What's with Paladin?

[Lightenup]

No one should be tiled for ignoring a question without putting the person in the hot seat thread first with the question and then PM'd with a notice of a possible tile for not answering and only after several attempts of asking the question. If a tile is given for totally ignoring a question, then it should be removed when the person responds to the question, even with an “I don't know.”

imo.

[terraricca]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 20 2011,11:04)

Quote (Pastry @ July 18 2011,17:52) Keith!  To ignore someones question, is ignorance.  Do you support that?  I don;t….. And not only once did Mike asked that question, but many times…..Irene Irene So you would give someone a “tile” for ignorance? WJ

Keit

then only say ;I do not know;

Pierre

[terraricca]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 20 2011,11:58)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 20 2011,04:04) Quote (Pastry @ July 18 2011,17:52) Keith!  To ignore someones question, is ignorance.  Do you support that?  I don;t….. And not only once did Mike asked that question, but many times…..Irene Irene So you would give someone a “tile” for ignorance? WJ Keith, All should take heed to this principle from the Christian Chat Forum “No one is required to answer your questions, or respond in anyway to your messages. In most cases others will respond to messages posted, but nobody is required to. Don't demand other members of this website to answer your post. No one here owes you anything.” http://www.christianchatforum.com/info/rules.shtml Jack

KJ

Quote

“No one is required to answer your questions, or respond in anyway to your messages

I agree in most cases but when there is conversation it should not be allowed,

other wise we may open a new topic called DROP OFFS

Pierre

[Pastry]

To All!  After that many pages and so many questions like Mile asked Paladin , and He still has ignored that question, He shouldn't  be aloud to go on  and on and on?  That is what we are talking about.  To me that is simple not right.  All He has to do is either  say yes, or no or I don 't know.  But He hasn't done that….
Peace Irene

[seekingtruth]

Quote (Lightenup @ July 20 2011,02:57)

No one should be tiled for ignoring a question without putting the person in the hot seat thread first with the question and then PM'd with a notice of a possible tile for not answering and only after several attempts of asking the question.  If a tile is given for totally ignoring a question, then it should be removed when the person responds to the question, even with an “I don't know.” imo.

I agree Kathi.

It looks like Mike has followed this in at least he posted the question clearly, I assume he PM'd Paladin and I assume if he gets a tile it would be removed once the question is answered.

However, I did not vote on this issue as I've had Mike accuse me of not answering when I felt I had (and later proved that I had). I do not want to condemn someone without first checking it out myself.

Proverbs 18:17 The first to plead his case seems right, Until another comes and examines him.  

Wm

[mikeboll64]

Hi Wm,

As I remember, our disagreement in the “Is Jesus an Angel” thread stemmed from you thinking you had answered my question already because you didn't notice that I tweaked the original question the second time I asked it, in order to narrow down your response.  So the second question was actually a brand new question, that you only assumed you had answered when in fact you had not.

Does that sound about right, Wm?

Let me give you all an example of my pet peeve on HN:

I say:  If Jesus is the Son OF God, then he can't BE God.  So………….IS Jesus the Son OF God or not?  YES or NO?

And I get this answer:  Jesus sustains all things by his word.

So I ask again:  IS Jesus the Son OF God or not?  YES or NO?

And they answer:  All things were created by Jesus.

And I ask again:  IS Jesus the Son OF God or not?  YES or NO?

And then eventually, I either get:  Jesus and the Father are ONE!

Or I get:  It's not a YES or NO question!  

Or I get:  I keep answering Mike's question, but he just doesn't like the answer I give!

I'm sick of this kind of crap around here.  Either STAND AND DEFEND your doctrine, or shut up about it in the first place!  Don't come around here making CLAIMS that you are unwilling to STAND AND DEFEND when they are put to the test.

Now, the deal with Paladin stemmed from a discussion about the pre-existence of Jesus.  Someone brought up John 17:5, and Paladin made a claim from the standpoint of the Greek language and grammar itself that seemed to me to be saying the tense of a certain word PROHIBITED Jesus from asking for the return of a glory he had in the past.

His words all added up to this conclusion, but he didn't specifically say “PROHIBITED”.  So I have been asking and asking and asking if that is what he meant from his words.  And finally, after he either ignored my posts or reposted his original claim over and over, I decided to just directly ask him if the imperfect tense of “echo” prohibited Jesus from asking for the return of a past glory or not?  And I asked.  And I asked.  And I asked some more.  I got nothing but smart-aleck, flippant remarks and more reposting of his original claim.

People, Paladin knows a little about the Greek language and tries his best to use Greek grammar rules to refute any pre-existence scriptures someone brings up.  Usually, his claims are easily refuted (as this one was), or they are inconsequential in the first place, for they change nothing.

Keith is one of the most intelligent people on this forum.  I don't agree with his conclusion of the story of the Bible, but the dude knows his scriptures.  No one can deny that.  Yet even he was “shy” to go up against Paladin on a Greek language issue for fear that he was not up to Paladin's level in Greek understanding.

And I think most of us here are NOT Greek experts, and so feel the same way.  I'm definitely not a Greek expert, but I started to notice that some of Paladin's claims about this Greek tense or that Greek word were not reconciling with other scriptures.  And then it dawned on me that Paladin was in a position to spout anything he wanted concerning the Greek language, and no one here was any the wiser.  So he could make claims that “forbade” the pre-existence of Jesus by saying “accusative form this” and “aorist tense that”, etc.

So then I myself started to do some research and look into some of those claims and found out they weren't exactly how he claimed they were.

The current disagreement we're having is only the latest in a bunch of them.  His claim was (in effect), If John wanted to convey a glory that Jesus had in the past, but then didn't still have at that time, he would have used the aorist tense of “echo”.  But John DIDN'T use the aorist tense, he used the imperfect tense.

