Who is this Jesus?

[Lightenup]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 28 2013,21:14)

Quote (Lightenup @ May 27 2013,20:43) This is really quite simple, Mike. This verse really settles the matter. There is no way in the world that you can twist that “you” to mean the one called God in v. 9 above. Revelation 5:9 And they sang a new song, saying: “You are worthy to take the scroll    and to open its seals, because you were slain,    and with your blood you purchased for God    persons from every tribe and language and people and nation. 10 You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God,    and they will reign on the earth.” You are correct that this one passage should settle the matter once and for all……… WITHOUT any “twisting” from me. Do you notice how the “Lamb” is distinguished as someone OTHER THAN “our God”?  So who is the “God” of the four creatures and the 24 elders who sang that song?  Is it the Lamb?  Or someone else? Also notice how the Lamb, with HIS blood, purchased men FOR “our God”.  Are you able to understand this? See, “God” did not purchase men with HIS OWN blood.  Instead, “God” SENT a sacrificial lamb into the world to purchase men FOR “our God” with his (the Lamb's) blood. Also notice how the same things are taught in Hebrews 9, Kathi.  Paul doesn't say “God” purchased men with HIS OWN blood in Heb 9, does he?  Nope.  Instead, he teaches about “the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit, offered himself unblemished to God“.  Are you able to see that once again, the Lamb/Christ is the one who offered his blood, while “God” is someone OTHER THAN “the Lamb/Christ”. Why do you suppose Christ is so often and so consistently mentioned in scripture as someone OTHER THAN “God”? And why do you suppose there is NO MENTION WHATSOEVER of our “Gods”?  Have you ever read a scripture that says we are to worship only our Gods?  Have you read one where it is said that our Gods created all things?  Do the four creatures and the 24 elders sing about priests who will serve their Gods (plural)?  Or do they sing about priests who will serve their God (singular)?  (Also notice that in their song, they INCLUDE the Lamb when they say “our God”.  Their God is the God of the Lamb as well.) So now that we know the above things, and we also know that the Greek words in Acts 20:28 are “with the blood of his own”, and that those words could either refer to God buying men with his own blood, or they could refer to God buying men with the blood of his own SON………… which way should a REASONABLE person understand it? We have now discussed two completely separate scriptures (one of which YOU brought up) that distinguish the one who shed blood FROM the one called “God”.  So if the Greek words in Acts 20:28 make that same distinction a possibility, shouldn't we use the context of these other scriptures as our guide – and understand Acts the same way as we understand the other two?  That is, after all, the SENSIBLE thing to do, right? So, since I know that being SENSIBLE is not a strong point for those who consider the Son of God to BE the very God he is the Son of, nor is it a strong point for those of us who have imagined a SECOND Almighty God, I will add this last part: Kathi, we were told by Jehovah through Isaiah that the servant He was going to send into the world would be called a mighty god.  So (are you listening here?) EVEN IF Titus 2:13, and Acts 20:28, and John 1:1, and Hebrews 1:8-9 all called God's anointed one a god……….. SO WHAT?  Being called a god in scripture does NOT equate with being THE Almighty God who created all things, does it? So I think it's great that Jesus is called a god in scripture.  He is, after all, the SECOND most powerful being in existence, right?  And he is, after all, the firstborn Son of the Most High God, right?  Surely the firstborn of the MOST HIGH God would also be “a god”, right? So what you really need to show is that any writer of scripture thought Jesus was the MOST HIGH God.  And that is why I offered you the challenge to go through all of Paul's writings first to find out if he thought that.  After Paul, we can go through any of the other writers of scripture and see if they all knew that the Christ OF “the Most High God” was someone OTHER THAN “the Most High God”. Let me know if you are willing to undertake this task with me. Until then, if you take anything at all away from this post, take this:  Rev 5:9, that YOU brought up, is yet ANOTHER scripture that distinguishes Jesus FROM “our God”.  It is another scripture that clearly specifies that we were bought, not with the blood of “our God”, but with the blood of someone OTHER THAN “our God”.

Mike,
you said:

Quote

You are correct that this one passage should settle the matter once and for all……… WITHOUT any “twisting” from me.

