Who is this Jesus?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (abe @ May 23 2013,21:49)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 23 2013,19:00) Quote (abe @ May 23 2013,20:56) Hi All, 1Tim.2:5   For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, the    MAN    Christ Jesus, Peace brothers… Post the rest of the statement, Abe.  Then we can discuss it. Hi Mike, 1Tim.2:5   For there is one God, [and] one mediator also between God and men, [the] man Christ Jesus, 6who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony [given] at the proper time.

That's better.  Was Jesus a man when he gave himself as a ransom for all?  Of course he was.  So to me, Paul's statement means:  The man who gave his life as a ransom for all has become the mediator between God and men.

But here's the thing, Abe:  We could understand the statement the way I understand it, and it WOULDN'T contradict scriptures like Galatians 1:1, 1:11-12, and 4:14 – all of which make it CLEAR that Jesus is no longer a flesh man.

I mean, how much clearer can you get than this…………

Galatians 1:1
Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ……….

…….. or this?

Galatians 1
11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

And we have testimony that describes when Jesus gave that gospel to Paul (Saul), right?  The glory of Jesus was so bright that Saul was blinded, right? Blinded? Hmmm……….. That sounds more like the results of seeing a person with eyes of fire and a face as brilliant as the sun (Rev 1) than seeing a flesh human being, right?

We also have Jesus clearly explaining to Nicodemus that flesh and blood humans must be born again in order to enter the kingdom of heaven, because flesh cannot enter.

Then we have Paul explaining in 1 Cor 15 how the first man Adam became a living being, while the last man Adam – the one who was from heaven – became a life-giving spirit.  And in verse 50, Paul confirms Jesus' earlier teaching that flesh cannot inherit God's Kingdom.

Then we have Phil 3:21, where Paul is anxious to receive a glorious new body like the one his Lord now has in heaven.  Is the flesh body in which Jesus died a “glorious new body” in your opinion, Abe?

I really don't understand how people can so easily understand that the heavens are a spirit realm, where God and his angels dwell………… but at the same time imagine that the second highest being in existence is a lowly flesh man, who dwells among all these wonderful spirit beings.  

But you are free to believe what you like.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ May 23 2013,22:23)

Is the word 'Almighty' in the original manuscripts? Yes or no? Is the word 'Father' in the original manuscripts? Yes or no? If not, then theos could refer to the only begotten theos as it seems to in John 1:1c.

Kathi,

Let's take a little stroll down Hebrews 9 for a second………..

14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!

1.  Who is the one who offered his blood for us?  “God”?  Or “Christ”?

2.  Does that statement make it clear enough that Paul* considered “Christ” to be someone other than “God”?

24 For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence.

I included verse 24 as confirmation that Paul* indeed knows the difference between our Lord, Jesus Christ, and our God, Jehovah.  Unlike you, he doesn't confuse the two.

Perhaps you and I could do a debate where we go through every sentence in scripture that Paul ever wrote or said.  One by one, we could decide if Paul thought Jesus was “God”, or someone other than “God”.

What do you say?  Are you brave enough send your doctrine to the front lines of the battle?  Or is it safer for you to let your doctrine remain a sniper – taking pot-shots at a lone scripture here, and a lone scripture there – but forever remaining far removed from the epicenter of the battle?  Let me know.

* I believe Paul is the one who wrote the letter to the Hebrews.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ May 23 2013,23:04)

Mike, 1. Does a man's flesh enter his mother's womb again in order to be born again and so enter the kingdom of heaven? 2. Does a man's spirit enter water in order to be born again in order to enter the kingdom of heaven?

1. You ask the same thing Nicodemus asked………. the thing Jesus scoffed at him for asking. The answer is “NO”, Kerwin.

2. I'm not sure what you're asking. The teaching is that we must be born again from above – of water and spirit instead of flesh – in order to enter the kingdom of heaven.

I don't know what kind of water this is, but I imagine it is “life-giving water” – like the water Jesus spoke about to the Samaritan woman at the well.

I don't think he refers to earthly H2O. Nor does he talk about spirits entering INTO this water. Instead, he says we must be born OF this water, and also of spirit.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (4Thomas @ May 24 2013,01:01)

Now you say you believe the Father was Almighty. Well please tell me how you can be almighty with being static and not doing anything or is he just potentially Almighty?

When the Father was alone in the very beginning, He was the only being in existence, and therefore He HAD TO BE the most mighty (Almighty) being in existence.  

