|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 7, 2011 21:08:55 GMT -5
Theological discussion is an arena of competition and not an utopia. Competition will necesssarily get heated especially in the area of ideas. In an utopia nobody would argue ideas. Roo Really? That may be true, but it is not right. I was always under the impression that we were to act like Ambassadors of Christ and to esteem each other more highly than ourselves. You call it being too sensitive. Call me sensitive then. If you really believe that backbiting, bickering, name calling, derogatory and inflammatory remarks with all sorts of innuendos IN ANY ARENA are indicative of a proper nature in expressing one's beliefs in the very Word of God, then we have a much different Bible. I often wonder if I had been arrested to be tortured and crucified if I could exhibit love instead of spitting upon my enemies...but simple doctrinal discussions...no way, man, that's just impossible! Give me a break. Nothing personal. These matters should affect all of our hearts. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 7, 2011 21:13:30 GMT -5
Monkeys like donuts!! Man, am I ever out of touch... Well its a matter of being at a place where you see both at the same time. I'm tempted to say "zoo" but somehow I just know I am going to be wrong.  Hey Roo! You like that CARMalize, eh? I just love it when the non-preterists in their arrogance CARMalize us preterists. I think we are all at various stages and all CARMalizing should stop. I am not at all where I was 4 years ago. Had someone from the future showed up and told me what I'd believe in 4 years, I probably would have shot him and felt fully justified in doing so... |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 7, 2011 21:52:42 GMT -5
... I am not at all where I was 4 years ago. Had someone from the future showed up and told me what I'd believe in 4 years, I probably would have shot him and felt fully justified in doing so... Ted, since your return to these forums, I have sensed a much mellower you than was here before, and that's only been in a couple months time (if that long). Whatever God has worked in your heart in that short span of time, He is surely to be praised for it. |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 7, 2011 22:02:30 GMT -5
TO ALL:
The apostle John said that Jesus broke the sabbath and that He made Himself equal with God. It takes special pleading to make John say something else. John was inspired. Therefore, Jesus broke the sabbath and He made Himself equal with God.
On one occasionJesus defended His breaking the sabbath referring to the time when His father David ate the shewbeard "unlawfully." Jesus justified the breaking of the law because a greater good was at stake. But He still said that the shewbread was eaten "unlawfully."
If I was to approach an intersection and witness a kidnapper abduct a child from his mother's hands and then I speed through a red light so I could get the license number and call the police I would still be breaking the law in going through the red light. A greater good would mandate that I break the law unless it was unsafe and I would cause a crash and harm other people.
Jesus broke the sabbath. John said so. He made Himself equal with God. John said so. John was inspired.
Roo
|
|
|
|
Post by simplyforgiven on Jan 7, 2011 22:35:07 GMT -5
... Also, its impossible to KNOW God. Nobody knows God, and for anyone to KNOW God, they would die. So in that simple understanding for Jesus to cliam to KNOW God, is to cliam that he IS God. How can you understand infinity? or eternity? its impossible. Impossible to know God? That sounds like a line from some tradition (Reformed/Calvinist?) rather than from the words of Scripture. 1 Thessalonians 4:5 NASB (5) not in lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God; 2 Thessalonians 1:8 NASB (8) dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. Titus 1:15-16 NASB (15) To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled. (16) They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny Him, being detestable and disobedient and worthless for any good deed. Hi Bev, Im going to assume that you agree with my points since you didnt refute the rest of my post. 1. you agree that Jesus didnt blurt out that he was God, and was discret as he was being the Christ as well right? 2. You Agree that Jesus vanishing from a mob without any harm is amazing as well right? 3. You also agree that Jesus claimed to be the Father according to Philip correct? ---- now to your only rebuttal Lol are you serious. Ok so your proof is... "For they do not know God" Your just proving my point. You realize your evidence doenst claim "whom" knows God, but cliams "who doesnt", but the bible is very clear that Jesus KNOWS God, And I will tell you, as Jesus Told Philip: Knowing Jesus is knowing God. Therfore you cannot KNOW GOD without Jesus, NO ONE knows the Father or can come to the Father if not THOUGH Jesus. You cannot know God. |
|
|
|
Post by simplyforgiven on Jan 7, 2011 22:43:22 GMT -5
