Search Members

[Paladin]

Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 13 2011,11:47)

[/quote] Paladin, (P) Quote As for any gender issue, it only becomes an issue when someone insists God is genderless, or angels are mothers to spiritual beings. (Ed) If the issue of gender in some way comes to effect the gospel of Christ then it becomes an critical issue.

 

(P)

Quote

All males are “Ish” sometimes spelled “eesh.” All females are “ishi” sometimes spelled “eeshaw.” Man is eesh; God is eesh; angels are eesh; the females of animals are eesh; females are eeshee (or eeshaw); female humans are eeshee (or eeshaw) because they were taken out of eesh.

(Ed)Strong’s 802 disagrees with you as they specifically state that the female of animals can be called “ishshah (ish-shaw').  [/quote]

You are correct. Now you know why I do not post very often. My mind gets ahead of my typing.

(P)

Quote

Jesus was not saying “if you lust for a woman it is as bad to think about it as it is to do it.” He was saying, “while it is only in your heart, that is the time to get rid of it, before it manages to become an action by the body.”

(Ed) You are stretching on that one as what you state is not what those words Jesus spoke meant though you are correct that cutting sin off while it is still an idea is the example Jesus set for us.[/quote]

Not at all. Jesus knew that no one can control what thoughts can come into one's mind, but everyone can control what he/she does about it. And, when you spend more time working with God, the thought proccess comes more under one's control, to where the mischief thoughts are fewer and farther between.

(Ed)

Quote

What is the difference between an idea and a mental fantasy? The way I understand it is that an idea is a conception “existing in the mind as a result of mental understanding, awareness, or activity” while a mental fantasy is “imagined sequence filling a psychological need”.  I assure you if the need is from the sinful nature or the then the fantasy is a sin while just become aware of the possibility of sin does not.

It is the same difference as that between science fiction and science fantasy; i.e. one is possible while the other is not.

It does not require “possibility” for a thought to become sin. It requires fulfillment in some capacity or other to become a “sin unto death. Remember, “all unrightesouness is sin.” The difference is not in the thought, it is in the result; i.,e., “What did you do about it?” or “How did you handle it?”

[Paladin]

Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 13 2011,02:38)

Paladin, It is nice to hear from you.   Quote 1st: The “women” of Zec 5:9 are not angels, they are women in a vision. “Women” in Hebrew is “eesh-shaw” but angel in verse 10 is “mal-lawk.” They are not the same. There are no female angels in scripture. Are angels always called “ma-lawk” or are they sometimes called by their gender?

All males are “Ish” sometimes spelled “eesh.” All females are “ishi” sometimes spelled “eeshaw.”

Quote

For example the two angels that visit Lot in Genesis 19 are called “iysh”. I currently believe that such issues as the genders of angels are not critical to the message of salvation.

Gen 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man [120], made he a woman (Eesh-shaw) [802], and brought her unto the man (A-dam) [120]. 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my
flesh: she shall be called Woman (Ees-shaw) [802], because she was taken out of Man (Eesh) [376]. 24 Therefore shall a man (Eesh) [376] leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife (Eesh-shaw) [802]: and they shall be one flesh.

Man is eesh; God is eesh; angels are eesh; the females of animals are eesh; females are eeshee (or eeshaw); female humans are eeshee (or eeshaw) because they were taken out of eesh.

As for any gendre issue, it only become an issue when someone insists God is genderless, or angels are mothers to spiritual beings. Then of course, there are some who make issue from the paintings and drawing of artists who depict angelic beings as “feminine” in appearance.

God is called “He” in scripture because “He” used pronouns to that effect; i.,e., Masculine singular.

Quote

2nd: Jesus not only never said lust is sin, he himself lusted. He said “with eputhumia” I have “epithumesa” to eat this passover with you.” [Luke 22:15] “Epithumeia” is translated “lust” in James 1:15 “Then when epithumia hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.[James 1:15] Lust is not sin until it fulfills its potential to bring out the evil within our desires. The desire itself is not bad, but continuing to pursue it to its fulfillment is.

Quote

I may have inadvertently confused you as I was speaking using inferences based on conversation at hand. You are correct that it is not sinful to be tempted by evil but the account Enoch tell of the angels going beyond being tempted and to the point of even making a compact to do evil in the sight of God.  Jesus teaches us that even to fantasize of sinning it to sin in Matthew 5:28. One can hear the sin without sinning but if one indulges in imagining doing the sin then they sin.