Everything He later created, starting with His firstborn Son, was created less mighty than Himself, and so He has always remained the most mighty (Almighty).

Quote (4Thomas @ May 24 2013,01:01)

1:true God [if he is a true Son] 2:false God 3: Angel creature e.g Seraphim, Cherubim or Archangel etc Where does Jesus fit in?

Jesus is #1 and #3.  He is one of the mighty spirit sons of God (angels).  And the mighty spirit sons of God are often referred to as “gods” in the scriptures.  Jesus is no exception to that rule.

But none of the other mighty spirit sons of God are also the MOST HIGH God, and Jesus, God's firstborn spirit son, is also no exception to this rule.

I will look for the debate thread.

peace,
mike

[abe]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 24 2013,15:40)

Quote (abe @ May 23 2013,21:49) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 23 2013,19:00) Quote (abe @ May 23 2013,20:56) Hi All, 1Tim.2:5   For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, the    MAN    Christ Jesus, Peace brothers… Post the rest of the statement, Abe.  Then we can discuss it. Hi Mike, 1Tim.2:5   For there is one God, [and] one mediator also between God and men, [the] man Christ Jesus, 6who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony [given] at the proper time. That's better.  Was Jesus a man when he gave himself as a ransom for all?  Of course he was.  So to me, Paul's statement means:  The man who gave his life as a ransom for all has become the mediator between God and men. But here's the thing, Abe:  We could understand the statement the way I understand it, and it WOULDN'T contradict scriptures like Galatians 1:1, 1:11-12, and 4:14 – all of which make it CLEAR that Jesus is no longer a flesh man. I mean, how much clearer can you get than this………… Galatians 1:1 Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ………. …….. or this? Galatians 1 11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. And we have testimony that describes when Jesus gave that gospel to Paul (Saul), right?  The glory of Jesus was so bright that Saul was blinded, right?  Blinded?  Hmmm……….. That sounds more like the results of seeing a person with eyes of fire and a face as brilliant as the sun (Rev 1) than seeing a flesh human being, right? We also have Jesus clearly explaining to Nicodemus that flesh and blood humans must be born again in order to enter the kingdom of heaven, because flesh cannot enter. Then we have Paul explaining in 1 Cor 15 how the first man Adam became a living being, while the last man Adam – the one who was from heaven – became a life-giving spirit.  And in verse 50, Paul confirms Jesus' earlier teaching that flesh cannot inherit God's Kingdom. Then we have Phil 3:21, where Paul is anxious to receive a glorious new body like the one his Lord now has in heaven.  Is the flesh body in which Jesus died a “glorious new body” in your opinion, Abe? I really don't understand how people can so easily understand that the heavens are a spirit realm, where God and his angels dwell………… but at the same time imagine that the second highest being in existence is a lowly flesh man, who dwells among all these wonderful spirit beings.   But you are free to believe what you like.

Hi Mike,

Matt.13:36 Then He left the crowds and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field.” 37And He said, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man, 38and the field is the world; and [as for] the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil [one]; 39and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are angels. 40″So just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the END of the age. 41″The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather OUT of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, 42and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

43 “THEN” THE RIGHTEOUS WILL SHINE FORTH AS THE SUN in the Kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.

Is the Kingdom of the Heavens the same as the Kingdom of the Father?

Peace brother..

[kerwin]

Mike,

Quote

Where in the scriptures can I read about this “messenger KIND”? As far as I know, all the angels are spirit sons of God. Jesus is also one of those. In fact, he was the firstborn.

I already answered this by pointing to the creation event and how God told living creatures to reproduce after their own kind. Angles(messengers) are a kind of living creatures.

Quote

Well, since the preceding cannot be scripturally shown to me, your answer of “none” is null and void. What about my example about King David, Kerwin? Could the answer to the question be the name of a particular king of Israel, even though the question started with, “To which of the kings of Israel did God ever say………..” ? Of course it can – and you know it.

I understood your point here and concluded it does not apply to Hebrews 1 as God compares Jesus to angel(messenger) kind of living creature.

Quote

2 Kings 25:28 He spoke kindly to him, and gave him a more prominent seat than those of the kings who were with him in Babylon.

So it is necessary to know whether or not Jesus is of the angel kind before this scripture can be understood.

Quote

Galatians 4:14 Galatians 4:14 Instead, you welcomed me as if I were an angel of God, as if I were Christ Jesus himself. This kind of comparison statement ONLY works if the INDIVIDUAL mentioned is part of the GROUP mentioned. I’ve shown you this before, right?

