as in What did the the others do? Did they really do nothing at all, then why were they there? and What did Satan do to believe that he deserved worship from mankind…if really he did nothing? 'Look at me, aren't i splendid, –worship me!!'?)

JA

and what i try to say ,is that Christ was always in the position of superiority,

because of being the first son of God,

position what allowed him to be having first choice in all things

he became slave to all in heaven and on earth.

Mt 20:27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave—
Mt 20:28 just as the Son of Man

and so he became superior for what he had done.

Pierre

[JustAskin]

Mike,

You already gone off the “One point”… I said I would answer your multilist thing by tonight…but you already posting others things…

Even so,

Quote

Paul wrote:”For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.”

Mike, you still believe that Paul is talking about Animate things. Please give me the name of:
– One of those 'Principalities',
– One of those 'Powers',
– TWO of the “Rulers”
– Any of the Spiritual Hosts

Quote

Paul aslo wrote:”For through him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created through him, and for him.”

Mike, What did the others in Heaven do?
When were the Angels created and by what means where they created?
Who's Spirit is in them, Jesus or God? Angels, What did Jesus create in the Spirit seeing that they are just that: “Spirits”, and only from God do Spirits come.
So What exactly was it that Jesus 'Created' – Spirits, Mike, What part of a Spirit is created that is not directly from God?

Your definition of “Principalities” include the word Angels, and you leapt to it like a jumping spider on a fly. But look again, Mike, it says “Order of Angels”, “Order”…tell me about the “Order of the Angels”, then. Does “Order of Angels” mean the actual Angels themselves.

Substitute another example, “Order of Merits”, “Order of Soldiers [for Ranking]”, “Order of the Meal [for eating]” …use your own example… Is the 'creator' ordering his created or is ONE ordering that which is already created by another…

And also, why did you stop at “Principalities” – because you didn't find another definition for anything else that suited…don't go halfcocked, Mike. Show where the rest also means “Animated entities”…Spirit beings, creeping things, Fish, Bird, Animals, Mankind.

It is easy to see then, that carry on this way, and you make Jesus into a God to be worshipped…oops, didn't one of them make this his desire, so mighty was he that he thought he, too, should gain the glory of worship from them whom he shared in their creation.

[mikeboll64]

No, that's okay.  I only answered all your points because you implied that I couldn't in your post to Shimmer.  Don't bother making a big speech that encompasses all those points, for I will ONLY deal with this “principality” one for now…….until we have finished it.  Then, and ONLY THEN, will I address each and every one of your other misunderstandings…….ONE AT A TIME.  Like why Jesus was the most beloved, or why things ONLY came through him.  But for now, let's stick to the “principality” thing, okay?

JA:

Quote

Mike, you still believe that Paul is talking about Animate things. Please give me the name of: 1.  One of those 'Principalities', 2.  One of those 'Powers', 3.  TWO of the “Rulers” 4.  Any of the Spiritual Hosts

Are you serious?  
1.  Satan
2.  Satan
3.  How about the “prince of persia” and the “prince of Greece” mentioned in Daniel:

20 So he said, “Do you know why I have come to you? Soon I will return to fight against the prince of Persia, and when I go, the prince of Greece will come; 21 but first I will tell you what is written in the Book of Truth. (No one supports me against them except Michael, your prince.)

4.  Well, since he talks of WICKED spiritual hosts, that would include Satan and any or all of his demons.

The stuff you posted about what the angels were doing while the world was being created through ONLY Jesus is merely the results of a flawed human brain trying to completly understand the unflawed words of God.  Lean NOT on your OWN understanding JA, but trust in God.  God doesn't tell us what the angels were doing at that time, but He DOES tell us that all things were created through ONLY Jesus.

JA:

Quote

Your definition of “Principalities” include the word Angels, and you leapt to it like a jumping spider on a fly. But look again, Mike, it says “Order of Angels”, “Order”…tell me about the “Order of the Angels”, then. Does “Order of Angels” mean the actual Angels themselves.