Jesus said in the reference you supplied, “If thy eye offend, pluck it out” or “cast it off” to save the body, which implies it is not the body that offends by the bearing of temptation, rather it is the means by which the temptation arrives at the body, i.,e., hearing, seeing, tasting, smelling, etc.

Jesus was not saying “if you lust for a woman it is as bad to think about it as it is to do it.” He was saying, “while it is only in your heart, that is the time to get rid of it, before it manages to become an action by the body.”

And you are correct, that to continue to endulge one's self in phantasies of an unholy nature, sin takes hold, we are taught that there are at least two types of sin; sin unto death, and sin not unto death. The sin in which one engages by persuit of
lustful image, or evil desire, leads to fulfillment, but until that desire is fulfilled, it is unrighteousness, and all unrighteousness is sin. but the response to unrighteousness that has not matured to the point of sin can be expiated by repentance, prayer, and determination to not persue that line of reasioning again.

This is why it was said of Enoch “He pleased God” and he “was translated, that he should not taste death,” because all of his sins were of the “desire” level, of which he repented and sought through prayer, to control, and mostly succeeded.

His approach, in conjunction with the blood of Christ, made him acceptable unto God. And he did not die. Pretty neat for a human, in my estimation.

Quote

Unlike our discussion about what is testified of the gender(s) of angels I consider this discussion of temptation and sin to be critical to the gospel of righteousness through faith.

Agreed! Even Enoch had to repent, and there are none who can accuse him of anything contrary to God's laws, other than God himself, who testified of Enoch “he pleased God.”

[Paladin]

Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 06 2011,06:18)

Mike, Quote Where does Enoch teach that angels marry? 1 Enoch chapter 6 Quote 1. And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. 2. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: 'Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.' 3. And Semjâzâ, who was their leader, said unto them: 'I fear ye will not indeed agree to do this deed, and I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin. 1) Angels lust after human women 2) In their lust they desire to marry them. 3 According to Jesus the lust itself is a sin so they a guilty even before Semjâzâ spoke to them. Quote Enoch 15 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. Adam was not subject to death when God made Eve for him as the wages of sin are death.  It is Eve that through which temptation came to Adam and therefore sin that lead to death.  God created Eve for Adam because Adam was alone without a helper, Genesis 2:18. Some angels that were seen in a vision are female. Quote Zechariah 5:9 King James Version (KJV) 9Then lifted I up mine eyes, and looked, and, behold, there came out two women, and the wind was in their wings; for they had wings like the wings of a stork: and they lifted up the ephah between the earth and the heaven. Quote Also, how does Enoch describe Sheol as contrasted to how Jesus describes it? 1 Enoch describes a Sheol with four sections while Jesus describes one with but two. Jesus’ description is consistent with the idea that after death a man is subject to judgment while the description in 1 Enoch is not.

1st:
The “women” of Zec 5:9 are not angels, they are women in a vision. “Women” in Hebrew is “eesh-shaw” but angel in verse 10 is “mal-lawk.” They are not the same.

There are no female angels in scripture.

2nd:
Jesus not only never sais luist is sin, he himself lusted.

He said “with eputhumia” I have “epithumesa” to eat this passover with you.” [Luke 22:15]

“Epithumeia” is translated “lust” in James 1:15

“Then when epithumia hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.[James 1:15]

Lust is not sin until it fulfills its potential to bring out the evil within our desires. The desire itself is not bad, but continuing to persue it to its fulfillment is.

[Paladin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 05 2011,13:37)