Incorrect, Implied but not necessary mentioned. Angels were made a little higher than men and Jesus was elevated above angels.

Quote

The ENGLISH (not Greek, nor Hebrew) word “angel” refers to a spirit messenger of God. Not only is Jesus a spirit messenger of God, but he is so predominant in that role that he has as one of his titles, “The Word of God”.

Lawyer games and therefor I use the words “messenger(angel) kind”. I and Hebrews 1 are not speaking of messengers, I and Hebrews 1 are speaking of the messenger kind of living creatures.

[kerwin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 24 2013,07:31)

Quote (kerwin @ May 22 2013,21:47) When the account of creation states creatures reproduce after their own kind then you comprehend what kind means. So I don't see why trouble understanding what I mean when I say messenger kind. Kerwin, In my last two, time-consuming posts I wrote to you, I listed many, many things that: 1.  Showed certain phrases that you are calling “proof” are ambiguous at best. 2.  Showed clearly that Jesus IS an angel of God. I gave multiple examples, and showed similar scriptures as support.  You have yet to DIRECTLY address ANY of those many points.  Instead, you keep bringing up OTHER points of your own – points that can just as easily be shot down using the same logics that I've showed you on the other points.   Please either DIRECTLY address my points, or go talk to someone else for a while. Oh, and the drivel you've posted above is nonsensical – unless you believe spirit sons of God reproduce on their own like humans do.  Jesus says otherwise.

Mike,

Please help me find the second post you are speaking of. Thank you.

[terraricca]

Kerwin

Quote

I already answered this by pointing to the creation event and how God told living creatures to reproduce after their own kind. Angles(messengers) are a kind of living creatures.

MT 22:30 “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.
MK 12:25 “For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.
LK 20:36 for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

why is it that you do not read those scriptures

you would not say what you do.

[kerwin]

Quote (terraricca @ May 26 2013,06:54)

Kerwin Quote I already answered this by pointing to the creation event and how God told living creatures to reproduce after their own kind.  Angles(messengers) are a kind of living creatures. MT 22:30 “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. MK 12:25 “For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. LK 20:36 for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. why is it that you do not read those scriptures you would not say what you do.

T,

You as me that and yet you believe angels have married and been given in marriage?

[terraricca]

Quote (kerwin @ May 26 2013,12:31)

Quote (terraricca @ May 26 2013,06:54) Kerwin Quote I already answered this by pointing to the creation event and how God told living creatures to reproduce after their own kind.  Angles(messengers) are a kind of living creatures. MT 22:30 “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. MK 12:25 “For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. LK 20:36 for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. why is it that you do not read those scriptures you would not say what you do. T, You as me that and yet you believe angels have married and been given in marriage?

Kerwin

men can also have sex with animals ;but is this the natural way of proceeding

and the fact that angels came to be in relationship (sexually) with the human women they had to take an human cover to do so ,(lower themselves to the flesh.this is corruption)

[mikeboll64]

Quote (abe @ May 24 2013,19:27)

Is the Kingdom of the Heavens the same as the Kingdom of the Father?

Yes.

Now will you address those scriptures I posted? What does it mean, Abe, for Paul to say the gospel he received was NOT from any man, but from Jesus Christ?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ May 25 2013,00:59)

Quote (mikeboll @ 64) Where in the scriptures can I read about this “messenger KIND”?  As far as I know, all the angels are spirit sons of God.  Jesus is also one of those.  In fact, he was the firstborn. I already answered this by pointing to the creation event and how God told living creatures to reproduce after their own kind.  Angles(messengers) are a kind of living creatures.

Hi Kerwin,

First of all, thank you for actually addressing my points!  

Do you believe angels reproduce after their kind?

Quote (kerwin @ May 25 2013,00:59)

Quote (mikeboll @ 64) What about my example about King David, Kerwin? I understood your point here and concluded it does not apply to Hebrews 1 as God compares Jesus to angel(messenger) kind of living creature.

So you understand that if Paul asked, “To which king of Israel did God say……….?” – the answer could be a particular king of Israel, and NOT an answer of “None”, right?

So tell my why, when Paul says, “To which of the angels did God say………?” – the answer could not be a particular angel of God – namely Jesus – instead of your perceived answer of “None”.