It should settle it but it doesn't seem to, you still want to make the Father out to be the one who does the purchasing.

Quote

So now that we know the above things, and we also know that the Greek words in Acts 20:28 are “with the blood of his own”, and that those words could either refer to God buying men with his own blood, or they could refer to God buying men with the blood of his own SON………… which way should a REASONABLE person understand it? We have now discussed two completely separate scriptures (one of which YOU brought up) that distinguish the one who shed blood FROM the one called “God”. So if the Greek words in Acts 20:28 make that same distinction a possibility, shouldn't we use the context of these other scriptures as our guide – and understand Acts the same way as we understand the other two? That is, after all, the SENSIBLE thing to do, right?

The Greek words are 'with His own blood.' God the Son of John 1:1c purchased the church with His own blood for God, His Father of John 1:1b.

Also, 1 Cor 8:6 makes it clear that creation was done by two who are elsewhere referred to both as theos.

Scriptures also makes it clear that salvation was from both who are elsewhere referred to both as theos who were together theos in the beginning.

When the Lamb is mentioned with God, either God is meant in His fullness to include both the Father and the Son or is meant as God the Father. Depends on context.

Quote

Kathi, we were told by Jehovah through Isaiah that the servant He was going to send into the world would be called a mighty god. So (are you listening here?) EVEN IF Titus 2:13, and Acts 20:28, and John 1:1, and Hebrews 1:8-9 all called God's anointed one a god……….. SO WHAT? Being called a god in scripture does NOT equ ate with being THE Almighty God who created all things, does it?

It doesn't have to equate but it can and I believe that they together created all things because scripture tells us so. Ultimately, I believe that together they are my Almighty Godhead.

Quote

So I think it's great that Jesus is called a god in scripture. He is, after all, the SECOND most powerful being in existence, right? And he is, after all, the firstborn Son of the Most High God, right? Surely the firstborn of the MOST HIGH God would also be “a god”, right?

This 'god' you write about is Jehovah with His Father, otherwise having another god at creation who gets bowed down to in a religious way, invoked in a religious way, and served in a religious way, contradicts many scriptures.

[4Thomas]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 29 2013,12:25)

Wait………… so you think “the rock that accompanied them” is someone other than the angel that accompanied them? You think both Christ AND an angel of Jehovah accompanied the Israelites in the wilderness?

God is the rock in the old testament, this is what scripture teaches this is what I believe.

Is there any God besides me?
No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.”

Yes I know some try and teach that the “Angel of the Lord” is “the Son, God in essence/nature”, many people do this even those who believe in the tri-unity, I have tested their arguments and I believe they fail

This is because the new testament reveals and parallels that the angel of the Lord is actually Jesus own angel.

Here I will give you one example but there are many more…

2 There the angel of the LORD appeared to him in flames of fire [/b]from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up. 3 So Moses thought, “I will go over and see this strange sight—why the bush does not burn up.”
4 When the LORD saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, “Moses! Moses!”And Moses said, “Here I am.”

Yes you know the rest of the verses, that show Yahweh is speaking to them.

14 God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.[c] This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”

See the angel appears before Yahweh appears.
COMPARE ABOVE AND BELOW

2And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it.
9And behold, Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!” And they came up and took hold of his feet AND worshiped him. 10Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee, and there they will see me.”

THIS IS COMPOUNDING WORSHIP

They TOOK HOLD OF HIS **FEET** AND ***THEN*** PROSKUNEO worshipped him ;..
Its a sin to grab someones feet and then worship [PROSKUNEO] them, well unless they are God and the Son is God in essence and nature.

Scripture teaches explicitly that all other gods that are not the creator will perish in case you forgot, this is because scripture reveals there is only one true God.

They understand that the Son had the same essence nature and when they seen the Son they seen the Father. They would deny the Father if they taught not to worship him.

Summary
So an angel appeared and then there was Jesus

So an angel appeared and then there was Yahweh, who said tell then I AM sent you…

John 8:58
Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, before Abraham was even born, I AM!”

Oh and how about Abraham, three people, two were angels and one was Yahweh… Does this happen in the new testament… yes it does….