I took these words to mean that because John used the imperfect tense, there was no way Jesus could have been talking about a glory he had in the past, but no longer had.

So, I've been asking if that IS what he was implying with his statement.  And I've been asking if the imperfect tense somehow prohibited Jesus from speaking of a glory he had in the past.

He will answer neither question, and hasn't for almost a month now.

So how can he expect to come to HN and make such a claim, but then when it's tested, just blow off the test altogether?  Shouldn't he be required to either DEFEND what he claims, or not claim anything in the first place?

That's what I thought we were all here for.  Perhaps I was wrong.  Perhaps some of us should go to the site Jack mentioned, where anyone can post any whacked-out thing they want over and over, and never have to worry about actually proving it or defending it.

peace,
mike

[seekingtruth]

APOLOGIES FOR THE LONG POST BUT THIS IS THE COMPLETE HISTORY OF OUR DISCUSSION (LESS THE PM) IF YOU READ MY COMMENTS BELOW YOU WILL SEE THAT THE POSTS CLEARLY SHOW THAT I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION(S) THE WHOLE TIME YOU WERE ACCUSING ME OF NOT ANSWERING THEM.
——————————————-
Is jesus god the angel?? 7-7

Quote

Of course you like the KJV.  They doctored the verse to change the meaning by adding their own word “even”, that is not in the Greek text. Let's keep it without “even”, since “even” isn't in the original, okay?   You welcomed me as if I were a billionaire, as if I were Bill Gates himself. Dennison, does this statement mean that Bill Gates IS a billionaire, or IS NOT a billionaire? mike

Galatians 4:14 (Young's Literal Translation)14 and my trial that [is] in my flesh ye did not despise nor reject, but as a messenger of God ye did receive me — as Christ Jesus;

It is a second emphasis of an even higher status to stress the point.

My opinion – Wm

Sorry I thought I was on the current discussion but I was on the first page.

Is jesus god the angel??  7-10

  So Paul was saying he was welcomed as an angel of God, as if he were God Himself?    

Wm, does Bill Gates have a “higher status” than a billionaire?  What if I had said “Rockefeller” or “Getty” or “Hearst”?  Did I just list people who were “higher” than billionaires?

Let me try this one:

Welcomed me as if I were a football player, as if I were Terry Bradshaw himself.

Is Terry Bradshaw in this exercise of a “higer status” than a football player?  What if the player I named was someone much lessor known?

mike

Is jesus god the angel??  10-1

Well I'm not a Steelers fan, now if I said Welcomed me as if I were a football player, as if I were Walter Payton himself. and if I was addressing Bears fans most would see my reference to Payton as to one who is the very epitome of a great football player.

Now if you inserted a lessor player you would be insulting me.

My opinion – Wm
——————————————-
OTHER THEN CHANGING THE NAME (FOR HUMOR) I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION
——————————————-
Is jesus god the angel?? 11-1

The trouble is in our society the term “angel” brings to mind a select classification of beings since God uses these particular beings as messengers so much. Men, angels (created spiritual beings), and Jesus Himself have all played the part of being a messenger, so from that point of view yes, Jesus was an “angel” (as in messenger), but agreeing to that statement in no way should be understood as my believing that Jesus was a “created” spiritual being.

My opinion – Wm

Is jesus god the angel?? 11-4

Quote (seekingtruth @ April 06 2011,23:02)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 07 2011,11:41)   So Paul was saying he was welcomed as an angel of God, as if he were God Himself?   Wm, does Bill Gates have a “higher status” than a billionaire?  What if I had said “Rockefeller” or “Getty” or “Hearst”?  Did I just list people who were “higher” than billionaires? Let me try this one: Welcomed me as if I were a football player, as if I were Terry Bradshaw himself. Is Terry Bradshaw in this exercise of a “higer status” than a football player?  What if the player I named was someone much lessor known? mike Well I'm not a Steelers fan, now if I said Welcomed me as if I were a football player, as if I were Walter Payton himself. and if I was addressing Bears fans most would see my reference to Payton as to one who is the very epitome of a great football player. Now if you inserted a lessor player you would be insulting me. My opinion – Wm

Hi Wm,

That doesn't answer my point.  How do you come to the conclusion that Bill Gates is of “higher status” than “a billionaire”?  
——————————————–
NOTE THAT YOU ASKED ME “Let me try this one: Welcomed me as if I were a football player, as if I were Terry Bradshaw himself. Is Terry Bradshaw in this exercise of a “higer status” than a football player?  What if the player I named was someone much lessor known?” INDICATING THAT THIS WAS YOUR QUESTION AND I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION
——————————————-
What if Paul had said, “Welcomed me as if I were an angel of God, as if I were Gabriel himself”.  Now would that mean that Gabriel is of “higher status” than “an angel of God”?
——————————————-
NOTE THIS IS A NEW QUESTION
——————————————
mike

Is jesus god the angel?? 11-8

Quote (seekingtruth @ April 07 2011,06:50)

Men, angels (created spiritual beings), and Jesus Himself have all played the part of being a messenger, so from that point of view yes, Jesus was an “angel” (as in messenger), but agreeing to that statement in no way should be understood as my believing that Jesus was a “created” spiritual being.

Hi Wm,

That is the only “point of view” that's valid.  Because the simple fact of the matter is that “angel” and “messenger” are the same word in both the Hebrew and Greek languages.  So if Jesus IS a messenger, then Jesus IS an angel.