YES JA.  “Order of angels” includes “angels” in Col 1:16 as well as in Eph 6:12.  And your assertion that it doesn't only shows your desperation and your willingness to conform the scripture around your understanding instead of the other way around.

JA:

Quote

And also, why did you stop at “Principalities” – because you didn't find another definition for anything else that suited…don't go halfcocked, Mike. Show where the rest also means “Animated entities”…Spirit beings, creeping things, Fish, Bird, Animals, Mankind.

JA, do you think Paul speaks of “inanimate objects” in Eph 6:12 or not?  Because both Eph and Col list the same things.  But just for one example, a big electric generator is very powerful, but is not “a Power” to be contended with.  You do see the difference, right?

JA:

Quote

It is easy to see then, that carry on this way, and you make Jesus into a God to be worshipped…oops, didn't one of them make this his desire, so mighty was he that he thought he, too, should gain the glory of worship from them whom he shared in their creation.

You are crossing into Gene Balthrop territory here JA.  To assume that anything I've said implies that “Jesus is God” is ridiculous and what is called “a slant”.  And you use this “slant” for the same reason Gene uses the “pre-existers are trinitarians” slant -to sway people into believing that the scriptural things I say add up to Jesus being God.  This tactic is below you, and anyone with half a brain is able to see right through it anyway.  You only damage your own credibility by using it.

And notice the part of your quote that I bolded. You go to great lengths to insist that you never implied that things were created through Satan, but then you constantly say things of this nature. What other way is a sensible person supposed to take this comment?

Just answer the bolded question above JA.  Therein lies the truth of the matter.

peace and love,
mike

[JustAskin]

mike said:

Quote

Okay JA and Ms. Shimmer, Let's address JA's main points one at a time. THEN……….MAYBE…………he will actually address the scriptures that I've asked him about repeatedly. 1. Please can you explain Genesis 6:1-4. What would you like me to explain JA? That others besides Jesus are called “sons of God”? Angels are also called “sons of God” in the Book of Job. And in Deuteronomy 14:1, Moses calls the whole nation of Israel “children of God”. But what I'm asking is if Jesus was something more superior than all the rest of the “sons of God”. Are any others referred to as “THE Son of God”? Is anyone else called “the only begotten Son of God”? Were all things created through any other “son of God” besides Jesus?

Mike, you seem incapable of understanding that which is written in front of you. I said “Son of God [IN THE FLESH]” as Adam was “Son of God “IN THE FLESH”.
Jesus was made exactly as Adam was, without Sin. There were no others of Mankind who were sinless. Thus, Jesus was the ONLY SON of God [In the Flesh]. Hence Jesus says, “What of it…”. Mike, does that mean anything to you that even Jesus was dismissive of the claims made against his use of the term. “Son of god, as all who walk in the way of god are Sons of God, so what then if I call myself 'Son of God'. If they that received the word of God were also called 'god' by Him, what of it if I say that I am the Son of God?”

Quote

2. Jesus was a 'Son of God', in the Flesh, because he, too, 'Walked with God', hence he replied to the Jews, 'What of it if I say that I am the [only] Son of God''…he WAS the Only Son of God [in the flesh] at that time… What about John the Baptist? He “walked with God” and had God's Spirit working through him at the same time Jesus was flesh.

Did anyone call John the Baptist “Son of God”… Why we discussing this? Luke 7:28 say, “…as great as John was…Even the least in the kingdom of the heavens, is greater than he”

So, No Mike, John the Baptist was not Sinless, and therefore was not [a] Son of God [In the flesh].

Quote

3. Also, Mike, please explain how Hebrews 1:4 says that Jesus, '…Having BECOME SO MUCH BETTER than the Angels, as he has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they'. Actually, I would like YOU to explain why Paul added the words “SO MUCH” in the first place. Couldn't he have just said “Jesus became better than the angels”? Why the “SO MUCH”? To me, that implies that Jesus already was “somewhat better”, but after being perfected through suffering, he became even more better than the angels than he already was, because God placed him in an even higher postition than the one he left to become flesh.