Quote (Paladin @ Oct. 04 2011,03:27) Do you really think John is not familiar with the concept of “calling” something by a name? John does not say “and the word was called God, does he Mike? He says “the word was God. Do YOU think that John was unaware that he only spoke of one “THE god” in 1:1?  Only ONE of the TWO mentioned is called by John “THE theos”. Nor did I ever attempt to say John was saying the Word was “called god”.  I know that John was saying the Word was A god who was with THE God in the beginning. Quote (Paladin @ Oct. 04 2011,03:27) Later, John tells us that this “word” became something other than God; i.e., “the word became flesh.” God did NOT. And that right there shoots your whole theory in the foot.  If “God” did not become flesh, but the Word DID, then isn't is obviousl that the Word was NOT “God”?   Do you want us to believe that the Word was truly God Himself, but when the Word became flesh, it WASN'T God Himself?     Paladin, why don't you address the NETNotes info I included in my last post?  Explain to those of us who DO have common sense how God Almighty could possibly be WITH God Almighty.  If the Word was God Almighty, then it is just simple common sense that the Word couldn't have possibly been WITH God Almighty. Can the Being of God be WITH the Being of God?    Maybe in Bizzaro World. Quote (Paladin @ Oct. 04 2011,03:27) Actually Mike, you have John speaking of three, not two; God who was with the word, and God who was the word, and the word who was both God and with God, and changed to being “not God.” (flesh). Really Paladin?    You're counting “God who was the word” and “the word who was God” as TWO things?   That's like saying, “David, the King of Israel” and “King David of Israel” are TWO people.   John 1:1 speaks of TWO, Paladin.  One of whom was WITH the other.  And only one of them became flesh.  And since we agree that God Himself did not become flesh, the one who DID become flesh had to have been someone OTHER THAN God Himself.   Not only that, but the one who DID become flesh had to be the only begotten OF the Father, because after becoming flesh, that one had the glory as of the only begotten of the Father.  And only ONE being in existence has EVER had the glory as of the ONLY begotten of the Father.  That one is not only called the Word of God in Rev 19, but also in John 1:1 and 14.     mike

Mike – One God or two?

Luke 20:37 Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord [ton theon]the God of Abraham, and the [theon]God of Isaac, and the [theon] God of Jacob.

One God, or two?
John 13:3 Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God; [theou][ton theon]

[Paladin]

Quote (Pastry @ Oct. 04 2011,14:05)

Mike and Kathi!  Just this morning I came across some Scriptures of who has seen God… Jhn 5:37   And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.   Jhn 6:46   Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.   Exd 33:20   And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.   Exd 33:21   And the LORD said, Behold, [there is] a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:   Exd 33:22   And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:   Exd 33:23   And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.   So nobody has ever seen God, and Moses who seen only Gods back, His hair was white as snow after that….. I also believe that nobody has heard Gods voice, so when the Israelite heard YAHVEH, if Scriptures are true, that was not YAHVEH…. Peace Irene

Exo 24:9
Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel:10 And they [saw] the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.[eidon = ind. aor. act. 3rd pl. form of verb oraw].

11 And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.

[Paladin]

Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 04 2011,12:51)

I think that ya'll should study how the Jews spoke about 'the Word of God' in their paraphrase of the scriptures.  I believe it is called the Talmud or the Targums but if you want to know more, I can dig it up for you. From what I remember, the Jews would replace 'Jehovah' with 'the Word of God' when Jehovah was seen or heard since they knew that no man has seen God or heard His voice. Kathi

That is incorrect. Suppose you look it up.

I think you will find that “Adon” or “Adonai” is closer to what was used; meaning “Lord.”

[Paladin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 04 2011,12:21)

Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 03 2011,18:24) Is “aeons” “singular” or “plural”?  Does it make a difference? It is plural in Hebrews 1:2.  It refers to MORE THAN ONE AGE that was created through God's Son.

Mike –

“Poiew” has a lot of meanings that have nothing to do with creation;
4160 poiew – poieo
Meaning: 1) to make 1a) with the names of things made, to produce, construct, form, fashion, etc. 1b) to be the authors of, the cause 1c) to make ready, to prepare 1d) to produce, bear, shoot forth 1e) to acquire, to provide a thing for one's self 1f) to make a thing out of something 1g) to (make i.e.) render one anything 1g1) to (make i.e.) constitute or appoint one anything, to appoint or ordain one that 1g2) to (make i.e.) declare one anything 1h) to put one forth, to lead him out 1i) to make one do something 1i1) cause one to 1j) to be the authors of a thing (to cause, bring about) 2) to do 2a) to act rightly, do well 2a1) to carry out, to execute 2b) to do a thing unto one 2b1) to do to one 2c) with designation of time: to pass, spend 2d) to celebrate, keep 2d1) to make ready, and so at the same time to institute, the celebration of the passover 2e) to perform: to a promise

The frequency table of how it is used in the New Testament: AV – do 357, make 113, bring forth 14, commit 9, cause 9, work 8, show 5, bear 4, keep 4, fulfil 3, deal 2, perform 2, not tr 3, misc 43, vr do 3; 579

To say the age was created through God's son misses the meaning of Heb 1:2. It is a reference to the age of Judaism fading [being ended] from the scene, and the age of Christianity being introduced to the scene.