So either yahweh has his angel the messanger or two angels, do you know who these angels are?

Do you understand revelations and how Jesus sent his angel to John.

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

Daniel

[4Thomas]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 29 2013,13:27)

Quote (4Thomas @ May 28 2013,00:23) What I mean here is that everything originates from the one being the Father……… Agreed.  And that “everything” includes God's firstborn Son. Daniel, even the words “firstborn” and “son” should be a dead giveaway.   Quote (4Thomas @ May 28 2013,00:23) Again imagine seeing someone have a debate – where they were trying to argue that your Son wasn't a human but a messanger of a human. Okay, let's tweak your scenario to put it in the right context. Let's say I was the ONE and ONLY President of the United States of America.  In that case, one could argue that my son was a “human being”.  And one could argue that my son was a “messenger of a human being”.  One could even argue that my son was one of the many messengers of the President of the United States. What they COULDN'T sensibly argue is that my son is the very same one and only President of the United States that he was the SON OF. Understand? Picture God as the ONE and ONLY President of the Entire Universe.  Jesus cannot possibly BE the President that he is the Son of.

No matter what you say the president will always be a human and so will anyone he sends, unless he sends a different species or animal.

Your argument will always fail becuase you think true Fathers and true Sons can have different natures/essence.

Re-read what I have written and I have replied to you in the debates thread.

Life in the Son
Daniel

[Ed J]

Hi Daniel,

Do you believe that Mary was:

1. Jesus' biological mother
2. A surrogate mother
3. Other ?

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[kerwin]

Quote (terraricca @ May 26 2013,19:06)

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)

T,

You claim angels do marry and are given in marriage while Jesus infers they neither marry or are given in marriage. Those two disagree.

[kerwin]

Mike,

Quote

Do you believe angels reproduce after their kind?

I do not believe so. I have been brought up to believe that all of angel kind was created at the same timeand have never had a need to reproduce.  This fits in with the idea the angels neither marry nor are they given in marriage.

Quote

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”.

I already knew which king while the writer of Hebrews does not tell us that Jesus is a member of the angel kind.  In addition Jesus is compared with the angel kind.

Quote

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?

The natives of the heavens are the angel kind.  Jesus is compared to the natives of heaven.

Quote

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?

Jesus is not a native of heaven as he is compared with them. He is a son of God's Spirit as God lives in him by his Spirit.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ May 28 2013,23:29)

….you still want to make the Father out to be the one who does the purchasing.

You must have misunderstood something I said.  I KNOW that the Lamb and Servant OF “our God” is the one who shed his blood, Kathi.  With his blood, this Servant OF our God bought men FOR our God.

Get it?  The one called “our God” in that song in Rev 5 did NOT shed HIS OWN blood.  Instead, His Servant shed blood to buy men FOR the one called “our God” in that song.  In that song, the servant is once again described as someone OTHER THAN the one called “our God”.  Are you blind to this fact?

Quote (Lightenup @ May 28 2013,23:29)

The Greek words are 'with His own blood.'

The Greek words, according to NETNotes, Biblos.com, and the JW's Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, is “with the blood of his own”.

The Greek words are:

τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου
Now the interesting thing is that the last word, which is in the genitive masculine singular form, is the word “idios”, which means, according to Strong:

one's own, belonging to one, private, personal; one's own people, one's own family, home, property.

That's all good and fine, but consider this scripture:

Matthew 27:25
All the people answered, “His blood is on us and on our children!”

But in this case, which also speaks of a particular person's blood, the Greek words for the bolded part above are “the blood of himself“.  The Greek word is “autos”, which means “him”, or “himself”.  Why do you suppose Paul said, “the blood of his own” in Acts 20:28 – instead of “the blood of himself“, like is said in Matt 27:25?

Was Paul perhaps NOT talking about the blood of God himself, but about the blood of someone belonging to God?  Perhaps a member of his own family?  (See Strong's definitions above for both of these possibilities.)

And if Paul was talking about God's OWN blood, why wouldn't he have said “the blood of AUTOS”, instead of “the blood of IDIOS”?