“Never answer a question with a question..unless you want another question as your answer…”
“Even more better” is not part of a valid English language sentence” but I'll let that go…

“To me that implies…”, well, Mike, it would do, wouldn't it… the point is “Is it true”, not whether you personally believe it. Give me a sentence using the phrase….:
“I was always better but now I am even [more better]/[betterer] than them” (that sounds a little like 'show off-ishness'.)
“I was the same as them but now I have become so much better than them”
“I was less then them but now I have become, not even the same, but better, and so much better, than them because I have attained the HIGHEST position above them.”

Wasn't David the “Least of the sons” of Jesse – but yet he became “So much better than them”?
Wasn't Joseph the “Most Beloved of his Father”, and the youngest (apart from Benjamin) and He became “So much better than them” after he had been figuratively “Sacrificed” by his brothers and went to his death (in his father's eyes) and was figuratively reborn again in the kingly position in Egypt?
Mike, and you say Scriptural Fractals don't work, don't reveal truth?

Quote

4. Scriptures also says, 'He was made a little lower than the Angels', so that by suffering and overcoming he may become perfect in the flesh and become a Son of God in the Spirit Scripture says that God made MAN “a little lower than the angels”. Paul applied this scripture to Jesus in the flesh because at that time, he was MAN. It says absolutely nothing to imply that before he was man, he wasn't already “higher” than the angels. And you ignore that Jesus said he was already the only begotten Son of God way before he “suffered and overcame”. (John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9-10) You ignore that the Word became flesh and WHILE he “dwelled among us”, he already had the glory of an only begotten Son from the Father. (John 1:14)

Mike, Do you note in John that the text is often PAST TENSE… John speaks of things that had already occurred:
John 3:13 speaks of the Son of man who came down from heaven…, “The son of man who is in heaven”
John 2:22, “Therefore when he had risen from the dead his disciples remembered that he had said this to them”.

Mike, I have noted this before but never though to say it…but this “Begotten” is written AFTER the event, the same as the whole of the rest of the Book of John” (p.s.. All the books were written after the event as the disciples and apostle believed the world would end at that time so they didn't bother to write anything at the time)

I asked before, and got no reply, “Why does Jesus say, 'And this is eternal life…the only true God, and JESUS CHRIST whom you sent.”. Was Jesus 'Jesus Christ' when he was sent? or did he BECOME Jesus Christ after he was sent, hence I used to quote the name 'Jesus' when i wrote concerning him as 'PreMan'.

Quote

5. It is not so. Sons of God is one, anyone, flesh or spirit, who walk in the way of God. I have written this many times… Where do I find this info in the scriptures? Was I not still God's son before I walked in His ways? The whole nation of Israel was called “children of God”, yet we know many of them rebelled constantly against Him. I know we await the decision concerning which ones of us will become “children of God”, but I think that means “children of of God in a more special way than the way we are ALL His children right now”. Am I wrong in my thinking on this? Are there scriptures to say so?

Where to find it in Scriptures.. Mike, I'm sure NetBible can show you…or a little Googling…or then again, how about Enoch and Noah and David?
We are in Sin and only by Walking in the way of God as these did (in imperfection) and striving to be like Jesus Christ (In perfection) can we become Son's of God (in the eyes of God), and seeing that Jesus was the the only
one who walked PERFECTLY in the ways of God then he is the “ONLY” Son of God in both Flesh and Spirit, till the given time, the first resurrection.

