mikeboll64 replied to the topic Titus 2:13, 14 Proof that Jesus is The Saviour! in the forum Debates 15 years, 3 months ago
Quote (Lightenup @ July 29 2011,00:04)Asked and answered. There is one ultimate Savior who is both the Father and the Son.I was looking for clarification by your own words that you acknowledge that our Ultimate Savior SENT other saviors. I want you to CLEARY state the truth of the matter that “only Savior” means “Ultimate Savior” (which you HAVE…[Read more]
mikeboll64 replied to the topic Titus 2:13, 14 Proof that Jesus is The Saviour! in the forum Debates 15 years, 3 months ago
Quote (Lightenup @ July 29 2011,00:00)Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 28 2011,22:30)Quote (Lightenup @ July 27 2011,23:20)Pierre,Here is your scripture:See my notes in parenthesis:Isaiah 19:20It will become a sign and a witness to the LORD of hosts in the land of Egypt; for they will cry to the LORD (Jehovah our God, the unity of the Father and the Son)…[Read more]
mikeboll64 replied to the topic Puns for Educated Minds in the forum Chatroom 15 years, 3 months ago
Quote (princess @ July 29 2011,07:45)13. I wondered why the baseball kept getting bigger. Then it hit me.

mikeboll64 replied to the topic Examination of the incarnation doctrine. in the forum Truth or Tradition 15 years, 3 months ago
Take your own advice Gene. There really is no need to complicate it. The word rendered as “hate” can truly mean “love less” – as you've been shown.Gene, you should try to learn and grow instead of digging your heels in on every single issue…………..especially when “being right” means you have to add your own words into the scriptures.
mikeboll64 replied to the topic Examination of the incarnation doctrine. in the forum Truth or Tradition 15 years, 3 months ago
BEAUTIFUL Marty! Thank you so much.
That answers the discrepancy as clear as a bell.mikeboll64 replied to the topic And God called their name adam in the forum Debates 15 years, 3 months ago
Or perhaps Kathi could show us all how the church is a “HE”. You can't use “SHE” as an apples to apples comparison, for the word “SHE” is poetically used to refer to many inanimate objects that have no gender whatsoever.Kathi, find us a situation where more than one person are referred to together as a “HE”.peace,mike
mikeboll64 replied to the topic Examination of the incarnation doctrine. in the forum Truth or Tradition 15 years, 3 months ago
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ July 29 2011,08:30)Mike………..Do you see what you do Here, you change context of what i and scripture says, I said that Jesus was not talking about the (person) but their (lives) they lead. His focus was not about the person at all but about their LIVES. Mike this is what you do with most everything being discussed…[Read more]
mikeboll64 replied to the topic Worship God the Father only? in the forum Scriptural Teachings 15 years, 3 months ago
Quote (Lightenup @ July 27 2011,23:47)Mike,Can you have the role of a member on HN and at the same time the role of the moderator?Kathi, Is a “role” a “nature”? I can see Jesus playing different ROLES like most people often do. We call it “wearing many hats”, right?But our NATURE does not change when our ROLES do………………does it?My na…[Read more]
mikeboll64 replied to the topic Should members be tiled for avoidance? in the forum About Believers Place 15 years, 3 months ago
Well, I'll tell you what guys………….if I got mad over each time Jack misquoted me or tried to find some "dishonest, deceitful nature" in me, I'd be mad all the time.