And I agree that this info in and of itself shouldn't be used to form the opinion that Jesus was created.  But we have Col 1:15 and Rev 3:14 for that, right?

mike

Is jesus god the angel?? 11-10

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 08 2011,08:40)

Quote (seekingtruth @ April 06 2011,23:02) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 07 2011,11:41) So Paul was saying he was welcomed as an angel of God, as if he were God Himself?   Wm, does Bill Gates have a “higher status” than a billionaire?  What if I had said “Rockefeller” or “Getty” or “Hearst”?  Did I just list people who were “higher” than billionaires? Let me try this one: Welcomed me as if I were a football player, as if I were Terry Bradshaw himself. Is Terry Bradshaw in this exercise of a “higer status” than a football player?  What if the player I named was someone much lessor known? mike Well I'm not a Steelers fan, now if I said Welcomed me as if I were a football player, as if I were Walter Payton himself. and if I was addressing Bears fans most would see my reference to Payton as to one who is the very epitome of a great football player. Now if you inserted a lessor player you would be insulting me. My opinion – Wm Hi Wm, That doesn't answer my point.  How do you come to the conclusion that Bill Gates is of “higher status” than “a billionaire”?   What if Paul had said, “Welcomed me as if I were an angel of God, as if I were Gabriel himself”.  Now would that mean that Gabriel is of “higher status” than “an angel of God”? mike

Mike,
Sorry but I felt my post answered that question.

I ignored your “example” with Bill Gates as it was a different format from the scripture you were trying to compare it with.

If the second emphasis is added it is typically focused on either an example that exemplifies the item being discussed or something a whole new level higher.
——————————————-
THE ABOVE ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION NO MATTER WHO'S NAMES YOU PUT IN.

AN EXAMPLE OF A WHOLE LEVEL HIGHER WOULD BE: “YOU WELCOMED ME AS IF I WAS A MEMBER OF CONGRESS, AS IF I WAS RONALD REGAN HIMSELF” (MY FAVORITE PRESIDENT)
——————————————-
I was not gifted with great linguistic skills so what I presented may have been confusing to all or you may be so fixed on what you believe you are confused by anything not agreeing with your beliefs.

Is this why others are always saying they answered your questions while you claim they didn't?
—————————————–
BASED ON THE ABOVE IT SEEMED A FAIR OBSERVATION
—————————————–
My opinion – Wm

Is jesus god the angel?? 12-1

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 08 2011,09:17)

Quote (seekingtruth @ April 07 2011,06:50) Men, angels (created spiritual beings), and Jesus Himself have all played the part of being a messenger, so from that point of view yes, Jesus was an “angel” (as in messenger), but agreeing to that statement in no way should be understood as my believing that Jesus was a “created” spiritual being. Hi Wm, That is the only “point of view” that's valid.  Because the simple fact of the matter is that “angel” and “messenger” are the same word in both the Hebrew and Greek languages.  So if Jesus IS a messenger, then Jesus IS an angel. And I agree that this info in and of itself shouldn't be used to form the opinion that Jesus was created.  But we have Col 1:15 and Rev 3:14 for that, right? mike

Mike,
I am not arguing that Jesus was a messenger so why don't we address the heart of the issue, I assume you believe that Jesus was created by God based on these scriptures:

Galatians 4:14 (Amplified Bible)14 And [yet] although my physical condition was [such] a trial to you, you did not regard it with contempt, or scorn and loathe and reject me; but you received me as an angel of God, [even] as Christ Jesus [Himself]!

Colossians 1:15 (Amplified Bible)15 [Now] He is the [a]exact likeness of the unseen God [the visible representation of the invisible]; He is the Firstborn of all creation.

Revelation 3:14 (Amplified Bible)14 And to the angel (messenger) of the assembly (church) in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the trusty and faithful and true Witness, the Origin and Beginning and Author of God's creation.

Am I understanding you correctly?

Wm

Is jesus god the angel?? 13-5

Quote (seekingtruth @ April 07 2011,21:11)

Mike, Sorry but I felt my post answered that question.

No, it really didn't.  It only offered your opinion that the second mention is of “higher status” than the first.  
——————————————
BUT THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION !!!
——————————————
Which is why I asked you this:

Quote

What if Paul had said, “Welcomed me as if I were an angel of God, as if I were Gabriel himself.”?  Now would that mean that Gabriel is of “higher status” than “an angel of God”?

Would you answer it for me please?
—————————————–
ANSWERED
—————————————–

Quote (seekingtruth @ April 07 2011,21:11)

Is this why others are always saying they answered your questions while you claim they didn't?

Wow, Wm.  I really didn't expect that from you.  No, the reason they say this is because I'm more like Pit Bull than Mike Boll when it comes to their various diversions and dodges.  I don't let up until they DIRECTLY and HONESTLY answer the question I set out to get answered.  And that makes them frustrated and angry.  Will you become frustrated and angry with me also because I've now pointed out that you DIDN'T answer my “Gabriel” question, and so I've asked it again?

Let me quote a conversation that recently transpired in the “Sophia for Moderator” thread:

Keith said:

Quote

AHHH, so Sophia is Princess? Why the Alias then? WJ

Then Princess said:

Quote

WJ, I understand that you must combine to create one, however, you too are wrong.

Then Keith said:

Quote

Princess Please learn to read and comprehend. I never accused her of being anyone.

Then Princess said:

Quote

wj, then your post was misunderstood by myself, my apologies.   sorry mike for not realizing, i understand now why you do what you do, good for you for being so persistent, it is an admirable quality.

Wm, take some time to actually read the hoops I have to jump through with these guys for months just to finally arrive at the DIRECT and HONEST answer they sh
ould have given the first time I asked the question.  Do you realize it took me two years to get Keith to acknowledge this:

just because Jesus is called God does not mean he is God.

Now, this has been the truth since the scriptures were written, right?  It has never NOT been the truth at any time in history.  So why should it take me two years of back and forth hoops and diversions for him to just simply speak the honest truth that's been there the whole time?

THAT is why they say about me what they do…………..because I won't let up, and it really bothers them.