Quote (kerwin @ May 25 2013,00:59)

So it is necessary to know whether or not Jesus is of the angel kind before this scripture can be understood.

What determines a being as “angel kind”?  Doesn't “angel kind” consist of beings who are spirit sons of God?  If so, then why doesn't that apply also to Jesus, the FIRSTBORN spirit son of God?

Quote (kerwin @ May 25 2013,00:59)

Quote (mikeboll @ 64) Galatians 4:14 Instead, you welcomed me as if I were an angel of God, as if I were Christ Jesus himself. This kind of comparison statement ONLY works if the INDIVIDUAL mentioned is part of the GROUP mentioned. Incorrect,  Implied but not necessary mentioned.

So you agree that it is clearly IMPLIED by these words that Jesus is an angel of God?  That means it is only your preconceived misunderstanding that Jesus is NOT an angel of God that makes you ignore the admitted implication, right?

Quote (kerwin @ May 25 2013,00:59)

I and Hebrews 1 are not speaking of messengers, I and Hebrews 1 are speaking of the messenger kind of living creatures.

And that is the bottom line, isn't it?  YOU personally don't WANT to believe Jesus is one of what you call “the messenger kind”, and so you won't believe it.  But look at these two definitions of “messenger kind”, and tell me why Jesus is not one of them:

1.  A kind of being that delivers the words of God to human beings.

2.  A spirit son of God who delivers the words of God to human beings.

Which one of those doesn't fit Jesus?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (terraricca @ May 26 2013,07:06)

Quote (kerwin @ May 26 2013,12:31) I already answered this by pointing to the creation event and how God told living creatures to reproduce after their own kind.  Angles(messengers) are a kind of living creatures. MT 22:30 “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. MK 12:25 “For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. why is it that you do not read those scriptures?

Quote (kerwin @ May 26 2013,12:31)

T, You as me that and yet you believe angels have married and been given in marriage?

Quote (terraricca @ May 26 2013,07:06)

Kerwin men can also have sex with animals ;but is this the natural way of proceeding and the fact that angels came to be in relationship (sexually) with the human women they had to take an human cover to do so ,(lower themselves to the flesh.this is corruption)

Kerwin,

The following is God's answer to the angels who mated with human women, from the Book of Enoch:

3You being spiritual, holy, and possessing a life which is eternal, have polluted yourselves with women; have begotten in carnal blood; have lusted in the blood of men; and have done as those who are flesh and blood do.

4These however die and perish.

5Therefore have I given to them wives, that they might cohabit with them; that sons might be born of them; and that this might be transacted upon earth.

6But you from the beginning were made spiritual, possessing a life which is eternal, and not subject to death for ever.

7Therefore I made not wives for you, because, being spiritual, your dwelling is in heaven.

The implication is that beings who perish were given wives so that sons might be born of them, and their line continue on.  On the other hand, beings who were from the beginning made eternal were NOT given wives to reproduce.

What the angels did was a act of treason against God – similar to a man mating with an animal.  Like Pierre pointed out, you can't justify using this abomination which certain watchers performed against God and against human woman as proof that angels were made to reproduce after their kind.

Like Pierre also pointed out, Jesus himself said the angels in heaven do not marry.

[abe]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 26 2013,08:28)

Quote (abe @ May 24 2013,19:27) Is the Kingdom of the Heavens the same as the Kingdom of the Father? Yes. Now will you address those scriptures I posted?  What does it mean, Abe, for Paul to say the gospel he received was NOT from any man, but from Jesus Christ?

Hi Mike,

(Quote)
What does it mean, Abe, for Paul to say the gospel he received was NOT from any man, but from Jesus Christ?

Matt.23:24 “You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!

Quote (abe @ May 24 2013,19:27)

Is the Kingdom of the Heavens the same as the Kingdom of the Father?

Yes.

40″So just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the END of the age. 41″The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather OUT of HIS KINGDOM all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, 42and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

43 “THEN” THE RIGHTEOUS WILL SHINE FORTH AS THE SUN in the Kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.

43 * “THEN” *
THE RIGHTEOUS WILL SHINE FORTH AS THE SUN in the KINGDOM of their FATHER. He who has ears, let him hear.

Matt.23:24 “You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!

Peace brother……………………

[mikeboll64]

I'm waiting for your answer, Abe.

[mikeboll64]

Hi Daniel,

I just found this thread………… sorry.  

Instead of starting with Galatians, let me see if we can nip this in the bud right from the start.  You said in the other thread that you believe that the rock in 1 Cor 10:4 was Jesus Christ.

