When does the bio. father become the bio. father?

Participant

Hey, Irene, thanks…

Must be the sunshine over here has affected my thinking … Roll on winter!!! (Joking…)

April 25, 2011 at 5:29 pm#244413

Baker

Participant

Quote (Istari @ April 26 2011,04:21)

Hey, Irene, thanks…

Must be the sunshine over here has affected my thinking … Roll on winter!!! (Joking…)

Lucky you, and you welcome…We had rain for so long. 11 inches so far this month. Breaking all records. And this week all rain again, with a little bit of sunshine…..The Ohio River will be 7 feet over the flood stage…. Lakes in our area are monsters….
Peace Irene

April 25, 2011 at 5:48 pm#244415

Participant

And Mike,

You know my views on WORSHIP… you know I meant 'To do obesiance'.
You could just have said 'OH, and by the way, I think you mean the angels will do OBEISANCE to Jesus' and I would have said, 'Good call, Mike. Yes! That's what I meant'

By the way, God's First-born nation is Israel…
Does this mean
'The first nation ever God created on Earth'
Or
'The most loved by God of all the created nations on Earth'?
(And, no, it doesn't EXCLUDE Israel from being the first but given that scriptures shows by many examples how the FIRST-born by birth DOES NOT more often end up as the FIRSTBORN by RANK (Begotten/raised up above the others) and that is it also often the SMALLEST from among them that asceeds to the MOST LOVED position – David was the smallest of his brothers and not particularly handsome but Saul was TALL LOFTY AND GOODLOOKING (…as was Lucifer))

April 25, 2011 at 5:53 pm#244416

Participant

Aha, Irene, so that's where our April showed have gone to!

We should be having rain for our spring – ok, the hot weather is nice but we need the wager for the plants and the watertable for drinking ( and hosepipes).

Can you ask your weather people to send some our way… I'll be in Jamaica in late July so they can send it to GB then – ok!

April 25, 2011 at 10:12 pm#244438

Participant

Quote (Baker @ April 25 2011,09:29)

I do agree that WJ, KJ> and SF all gang up on Mike, but there too He ignores their rudeness, which I find they are…..I don't think that they will ever get away from their believe of the trinity.

Irene

And I think you are rude for saying this. I have always tried to be nice to you.

We have given Mike no less or more treatment than he has given us.

As far as ganging up on him, how about the years I have been here as a “lone” Trinitarian and was ganged up on? I didn't see you coming to my defence did you?

Besides Mike loves the attention, haven't you noticed?

April 25, 2011 at 10:35 pm#244440

Participant

WJ,
I'd love to laugh at what you just said but Mike would tile me for doing so – not the person who said – just me for laughing… So sorry…

April 26, 2011 at 3:04 am#244497

Baker

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 26 2011,09:12)

Quote (Baker @ April 25 2011,09:29)

I do agree that WJ, KJ> and SF all gang up on Mike, but there too He ignores their rudeness, which I find they are…..I don't think that they will ever get away from their believe of the trinity.

Irene

And I think you are rude for saying this. I have always tried to be nice to you.

We have given Mike no less or more treatment than he has given us.

As far as ganging up on him, how about the years I have been here as a “lone” Trinitarian and was ganged up on? I didn't see you coming to my defence did you?

Besides Mike loves the attention, haven't you noticed?

Keith! When KJ puts up these nice little characters, and says something funny, instead of debating Scriptures and you agreeing with Him, is not ganging on Mike?
Was I even around when you were the only Trinitarian? Maybe Georg was. I did not post at first. Now I post, and Georg is done here…..Hey, I was not referring to myself, but to Mike. I very seldom say anything in that tread. I reakky hate when people say silly stuff, rather then debating Scriptures. I even said that about my dear Husband. I find it uncalled for…. Some can be very sarcastic…my Husband included.
Peace Irene

April 26, 2011 at 3:53 am#244506

Blocked

Okay…………..

After wading through all the personal insults that result from one getting his butt kicked scripturally, I did find a couple of tidbits to address:

I said:

Quote

Istari, I understand what you claim: That Adam was God's “firstborn” (as in “most loved or whatever”) of the flesh sons of God and that Jesus replaced him thereby becoming God's “firstborn” (as in “most loved” or whatever) of the flesh sons of God.

