- This topic has 3,120 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 23 2014,09:29) 1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets (including Jesus) at many times and in various ways (including through Jesus), 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us (ONLY) by his Son……….[/color]
Mike…………Interesting yet another scripture you simply change to meet you Dogmas. It seems if scripture disagrees with you, you simply change them to meet your “preexistence teachings.Scripture “clearly' say, “God spoke to us in various ways, in times Past “THROUGH” the “PROPHET'S , and has in these “LAST” or “LATTER” DAYS, spoken to us “THROUGH” A SON.
That statement clearly eliminates Jesus as being in those “TIMES PAST”, as any one of those “PROPHET'S”, That statement places Jesus as a SON of GOD in the “LATTER” DAYS, and the statement shows a “PROGRESSION” of who GOD was SPEAKING “THROUGH”> common sense 101. IMO
“O what a tangled wed we weave when we first practice to deceive”. No wonder Mike you can't come to the truth, you just change scriptures to meet what you created in your mind and want them to say. I believe you don't really mean to, You just don't seem to be able to admit, you are wrong, and you just go on in the error of your teachings. Stop and rethink a little bit, for a change. You have been shown so much truth, and just refuse to believe it. Stop channeling scriptures to fit you renditions of them, please start over. If you produce one scripture that “SPECIFICALLY” say what your saying, then produce it but stop with all the speculations, changing them it only serve to lead people further astray. IMO
peace and love ………………………………gene
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 23 2014,04:29) Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 22 2014,03:49) I do know that it is only in these last days God has spoke to his people through his Son. Hebrews 1:1-2 teaches us that.
Possibly, Kerwin.But the wording of Hebrews 1:1 doesn't explicitly exclude Jesus from being one of the “various ways” God spoke to the people before Jesus came to earth.
Consider:
Hebrews 1
1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets (including Jesus) at many times and in various ways (including through Jesus), 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us (ONLY) by his Son……….
Mike,Technically God was still using prophets in the New Testament as well as other means such as the Apostles and angels. The writers of Hebrews did not appear to see those as important enough to be considered in these later days.
Jesus is so important that I cannot see him be relegated to those covered by the words “other means”.
Kerwin………When it says, God spoke to us in “TIMES PAST” through Others, but has Spoken to us in these “LATTER” Days, through A SON> It place Jesus in time and also is saying, God was not speaking through him before that time. Right?
peace and love to you and yours…………………………………….gene
Quote (Wakeup @ Jan. 23 2014,00:35) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 23 2014,09:32) Quote (Wakeup @ Jan. 21 2014,19:27) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 22 2014,09:33) Quote (Wakeup @ Jan. 21 2014,13:42) And God sends Michael to destroy the assyrians.
How do you know that was Michael?
Mike b.Micha'el is always the warior.
Gabri'el is for God's messages.wakeup.
Do you assume that God has only ONE “warrior angel”, and only ONE “messenger angel”?If so, why?
Mikeb.Scripture tells us that there are only four chief angels.
Micha'el must have His whole armie under Him.
Gabriel did not need an armie.
1.Micha'el.
2.Rapha'el.
3.Gabri'el.
4.Phanu'el. all are in charge of different tasks.wakeup.
I don't know of these other names, Wakeup. Where in scripture can I read about Phanu'el and Rapha'el?Also, which scripture tells us there are only four archangels?
And finally, if there are indeed four of them, why would you assume it was Michael who killed the Assyrians?
Quote (2besee @ Jan. 23 2014,02:15) As I said, of course we don't say in everyday conversation that somebody “came in the flesh” but we are talking about JESUS here, and there were many who claimed that Jesus did NOT come in the flesh (Gnostics) in those days. So those words, “Jesus came in the flesh” had more meaning than you would apply to everybody else.
I'm still not seeing where you're pulling out some PARTICULAR WORDS from my long post, and proving those words wrong, but I'll work with what you gave me.
And what exactly DID the Gnostics believe? Didn't they believe that the Messiah was indeed was SPIRIT BEING sent FROM HEAVEN, but didn't come in a flesh body?
And if John was writing those words to counteract the claims of the Gnostics, why didn't he specify that Jesus had never been anything OTHER THAN flesh – instead of just correcting the “flesh” part of the Gnostic claim? Why didn't John also correct the “pre-existent spirit being” part of the Gnostics claim as well?
If your claim is correct, that John was counteracting the Gnostics, then John's claim would seem to be saying, “Yes, it's true that the Messiah WAS a spirit being who came down from heaven like you say………. but he came in a FLESH BODY – unlike you say.
So either way, your point is a non-point, because whatever the REASON John wrote those words, the fact remains that no one who was never anything BUT flesh is ever said to have “come in the flesh”.