TO ALL: The apostle John said that Jesus broke the sabbath and that He made Himself equal with God. It takes special pleading to make John say something else. John was inspired. Therefore, Jesus broke the sabbath and He made Himself equal with God. On one occasionJesus defended His breaking the sabbath referring to the time when His father David ate the shewbeard "unlawfully." Jesus justified the breaking of the law because a greater good was at stake. But He still said that the shewbread was eaten "unlawfully." If I was to approach an intersection and witness a kidnapper abduct a child from his mother's hands and then I speed through a red light so I could get the license number and call the police I would still be breaking the law in going through the red light. A greater good would mandate that I break the law unless it was unsafe and I would cause a crash and harm other people. Jesus broke the sabbath. John said so. He made Himself equal with God. John said so. John was inspired. Roo Hi Roo, Im sorry I disagree with your Example, because you lost the point of WHY the law was placed and further mislead the reasons why Jesus suppously broke the law, (which he didnt) Here is a better example, because the greater "good" has nothing to do with it. Im driving in a highway and a big accident occured in front of me where a 18 wheeler flipped over and i have a Choice to either speed up and dodge it or get crushed. WE know that the speed limit is 50mph so if i were to speed up, that would be breaking the law. But WHY was there a speed limit? for our SAFETY the speed limit was placed so that we all as drivers dont exceed the maximum limit and crash into eachother. So if I were to speed up, i would not be breaking the law, because im upholding my SAFETY to dodge the 18wheeler. Thats what Jesus was talking about. He said, whats more important according to David, to eat, or the law that was placed to "serve him". Thats why Jesus healed, and did many things during the sabbath, not because he was breaking the law, but FULFILLED the law. So in other words as Jesus Said, "The sabbath was created FOR MEN, not MEN for the sabbath." Get what I mean? I dont believe that Jesus broke the law in any way, but he understood big picture. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 7, 2011 22:57:23 GMT -5
Impossible to know God? That sounds like a line from some tradition (Reformed/Calvinist?) rather than from the words of Scripture. 1 Thessalonians 4:5 NASB (5) not in lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God; 2 Thessalonians 1:8 NASB (8) dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. Titus 1:15-16 NASB (15) To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled. (16) They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny Him, being detestable and disobedient and worthless for any good deed. Hi Bev, Im going to assume that you agree with my points since you didnt refute the rest of my post. 1. you agree that Jesus didnt blurt out that he was God, and was discret as he was being the Christ as well right? 2. You Agree that Jesus vanishing from a mob without any harm is amazing as well right? 3. You also agree that Jesus claimed to be the Father according to Philip correct? ---- now to your only rebuttal Lol are you serious. Ok so your proof is... "For they do not know God" Your just proving my point. You realize your evidence doenst claim "whom" knows God, but cliams "who doesnt", but the bible is very clear that Jesus KNOWS God, And I will tell you, as Jesus Told Philip: Knowing Jesus is knowing God. Therfore you cannot KNOW GOD without Jesus, NO ONE knows the Father or can come to the Father if not THOUGH Jesus. You cannot know God. No, I do not agree with your points, specifically number 3. Lack of response does not mean agreement, it simply means I don't feel like getting into it. This is not a debate and I am not required to respond. Now you are saying that the only way we can know God is to know Jesus. This is not what you said before. Before you stated that nobody knows God and that it is impossible to know God. Are you now amending that statement to it IS possible to know God as long as you know Jesus? You don't have to answer because, not only has this discussion gotten way off topic from the OP, I am also not inclined to get into it right now. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 7, 2011 23:08:29 GMT -5
... I am not at all where I was 4 years ago. Had someone from the future showed up and told me what I'd believe in 4 years, I probably would have shot him and felt fully justified in doing so... Ted, since your return to these forums, I have sensed a much mellower you than was here before, and that's only been in a couple months time (if that long). Whatever God has worked in your heart in that short span of time, He is surely to be praised for it. Thanks Bev. I guess there comes a time in everyone's life where we realize that all this useless chatter (read namecalling, innuendo, etc.) is not a fruit of the spirit and, if anything, deters one from hearing a point of view. I know because I was (and am still not exempt) an expert at it. For those who are not familiar with me, this is presently my trial: In my contact with a friend of mine that I have known for more than a decade, she eventually became a preterist. She is from a missionary family and a fairly large family at that. All the children that have grown into adults are either directly involved in the ministry or are studying to be in the ministry. The parents are missionaries in a foreign country. The father has done nothing to inquire about our doctrine in order that