This is why I always fight against t8 “banishing” people like you to certain sections of this forum.  If not for people like you, who view things differently than I do, then I would not be challenged to even look into these kinds of things.  So, despite the fact that you and I rarely agree on scriptural matters, iron sharpens iron, and I'm glad you are here.  

Quote (Lightenup @ May 28 2013,23:29)

Quote (mikeboll @ 64) Being called a god in scripture does NOT equate with being THE Almighty God who created all things, does it? It doesn't have to equate but it can and I believe that they together created all things because scripture tells us so.

Actually, scripture is clear about the fact that all things came FROM God, and THROUGH Jesus Christ.  Once again, from Tertullian, the man who coined the phrase “trinity”:  He who creates is one, and he through whom the thing is created is another.

Kathi, God ALONE created all things THROUGH His Holy Servant, Jesus Christ.  I have shown you about a DOZEN different scriptures that CLEARLY identify Jesus as someone OTHER THAN the one who created all things, right?  Shall I whip those scriptures out for you again?  Or would you rather just go back and re-read 1 Cor 8:6, which makes it clear that all things are FROM God, and THROUGH His Christ?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (4Thomas @ May 29 2013,00:55)

No matter what you say the president will always be a human and so will anyone he sends, unless he sends a different species or animal. Your argument will always fail becuase you think true Fathers and true Sons can have different natures/essence.

Oh, I'm quite sure that Jesus shares the same spirit nature that his Father and God have, Daniel. I've never implied anything different, have I?

But my argument works fine for this particular discussion……… unless you think the word “God” refers to a NATURE instead of to a MIGHTY RULER. Do you?

The words “el”, “elohim”, and “theos” all refer to a “mighty one”, who is usually a ruler of some kind.

So when I say Jesus is the Son of “God”, I mean Jesus is the Son of the Almighty Ruler of the Universe, ie: The President of the Entire Universe.

And the Son OF that Ruler/President can't actually BE the very Ruler/President that he is the Son OF, right?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ May 29 2013,18:30)

Quote (mikeboll @ 64) Do you believe angels reproduce after their kind? I do not believe so.

Okay.  Then your earlier statement, 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, is really null and void, right?

Quote (kerwin @ May 29 2013,18:30)

I already knew which king while the writer of Hebrews does not tell us that Jesus is a member of the angel kind.

Oh, but he DOES, Kerwin – in Galatians 4:14.  But you only need to know that the ENGLIGH (not Hebrew, and not Greek) word “angel” refers to a spirit messenger/son of God in order to know that Jesus is most definitely an angel of God.

Kerwin, do you believe that the English word “angel” refers to spirit messengers/sons of God?  YES or NO?

BTW, your answer doesn't even address my point, Kerwin.  The REAL answer is:  No Mike!  When someone asks, “To which of the angels did God say………”, the answer doesn't have to be “none”.  The answer could be the name of a particular angel.

Quote (kerwin @ May 29 2013,18:30)

The natives of the heavens are the angel kind.  Jesus is compared to the natives of heaven.

Jesus is one of the original two natives of heaven, Kerwin.  He was alone with his God before his God created other spirit sons THROUGH Jesus.

Also, don't forget that the Greek word used actually means MESSENGER, Kerwin.

Hebrews 1:4 Young's Literal Translation
having become so much better than the messengers, as he did inherit a more excellent name than they.

What does it mean that Jesus became better than “the messengers”, Kerwin?  Do those words PROHIBIT Jesus from BEING a “messenger of God”?  YES or NO?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ May 29 2013,16:51)

T, You claim angels do marry and are given in marriage while Jesus infers they neither marry or are given in marriage.

What Pierre and the scriptures teach is that angels took human woman for themselves and produced children with them.

That does NOT contradict Jesus' words that angels IN HEAVEN do not marry, does it?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (4Thomas @ May 29 2013,00:49)

Do you understand revelations and how Jesus sent his angel to John.

Yes. Are you aware that the archangel Michael and his angels will battle against Satan and his angels?

Does this mean Michael is NOT an angel of God?