The ages were not created in the way creation was made from nothing. The ages were introduced, fulfilled their rightful place in God's plan, then faded, to be replaced by introduction of the next age in God's scheme of things.

[Paladin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 04 2011,12:18)

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Oct. 03 2011,08:50) Irene……….Get it God and his words are one and the SAME, Yes Just as your words are with You so GOD'S words are with him and Yes even in the “BEGINNING was those words of His with Him Just as your words are with YOU there is no difference GOD'S word are with him also. Gene, ANYTHING that can be said to be WITH you cannot possibly BE you.  That is just simple common sense, dude.  ESPECIALLY when that thing is described with a masculine, personal pronoun like “HE”.  Is the Word of God a “HE” that was both WITH God AND God?

Mike, you really desparately need to study a little more about Greek pronouns and definite articles.

God is called both “he” and “it”.[page 41, post 4]

God is also depicted both with and without the definite article.

You are making a lot of clains you cannot substantiate from the Greek.

John 13:3 Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God; Is theou the same God as ton theon?

Luke 20:37 Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord [ton theon]the God of Abraham, and the [theon]God of Isaac, and the [theon] God of Jacob.

Does Abraham worship a different God [“ton theon”] than his son Isaac worships [theon] or his grandson Jacob [theon]?

[Paladin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 03 2011,02:34)

[/quote] Mike, if I ask you to tell me what you know about all things whether black, brown, or blue, would you tell me of things that include those are red, green or yellow?

Yes Paladin,

Because the phrase “ALL things” stipulates how the word “whether” is to be understood.  We've been through this discussion before………..remember?

If you asked me about CERTAIN colors, whether they be black, brown, or blue, the word “CERTAIN” gives the word “WHETHER” the meaning of “ONLY these three colors and no others”.[/quote]

So, when I ask you about black, what are you “uncertain” about? How exactly is this an “uncertain” coplor?

And Blue? How is that “uncertain” in your thought proccess?

Brown? “Uncertain?” Do you have to decide whether I really meant a muddy shade of red? Is “Brown” really an “uncertain” color to you Mike?

It is not necessary for me to include the word “certain” in my question, for you to understand the colors I listed, nor are they confusing to the readers. No “uncertainty” except in your own desire to find, in your desparation, some way to turn a conversation to something you can control. But you cannot control my questions, nor my answers, because
“certain” is YOUR requirement for comprehension, not mine, when everybody else on the board had no
“uncertainty” as to what colors I was enquiring about.

Quote

But if you asked me about ALL colors, then the word “WHETHER” takes on a meaning of “SUCH AS” or “INCLUDING these three colors”.  It does not exclude any of the other colors known to man because of the phrase “ALL colors”.

Nope! Just another exam[ple of Mike trying to manipulate the conversation.

Quote

For those of you who didn't witness the first exchange about this between Paladin and me, he tries to say that the word “whether” in Col 1:16 limits the things that were created through Jesus to ONLY thrones, powers, rulers and authorities; and then tries to say that the word “created” in this scripture means these four things “stepped down a notch in authority” when Jesus was exalted.  He likes to gloss over the words “through him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible; all things were created through him and for him. Paladin, “SUCH AS” is the true meaning of “whether” in this scripture.

The reader is invited to go to page 143, post number 3 and apply Mikes methodology to the reference material I gave there and test his philosophy. He obviously didn't get it, but maybe you will.

Quote

Paul does say “ALL things” twice, Paladin.  Why do you think that is?

Because the Holy Spirit directed him as to what to say and how many times to say it? If you have a point to make about Paul saying “all things” twice, make your point, don't play word games with me. They are your frustration, not mine.

[Paladin]

Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 02 2011,08:23)

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 22 2011,04:26)

Paladin, I fail to see what you claim is 'even more interesting.'

I do not doubt you kathi. you know your own failures better than I.

Quote

What would be the 'sword' of the word of God?

There are two classes of weapon in spiritual warfare. There is the spirit which is the reema, weilded as a sword, used for both offense and defense. If you know your scripture, you can defeat any false doctrine as far as book teaching goes.

But there is a much sharper weapon than any sword, and that is the logos, the idea behind the written word.

If you know the logos, you can delve into the very thought proccesses and discern the hearts of men – and thus defeat their false doctrines that supercede the written word.