The nation of Israel, was God's beloved nation, a brand plucked from the fire, and was named so. Yes. But they did not always hold so. And when they strayed, God punished tehm, and when they repented, God loved them again, until the last when he sent his Holy Servant “Jesus”, and Jesus revealed that the TRUE nation of Israel would consist of “ALL who believed in him and the testimony he brought from God, whether Jew, Gentile, Greek Roman, Master or Slave, Rich or poor”, and those, even of the Jews who rejected him would be cut off as an unfruitful branch is cut from the tree, and the others are grafted into their place on the Tree of Life, so God's beloved nation would truly be called, Children of God.
But I think this is straining the point a little.

Quote

6. And what of Galations, 'You are also Sons of God in Christ, and as so, co-heirs with Christ'. So, if they of mankind that also overcomes will also be Sons of God, to become 'Begotten', how much emphasis should be given to Jesus being called 'Begotten'. Jesus was the begotten Son of God from the day God literally begot him. Some of us will be metaphorically begotten by God at a later time. And you have never been able to show any scriptural evidence that Jesus' begetting is anything other than a literal begetting, while 1 John 4:9-10 clearly tells us that God sent His only begotten Son into the world as a sacrifice for us. Get it JA? God sent His only begotten Son into the world as a sacrifice for us. How could God's only begotten Son be sacrificed for us if he wasn't the only begotten Son until AFTER he was sacrificed? But this is off topic.

Mike, this is off topic and was answered above in point 4. And we went through this in another thread, I believe? and it was “After he was risen”.

Quote

7. Now, if there are any that despute, please do so with positive reference, not like Stuart who says, 'you can't spell', and Mike, who says, 'I feel you insult me'. You say this kind of insulting stuff all the time in your very posts that refuse to answer the points I've asked you about. Why won't you answer the scriptures I've posted?

…

Quote

8. Can anyone help out here? Is Gabriel one of the Archangels…one of the Princes, like Michael. Is there more than one Archangel? If yes, who are the others… “Arche” means “ruler” or “chief” in this instance. There is only one “Chief Angel”, and it is Michael alone. And there are only two mentions of “archangel” in the scriptures. Log on to NETNotes, where you can find this stuff out for yourself instead of relying on those of us who you insult for using these sources.

Mike, Is there something wrong in asking for help? Further more, you seem to forget my deliberateness. How many times have I said that JustAskin does not ask question because he does not know… JustAskin just asks for inclusiveness…It is not because I cannot do what just as you say. This shows how easy it is for you to get drawn in… (Must remember that!)
Ok, a little research shows that many others regard Gabriel as an arch Angel…so I'm not wrong – just not a provable non-point.
Chief Angel? I think you mean “Chief Princes”, so who are the other “Chief Princes”?

Quote

9. Why why why, why doesn't anyone respond concerning the 'Princes', the others, the 'Stars who sang together'. Was Jesus one of them? Maybe Jesus shouted with joy at the creation of the earth along with the angels, it is not clear. But the more important question is “Was Jesus something more superior to them at the time?” And just like “son of God”, someone else being referred to as a “prince” doesn't negate Jesus' superior position, does it?

But you say he is NOT an ANGEL, yet you cannot say say what Jesus was. He was not 'God' not 'a' God (No such thing in the context) and there are no others mentioned in Heaven (Seraphins, Cherubins, Angels…are all ANGELS irrespective of the STATION that they occupy) So WHAT and WHERE was Jesus?
Double Negative…”Doesn't Negate…”. One can't prove a negative so this is a pointless remark!!!
And you still can't say who the STARS are…Wisely for you…

Quote

10. Where was Jesus in the 'credits' when the heavens and earth and mankind were created and the Angels shouted with joy. 'All things were created through him' but he isn't even in the 'credits',…or is he, as one of the 'Stars', and then, if one of the Stars, was he even then a/the Superior one of the Stars…Scriptures does not make him so. You answered you own question JA. “All things were created through him.” That is the “credits”. You say “scripture does not make him superior”. Let's find out. I've answered every point you made both to me and Shimmer. Won't you please do the same to my points? Your biggest fan has showed up on this thread……..don't disappoint her now.