Istari said:

Quote

Do you agree or deny that this might be so? Answer Yes or No!

I'm not sure yet:

1. Was Adam EVER called God's firstborn son?
2. Was Adam the firstborn of all creation?
3. Was Adam the only begotten Son of God?
4. Were all things, including the invisible rulers of heaven created through Adam?

So while I don't fully “deny” what you're claiming, I also know that you're leaving much out of the equation. The original point I made was why Jesus was called “THE son of God” as opposed to “A son of God”. And your (newest) answer seems to only allow for him being the last Adam, while it neglects to address any of the other issues above. Nor have you addressed the fact that Adam was never called “THE son of God” in scripture, while Jesus was called by this title at least 38 times.

Istari said:

Quote

The raging rows you have with WJ, KJ and SF – what are they to you then – they appeal to you because you feel you can overcome them so it's FUN.

Mike, to us reading them, you get a very different perspective – and it ain't FUN.

Istari, when something stops being fun……………quit doing it. If reading my posts to Keith isn't fun for you, then don't read them. Pretty simple, really.

Istari said:

Quote

If I thought that you had made a mistake, I would have said it that way. But you were bending over backwards to make a point that ONLY ANGELS are told to WORSHIP Jesus, NOT MEN. And by that I knew that you truly believed what you were saying, and so instructed you that it was really “doing obeisance” in the “god the angel” thread over a week ago………….but to no avail. So when I saw you post it again in this thread, I assumed you read my instructions in the other thread and for some reason didn't believe me. But my point hit home this time, right? Okay then, all is well because now you know the truth of the matter. And that's what I'm here for.

Istari said:

Quote

By the way, God's First-born nation is Israel…
Does this mean
'The first nation ever God created on Earth'
Or
'The most loved by God of all the created nations on Earth'?

Ahhh…………..good. Now we have an example that you yourself brought up. Well Istari? WAS the nation of Israel the first nation ever on earth? Of course not. And we KNOW this fact from the actual scriptures, right? Therefore this is one of those times when we DON'T use the default meaning of “firstborn” because we KNOW from scriptures the default meaning doesn't apply in this case.

NOW…………………….show me which scripture precludes the default from applying in the case of Jesus. Because if there isn't one, then the default meaning of “the one born first” will always apply.

I hope that you at least understand what Kathi and I have been saying now.

Istari, do you think you'll want to address any of the points I've made here……………or just keep hiding behind your childish insults?

mike

April 26, 2011 at 3:59 am#244508

Blocked

Quote (Baker @ April 25 2011,08:29)

And I can see with so much said in one post, that He missed your answer.

Hi Irene,

Thanks for coming to my defense. I assure you it isn't necessary, but appreciated anyway.

And while I agree 100% with your above comment, (because it is like finding a needle in a haystack when someone places the answer to your question in the middle of a million word post), I assure you that Istari didn't directly answer my question until the post where I commented on his answer.

I asked him to cut and paste where he answered it before………….and for some reason he didn't do that. So while it wouldn't be the first time I was ever wrong, I think in this case, after crying about it like he did, if the answer WAS there, he would have bent over backwards to cut and paste it just to show everyone how terrible I am.

peace to you………….you are a fine friend

mike

April 26, 2011 at 4:02 am#244510

Blocked

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 25 2011,16:12)

Besides Mike loves the attention, haven't you noticed?

What Mike loves is for people to directly answer his direct questions. There are a couple waiting for you right now, are there not, Keith?

Btw, is Istari right about you? Do you PURPOSELY post the NONSENSE that you do just to have a good laugh at me…………like he said?

mike

April 26, 2011 at 4:16 am#244513

Lightenup

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 25 2011,22:53)

Okay…………..

After wading through all the personal insults that result from one getting his butt kicked scripturally, I did find a couple of tidbits to address:

I said:

Quote

Istari said:

Quote

Do you agree or deny that this might be so? Answer Yes or No!