Is this correct?

[4Thomas]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 27 2013,05:50)

Hi Daniel, I just found this thread………… sorry.   Instead of starting with Galatians, let me see if we can nip this in the bud right from the start.  You said in the other thread that you believe that the rock in 1 Cor 10:4 was Jesus Christ. Is this correct?

Thanks Mike,

All good  

And yes this is OK – but that makes the first two proof texts yours.

Out of interest, can you honestly believe you can still use your understanding of Galatians 4-14 to teach that Jesus was a angel?

And regarding 1 Cor 10:4, Yes I believe all scripture but I like to read the explicit scriptures that teach and explain what form Jesus was before he came to earth and before he took on flesh. I also like to use explicit scriptures and use them to understand implicit scriptures, not the other way round. So far I have only seen one implicit verse that I strongly believe has been interpreted wrong as I tried to show in my opening post here. I would challenge you to fit your teachings into the explicit verses that teach *what* Jesus really was before he came to earth as a “Son of man” for our sake – to show us how much he loves us.

1 Corinthians 10:4
and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.

How many revealtions did I show you in my first post in the group thread “Is jesus true god, an angel creature or michael” surely you can see that this is no accident the Father isn't trying to trick us, not to mention the Father calls his Son Lord and God and teaches he was the creator.

1 Corinthians 10:4 is yet just another one that teaches there is only one “the first and the last” and there is no one beside him.

And mike I don't believe Peter is *the* rock of the old testament, he was just a earthly rock that Jesus gave the keys to bind and loosen but he was clearly a sinner and made incorrect judgements and decissions at times. I believe only in council (see first council of Jersulam acts 15) or being used to write sacred scripture was he infallible.

Important note: We can only lead someone to salvation we can never be “The Saviour” AND no matter who trys to argue the following point no one can claim to be the *creator of heaven and earth and the galaxies and universe* There is only one creator From whom (the Father) by whom (the Son) and in whom life is given (the Paraclete)

Who is the first and the last?
Is there a God beside him?
Is there another rock?

6“This is what the LORD says—
Israel’s King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty:
I am the first and I am the last;
apart from me there is no God.
7Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it.
Let him declare and lay out before me
what has happened since I established my ancient people,
and what is yet to come—
yes, let them foretell what will come.
8Do not tremble, do not be afraid.
Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago?
You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me?
No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.”

Life and Love in the Son, no condemnation can be found in him.

Daniel

[4Thomas]

Quote (terraricca @ May 25 2013,00:28)

daniel Quote Life in the Son and in his name Daniel lets be true ;live his given by God almighty to all of his creation  even to the son ; but wen Adam descender at the time of Noah God was ready to destroy all of creation,wipe them all off;  BUT SOMEONE INTERCEDED FOR THEM ;JUST AS MOSES INTERCEDED FOR ISRAEL AT HIS TIME THIS BEING THAT INTERCEDED WAS NO OTHER THAN “THE WORD OF GOD ” JESUS CHRIST THE SON OF GOD, AND YES WE CAN SAY THAT HE FROM THEN ON ,HOLDS OUR LIVES IN HIS HAND , AND WEN HE CAME TO GIVE UP HIS LIVE ,THEN HE COULD GIVE LIVE TO WHOM HE WANT TO GIVE LIVE ,THIS WAS WHAT GOD AS SAID .AND THE POWERS HE RECEIVED FROM HIS FATHER WAS FOR THAT PURPOSE,AMEN

Hi
Sorry i haven't had a chance to reply and I'm sorry if I quoted you wrong I honestly have only ever teached what i truly believe, i don't understand what you where saying in some of your earlier posts about my posts? Sorry.

Please tell me what you are trying to teach me.
What is it that you believe, *what* is the Son.

What was Jesus before he came in the flesh please show me the scriptures.