Mike, Answer the question set to you…or can you…can't you?

Quote

1. Colossians 1:15-16 NWT 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All things have been created through him and for him. a. What actual scripture explains to us that “firstborn of all creation” doesn't mean exactly what it says? b. What actual scripture tells us that the “all things invisible” does not include the angels? c. Even if we omit the angels from the “all things invisible”, why is it that all things were said to be created through ONLY Jesus? 2. John 1:3 NWT 3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. If this scripture excludes the angels as things that came into existence through Jesus, why do you think John wrote “not even one thing”? 3. Hebrews 1:2 NIV but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. Do you think Paul really meant God made the universe through “all of His sons”? If not, then why only Jesus if he were not something more than “just one of the sons of God”? 4. Gen 1:26 NIV 26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness,……..” Knowing what we know from the three preceeding scriptures, can we assume the “us” and “our” in this scripture is God talking to His Son, thr ough whom He created everything? Is that enough “credits”? JA, I have been asking about these scriptures since we started this discussion. These are your answers so far: 1. The bad guys credits get expunged from the history books. 2. Jesus was the most beloved. And I have solidly refuted the first one by showing you the bad guys are never expunged throughout the scriptures. And for the second one, I have asked WHY was Jesus “the most beloved” even way back then………….BEFORE “God's REAL firstborn son, Satan”, messed up”?

Mike, History shows over and over that the deeds of the bad and those fallen from righteousness are often expunged from the logs to protect the faithful. Even the bad deeds of the Faithful are expunged to protect their good deeds.
What do you think of the Romans, great people, eh. Brought Aqueducts, toilets, bathing, Roads, Honey, etc, to the nations they conquered… Mike, we have a kids programs over here that shows what they were REALLY LIKE, and they won't teach those things in Schools….What was Admiral Lord Nelson really Like? No, not like the history books teach, they daren't tell the truth. And the slave trade, those involved are HEROES, because history books won't teach the truth of what they did. Only the GOOD things are taught, as standard, and in short…
The officer who led a failed charge against the enemy because he ignored his commander is not talked about…only the one who succeeded. Only the one who succeeded is talked of as WINNING THE WAR (ALL BY HIMSELF!!!). He gets the Medal of Honour, and his name alone is crafted into the Gold Award list.

Quote

Not one of your scriptures or opinions do anything to imply that Jesus was just “one of the angels”, while mine CLEARLY imply he was something more than them from the very start.

I imply over and over, you choose to ignore them. The PRINCES, PRINCIPLE SONS of God, you choose to ignore the very answer that you ask me to give you and then claim I didn't answer you…where and from how many have I heard that about you?

Quote

“I've had it with the “scriptures according to JA”. I've had it with the rambling, ranting posts that spend much more time on insulting me personally”

This smacks of a desperate plea from one lost in his own murkyness.

[mikeboll64]

I said I would ignore this long post, but since you took the time, I'll hit a few points.

JA:

Quote

There were no others of Mankind who were sinless. Thus, Jesus was the ONLY SON of God [In the Flesh].

It is not scripture, but your own mind that tells you only sinless ones are “sons of God”.  Do you not find it odd that Jesus was referred to as THE Son of God, before, during and after he was flesh?  Why “THE”?  Is anyone else called “THE Son of God”?  

JA:

Quote

So, No Mike, John the Baptist was not Sinless, and therefore was not [a] Son of God [In the flesh].

We are sons of God by faith, not by works.  Being “sinless” is NOT a requirement.  Are you saying that John the Baptist was NOT a “son of God”?  

JA:

Quote

Give me a sentence using the phrase….: “I was always better but now I am even [more better]/[betterer] than them”

Okay, how about this one.  I have always been better at understanding scripture than JA.  But now that I'm learning even more by using NETBible, I have become AS MUCH BETTER THAN HIM AS MY POSTS ARE BETTER THAN HIS.