I'm not sure yet:

Istari said:

Quote

The raging rows you have with WJ, KJ and SF – what are they to you then – they appeal to you because you feel you can overcome them so it's FUN.

Mike, to us reading them, you get a very different perspective – and it ain't FUN.

Istari, when something stops being fun……………quit doing it. If reading my posts to Keith isn't fun for you, then don't read them. Pretty simple, really.

Istari said:

Quote

Istari said:

Quote

By the way, God's First-born nation is Israel…
Does this mean
'The first nation ever God created on Earth'
Or
'The most loved by God of all the created nations on Earth'?

I hope that you at least understand what Kathi and I have been saying now.

Istari, do you think you'll want to address any of the points I've made here……………or just keep hiding behind your childish insults?

mike

Good post Mike!

Kathi

April 26, 2011 at 4:23 am#244515

Blocked

Well, you know………….it was FUN for me.

Thanks

April 26, 2011 at 8:32 am#244535

Participant

Mike,

Your taunts show that not only are you as deceitful as to change the tenor of my points by leaving out parts that YOU NEED TO to try and discredit me, but you are also vindictive as to demand a nonsense question back.

You have deliberately sculpted my points so as to make them seem what you want others to think I was saying.

But, of course, you forget or ignore the fact that I wrote what I wrote and I know what I wrote as opposed to what you wrote that I wrote.

This means YOU ARE SCARED OF ME but are too arrogant to admit it and need to become deceitful to get over it.

Mike, WHY DID YOU CHANGE WHAT I WROTE if you are looking for truth.
Mike, deliberately misrepresenting someone is UNLAWFUL…

And as such I will be presenting my case to t8/Heaven.

Thank you for SO OPENLY SHOWING YOUR TRUE COLOURS so EVERYONE WHO HAS AN EYE TO SEE CAN SEE YOU AS YOU REALLY ARE!!

April 26, 2011 at 3:11 pm#244549

Participant

Quote (Baker @ April 25 2011,22:04)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 26 2011,09:12)

Quote (Baker @ April 25 2011,09:29)

I do agree that WJ, KJ> and SF all gang up on Mike, but there too He ignores their rudeness, which I find they are…..I don't think that they will ever get away from their believe of the trinity.

Irene

And I think you are rude for saying this. I have always tried to be nice to you.

We have given Mike no less or more treatment than he has given us.

As far as ganging up on him, how about the years I have been here as a “lone” Trinitarian and was ganged up on? I didn't see you coming to my defence did you?

Besides Mike loves the attention, haven't you noticed?

Irene

The point is when you start calling out names and calling them rude, well I believe that is rude.

You could easily make your point about people being rude without making it personal.

If you feel that KJ and I have been rude to you then show us where or call us out on it when you think it happens.

As far as smiley faces and things like that well I think that is fine because they are expressive and as long as they are not malicous then I see nothing wrong with it. Lighten up!

For instance I will address you personally in how I think you have been rude…

For example when there is a heavy debate going on between Mike and I, or whoever, then it is interrupted by you pasting a book of scriptures and info to attack the Trinity view even when the discussion is not about the Trinity. Of course unless it is a debate thread there are no rules against that, but IMO it is rude and is meant to distract and interrupt the flow of the thread or the debate.

Even though I have never called you rude, since you are accusing us of being rude then I thought I would point that out.

Just my opinion. :ghostface:

April 26, 2011 at 3:22 pm#244551

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 25 2011,23:02)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 25 2011,16:12)

Besides Mike loves the attention, haven't you noticed?

What Mike loves is for people to directly answer his direct questions. There are a couple waiting for you right now, are there not, Keith?

Down boy! Have some “patience” my friend!

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 25 2011,23:02)

Btw, is Istari right about you? Do you PURPOSELY post the NONSENSE that you do just to have a good laugh at me…………like he said?

Wouldn't you like to know?

April 26, 2011 at 4:59 pm#244554

SimplyForgiven

Participant

Quote (Istari @ April 25 2011,16:38)

And did not Jesus break the rules of the Jews that strangled them and left them impotent to the harse and overbearing penalties of the bloodstained swords of their overseers – the Romans: the law and the taskmaster.