A true Son is the same as a true father, except they are different persons this is common sense they are one because the Father isn't a women and didn't give birth to the Son as a baby and need to teach him to crawl etc. The Son is the expressed image (his very substance of the Father)

Is the father like the moon (just a rock in sapce ) or is he like a Sun (that expresses his glory)

Life in the Son and in his name
Daniel

[terraricca]

Quote (4Thomas @ May 27 2013,07:26)

Quote (terraricca @ May 25 2013,00:28) daniel Quote Life in the Son and in his name Daniel lets be true ;live his given by God almighty to all of his creation  even to the son ; but wen Adam descender at the time of Noah God was ready to destroy all of creation,wipe them all off;  BUT SOMEONE INTERCEDED FOR THEM ;JUST AS MOSES INTERCEDED FOR ISRAEL AT HIS TIME THIS BEING THAT INTERCEDED WAS NO OTHER THAN “THE WORD OF GOD ” JESUS CHRIST THE SON OF GOD, AND YES WE CAN SAY THAT HE FROM THEN ON ,HOLDS OUR LIVES IN HIS HAND , AND WEN HE CAME TO GIVE UP HIS LIVE ,THEN HE COULD GIVE LIVE TO WHOM HE WANT TO GIVE LIVE ,THIS WAS WHAT GOD AS SAID .AND THE POWERS HE RECEIVED FROM HIS FATHER WAS FOR THAT PURPOSE,AMEN Hi Sorry i haven't had a chance to reply and I'm sorry if I quoted you wrong I honestly have only ever teached what i truly believe, i don't understand what you where saying in some of your earlier posts about my posts? Sorry. Please tell me what you are trying to teach me. What is it that you believe, *what* is the Son. What was Jesus before he came in the flesh please show me the scriptures. A true Son is the same as a true father, except they are different persons this is common sense they are one because the Father isn't a women and didn't give birth to the Son as a baby and need to teach him to crawl etc. The Son is the expressed image (his very substance of the Father) Is the father like the moon (just a rock in sapce ) or is he like a Sun (that expresses his glory) Life in the Son and in his name Daniel

Daniel

I will try not to say lies,and miss lay you, I do not teach but scriptures do,Do You Beleive the scriptures

Christ according to scriptures he was an Angel and after he died he returned to be one,but he became the second to his father

[Lightenup]

Quote (Lightenup @ May 23 2013,23:23)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 23 2013,21:57) Quote (Lightenup @ May 23 2013,13:56) You agree that Christ is the mighty theos at the right hand of the Father. So, it is scripturally correct to say the Church of Christ is the Church of the theos at the right hand of the Father. Therefore the Church of the theos which He purchased with His own blood, could refer to Jesus and be grammatically correct and scripturally correct? Yes or No? Kathi, God Almighty has never been a man, nor has He ever had blood.  So you can play word games and say Jesus is a god, and Jesus did at one time have blood, but it won't mean that Paul was teaching God Almighty shed His OWN blood for mankind.  Instead, God Almighty bought men from earth with the blood of His Son. Quote (Lightenup @ May 23 2013,13:56) Also, do you see the word for 'Son' anywhere in the original manuscripts? Yes or No No, but the Greek words are “with the blood of his own”.  To me and the 25 Trinitarian scholars of NET Bible, it obviously refers to the blood of the one God SENT into the world – not His own blood. Quote (Lightenup @ May 23 2013,13:56) Also, is it correct that most Bible translations do NOT add the word 'Son' in that verse……… I didn't look at the list, but I'm quite sure that virtually ALL of the Trinitarian-produced translations don't add the implied “Son” to that verse.  But what does that prove, Kathi?  That Trinitarians nonsensically believe that God Almighty shed His own blood for mankind? Instead, I believe the truth that the Most High God SENT His Son and Servant into the world as a sacrificial lamb. Mike, you said: Quote God Almighty has never been a man, nor has He ever had blood.  So you can play word games and say Jesus is a god, and Jesus did at one time have blood, but it won't mean that Paul was teaching God Almighty shed His OWN blood for mankind.  Instead, God Almighty bought men from earth with the blood of His Son. Is the word 'Almighty' in the original manuscripts? Yes or no? Is the word 'Father' in the original manuscripts? Yes or no? If not, then theos could refer to the only begotten theos as it seems to in John 1:1c. Quote No, but the Greek words are “with the blood of his own”.  To me and the 25 Trinitarian scholars of NET Bible, it obviously refers to the blood of the one God SENT into the world – not His own blood. Is it grammatically correct for that verse to say 'with His own blood?' Yes or no? Quote I didn't look at the list, but I'm quite sure that virtually ALL of the Trinitarian-produced translations don't add the implied “Son” to that verse.  But what does that prove, Kathi?  That Trinitarians nonsensically believe that God Almighty shed His own blood for mankind? It proves that they were referring to the theos of John 1:1c and not the theos of John 1:1b.

Mike,
Please answer those questions that I asked you.

[Author]

Posts