Now the question is whether or not I will have to jump through hoops for you to get the only HONEST and DIRECT answer to my question about Gabriel that there is.  We both KNOW what that answer is, but will you SAY it?  (Hint – The answer is: “No, if Paul said Gabriel instead of Jesus, we would not be having this discussion, because not one of us would assume that it meant Gabriel was anything other than an angel of God.”)

mike

Is jesus god the angel?? 13-6

Quote (seekingtruth @ April 07 2011,21:19)

Mike, I am not arguing that Jesus was a messenger so why don't we address the heart of the issue, I assume you believe that Jesus was created by God based on these scriptures:

Hi Wm,

I don't think Gal 14 says anything about whether Jesus was created or not.  But, “YES”, the other two scriptures clearly do say he was.

mike

Is jesus god the angel?? 13-9

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 09 2011,10:33)

Quote (seekingtruth @ April 07 2011,21:11) Mike, Sorry but I felt my post answered that question. No, it really didn't.  It only offered your opinion that the second mention is of “higher status” than the first.   Which is why I asked you this: Quote What if Paul had said, “Welcomed me as if I were an angel of God, as if I were Gabriel himself.”?  Now would that mean that Gabriel is of “higher status” than “an angel of God”? Would you answer it for me please?

YES 
—————————————–
ONCE AGAIN IT WAS ANSWERED CLEARLY
—————————————–

Quote

Quote (seekingtruth @ April 07 2011,21:11) Is this why others are always saying they answered your questions while you claim they didn't?  Wow, Wm.  I really didn't expect that from you.  No, the reason they say this is because I'm more like Pit Bull than Mike Boll when it comes to their various diversions and dodges.  I don't let up until they DIRECTLY and HONESTLY answer the question I set out to get answered.  And that makes them frustrated and angry.  Will you become frustrated and angry with me also because I've now pointed out that you DIDN'T answer my “Gabriel” question, and so I've asked it again?

I believe you misread my statement, it was an observation not an accusation. And as I said I thought I had answered your question.

Quote

Let me quote a conversation that recently transpired in the “Sophia for Moderator” thread: Keith said: Quote AHHH, so Sophia is Princess? Why the Alias then? WJ Then Princess said: Quote WJ, I understand that you must combine to create one, however, you too are wrong. Then Keith said: Quote Princess Please learn to read and comprehend. I never accused her of being anyone. Then Princess said: Quote wj, then your post was misunderstood by myself, my apologies.   sorry mike for not realizing, i understand now why you do what you do, good for you for being so persistent, it is an admirable quality. Wm, take some time to actually read the hoops I have to jump through with these guys for months just to finally arrive at the DIRECT and HONEST answer they should have given the first time I asked the question.  Do you realize it took me two years to get Keith to acknowledge this: just because Jesus is called God does not mean he is God. Now, this has been the truth since the scriptures were written, right?  It has never NOT been the truth at any time in history.  So why should it take me two years of back and forth hoops and diversions for him to just simply speak the honest truth that's been there the whole time? THAT is why they say about me what they do…………..because I won't let up, and it really bothers them. Now the question is whether or not I will have to jump through hoops for you to get the only HONEST and DIRECT answer to my question about Gabriel that there is.  We both KNOW what that answer is, but will you SAY it?  (Hint – The answer is: “No, if Paul said Gabriel instead of Jesus, we would not be having this discussion, because not one of us would assume that it meant Gabriel was anything other than an angel of God.”) mike

Mike,
I agree, but that is not what you asked: (What if Paul had said, “Welcomed me as if I were an angel of God, as if I were Gabriel himself.”?  Now would that mean that Gabriel is of “higher status” than “an angel of God”?) If Paul had said that then he would have been saying Gabriel was of a higher status, hence my answer of yes. However I agree that the status for Gabriel is unknown so it really does not fit the sentence which is why I originally answered NO, until I re-read the question. This however brings us back to my earlier observation that there may be other issues to your “not getting your answers”.
——————————————
YOU ASK TWO SIMILAR SOUNDING QUESTIONS
WITH TOTALLY DIFFERENT ANSWERS
——————————————
My opinion – Wm

Is jesus god the angel?? 14-4

Quote (seekingtruth @ April 08 2011,22:52)

Mike, I agree, but that is not what you asked: (What if Paul had said, “Welcomed me as if I were an angel of God, as if I were Gabriel himself.”?  Now would that mean that Gabriel is of “higher status” than “an angel of God”?) If Paul had said that then he would have been saying Gabriel was of a higher status, hence my answer of yes. However I agree that the status for Gabriel is unknown so it really does not fit the sentence which is why I originally answered NO, until I re-read the question. This however brings us back to my earlier observation that there may be other issues to your “not getting your answers”.

Hi Wm,

If you'll look back to your post, the last one on page 11, you'll see that you didn't actually answer my “Gabriel” question.  So I don't think it's fair to assert that I have “issues” about “getting answers” based on the fact that I re-asked a question you didn't actually answer the first time.

I now understand you to be saying that had Paul said “Gabriel” instead of “Jesus”, you would assume that Gabriel was of a “higher status” than an angel.

I don't agree with that anymore than I agree Paul was implying Jesus was of a “higher status” in this sentence.  I agree that Jesus is higher than the other angels based on many other things in scripture………….but not from this one sentence.

Imagine the phrase “King of kings”.  While this implies that one king is over the other kings, it doesn't imply that this first king is NOT a king at all, does it?  It doesn't imply that this first king is of a “higher status” than “king”, does it?  No.  It only applies that WITHIN the status of “king”, this first one is higher than the others.

So Paul's statement, even taken with your understanding, wouldn't necessarily be saying Jesus is something OTHER THAN an angel, but that he is an angel who is higher than other angels.

The bottom line is that it doesn't say Jesus is NOT an angel at all.  If I'm right, then Paul is mentioning one angel by name for emphasis.  If you're right, then Paul is mentioning a high angel among angels for emphasis.