Heb 4:12 For the logos of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

If you replace the 'spirit' with 'word of God'…what exactly do you say is the sword of the word of God?? I believe that it is clear that the 'word of God' is the weapon, i.e. the 'sword.' Dr. Boyer agrees and spells it out, even using the Greek words in the order you have noted. Did you follow the link…the actual paragraph is on page 14 of the pdf.

Quote

The passage is talking about the pieces of armor that we are to put on and is not a passage explaining the spirit.

If I am told to put on shoes, that does not make it a command about shoes, it makes it a command about me being fully prepared to walk over uneven or destructive ground.

You are correct, it is not about explaining spirit, but putting on spirit is an integral part of being spiritually prepared.

[Paladin]

Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 02 2011,10:36)

Paladin? Quote Paul tells us reema I S the Spirit. [Eph 6:17] Eph 6:10Finally, be strong in the Lord, and in the strength of his might. 11Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world's rulers of the darkness of this age, and against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. 13Therefore, put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and, having done all, to stand. 14Stand therefore, having the utility belt of truth buckled around your waist, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15and having fitted your feet with the preparation of the Good News of peace; 16above all, taking up the shield of faith, with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the evil one. 17And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God; The context of this passage is not about the Spirit but of the armor of God and it lists each piece.  From this passage, you cannot declare as fact that Paul is stating that the Spirit IS the word of God.  That doesn't fit the flow of the passage, not to mention the grammar lesson that Dr. James Boyer gave, a professor of the New Testament and Greek grammar. Sorry, Paladin but I don't think you should use this verse as a proof text of that idea that the Spirit is the 'rhema.' Kathi

So let me see if I understand correctly what you are saying.

I find a proof text.

You don't see it as a proof text.

I therefore should not use it as a proof text.

That about it?

Do you understand what it means when a Greek grammar book introduces a page called “rules?”

If the rules do not take precedence over exceptions to the rules, they cease to be rules, and become “suggestions.”

The Greek grammar rule is “The relative pronoun “MUST AGREE WITH ITS ANTECEDENT IN GENDER AND NUMBER.

If you do not find an antecedent, then you apply the second rule, and look for the word-form that fits the second rule. If you do not find a second-rule word-form, you proceed to the next rule and search for the agreeing word-form.

Sind Eph 6:17 has a word form that has an antecedent, why are you looking for and applying a second-rule word-form?

Or are you saying that the antecedent is not an antecedent?

Based upon what? The “SCHOLARS?”

[Paladin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 02 2011,04:53)

Gene, You need to research John 1:1 a little more.  The Word is never called “THE God” in that verse.  And “THE God” is the only one we call “God”, with a capped “G”. All others are called “gods” in English, with a lower case “g”. And since the Word was WITH “THE God” in the beginning, he couldn't possibly have BEEN “THE God”. 1:1 speaks of TWO persons.  One of them was “THE God” while the other one was was WITH “THE God”.  That other one was also a mighty one, and therefore called a “god” in Biblical times – just like Satan was called a “god” in Biblical times.

Mike, please give me one translation that says “And the word was god.” [lower case g]

Notice, I do not say there is not one, I only say I am not aware of one.

Are you?

[Paladin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 02 2011,04:12)

Gene, Although what you posted was in English, I haven't a clue what you are saying.   I will remind you that the logos BECAME flesh.  He did not come to be IN someone who was flesh.  If one must change the scriptures for their doctrine to be realized, then something is wrong with that doctrine.

Actually Mike, the logos “was formed” in flesh,[Gal 4:19] thus “became flesh.” [John 1:1]

Why do you insist on reading the last book first? you cannot possibly get a correct understanding of the meaning of words by turning to the back of the book, when the meanings are already established in the front of the book.

For you to change the scriptures for your doctrine to be realized, something must be wrong with your doctrine.

[Paladin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 02 2011,03:17)

Quote (Paladin @ Oct. 01 2011,09:04) When Paul tells us the Spirit is the reema of God; and John tells us the logos was God, you don't discern a difference? Paul doesn't tell us the spirit is the “rhema” of God, nor does John tell us the “logos” is God. Knowing is half the battle, Paladin.

Who said he does?

Reading what is said is the first half of the battle Mike.

I did not say “John said the logos is God.” So why the switch?