he may "rescue" his own daughter. I am particulary sick about his lack of love in that one particular area. Anyway, things recently came to a head when she, her husband and the youngest son (19), who is presently in Bible college, came to visit us over the holidays. Now, if any of you know who I am in rhetoric, you can well imagine that I can post preterism and make (what I think) are strong arguments, and I can make longggggg arguments. Anyway, I wrote a long email to the son, who after eating our food, and sleeping in our place and doing nothing to help, contacted his dad and started to ridicule my book on preterism that I had given to him at the end of the visit. I went on and on and on and ended with a very strong warning that if he were to ridicule our doctrine without the least bit of Christian courtesy to even attempt to understand its tenets AGAIN (key word), that imprecatory prayer would be forthcoming. I guess he spoke to his dad and told him that. I have received 5 emails from the pastor missionary father and I will quote them IN FULL. In between these repsonses are at least 20 pages worth of emails on my part. Every single thing mentioned was ignored. I was kind, courteous, and calm, but straight forward in my approach. I asked several times why he had absolutely no desire to learn of us if he believed his own daughter was involved in a cult. Here are his 5 responses: Keep in mind that this has happened over the space of the last 3 days...and they are his FULL RESPONSES. Email #1 – Ted, **** has informed me of your threat to him of praying to your god an imprecatory prayer. Well, I have advised him to have no more contact with you. I also tell you that if I had your book, I would burn it page by page without reading it. Now, I challenge you to pray to your god an imprecatory prayer against me. Acts 8:23
**The missionary pastor**
Email #2 - You amuse me with your perpetual tirade. Are you going to take the challenge or not?
Email #3 – I am not going to get into your circle of reasoning. I have debated all kinds of false teachings, be it with cultists, charismatics, or what have you. The system is always the same. First you start out with things that we can agree upon. But after a bit, in comes the false and round and round you go on circle reasoning. I have discovered that no matter how many points I prove wrong using the scripture, the debater just jumps on the circle on another point, and then continues to work around the circle until, voila, back at the same point I already proved wrong. I will not waiste my time with you. So if this is slander, then go ahead with these imprecatory prayers.
Email #4 – "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly."
You are consumed with trying to prove yourself right. You will go from vehement tirade to sweet flattery. I am convinced that the real issue with you is not that which you claim. "For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity."
Email #5 – Just thought I would let you know that I am even more convinced there is something deep inside you that will not let you go and it is eating you up. And your only attempted release is to hide from it but the more you talk, the more you expose yourself. "For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity."This issue has really had an affect on the daughter and myself. Please pray for the missionary pastor from Norway... |
|
|
|
Post by simplyforgiven on Jan 7, 2011 23:19:53 GMT -5
Hi Bev, Im going to assume that you agree with my points since you didnt refute the rest of my post. 1. you agree that Jesus didnt blurt out that he was God, and was discret as he was being the Christ as well right? 2. You Agree that Jesus vanishing from a mob without any harm is amazing as well right? 3. You also agree that Jesus claimed to be the Father according to Philip correct? ---- now to your only rebuttal Lol are you serious. Ok so your proof is... "For they do not know God" Your just proving my point. You realize your evidence doenst claim "whom" knows God, but cliams "who doesnt", but the bible is very clear that Jesus KNOWS God, And I will tell you, as Jesus Told Philip: Knowing Jesus is knowing God. Therfore you cannot KNOW GOD without Jesus, NO ONE knows the Father or can come to the Father if not THOUGH Jesus. You cannot know God. No, I do not agree with your points, specifically number 3. Lack of response does not mean agreement, it simply means I don't feel like getting into it. This is not a debate and I am not required to respond. Now you are saying that the only way we can know God is to know Jesus. This is not what you said before. Before you stated that nobody knows God and that it is impossible to know God. Are you now amending that statement to it IS possible to know God as long as you know Jesus? You don't have to answer because, not only has this discussion gotten way off topic from the OP, I am also not inclined to get into it right now. Hi Bev, I know that it wasnt a debate, but thats why i stated im "assuming" because thats the way i generaly see things, when a person chooses to only refute one part of a post that i put effort in. So i just assumeedddd thats you agreeed. you could have just stated, "you know, i disagreee but dont got the time to respond" or whatever you wanted. but since you only refuted one part of my post, i just assumed with the crazy thoughts that bounce of the walls of my brain that you could possibly (in hope) agreed. Knowing GodMaybe you misunderstood my point and where i was trying to get at. Im responding to your theology as the way you see it. You believe that Jesus is seperate from God. so therefore My statement is held true, that No one can know God. You said this Which is where I disagree. My statement reflects that NO one can know God. So for Jesus to make such a claim, means that HE IS God. Get what im saying? at times i have a hard time communicating my contentions, if you misunderstood please ask me what you dont understand. Im complicated at times but never dull  |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 7, 2011 23:56:51 GMT -5