If you think about it Wm, what is higher than angel?  God, right?  Do you think Paul was saying they welcomed him as if he was God Himself?  How?  Did they bow down to him and worship him?  In what way would a human being know he was being welcomed as if he were God Himself?

mike

Is jesus god the angel?? 14-5

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 10 2011,01:22)

Quote (seekingtruth @ April 08 2011,22:52) Mike, I agree, but that is not what you asked: (What if Paul had said, “Welcomed me as if I were an angel of God, as if I were Gabriel himself.”?  Now would that mean that Gabriel is of “higher status” than “an angel of God”?) If Paul had said that then he would have been saying Gabriel was of a higher status, hence my answer of yes. However I agree that the status for Gabriel is unknown so it really does not fit the sentence which is why I originally answered NO, until I re-read the question. This however brings us back to my earlier observation that there may be other issues to your “not getting your answers”. Hi Wm, If you'll look back to your post, the last one on page 11, you'll see that you didn't actually answer my “Gabriel” question.  So I don't think it's fair to assert that I have “issues” about “getting answers” based on the fact that I re-asked a question you didn't actually answer the first time. I now understand you to be saying that had Paul said “Gabriel” instead of “Jesus”, you would assume that Gabriel was of a “higher status” than an angel. I don't agree with that anymore than I agree Paul was implying Jesus was of a “higher status” in this sentence.  I agree that Jesus is higher than the other angels based on many other things in scripture………….but not from this one sentence. Imagine the phrase “King of kings”.  While this implies that one king is over the other kings, it doesn't imply that this first king is NOT a king at all, does it?  It doesn't imply that this first king is of a “higher status” than “king”, does it?  No.  It only applies that WITHIN the status of “king”, this first one is higher than the others. So Paul's statement, even taken with your understanding, wouldn't necessarily be saying Jesus is something OTHER THAN an angel, but that he is an angel who is higher than other angels. The bottom line is that it doesn't say Jesus is NOT an angel at all.  If I'm right, then Paul is mentioning one angel by name for emphasis.  If you're right, then Paul is mentioning a high angel among angels for emphasis. If you think about it Wm, what is higher than angel?  God, right?  Do you think Paul was saying they welcomed him as if he was God Himself?  How?  Did they bow down to him and worship him?  In what way would a human being know he was being welcomed as if he were God Himself? mike

Check page 13, 9th post down, 7th line down, BOLD CAPITALIZED for my answer, directly under your request for me to answer your question, please note that the thread has not been edited.

Is jesus god the angel?? 14-9

Quote (seekingtruth @ April 09 2011,22:52)

Check page 13, 9th post down, 7th line down, BOLD CAPITALIZED for my answer, directly under your request for me to answer your question, please note that the thread has not been edited.

Hi Wm,

Maybe the chain of events will help to iron out this discrepancy:

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 07 2011,18:40)

What if Paul had said, “Welcomed me as if I were an angel of God, as if I were Gabriel himself”.  Now would that mean that Gabriel is of “higher status” than “an angel of God”?

Now this is the first time I asked this particular question about Gabriel.  I did not forget your original answer that the second mention is one of “higher status” than the first.  I was only trying to get you to see that this is not necessarily the case, so that you might see things differently.  But you responded with:

Quote (seekingtruth @ April 07 2011,21:11)

Mike, Sorry but I felt my post answered that question. Is this why others are always saying they answered your questions while you claim they didn't?

You couldn't have possibly answered THAT question, because I hadn't asked it before.  So I responded wit
h this:
——————————————
IT WAS AN EARLIER QUESTION (YOU ASKED MULTIPLE QUESTIONS UNDER THE GUISE OF ONE QUESTION)
——————————————

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 08 2011,20:33)

No, it really didn't.  It only offered your opinion that the second mention is of “higher status” than the first.   Which is why I asked you this: Quote What if Paul had said, “Welcomed me as if I were an angel of God, as if I were Gabriel himself.”?  Now would that mean that Gabriel is of “higher status” than “an angel of God”? Would you answer it for me please?

To which you responded:

Quote (seekingtruth @ April 08 2011,22:52)

YES

Having received your direct answer of “YES”, I responded with:

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 09 2011,11:22)

Hi Wm, I now understand you to be saying that had Paul said “Gabriel” instead of “Jesus”, you would assume that Gabriel was of a “higher status” than an angel…………

So you see, once you DID actually answer my question, I accepted that answer and worked forward from it.  I noticed though that in your eagerness to show that I had asked a question you already answered, you didn't actually address the rest of my post about “King of kings” and such.

But I have a different question for you anyway.  Bear in mind that this is NOT a question I've asked before, but a DIFFERENT question altogether:

“You welcomed me as if I were a King of Israel, as if I were Solomon himself”.

Wm, do you STILL think that the second mention indicates that Solomon was of a “higher status” than “a King of Israel”?  Do you think it indicates that Solomon himself was NOT also a King of Israel?

mike

Is jesus god the angel?? 15-2

Mike,
Lets take a different approach, apparently I'm to simple to keep up.  

I don't believe in skirting issues, I try to answer questions honestly while listening and evaluating what the other side says, I have a proven history of conceding and changing my opinion if the evidence supports it.

If I believe a discussion has degraded into “quarreling about words” (which I will not participate in) I will let you know and you can give me as many tiles as you feel necessary.

Please post your questions (one at a time) in Bold, and if there are any parameters expected in the response spell them out for me and we'll see if I can get you your answer.

Wm

Is jesus god the angel?? 15-3

Hi Wm,

“You welcomed me as if I were a King of Israel, as if I were Solomon himself”.

1.  Wm, do you STILL think that the second mention indicates that Solomon was of a “higher status” than “a King of Israel”?  