Daniel, there is only ONE mentioned in scripture as accompanying the Israelites in the wilderness. That ONE is “the angel of the LORD”.

If you think Christ was there, but was NOT that angel of the LORD, then show me the scriptures that teach about this OTHER one who accompanied the Israelites in the wilderness.

[kerwin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 26 2013,23:02)

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.

Mike,

You seem to be claiming that fallen angels can marry or be given in marriage.
Marriage is a sin for the angel kind.
Angels are made to reproduce but are forbidden to do so.
Humans will be able to reproduce but banned from doing so.
God will abolish the marriages that are in force.

[4Thomas]

Mike,

My lord Jesus the Christ, the only true and eternal Son of the true eternal Father loves you and wants you to accept him as your true lord and Saviour, every question you ask, the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit opens the scriptures more explicitly and clearly. Since being on this heaven net site I have never had so much revealed so easily and it’s all common sense and pure explicit scripture. This shows he loves you and everyone else here. Just read the answer in scripture to your question from three different books in the old testament and there are more examples but these are just the explicit ones.

Exodus 13:21 By day the LORD [Yahweh] went ahead of them in a pillar of cloud to guide them on their way and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, so that they could travel by day or night.

It doesn't get any clearer than that!

Deuteronomy 1:32-33
32In spite of this, you did not trust in the LORD [Yahweh] your God, 33who went ahead of you on your journey, in fire by night and in a cloud by day, to search out places for you to camp and to show you the way you should go.

And what did Jesus say to the Jewish priests for the sake of their salvation? No one has ever seen the FATHER. Now who accompanied them and who was seen FACE TO FACE.

Numbers 14:14 And they will tell the inhabitants of this land about it. They have already heard that you, LORD [Yahweh], are with these people and that you, LORD [Yahweh], have been seen face to face, that your cloud stays over them, and that you go before them in a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night.

New International Version (©2011)
and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.

So now we have Yahweh saying he alone is the rock and there is no other rock or no other God beside him in the Old Testament and then we have Yahweh saying that *he* was the one that accompanied them. Then we have Yahweh being seen face to face and Jesus saying for the sake of salvation that no one has seen the Father and search the scriptures because you think you have eternal life but they testify about him and he tells them that Moses wrote about him.

Jesus said we would die in our sins if we don’t believe? So mike if you still don’t believe why not? If you only believe scripture where are your other scriptures? Mike I don’t care about pride. I would rather admit I was wrong and have eternal life. If you still won’t believe do you have any other scriptures to use or can I start to compare the evidence and begin to bring forth my explicit scriptures that reveal what Jesus was before he took on flesh for our sake because he loves us. God the Word became Flesh, *the* Lord of Glory, not an angel!
Whoever is feeding you this angel stuff give me their scriptures to test.

A side note about angels that I believe the lord has revealed to me.

Who is the messenger angel? Who is the angel who always announces the most important messages? See the messenger angel is identified as the angel of the Lord because he is the messenger angel and as angel means messenger he is a twofold messenger so is rightfully called THE Angel of the Lord. Also Michael is just *one* of three arch angels. Gabriel the arch angel who revealed the end time’s prophecy to Daniel teaches that Michael was just one of the arch angels.
Daniel 10:13
New International Version (©2011)
But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes[/b, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia.
Michael is not the king or kings is he and it is explicit that the above is talking about Michael one of the chief princes [arch angels]

Now do you really think any of Michaels Angels lift him when Lucifer and his angels were forced out of heaven? If Lucifer had 1/3 of the angels in heaven which scripture teaches and Michael is just one of the arch angels? How many angels does Michael have and how many arch angels were there and are there now??

Just as Judas was replaced so who did you the arch angel Lucifer was replaced by? Did God need a arch angel called Raphael before the fall? What does Raphael mean?
“It is God who heals”, “God Heals”, “God, Please Heal”) Is that fitting or what?

Did God need to heal anyone before the fall? If Lucifer fall from grace did God replace him?

Does God choose to replace people in leadership who fall?

Acts 1:26 [Matthias Chosen to Replace Judas]
26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.
And also there are angels who are higher than the arch angels anyway these are called seraphim and cherubim, things get interesting here also.