No, I do not agree with your points, specifically number 3. Lack of response does not mean agreement, it simply means I don't feel like getting into it. This is not a debate and I am not required to respond. Now you are saying that the only way we can know God is to know Jesus. This is not what you said before. Before you stated that nobody knows God and that it is impossible to know God. Are you now amending that statement to it IS possible to know God as long as you know Jesus? You don't have to answer because, not only has this discussion gotten way off topic from the OP, I am also not inclined to get into it right now. Hi Bev, I know that it wasnt a debate, but thats why i stated im "assuming" because thats the way i generaly see things, when a person chooses to only refute one part of a post that i put effort in. So i just assumeedddd thats you agreeed. you could have just stated, "you know, i disagreee but dont got the time to respond" or whatever you wanted. but since you only refuted one part of my post, i just assumed with the crazy thoughts that bounce of the walls of my brain that you could possibly (in hope) agreed. Knowing GodMaybe you misunderstood my point and where i was trying to get at. Im responding to your theology as the way you see it. You believe that Jesus is seperate from God. so therefore My statement is held true, that No one can know God. You said this Which is where I disagree. My statement reflects that NO one can know God. So for Jesus to make such a claim, means that HE IS God. Get what im saying? at times i have a hard time communicating my contentions, if you misunderstood please ask me what you dont understand. Im complicated at times but never dull I get what you're saying, Dennison, but I don't believe that your statement that "NO one can know God" is true. I provided scriptures that indicate otherwise. It makes no sense to use knowing God in the negative if the positive is not possible. There is no strength in an argument saying "like the Gentiles who do not know God" if indeed it is impossible for anyone to know God. So the audience being addressed with that argument must know God, or at least it is expected that they should know Him. Also, just because Jesus is the way to knowing God, it does not follow that he is God. I think I'm done for the night. My husband isn't feeling well and has already turned in, so I think I will follow his lead. Have a good night! |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 8, 2011 6:20:07 GMT -5
Repitition is sometimes necessary.
John said that Jesus had broken the sabbath. John was inspired. On another occasion Jesus was accused of breaking the sabbath and He did not deny it. He replied saying that the Son of Man is Lord of the sabbath. His claim to be Lord of the sabbath is without force had He not broken it.
John said that Jesus made Himself equal with God. On another thread Ted plays a word game with the word "equal." This is quite revealing.
John said that Jesus made Himself equal with God. John was inspired.
Roo
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 8, 2011 9:41:32 GMT -5
Repitition is sometimes necessary. John said that Jesus had broken the sabbath. John was inspired. On another occasion Jesus was accused of breaking the sabbath and He did not deny it. He replied saying that the Son of Man is Lord of the sabbath. His claim to be Lord of the sabbath is without force had He not broken it. John said that Jesus made Himself equal with God. On another thread Ted plays a word game with the word "equal." This is quite revealing. John said that Jesus made Himself equal with God. John was inspired. Roo
I WAS NOT PLAYING A WORD GAME.
PLEASE CHANGE YOUR MANNER.I suppose if anyone attempted to explain that "all" does not always mean "all" in every context, that it also would be classed as a word game? Please stop with the snide, demeaning comments. They are totally fruitless and usually indicative of a larger problem. Solve the problem. |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 8, 2011 11:41:19 GMT -5
Repitition is sometimes necessary. John said that Jesus had broken the sabbath. John was inspired. On another occasion Jesus was accused of breaking the sabbath and He did not deny it. He replied saying that the Son of Man is Lord of the sabbath. His claim to be Lord of the sabbath is without force had He not broken it. John said that Jesus made Himself equal with God. On another thread Ted plays a word game with the word "equal." This is quite revealing. John said that Jesus made Himself equal with God. John was inspired. Roo
I WAS NOT PLAYING A WORD GAME.