2.  Do you think it indicates that Solomon himself was NOT also a King of Israel?

mike
——————————————
NOTE 2 QUESTIONS EVEN THOUGH I HAD ASKED FOR ONE AT A TIME
——————————————
Is jesus god the angel?? 15-5

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 11 2011,11:08)

Hi Wm, “You welcomed me as if I were a King of Israel, as if I were Solomon himself”. 1.  Wm, do you STILL think that the second mention indicates that Solomon was of a “higher status” than “a King of Israel”?   2.  Do you think it indicates that Solomon himself was NOT also a King of Israel? mike

Mike,
1-Yes

2-No

Although I do understand what your saying now I do not agree.

Galatians 4:13 On the contrary, you know that it was on account of a bodily ailment that preached the Gospel to you the first time.14 And [yet] although my physical condition was [such] a trial to you, you did not regard it with contempt, or scorn and loathe and reject me; but you received me as an angel of God, [even] as Christ Jesus [Himself]!

My turn:
1-What did they receive Paul as an angel or a messenger?

Is jesus god the angel?? 16-2

Quote (seekingtruth @ April 10 2011,22:56)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 11 2011,11:08) Hi Wm, “You welcomed me as if I were a King of Israel, as if I were Solomon himself”. 1.  Wm, do you STILL think that the second mention indicates that Solomon was of a “higher status” than “a King of Israel”?   2.  Do you think it indicates that Solomon himself was NOT also a King of Israel? mike Mike, 1-Yes 2-No

Hi Wm,

I just don't get it, man.    Your “NO” indicates that Solomon WAS “a King of Israel”.  So in what way does your “YES” indicate that Solomon was of “higer status” than “a King of Israel”?  I mean, was he also a “god” or something?

We may never see eye to eye on this, but IMO, the second mention only singles out a particular member of the first group mentioned.  And the one singled out is usually a well known member of the group mentioned, but he is not singled out because he's NOT a member of the group mentioned.  That would be silly.  It would be like:

You welcomed me as if I were a Nascar driver, as if I were Albert Einstein himself.”

See?  That's just silly because the one singled out has nothing at all to the group mentioned previously.    Compare that with:

You welcomed me as if I were a Nascar driver, as if I were Jeff Gordon himself.”  

That's better.  The one singled out is a well known member OF the group that is mentioned previously.  Just as Bill Gates is a member OF the group of “billionaires”, and Solomon is a member OF the group of “Kings of Israel” and Jesus is a member OF the group of “angels of God/messengers of God”.

Th
at's the only way the “second mention emphasis” would even work.  If the one singled out is not a member OF the group previously mentioned…………..well, see my Albert Einstein analogy, and notice how much sense it made.  

Quote (seekingtruth @ April 10 2011,22:56)

My turn: 1-What did they receive Paul as an angel or a messenger?

They received him as “aggelos”, which means:

1) a messenger, envoy, one who is sent, an angel, a messenger from God

If Jesus fits any or all of the definition above, then Jesus is “aggelos”.  It doesn't really matter which English word we choose to use, for there was only one Greek word for both “messenger” and “angel”.  Jesus fits the definition of this word, and therefore IS “aggelos”.

Thanks for the chat Wm.

peace,
mike

Is jesus god the angel?? 16-6

Quote (seekingtruth @ April 11 2011,19:00)

At least we agree that the items need to follow the same theme which brings me to the point I was building towards, Paul tells us himself that they received him as a messenger which is why he referenced higher levels of messengers; the messengers of God (angels), and God's greatest messenger, His Son Jesus Christ. So unless Paul was an angel the translation for “aggelos” in this case should have been messenger. My opinion – Wm

Hi Wm,

That's fine with me.  But just remember it is the same Greek word that we in English translate as either “angel” or “messenger”.  And the English translators usually use “messenger” for a human aggelos, and “angel” for a spirit being aggelos.  Which is also fine with me.

And if Paul was saying he was welcomed as a human aggelos, as if he was the (prior) human aggelos Jesus, then I'm okay with that if you are.

But don't forget that Jesus is now a spirit being and still an aggelos of his God.  So while Jesus once was a human aggelos, or “messenger of God”, he is now a spirit aggelos, or “angel of God”.

peace,
mike

——————————————
I TEND TO AGREE WITH YOU ON YOUR ARGUMENT WITH PALADIN, BUT IT IS YOUR DEMAND THAT YOU BE ANSWERED IN A MANNER OF YOUR CHOOSING (THAT AT LEAST WITH ME) SEEMED TO HAVE MORE TO DO WITH MANIPULATING YOUR OPPOSITION, THEN WITH SECURING TRUTH.

2 Tim. 2:14-15 Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.

YOUR CALLING (IN YOUR WORDS) IS TO BE A “PIT BULL” FOR TRUTH. WELL THAT'S FINE BUT THE ABOVE VERSE IS MY SIGNATURE AND I BELIEVE MY CALLING, I WILL DEFEND VITAL TRUTHS TO MY DYING BREATH, BUT A DEBATE ON SOMETHING SUCH AS THE NATURE OF THINGS BEYOND OUR UNDERSTANDING CAN GO TOO FAR AND CERTAIN TECHNIQUES (MANIPULATION) SHOULD NEVER BE USED.

I DO NOT AGREE WITH YOUR CLOSING ARGUMENT THAT JESUS HAS SOMEHOW BECOME AN ANGEL. HOWEVER I DID NOT RESPOND, AS I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT YOUR BELIEF IN SUCH, HAS ANY AFFECTS ON VITAL TRUTHS, YOUR SALVATION, OR IS SEEN BY THOSE WATCHING FROM THE SIDELINES AS ANYTHING BUT JW RHETORIC.

My opinion – Wm

[seekingtruth]

Mike,
I may have been too hard on you, I think the problem is you analyse a response by the letter while I analyse a response on principles. So for me I see all your questions as being answered as I had explained the principles behind it, but you're not seeing the details needed to satisfy your thought process.

If this is so then I apologize for thinking and stating publicly that you were manipulating, although I sure felt that way.