Mike I’m on holiday so my not get around to replying that soon. Mike I'm trying to lead you to Jesus not my church or organisation.

Life in the Son and his name, choose life, there is no condemnation in the Son

Daniel

[4Thomas]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 30 2013,11:52)

Quote (4Thomas @ May 29 2013,00:55) No matter what you say the president will always be a human and so will anyone he sends, unless he sends a different species or animal. Your argument will always fail becuase you think true Fathers and true Sons can have different natures/essence. Oh, I'm quite sure that Jesus shares the same spirit nature that his Father and God have, Daniel.  I've never implied anything different, have I? But my argument works fine for this particular discussion……… unless you think the word “God” refers to a NATURE instead of to a MIGHTY RULER.  Do you? The words “el”, “elohim”, and “theos” all refer to a “mighty one”, who is usually a ruler of some kind. So when I say Jesus is the Son of “God”, I mean Jesus is the Son of the Almighty Ruler of the Universe, ie:  The President of the Entire Universe. And the Son OF that Ruler/President can't actually BE the very Ruler/President that he is the Son OF, right?

Mike,
I can understand what you are saying only if I was saying that *the* Son was *the* Father. But Mike I'm not saying that.
I'm saying the Son is the expressed image, the exact same nature/substance as his Father. I'm also saying if you are something you need to be able to express what you are. the Father is Almighty and expresses his Almighty power not with lightning bolts but by the eternal generation of his Son. Glory to glory the First and the last.

What I'm saying is common sense a true Son has the same nature as I true father, even more So if the Son is directly expressed from the Father's Glory and not born from a Women.

See the problem is usually people who teach the tri-unity don't read scripture in depth and they only know John 1:1 and a few other scriptures and they mean well but they quickly get crossed up and it really appears they are teaching that the Son is the father like the oneness team does.

please see the debate section I have replied to you.

Love and Life in the Son
Daniel

[Lightenup]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 29 2013,19:44)

Quote (Lightenup @ May 28 2013,23:29) ….you still want to make the Father out to be the one who does the purchasing. You must have misunderstood something I said.  I KNOW that the Lamb and Servant OF “our God” is the one who shed his blood, Kathi.  With his blood, this Servant OF our God bought men FOR our God. Get it?  The one called “our God” in that song in Rev 5 did NOT shed HIS OWN blood.  Instead, His Servant shed blood to buy men FOR the one called “our God” in that song.  In that song, the servant is once again described as someone OTHER THAN the one called “our God”.  Are you blind to this fact? Quote (Lightenup @ May 28 2013,23:29) The Greek words are 'with His own blood.' The Greek words, according to NETNotes, Biblos.com, and the JW's Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, is “with the blood of his own”. The Greek words are: τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου Now the interesting thing is that the last word, which is in the genitive masculine singular form, is the word “idios”, which means, according to Strong: one's own, belonging to one, private, personal; one's own people, one's own family, home, property. That's all good and fine, but consider this scripture: Matthew 27:25 All the people answered, “His blood is on us and on our children!” But in this case, which also speaks of a particular person's blood, the Greek words for the bolded part above are “the blood of himself“.  The Greek word is “autos”, which means “him”, or “himself”.  Why do you suppose Paul said, “the blood of his own” in Acts 20:28 – instead of “the blood of himself“, like is said in Matt 27:25? Was Paul perhaps NOT talking about the blood of God himself, but about the blood of someone belonging to God?  Perhaps a member of his own family?  (See Strong's definitions above for both of these possibilities.) And if Paul was talking about God's OWN blood, why wouldn't he have said “the blood of AUTOS”, instead of “the blood of IDIOS”? This is why I always fight against t8 “banishing” people like you to certain sections of this forum.  If not for people like you, who view things differently than I do, then I would not be challenged to even look into these kinds of things.  So, despite the fact that you and I rarely agree on scriptural matters, iron sharpens iron, and I'm glad you are here.   Quote (Lightenup @ May 28 2013,23:29) Quote (mikeboll @ 64) Being called a god in scripture does NOT equate with being THE Almighty God who created all things, does it? It doesn't have to equate but it can and I believe that they together created all things because scripture tells us so. Actually, scripture is clear about the fact that all things came FROM God, and THROUGH Jesus Christ.  Once again, from Tertullian, the man who coined the phrase “trinity”:  He who creates is one, and he through whom the thing is created is another. Kathi, God ALONE created all things THROUGH His Holy Servant, Jesus Christ.  I have shown you about a DOZEN different scriptures that CLEARLY identify Jesus as someone OTHER THAN the one who created all things, right?  Shall I whip those scriptures out for you again?  Or would you rather just go back and re-read 1 Cor 8:6, which makes it clear that all things are FROM God, and THROUGH His Christ?