PLEASE CHANGE YOUR MANNER.I suppose if anyone attempted to explain that "all" does not always mean "all" in every context, that it also would be classed as a word game? Please stop with the snide, demeaning comments. They are totally fruitless and usually indicative of a larger problem. Solve the problem. I stated my reasoned opinion without name calling. The English word Equal: Of the same measure, quantity, value, quality, number, degree, or status as another (Webster's) Webster's definition pretty much covers EVERYTHING don't you think? Fish don't mean "gentiles" Ted. Roo |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 8, 2011 11:46:37 GMT -5
Ted wrote:
The word "ALL" always means ALL of whatever is in view. God does not equivocate because He CANNOT lie.
Roo
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 8, 2011 13:03:53 GMT -5
ENOUGH WITH YOUR INNUENDO!!
I WAS NOT PLAYING A WORD GAME.
PLEASE CHANGE YOUR MANNER.I suppose if anyone attempted to explain that "all" does not always mean "all" in every context, that it also would be classed as a word game? Please stop with the snide, demeaning comments. They are totally fruitless and usually indicative of a larger problem. Solve the problem. I stated my reasoned opinion without name calling. The English word Equal: Of the same measure, quantity, value, quality, number, degree, or status as another (Webster's) Webster's definition pretty much covers EVERYTHING don't you think? Fish don't mean "gentiles" Ted. Roo Roo, if you want to get your definitions from a contemporary dictionary, I can't help you. Me, I much rather get them through comparing Scripture with Scripture. |
|
|
|
Post by stormcrow on Jan 9, 2011 2:28:19 GMT -5
I am the light of the world: John 8:12 (KJV)
I am one that bear witness of myself John 8:18 (KJV)
I am from above: I am not of this world. John 8:23 (KJV)
if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. John 8:24 (KJV)
I am he John 8:28 (KJV)
Before Abraham was, I am. 59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple John 8:58-59 (KJV)
And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. Exodus 3:14 (KJV) In virtually every translation I have, the "he" in those passages where Christ says "I am he" is italicized, meaning it isn't in the original Greek, but was added by the translators. The Greek words for "I am" are "ego eimi." Here is an excellent link that explains the significance of this phrase: vintage.aomin.org/EGO.htmlChrist made many claims about Himself using "ego eimi", but none seemed to enrage the Jews so much as the one in John 8:58, the verse where He used the very words Moses had recorded in Exodus 3:14. Had Christ only been trying to make a point about His pre-existence, He simply could have said "Before Abraham was, I was." But to use the same name God used to identify Himself to the Children of Israel was an unmistakable blasphemy in the eyes of the Jews, which is precisely why they took up stones to kill Him right then and there. He was, in essence, calling Himself God in such stark terms that even the Jews could understand it. One more thing: look at the reference to John 8:24 bearing in mind that the "he" is not in the original Greek. Now see how it reads: "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am he, you will die in your sins." John 8:24 (NASB) Shines a whole new light on what He was asking the Jews (and us) to believe about Him, doesn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by stormcrow on Jan 9, 2011 3:44:03 GMT -5
Speaking of labels, now someone on another thread is calling me a "Satanist" because I'm going to start using the Septuagint to study the OT, as it was the version the Apostles used to write the NT. As I wrote there, "if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me."  Look at the following verses and note how the writers of the NT used direct quotes from the LXX: 22 Now all this took place that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, 23 " Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel," which translated means, " God with us." Matthew 1:22-23 (NASB77)
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman'u-el. Isaiah 7:14, RSV (from Masoretic OT).
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Emmanuel. Isaiah 7:14 LXX
(Which version did Matthew quote??? Hint: LXX!) 5 Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, " Sacrifice and offering Thou hast not desired, But a body Thou hast prepared for Me; 6 In whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin Thou hast taken no pleasure. Hebrews 10:5-6 (NASB77)
Sacrifice and meal offering Thou hast not desired; My ears Thou hast opened; Burnt offering and sin offering Thou hast not required. Psalms 40:6 (NASB77)
Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not; but a body hast thou prepared me: whole-burnt-offering and sacrifice for sin thou didst not require. Psalms 40:6 LXX
What were the apostles citing when writing the NT again??? The Septuagint!!! Here's another profound difference in the two versions: 26 "Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.
27 "And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate." Daniel 9:26-27 (NASB77)
And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one shall be destroyed, and there is no judgment in him: and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the prince that is coming: they shall be cut off with a flood, and to the end of the war which is rapidly completed he shall appoint the city to desolations.