Paul said the reema IS the spirit; [Eph 6:17]
John tells us the reemata ARE spirit [John 6:63]

John tells us the logos WAS God. [John 1:1]

[Paladin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 02 2011,03:16)

Quote (Paladin @ Oct. 01 2011,09:04) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 01 2011,13:34) The FACT of the matter is that sometimes “rhema” just refers to any old word spoken by any old person.  And sometimes “logos” just refers to any old word spoken by any old person. Pay close attention to Heb 11:3 and 1 Peter 1:25 and tell me how that's a “record” and not a “concept”.   Tell me how the phrases “word of God” and “word of the Lord” mean something different because of the word “rhema” than they would have meant if the writer used the word “logos”. The problem is, sometimes in scripture the two seem to get mixed as though it doesn't matter, and that adds to the confusion among scholars. You've hit the nail right on the head, Paladin.  They “seem to get mixed as though it doesn't matter” because it DOESN'T matter. They are two words that mean “word”.  The context tells us what “word” in each particular scripture means, not the choice of “rhema” over “logos” or vice versa. Please DIRECTLY answer the bolded question above. mike

Because Paul uses the expression “The LOGOS OF GOD” when describing the concept of “Christ being formed in you” and
“Christ living in you.” He never uses “Reema” when speaking of this concept.

Gal 2:20; 4:19 and others

And he uses the word “REEMA” when describing the spirit of the scriptures, and never applies “LOGOS” to the concept.

Eph 6:17; John 6:63 and others.

And whenever God uses the word logos, he is telling us something specific we should try to understand, instead of trying to make a different word fit. And when he chooses to use reema, we should look to the record and wuit trying to make it mean what logos means.

I have told you before, the fact that both logos and reema can be applied to the terms of an agreement, there remains a difference between the acknowledged agreement to the terminology of the ideas to which we are in agreement, and the termionology found in the written contract. You would expect to see some of the same language in both. That does not mean the contract is the idea. It means that the terms of the contract should agree with the terms of the agreement.

“Terms” is found in both sentences, but agreement and contract do not mean the same thing, even though “terms” applies to both.

When I said “sometimes the terms seem to reference the same thing” I was not saying that they mean the same thing, I was saying that sometimes a more careful reading must take place to discern the two; just like when you are reading the terms of agreement, you must determine BEFORE you sign, whether you are signing the agreement or the contract. If you are not careful, you may find later, when it becomes important, that you have only signed an agreement, that results in simple agreement, when your income depends upon having an ironclad contract.

[Paladin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 02 2011,01:57)

It is scriptural that David is the root of Jesus – ACCORDING TO THE FLESH – making Jesus the branch of David.  But it is equally scriptural that Jesus is ALSO the Root of David, meaning that in some way, Jesus came BEFORE David.

Exactly Mike. And I have told you many times what that
[“some way” is. It is called “PROPHECY”.

You admit Jesus is the root of David, and you acknowledge it is “some way,” so why can't you put aside your “pre-existant Jesus” bias and see the truth of the effect of prophecy?

[Paladin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 01 2011,13:34)

Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 30 2011,08:54) Quote (mikeboll @ 64) The FACT of the matter is that sometimes “rhema” just refers to any old word spoken by any old person.  And sometimes “logos” just refers to any old word spoken by any old person. Claims without examples. 1 Cor 2:4 My conversation and my preaching were not with persuasive words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power, Mat 22:15 Then the Pharisees went out and planned together to entrap him with his own words. 1Co 14:19 but in the church I want to speak five words with my mind to instruct others, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue. Joh 10:19 Another sharp division took place among the Jewish people because of these words. The above “words” are all “logos”, and seem to refer to ordinary, everyday WORDS. 1 Peter 1:25 but the word of the Lord endures forever. And this is the word that was proclaimed to you. Eph 5 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, Rom 10:8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we preach) Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible. These bolded “words” are ALL “rhema”, Paladin.  Pay close attention to Heb 11:3 and 1 Peter 1:25 and tell me how that's a “record” and not a “concept”.   Tell me how the phrases “word of God” and “word of the Lord” mean something different because of the word “rhema” than they would have meant if the writer used the word “logos”. Paladin, I can post scriptures like this all day long.  I can post uses of “logos” AND “rhema” that refer to the mystical “word of God”, and I can post instances where BOTH words are used to describe just a simple spoken or written word by ANYONE. Your theory is debunked.  Like I told Kerwin (to which he agreed), if you took one scripture at a time, I might agree with your “concept versus record” theory 50% of the time.  But you are careless to make a blanket statement that includes EVERY mention of “logos” or “rhema” in the entire scriptures.  The scriptures simply don't bear this claim out.