Mike,
you said:

Quote

The Greek words are 'with His own blood.' The Greek words, according to NETNotes, Biblos.com, and the JW's Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, is “with the blood of his own”.

The NET notes include two possibilities, not just the one you wrote. Are you trying to be deceptive?
Here is what NET says:

Quote

114 tn Or “with his own blood”; Grk “with the blood of his own.” The genitive construction could be taken in two ways: (1) as an attributive genitive (second attributive position) meaning “his own blood”; or (2) as a possessive genitive, “with the blood of his own.” In this case the referent is the Son, and the referent has been specified in the translation for clarity. See further C. F. DeVine, “The Blood of God,” CBQ 9 (1947): 381-408.

biblos.com (biblehub.com) presents 18 out of 20 translations that translate the words “His own blood.”

Mike, read this real good…
If Acts 20:28 were not even in the Bible, is it true to say that the theos of John 1:1c purchased His church with His own blood?
This is a must answer:
YES or NO?

Quote

Actually, scripture is clear about the fact that all things came FROM God, and THROUGH Jesus Christ.

So all things came from the theos of John 1:1b through the theos of John 1:1c. Thanks for realizing this.

[terraricca]

Quote (4Thomas @ May 30 2013,19:30)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 30 2013,11:52) Quote (4Thomas @ May 29 2013,00:55) No matter what you say the president will always be a human and so will anyone he sends, unless he sends a different species or animal. Your argument will always fail becuase you think true Fathers and true Sons can have different natures/essence. Oh, I'm quite sure that Jesus shares the same spirit nature that his Father and God have, Daniel.  I've never implied anything different, have I? But my argument works fine for this particular discussion……… unless you think the word “God” refers to a NATURE instead of to a MIGHTY RULER.  Do you? The words “el”, “elohim”, and “theos” all refer to a “mighty one”, who is usually a ruler of some kind. So when I say Jesus is the Son of “God”, I mean Jesus is the Son of the Almighty Ruler of the Universe, ie:  The President of the Entire Universe. And the Son OF that Ruler/President can't actually BE the very Ruler/President that he is the Son OF, right? Mike, I can understand what you are saying only if I was saying that *the* Son was *the* Father. But Mike I'm not saying that. I'm saying the Son is the expressed image, the exact same nature/substance as his Father. I'm also saying if you are something you need to be able to express what you are. the Father is Almighty and expresses his Almighty power not with lightning bolts but by the eternal generation of his Son. Glory to glory the First and the last. What I'm saying is common sense a true Son has the same nature as I true father, even more So if the Son is directly expressed from the Father's Glory and not born from a Women. See the problem is usually people who teach the tri-unity don't read scripture in depth and they only know John 1:1 and a few other scriptures and they mean well but they quickly get crossed up and it really appears they are teaching that the Son is the father like the oneness team does. please see the debate section I have replied to you. Love and Life in the Son Daniel

Daniel

Quote

I'm saying the Son is the expressed image, the exact same nature/substance as his Father.