And one week shall establish the covenant with many: and in the midst of the week my sacrifice and drink-offering shall be taken away: and on the temple shall be the abomination of desolations; and at the end of time an end shall be put to the desolation. Daniel 9:26-27 LXX Certainly casts a whole different light on what many mistakenly believe about these two verses, doesn't it? So I'm now a Satanist for putting some sense of value in the same translation of the OT the apostles used? OH, THE HORROR!!! To tell you all the truth, I'm tired of defending myself from idiots. I'm going to be taking a very long hiatus from any discussion of theology, bibliology, or prophecy anywhere. I'm also leaving the church for I don't know how long. I'm tired of dealing with the junk I see there, too. So, as this will probably be my last post anywhere for quite some time, I want to thank you all for welcoming me, even if we all didn't quite see eye-to-eye on everything. At the very least you have all been very respectful to me, and I can't tell you how much I appreciate that, especially with everything else going on right now. Thank you, again and God bless you all. Peace. Out. |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 9, 2011 6:17:37 GMT -5
Ted wrote:
Then gives examples of your definitions of "equal" from scripture! You gave examples from life with no scripture to back them up.
Practice what tou preach!
Roo
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 9, 2011 10:00:22 GMT -5
Like I said before, I am not taking sides in this mini debate. Way too many of us are still falling prey to old habits of looking at things from a 21st century Western cultural perspective. I just thought I'd stop in and say that words like "equal" and "one" are not as easy to determine as we would desire them to be. That's all.
|
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 9, 2011 13:05:33 GMT -5
Like I said before, I am not taking sides in this mini debate. Way too many of us are still falling prey to old habits of looking at things from a 21st century Western cultural perspective. I just thought I'd stop in and say that words like "equal" and "one" are not as easy to determine as we would desire them to be. That's all. Hi Ted, Should I take this to mean that you cannot show your view of "equal" from the biblical text itself? Roo |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 9, 2011 13:56:04 GMT -5
I did a search on "Satanist" for the last 14 days and this is the only post that comes up. I wish people would quote in full and then list the link when such accusations are being made...
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 9, 2011 13:56:52 GMT -5
Like I said before, I am not taking sides in this mini debate. Way too many of us are still falling prey to old habits of looking at things from a 21st century Western cultural perspective. I just thought I'd stop in and say that words like "equal" and "one" are not as easy to determine as we would desire them to be. That's all. Hi Ted, Should I take this to mean that you cannot show your view of "equal" from the biblical text itself? Roo LIKE I SAID BEFORE... |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 9, 2011 14:13:31 GMT -5
Hi Ted, Should I take this to mean that you cannot show your view of "equal" from the biblical text itself? Roo LIKE I SAID BEFORE... The history of these encounters shows that you have been transmitting mixed messages. Roo |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 9, 2011 17:58:21 GMT -5
Encounters? Mixed messages???
|
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 9, 2011 20:37:17 GMT -5
Steormcrow wrote:
Crow,
You are absolutely correct. Thanks! Jesus claimed to be "I AM" four times in John 8 and the Jews wanted to kill Him for it. See the thread I started "NWT Inconsistency." The Jehovah's Witnesses translate "ego iemi" properly except in 8:58 where they render it "I have been" showing their theological bias.
"Ego eimi" means I AM!
Thanks,
Roo
|
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 9, 2011 20:40:21 GMT -5
Stormcrow wrote:
Crow,
Where is the post inwhich you were called a "satanist?"
If you are a "satanist" for using the LXX, then so were Jesus and the Apostles. The LXX is cited 67% of the time by them.
Thanks,
Roo
|
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 9, 2011 20:45:33 GMT -5
Encounters? Mixed messages??? Yes mixed messages Ted. Your very first statement is a mixed message. You said, So you say that you are not taking sides and then take sides against those who say that Jesus made himself "equal" with God by denying the common use of the word "equal." You even say that those who take it as it means are looking at things from a Western mindset. Roo |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 9, 2011 21:09:15 GMT -5
Stormcrow wrote: Crow, Where is the post inwhich you were called a "satanist?" If you are a "satanist" for using the LXX, then so were Jesus and the Apostles. The LXX is cited 67% of the time by them. Thanks, Roo I just did a search and that word comes up nowhere except in the three most recent mentions of it. I find no one has called another poster a satanist. Until I am shown different I will call this a closed case. |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 9, 2011 21:18:39 GMT -5
Allyn wrote:
Can we do that, that is, do a word search and find where words appear here?
Roo
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 9, 2011 21:21:47 GMT -5
|
|