The very phrase “he came in the flesh” tells us that he was something other than flesh BEFORE he “came in the flesh”.
Quote (2besee @ Jan. 23 2014,02:15) Also, I found your reply quite rude to another poster.
In what way was it “rude”? I thought I did a nice and polite job of educating him about hypothetical questions, the difference between silly answers and serious ones, and the truth of the scriptures.Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 23 2014,10:19) Mike, Technically God was still using prophets in the New Testament as well as other means such as the Apostles and angels.
You are correct. But you know what that means, right?Even though it was said that God spoke to us in these latter days through His Son, it didn't mean “to the EXCLUSION of any other prophet or means”, right? Because God Himself also spoke to them from heaven on occasion, right? And He also sent angels in the latter days on occasion, right? And John the Baptist was a latter day prophet who lived right along with Jesus, right? So in the latter days, God spoke to them through His Son AND through various other means, right?
So what's the reverse of that? Doesn't that fact also allow for the same thing in the earlier days? Doesn't it allow for God to have spoken in the past through many various ways and prophets – but NOT to the EXCLUSION of His Son?
Get it? If “through His Son” doesn't exclude the other various ways God spoke to us in the latter days, then “through prophets and other means” doesn't exclude Jesus in the former days.
Mikeb.
That is not found in the bible,but in the book of enoch.
1.Micha'el,the merciful and longsuffering.
2.Rapha'el, set over wounds and diseases of men.
3.Gabri'el,set over all the powers.
4.Phanu'el,set over repentance,hope,who inherit eternal life.
see gen32:30.31. Dan. 12:1. 10:13. rev.12:7.wakeup.
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Jan. 24 2014,11:43) Kerwin………When it says, God spoke to us in “TIMES PAST” through Others, but has Spoken to us in these “LATTER” Days, through A SON> It place Jesus in time and also is saying, God was not speaking through him before that time. Right? peace and love to you and yours…………………………………….gene
Geneb.John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law,
**I SAID**,
Ye are gods?
JESUS WAS THE SPEAKER BACK THEN; ON GOD'S BEHALF.
BEFORE HE WAS MADE FLESH.
HE SPOKE TO THE PROPHETS,APOSTLES,AND TO US THROUGH HIS WORD IN THE BIBLE.
GOD DOES THINGS THROUGHT HIS WORD ONLY.
AND THE WORD SENDS HIS ANGELS TO DO HIS WORKS.
REV.1:1.2.wakeup.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 24 2014,14:30) Quote (2besee @ Jan. 23 2014,02:15) As I said, of course we don't say in everyday conversation that somebody “came in the flesh” but we are talking about JESUS here, and there were many who claimed that Jesus did NOT come in the flesh (Gnostics) in those days. So those words, “Jesus came in the flesh” had more meaning than you would apply to everybody else.
I'm still not seeing where you're pulling out some PARTICULAR WORDS from my long post, and proving those words wrong, but I'll work with what you gave me.And what exactly DID the Gnostics believe? Didn't they believe that the Messiah was indeed was SPIRIT BEING sent FROM HEAVEN, but didn't come in a flesh body?
And if John was writing those words to counteract the claims of the Gnostics, why didn't he specify that Jesus had never been anything OTHER THAN flesh – instead of just correcting the “flesh” part of the Gnostic claim? Why didn't John also correct the “pre-existent spirit being” part of the Gnostics claim as well?
If your claim is correct, that John was counteracting the Gnostics, then John's claim would seem to be saying, “Yes, it's true that the Messiah WAS a spirit being who came down from heaven like you say………. but he came in a FLESH BODY – unlike you say.
So either way, your point is a non-point, because whatever the REASON John wrote those words, the fact remains that no one who was never anything BUT flesh is ever said to have “come in the flesh”.
The very phrase “he came in the flesh” tells us that he was something other than flesh BEFORE he “came in the flesh”.
Quote (2besee @ Jan. 23 2014,02:15) Also, I found your reply quite rude to another poster.
In what way was it “rude”? I thought I did a nice and polite job of educating him about hypothetical questions, the difference between silly answers and serious ones, and the truth of the scriptures.Mike, I am too tired to argue the point!
Maybe when and IF I ever get into the discussion debate mood, I will.One example:
Islam *believe* that Jesus is the son of God,*BUT*.
We all are also the sons of God.
In other words; The word of God did not come in the flesh.
Jesus existed since his birth,like any other prophets.
And simply refute all the prophesies about Jesus.