I understand this in this way;;

the son thinks and act in the same way than his father ,the son stands for the same principals and laws than his father ,the son love's the same things that the father love's like TRUTH,RIGHTEOUSNESS,JUSTICE,

also the son will do anything to please the father even giving up his own live to save others out of love for them;things he did ,

and the son received from his father the gift of power that canNOT be mach with anyone but the father (who his yet more powerful than the son)

YES IN THIS WAY HE HIS THE IMAGE OF THE FATHER AND ;;;;so that in everything he might have the supremacy.
Col 1:19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him,

YES CHRIST IS THE SON AND THE SUPREMACY AFTER GOD BELONG TO HIM ,AMEN

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ May 30 2013,05:13)

Mike, 1. You seem to be claiming that fallen angels can marry or be given in marriage. 2. Marriage is a sin for the angel kind. 3. Angels are made to reproduce but are forbidden to do so. 4. Humans will be able to reproduce but banned from doing so. 5. God will abolish the marriages that are in force.

Kerwin,

1. Did you even read Enoch passage I quoted? God was punishing those angels because they DID have sex with human woman when they weren't SUPPOSED TO do such a thing.

Angels IN HEAVEN do not marry. Do you think these human women were IN HEAVEN when these angels had sex with them?

2. Yep. That's why they were punished.

3. Scripture? We know that an angel can reproduce with a human, but we don't know anything about angels (who all seem to be male) reproducing among their own kind.

4. The bodies of those humans who will dwell in heaven will be like the bodies of the angels. I don't know whether or not those bodies will be capable of reproducing or not.

5. There will be marriages and offspring as usual on earth. I don't know whether or not a husband and wife from the 13th century will be husband and wife again on earth. But we do know that if that couple is among those who are chosen to dwell in heaven, they will not be married.

[abe]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 27 2013,16:48)

Abe, I'm still waiting.  In YOUR OWN words, tell me what it means that Paul said he didn't receive his gospel from any man, but instead from Jesus Christ.

Hi Mike,

1Tim.2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

the *MAN* Christ Jesus;

Act17:31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”

through a *MAN*

Peace brother…………………………………..

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ May 30 2013,12:13)

The NET notes include two possibilities, not just the one you wrote. Are you trying to be deceptive? Here is what NET says: Quote 114 tn Or “with his own blood”; Grk “with the blood of his own.” The genitive construction could be taken in two ways: (1) as an attributive genitive (second attributive position) meaning “his own blood”; or (2) as a possessive genitive, “with the blood of his own.” In this case the referent is the Son, and the referent has been specified in the translation for clarity. See further C. F. DeVine, “The Blood of God,” CBQ 9 (1947): 381-408.

Do you see the big part, Kathi?  THAT is what the Greek words actually say.  I never once implied that there wasn't more than one way to understand those words.  In fact, in previous posts, I've discussed the part you bolded above as one of the possibilities……. didn't I?

Now I'd like YOU to discuss, or at least ACKNOWLEDGE, that it seems odd for Matt 27:25, which ALSO speaks of the blood of a particular person, to say, “the blood of himself (autos)”, while Acts 20:28 says, “the blood of his own (idios)”.

Why do you suppose Paul didn't say, “the blood of himself“ in Acts 20:28, if that's what he meant?  Why did he word it in such a way that it is better understood as referring to the blood of someone BELONGING TO God, rather than God's OWN blood?

Quote (Lightenup @ May 30 2013,12:13)

Mike, read this real good… If Acts 20:28 were not even in the Bible, is it true to say that the theos of John 1:1c purchased His church with His own blood? This is a must answer: YES or NO?

Absolutely.  A god certainly sacrificed his own blood to purchase men for his and our God, Jehovah, who is the Most High God of gods.

Quote (Lightenup @ May 30 2013,12:13)

So all things came from the theos of John 1:1b through the theos of John 1:1c. Thanks for realizing this.

I've never claimed anything different than that, Kathi.  The Most High God created all things through His Holy Servant Jesus Christ, who is also a god (“mighty one”).

But only ONE is the Most High God. And only ONE created all things.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (4Thomas @ May 30 2013,07:30)

please see the debate section I have replied to you.

Hi Daniel,

I'll just focus on our private thread for now, and let our current discussion in this thread fade away. My hope is that every single reason you have for believing Jesus is God Almighty will eventually be discussed in the private thread…… along with my many reasons for not believing such a thing.

Let's just take it slow over there, with short and to-the-point posts – and always be respectful of each other.

I'll respond in the other thread tomorrow.

peace,
mike

[Author]

Posts