Just today he suggested I misquoted Gill when my quote came word for word off the quote of Gill that Kathi posted! Come on Jack! Can't you see it was posted one page ago by…[Read more]mikeboll64 replied to the topic And God called their name adam in the forum Debates 15 years, 3 months ago
Pierre,Just let it go like I did. I originally said, “We are also said to be ONE with the Father”. What I meant by the words “to be” was that some of us ARE TO BE one with the Father………….as in a future tense.Kathi well knows the scripture to which we refer and should have known what I meant like you did. She is just splitting hairs be…[Read more]
mikeboll64 replied to the topic Titus 2:13, 14 Proof that Jesus is The Saviour! in the forum Debates 15 years, 3 months ago
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 28 2011,11:15)The old testament “saviors” were shadows of the REAL Savior which is Jesus Christ.Well Jack,This is exactly what I expected you and Keith to say. Just like you have to invent the phrases “so-called gods” and “false gods” when those phrases don't exist in scripture, you will now invent “shadow saviors”.…[Read more]
mikeboll64 replied to the topic Titus 2:13, 14 Proof that Jesus is The Saviour! in the forum Debates 15 years, 3 months ago
Quote (Lightenup @ July 27 2011,23:20)Pierre,Here is your scripture:See my notes in parenthesis:Isaiah 19:20It will become a sign and a witness to the LORD of hosts in the land of Egypt; for they will cry to the LORD (Jehovah our God, the unity of the Father and the Son) because of oppressors, and He (still Jehovah) will send them a Savior and a…[Read more]
mikeboll64 replied to the topic Titus 2:13, 14 Proof that Jesus is The Saviour! in the forum Debates 15 years, 3 months ago
Quote (Lightenup @ July 27 2011,22:53)Together the Father and the Son agreed to have the Father send the Son to be the Savior of the world.
Why didn't you just say that they agreed the Son would go? If they both agreed on it, then why did one SEND the other? This gets more amusing all the time.Anyway, is there LITERALLY only one Savior in…[Read more]mikeboll64 replied to the topic Titus 2:13, 14 Proof that Jesus is The Saviour! in the forum Debates 15 years, 3 months ago
Quote (Lightenup @ July 27 2011,22:48)BTW, that Hebrew word for Lord, the first Lord in 'Lord of lords,' is Adonay. The word used ONLY for our deity Lord.You are mistaken, Kathi. Ask Jack. He quoted Barnes or someone who made the same claim you did, and I showed him TWO scriptures where “adonay” was used for someone other than God in the OT.…[Read more]
mikeboll64 replied to the topic Titus 2:13, 14 Proof that Jesus is The Saviour! in the forum Debates 15 years, 3 months ago
Quote (Lightenup @ July 27 2011,22:38)Mike,I think that Gill would know.So then you'll take Gill's word for it that Jehovah is NOT LITERALLY the ONLY Savior, period – since He clearly SENT others to be saviors?
mikeboll64 replied to the topic And God called their name adam in the forum Debates 15 years, 3 months ago
Quote (Ed J @ July 28 2011,20:29)Hi Mike,I choose #3 (please make a note of this)!3. Jesus was the first to be raised back to life,from the dead, with a body that cannot die again.Hi Ed,You are right. I should have said “raised to EVERLASTING life”. Thanks for the correction.

mikeboll64 replied to the topic And God called their name adam in the forum Debates 15 years, 3 months ago
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 28 2011,10:17)The plural “Lords” is complemented by the singular pronoun “Him.”“Great are the Lords of us and abundant in power, Of His understanding there is no narration.”Unlike the word “elohim” the word “adon” has a singular form. So why did David use the plural form “lords of us?”Hi Jack,Perhaps you need to revisit…[Read more]
mikeboll64 replied to the topic And God called their name adam in the forum Debates 15 years, 3 months ago
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2011,09:19)Do the scriptures ever call satan a “Son of God” Mike?Job 1:6 NASB Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.
mikeboll64 replied to the topic And God called their name adam in the forum Debates 15 years, 3 months ago
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2011,08:57)It is your doctrine that is crazy Mike for you believe Jesus is “a god”, who was born a man and then became an angel!Now see Keith?What if you posted that in your thread where I cannot answer? It's not an accurate portrayal of my “doctrine”.What I believe is what the scriptures teach:Jesus was the…[Read more]
mikeboll64 replied to the topic And God called their name adam in the forum Debates 15 years, 3 months ago
Quote (Lightenup @ July 27 2011,23:35)Mike,Number 1. Notice how you used the word 'from' Mike. You admit that 'from' is the word that should be there, not 'of.'KathiThat is correct, Kathi. Because you KNOW that the word “of” in this case doesn't mean his PARENTS are “the dead”. It means he is the firstborn AMONG the group of “the dead”. An…[Read more]
- Load More