My opinion – Wm

[Lightenup]

Hi William,
I have felt that way too, about being manipulated. I think what you said was carefully said and with the right spirit too…to correct a brother with an attempt to establish peace in the light of truth.

I read this following piece and thought it was very good about having a connection with people when we really should go for having a concord with people who claim to follow Christ.

“By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body.” —1 Corinthians 12:12-19.
It is only in the spirit that real union is born. Every other kind of union is artificial, and mechanical, and dead. We can dovetail many pieces of wood together and make the unity of an article of furniture, but we cannot dovetail items together and make a tree. And it is the union of a tree that we require, a union born of indwelling life. We may join many people together in a fellowship by the bonds of a formal creed, but the result is only a piece of social furniture, it is not a vital communion. There is a vast difference between a connection and a concord.

Many members of a family may bear the same name, may share the same blood, may sit and eat at the same table, and yet may have no more vital union than a handful of marbles in a boy's pocket. But let the spirit of a common love dwell in all their hearts and there is a family bound together in glorious union.

And so it is in the spirit, and there alone, that vital union is to be found. And here is the secret of such spiritual union. “By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body.” The Spirit of God, dwelling in all our spirits, attunes them into glorious harmony. Our lives blend with one another in the very music of the spheres.

http://christianbookshelf.org/jowett….and.htm

Love to you Bro,
Kathi

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (seekingtruth @ July 19 2011,18:31)

Quote (Lightenup @ July 20 2011,02:57) No one should be tiled for ignoring a question without putting the person in the hot seat thread first with the question and then PM'd with a notice of a possible tile for not answering and only after several attempts of asking the question.  If a tile is given for totally ignoring a question, then it should be removed when the person responds to the question, even with an “I don't know.” imo. However, I did not vote on this issue as I've had Mike accuse me of not answering when I felt I had (and later proved that I had). I do not want to condemn someone without first checking it out myself.

Hi William

So I am not the only one to have experienced this from Mike?

It is a shame that you had to go all the way back and make that long post to prove Mikes claims are wrong.

You and I are not the only ones that has had this kind of dealings with Mike. It is a shame that a moderator of this sight brings so much drama and turmoil.

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (seekingtruth @ July 20 2011,12:34)

Mike, I may have been too hard on you, I think the problem is you analyse a response by the letter while I analyse a response on principles. So for me I see all your questions as being answered as I had explained the principles behind it, but you're not seeing the details needed to satisfy your thought process. If this is so then I apologize for thinking and stating publicly that you were manipulating, although I sure felt that way. My opinion – Wm

Hi All

Lets face it, I have been here for a long time and have never seen anyone have a problem with William until Mike came along.

Good for you William for taking a stand for the “Truth” and defending your faith.

Mike in my opinion stirs up the pot of discord and accusations against Christians (Who BTW believe Jesus is the Son of God, Mike) that confess Jesus as their Lord and that he is the “Only Begotten Son of God”.

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (seekingtruth @ July 20 2011,11:36)

APOLOGIES FOR THE LONG POST BUT THIS IS THE COMPLETE HISTORY OF OUR DISCUSSION (LESS THE PM) IF YOU READ MY COMMENTS BELOW YOU WILL SEE THAT THE POSTS CLEARLY SHOW THAT I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION(S) THE WHOLE TIME YOU WERE ACCUSING ME OF NOT ANSWERING THEM.

Hi William

I didn't realize he put you through that misery also.

WJ

[942767]

Hi Mike:

I agree with what William and WJ have said relative to your accusation about someone not answering your questions, and I will add that I believe that Paladin has answered your questions.

Love in Christ,
Marty

[seekingtruth]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 21 2011,03:16)

Quote (seekingtruth @ July 20 2011,11:36) APOLOGIES FOR THE LONG POST BUT THIS IS THE COMPLETE HISTORY OF OUR DISCUSSION (LESS THE PM) IF YOU READ MY COMMENTS BELOW YOU WILL SEE THAT THE POSTS CLEARLY SHOW THAT I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION(S) THE WHOLE TIME YOU WERE ACCUSING ME OF NOT ANSWERING THEM. Hi William I didn't realize he put you through that misery also. WJ

It was a good exercise for me, I kept thinking that I had answered his question(s) but by doing this, it became apparent that I had, and that there where other issues. I know Mike does not like it when he's told that he has the problem (any more then any of us would) but he needs to take a step back and pray about it. Hopefully laying it out like this will help him to see it for himself.

I'm not mad at Mike (frustrated at times) he has done a lot of good here, and I have a love for him and his zeal. I just feel he is overzealous on minor issues Romans 10:2 For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge.

I just pray that love was my motive and I have been pleasing to the Lord in all that I wrote.

Wm

[seekingtruth]

Quote (Lightenup @ July 21 2011,01:59)

Hi William, I have felt that way too, about being manipulated.  I think what you said was carefully said and with the right spirit too…to correct a brother with an attempt to establish peace in the light of truth. I read this following piece and thought it was very good about having a connection with people when we really should go for having a concord with people who claim to follow Christ. “By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body.” —1 Corinthians 12:12-19. It is only in the spirit that real union is born. Every other kind of union is artificial, and mechanical, and dead. We can dovetail many pieces of wood together and make the unity of an article of furniture, but we cannot dovetail items together and make a tree. And it is the union of a tree that we require, a union born of indwelling life. We may join many people together in a fellowship by the bonds of a formal creed, but the result is only a piece of social furniture, it is not a vital communion. There is a vast difference between a connection and a concord. Many members of a family may bear the same name, may share the same blood, may sit and eat at the same table, and yet may have no more vital union than a handful of marbles in a boy's pocket. But let the spirit of a common love dwell in all their hearts and there is a family bound together in glorious union. And so it is in the spirit, and there alone, that vital union is to be found. And here is the secret of such spiritual union. “By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body.” The Spirit of God, dwelling in all our spirits, attunes them into glorious harmony. Our lives blend with one another in the very music of the spheres. http://christianbookshelf.org/jowett….and.htm Love to you Bro, Kathi

Thank you for the encouragement Sis,
I've always maintained that the closer we grow to God the closer we grow to each other and the more our differences will disappear. I will gladly discuss non-vital issues and defend them to a point, but if it starts coming between me and my brother/sister or causing ruin to someone watching from the sidelines, then it is time to drop it. There are issues where we can agree to dis-agree, while maintaining fellowship and a love for one another.