That was a joke, don't take it seriously.  But do you see my point?  I could have already been better than you, but then became EVEN MORE BETTER than you.

More later, I'm going for pizza.  This place's pizza is BETTER than any other place around.  But since they've double the amount of toppings they put on it, it is now EVEN MORE BETTER than the other places'.  

peace and love,
mike

[shimmer]

JustAskin

Quote

Shimmer, do not be dissuaded from truthful beliefs, 'test the Spirit', and if it be of God, stick to it like a good wife cleaves to her husband, this 'husband' being the word of truth. The 'muscleman', or the 'moneyman' that your eyes see when you look away from your husband, his time is short…and where will you go when he is gone? Will your husband take you back, 'for it is [impossible] for one, once having tasted the good word and then left it, to come back to the good word' (Mike, you know this from the JW views on fallen members)

Mike

Quote

Shimmer, it is NOT the words of Mikeboll64, nor the words of JA that matter at all – but the words of God. And what you are witnessing here is a case of someone who is usually in line with scriptures falling out of sync with them in order to further his own man-made doctrine that “All scriptures are Fractal”. And just like others on this site, it is easy to recognize someone who is willing to rearrange or ignore scriptures in order to favor their own doctrine. Just watch and see JA's response to my ONE question above. Watch as the nonsensical words start to flow. Watch as he tries to explain that “principalities” meant one thing in one scripture but something else in the other. And pay close attention to the fact that he will base this claim – not on scripture itself – but on his own understanding that has been biased because of his insistence that all scriptures be fractal.

Ok. Thanks.

[JustAskin]

Terra,

You say, 'Became Superior'.

So who was 'Superior' before Jesus 'Became Superior'?

Bro, i'm not understanding you fully.

Also, who and where does it say that Jesus was the 'First Son of God'?

Where it says he was 'Son of God' that was when he was Flesh and Blood', and further more, ADAM, was 'First Son of God' in the flesh.

What does Scriptures say…again, how many times must it be written:
The first man [Son of God] was from the dust, the second [Son of God] was the spirit from heaven.
And, what does Hebrews 5:5 say? When was it that God made him High Priest and said to him, 'You are My Son….Today I have begotten you'?
What did God mean by 'You are my Son'? Was this not a declaration?
And then God went in to Qualify the declaration, 'Today'…'after you have overcome all things'..'Today, I have become your Father'.

Terra, align that with Scriptures concerning the others of mankind also becoming 'Sons of God'. How are they to achieve that?
Terra, it is not to be in the Flesh, but in the Spirit. When they have achieved, according to God's will andovercome, then they, too, will put off the flesh and put on the Spirit and become, Sons of God.

Terra, please, first understand what is meant by the term, 'Son of God' in context, then it will become clear to you.

John writes 'the only begotten Son of God' not as a past sending, but 'future past'…ok, i made that term up, but see how he says, 'the man who is in heaven'…tell me, was Jesus a 'man in heaven' before he came? No.
John is speaking of Jesus 'AS HE IS NOW', both, the 'as Man' and 'as Begotten'. And by this discernment the anomalie is cleared up…
Jesus was never called 'Only Begotten Son' before he came as man in the flesh.

The book of John is a strange book and contains writings not seen in any other book. I read it over and over long ago, and picked it out from all the other books as my favourite …at first…but then i started noticing strange features.
The writing is as one writing from the future, knowing what has already occured but placing the events in the present.
Hence, Jesus calling himself by his own name while saying that God sent him, '…and Jesus Christ whom you sent'…and, 'the man who is in heaven', and, 'After he was raised, the Disciples remembered what he had said'

Can you see then, that when John calls him 'Begotten' it was because he wrote his book 'After' Jesus was raised from the dead and had ascended into heaven.

The others wrote their books as if a 'present day narrative'.

Please look again at John and bare these things in mind as you read.

[Author]

Posts