The raging rows you have with WJ, KJ and SF – what are they to you then – they appeal to you because you feel you can overcome them so it's FUN.

Mike, to us reading them, you get a very different perspective – and it ain't FUN.

The Anger in those posts is frightening – yet you seem to love it.
Why? Because you can best them – I don't know if you know it but they are ONLY LAUGHING AT YOU.

Step back, Mike, step back from the 'Personal' in those threads and you will see them posting nonesense to you for A LAUGH. you are caught up in the flow so much that you don't notice – mike, they are the real 'enemy' but you take them as 'friends' – or perhaps argument is all you really seek!

hahahaha
Enemy??

Good rememeber not to ever call me a brother

Dont forget what you said Istari, i will hold you to it,

Mi Enemigo

April 26, 2011 at 5:05 pm#244556

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/richardson/fathers.x.iii.iii.html

Participant

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 26 2011,11:59)

Quote (Istari @ April 25 2011,16:38)

The raging rows you have with WJ, KJ and SF – what are they to you then – they appeal to you because you feel you can overcome them so it's FUN.

Mike, to us reading them, you get a very different perspective – and it ain't FUN.

The Anger in those posts is frightening – yet you seem to love it.
Why? Because you can best them – I don't know if you know it but they are ONLY LAUGHING AT YOU.

hahahaha
Enemy??

Good rememeber not to ever call me a brother

Dont forget what you said Istari, i will hold you to it,

Mi Enemigo

Amen!

April 26, 2011 at 6:17 pm#244560

Lightenup

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ April 23 2011,19:17)

Keith,
You have argued endlessly over the term 'begotten God' and now you are acting like you didn't. What is your use of the word 'begotten' as a verb?

So the Nicene Creed is not the foundation of the orthodox faith. Can you show me where the foundation of the orthodox faith began?

Did I ever say that I accept early 'orthodox' trinitarian views or did I simply say that I agree with an early trinity view? The early church and I agree that there was one essence and they use the term 'being' to mean essence at times. They all spoke of more than one person which I consider a being. Therefore, according to my use of the word 'being,' they all agree to more than one person/being and one essence.

Not all of the early church fathers mentioned that the Holy Spirit was a person. Not all early church father's agreed on everything either, in fact not all 'orthodox trinitarians' or contemporary trinitarian pastors agree on everything.

The Holy Spirit is not listed as a person here:

The Trinity
10. I have sufficiently shown that we are not atheists since we acknowledge one God, who is uncreated, eternal, invisible, impassible, incomprehensible, illimitable. He is grasped only by mind and intelligence, and surrounded by light, beauty, spirit, and indescribable power. By him the universe was created through his Word, was set in order, and is held together. , for we also think that God has a Son.
Let no one think it stupid for me to say that God has a Son. For we do not think of God the Father or of the Son in the way of the poets, who weave their myths by showing that gods are no better than men. But the Son of God is his Word in idea and in actuality; for by him and through him all things were made, the Father and the Son being one. And since the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son by the unity and power of the Spirit, the Son of God is the mind and Word of the Father.
But if, owing to your sharp intelligence, it occurs to you to inquire further what is meant by the Son, I shall briefly explain. He is the first offspring of the Father. I do not mean that he was created, for, since God is eternal mind, he had his Word within himself from the beginning, being eternally wise. Rather did the Son come forth from God to give form and actuality to all material things, which essentially have a sort of formless nature and inert quality, the heavier particles being mixed up with the lighter. The prophetic Spirit agrees with this opinion when he says, “The Lord created me as the first of his ways, for his works.”
Indeed we say that the Holy Spirit himself, who inspires those who utter prophecies, is an effluence from God, flowing from him and returning like a ray of the sun. Who, then, would not be astonished to hear those called atheists who admit God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and who teach their unity in power and their distinction in rank? Nor is our theology confined to these points. We affirm, too, a crowd of angels and ministers, whom God, the maker and creator of the world, appointed to their several tasks through his Word. He gave them charge over the good order of the universe, over the elements, the heavens, the world, and all it contains.

Kathi

Bump for Keith. Did you comment on this Keith?

Kathi

April 26, 2011 at 8:26 pm#244567