Saying they are all added by the jews.There is a big open gap between the book of revelation
and the qur'an. a 650 year gap. So can not be the continuation of the bible. But this is another topic.The scribes today are doing the same thing to the word of God. Saying that this verse was added on; and that verse was added on. And adding their own wisdom to the scriptures.
wakeup.
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Jan. 24 2014,06:43) Kerwin………When it says, God spoke to us in “TIMES PAST” through Others, but has Spoken to us in these “LATTER” Days, through A SON> It place Jesus in time and also is saying, God was not speaking through him before that time. Right? peace and love to you and yours…………………………………….gene
Gene,That is basically my understanding.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 24 2014,07:41) Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 23 2014,10:19) Mike, Technically God was still using prophets in the New Testament as well as other means such as the Apostles and angels.
You are correct. But you know what that means, right?Even though it was said that God spoke to us in these latter days through His Son, it didn't mean “to the EXCLUSION of any other prophet or means”, right? Because God Himself also spoke to them from heaven on occasion, right? And He also sent angels in the latter days on occasion, right? And John the Baptist was a latter day prophet who lived right along with Jesus, right? So in the latter days, God spoke to them through His Son AND through various other means, right?
So what's the reverse of that? Doesn't that fact also allow for the same thing in the earlier days? Doesn't it allow for God to have spoken in the past through many various ways and prophets – but NOT to the EXCLUSION of His Son?
Get it? If “through His Son” doesn't exclude the other various ways God spoke to us in the latter days, then “through prophets and other means” doesn't exclude Jesus in the former days.
Mike,The wording allows for it but it would be rendered meaningless if interpreted that way.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 25 2014,10:09) Quote (2besee @ Jan. 24 2014,01:20) Mike, I am too tired to argue the point!
Victory is mine!
Mike, NO.
Victory is not ours but God's – through Jesus Christ the Lord!Quote (Wakeup @ Jan. 24 2014,22:18) Islam *believe* that Jesus is the son of God…
No they don't.
Read Sura 19:88-89 & 19:92 (Link)Islam is the spirit of 'antichrist' wakeup! (Read 1John 2:22)
(see also Galatians 1:8, 2Corinthians 11:14 & Revelation 13:13)B'shem
YHVHQuote (Ed J @ Jan. 25 2014,11:16) No they don't.
Read Sura 19:88-89 & 19:92 (Link)
Hi EdYes they do. They think every man created is a son of God. What they don't accept is that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. Like the new age bibles. Same.
Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 25 2014,11:16) Quote (Wakeup @ Jan. 24 2014,22:18) Islam *believe* that Jesus is the son of God…
No they don't.
Read Sura 19:88-89 & 19:92 (Link)Islam is the spirit of 'antichrist' wakeup! (Read 1John 2:22)
(see also Galatians 1:8, 2Corinthians 11:14 & Revelation 13:13)B'shem
YHVH
HI EDJ.You have woken up
From your deep sleep.wakeup.
Ed wrote:[/quote]
Quote No they don't.
Read Sura 19:88-89 & 19:92
Ed, after reading that confusing bit of information, it appears they are saying it is not possible for “Allah” to have a son, or even anyone who has come from heaven to be his servant. That's what I'm reading anyway.19.088
YUSUFALI: They say: “(Allah) Most Gracious has begotten a son!”
PICKTHAL: And they say: The Beneficent hath taken unto Himself a son.
SHAKIR: And they say: The Beneficent Allah has taken (to Himself) a son.019.089
YUSUFALI: Indeed ye have put forth a thing most monstrous!
PICKTHAL: Assuredly ye utter a disastrous thing
SHAKIR: Certainly you have made an abominable assertion019.090
YUSUFALI: At it the skies are ready to burst, the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin,
PICKTHAL: Whereby almost the heavens are torn, and the earth is split asunder and the mountains fall in ruins,
SHAKIR: The heavens may almost be rent thereat, and the earth cleave asunder, and the mountains fall down in pieces,019.091
YUSUFALI: That they should invoke a son for (Allah) Most Gracious.
PICKTHAL: That ye ascribe unto the Beneficent a son,
SHAKIR: That they ascribe a son to the Beneficent Allah.019.092
YUSUFALI: For it is not consonant with the majesty of (Allah) Most Gracious that He should beget a son.
PICKTHAL: When it is not meet for (the Majesty of) the Beneficent that He should choose a son.
SHAKIR: And it is not worthy of the Beneficent Allah that He should take (to Himself) a son.019.093
YUSUFALI: Not one of the beings in the heavens and the earth but must come to (Allah) Most Gracious as a servant.
PICKTHAL: There is none in the heavens and the earth but cometh unto the Beneficent as a slave.
SHAKIR: There is no one in the heavens and the earth but will come to the Beneficent Allah as a servant.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