Thanks – Wm

[Pastry]

Quote (942767 @ July 21 2011,06:52)

Hi Mike: I agree with what William and WJ have said relative to your accusation about someone not answering your questions, and I will add that I believe that Paladin has answered your questions. Love in Christ, Marty

Marty! And where do you see that? Because I have not seen that from Paladin at all. All He said was, that you can't answer that question with a yes, or no. That is bull……Peace Irene

[mikeboll64]

Quote (seekingtruth @ July 20 2011,11:34)

Mike, I may have been too hard on you, I think the problem is you analyse a response by the letter while I analyse a response on principles. So for me I see all your questions as being answered as I had explained the principles behind it, but you're not seeing the details needed to satisfy your thought process. If this is so then I apologize for thinking and stating publicly that you were manipulating, although I sure felt that way. My opinion – Wm

Hi Wm,

You at first said:

Quote

It is a second emphasis of an even higher status to stress the point.

I knew that was not the case, but instead the second example is always a MEMBER OF the first group mentioned.

I have just now noticed this comment you made on page 11:

Quote

If the second emphasis is added it is typically focused on either an example that exemplifies the item being discussed or something a whole new level higher.

The bolded part is what MY argument was from the beginning.  So we ended up in partial agreement anyway and I didn't even know it!    I did not then, nor do I now agree with the “something a whole new level higher” part.

Wm, I did not catch the “exemplifies” part of your post, and I am truly sorry for that.  But this is what you've said today about that “exemplifies” post:

Quote

THE ABOVE ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION NO MATTER WHO'S NAMES YOU PUT IN.

I disagree.  What the “above” does to my question about Gabriel is say that either “YES, he IS of a whole new level”, or “NO, he only exemplifies the item being discussed”.

See?  It does NOT actually answer the question I asked, does it?  It tells me, “Maybe or maybe not” when I was asking for a DEFINITE “YES” or a DEFINITE “NO”.

You said:

Quote

This however brings us back to my earlier observation that there may be other issues to your “not getting your answers”. —————————————— YOU ASK TWO SIMILAR SOUNDING QUESTIONS WITH TOTALLY DIFFERENT ANSWERS

Wm, this is not rocket science here.  Just read the question and give an honest and direct answer to it.  Here, I'll show you how it's done:

Mike, if Paul had said, “as if I were Gabriel himself”, would it mean that Gabriel was of a higher status than “angel of God”?

“NO”.

Mike, thank you for taking that ONE SECOND out of your life to answer a simple YES or NO question!

“NO PROBLEM, YOU CAN ASK ME ANYTHING YOU WANT.  AND YOU CAN ASK AS MANY TIMES AS YOU WANT IF YOU ARE NOT SATISFIED THAT MY ORIGINAL ANSWER ACTUALLY ADDRESSED THE QUESTION COMPLETELY.”

Thanks Mike.  It sure is swell discoursing with someone like you!

   

Btw, what you said above about principles and details is correct.  I like to get details but some people, for some odd reason, have a problem giving them when asked.  And as you've just seen, your “one principle answer fits all” theory doesn't really work all the time, does it?  The Devil is in the details, Wm.  And if I can't drive him to the surface, then how can I root him out?  My questions are specifically designed to drive him to the surface.  It's not so hard to type “YES” or “NO” is it?  In fact, I'd guess that based on the number of words used, your response about how others say I keep asking the same questions took you 16 TIMES AS LONG to write than it would have taken you to just post a “YES” or a “NO” to my question – EVEN IF YOU DID ALREADY ANSWER IT BEFORE.  

peace to you Wm,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 20 2011,13:06)

It is a shame that you had to go all the way back and make that long post to prove Mikes claims are wrong.

Well Keith,

I've just shown Wm's accusation to be inaccurate, didn't I?  I didn't ONCE ask him the same question after he had answered it, did I?  So now it's your turn.  Show me how I kept asking the same question after you ACTUALLY ANSWERED IT DIRECTLY.

(And I'm not talking about discussions that were months apart, for all of us go over some of the same stuff we've already discussed with others.)

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Pastry @ July 20 2011,17:10)

Quote (942767 @ July 21 2011,06:52) Hi Mike: I agree with what William and WJ have said relative to your accusation about someone not answering your questions, and I will add that I believe that Paladin has answered your questions. Love in Christ, Marty Marty!  And where do you see that?  Because I have not seen that from Paladin at all.  All He said was, that you can't answer that question with a yes, or no.  That is bull……Peace Irene

Thank you Irene,

You have seen it correctly.  Paladin has REFUSED to answer my question.

What Marty said today on this thread must mean that what he said on the Incarnation thread, page 192-4, was only for kicks and giggles:

Quote (942767 @ July 10 2011,09:30)

Hi Brother Paladin: Please answer Mike's bolded question.  Otherwise, we will be here all day. Love in Christ, Marty

Thanks for always having my back, Irene.

peace and love,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (seekingtruth @ July 20 2011,14:36)

I know Mike does not like it when he's told that he has the problem (any more then any of us would) but he needs to take a step back and pray about it.

What I don't like is being accused of things I didn't do. Paladin will also testify to this. Because although his false accusations about me took many hours out of my life to disprove, I “pit bulled” the truth right out of him that time.

He finally apologized for his misunderstanding. And I forgave him.

peace,
mike

[Author]

Posts