The problem you are having Mike, is that you are trying to dictate to God whjich word he should use because of your own faulted understanding.

Instead of telling us what his wrods mean, why don't you try asking him, then believing what he says? If he calls it “logos” accept that it is logos, if he calls it reema, accept that it references reema. Quit trying to correct me because I do accept the Holy spirits guidance.

[Paladin]

Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 28 2011,23:47)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 28 2011,06:22) Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 27 2011,07:38) Mike, The whole chapter of 1 Corinthians 8 is concerning food sacrificed to idols, even the clause “all things”.  I also know that godly knowledge comes from God through, by, and for Jesus Anointed.  Paul was just supplying a tool that his readers could do as Peter instructs them in this passage. Kerwin, you seem to have a real hangup with the phrase “ALL THINGS”.    In Col 1:16, you think it means “NEW things” for some reason.  And in 1 Cor 8:6, you think it means “FOOD things” or “KNOWLEDGE things”.   Kerwin, can you give me ANY scriptural or logical reason Paul could not actually mean “ALL things” in 1 Cor 8:6??  Those are the words he wrote, after all.   When God is called the Maker of heaven and earth and EVERYTHING in them, you don't automatically start imagining the word “everything” really means only “NEW things”, or only “FOOD things”, do you?   Mike, The specific meaning of “all things” depends on the topic of conversation among other things; such as whether it spoken in generalities or not.

Are you allowed to use “whether” in this conversion? WoW!

I am not allowed to use it because it seems to have changed its meaning when applied to the scripture.

[Paladin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 27 2011,12:29)

Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 25 2011,20:20) Quote (mikeboll @ 64) Kerwin, in 1 Cor 8:6, what exactly is included in the “ALL THINGS” that came from the Father? Hearing that context causes me to conclude he the “all things” of 1 Corinthians 8:6 is congruent to that of the “all things” that God has given Jesus………… Let's see: 5 For even if there are those called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many gods and many lords), 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live……… This means that although there are many gods, both in heaven and on earth, for us there is only the one true God, from Whom all things came.  In other words, OUR God is the One who created all things, and is therefore incomparable to these other gods.   Paladin, can I get an Amen to that?  How about you Gene? Kerwin, since Paul simply said “ALL THINGS”, why would you conclude that the “ALL THINGS” only refers to things that God has given Jesus?  I don't see anything in the whole chapter that references “things given by God to Jesus”.   mike

Very Good Mike. Now apply that to the limiting parameter
“whether” of Col 1:16.

If I give you a baseball glove, and a chair; and I give Kerwin a
baseball, a bat and a soda dispenser, I can take “all things” which I gave you and add them to the “all things” which I gave to Kerwin, and develope a baseball game with seats and a place to rest, and refreshment between “up-at-bat”s.

But no one believe I gave either you or Kerwin “all things.” Yet everyone understands what is included when I ask you and Kerwin to allow me to use “all things” I gave to the both of you.

“All things” always means what is referenced within the limiting parameters, whether naming you as the recipient, or naming Kerwin as the recipient, or whether simply requesting the use of what is understood by both recipients as “Please let me have the use of all the things I gave you guys.”

Supopose I only need part of what I gave you and Kerwin, in the illustration? I can say “Please give me the use of the things I gave you guys whether balls or gloves.” I do not expect to get the bat, nor the chairs, nor the dispenser, because they have been eliminated from my “want list” by that little limitting parameter “whether.” And everybody understands that position. And if they do not, they would certainly ask because of the use of the word “whether” if no other reason.

[Paladin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 25 2011,02:24)

Agreement is a good thing, Kerwin.  Now if we could just get Paladin on board……………..

Paladin is already in agreement with the scriptures.

That is why I agreed with Kathi when she corrected my error.

That is also why I disagreed with Kathi when she insisted the scholars are correct. Can't say I blame her on that one, because they all agree on the wrong thing. Just as they all agree when a new denomination breaks away from
“orthodoxy” and establishes a new understanding of something “everybody knows.”

It was the “scholars” who developed the trinity and the pre-existant Christ, as well as “omo-ousian,” theos ho uios,” and “prwtotokus” from words not found in scripture; but supply a good bit of “orthodoxy” in churches today.

[Author]

Posts