CureZone   Log On   Join

Re: The Names of God by Ev ..... Christianity (Biblical) Support

Date:   6/9/2005 8:11:38 AM ( 17 years ago ago)
Hits:   1,345

0 of 0 (0%) readers agree with this message.  Hide votes     What is this?

Allow me to be more concise, as you seem to be having difficulty with the difference between translation and interpretation.

I'm having no trouble with anything but your personal slams and evasiveness. You seem to be having trouble with the fact that I don't let you get away with them.

I will purchase an NIV Bible as it will make an excellent addition to my many Bibles. I am however not unaquainted with the interpretation, as I do have it on CD

I never asked you to purchase anything, and the fact that you already have it on CD is another reason you have no excuses on the version issue.

You are in possession of the text I assume, so this can be utilized for reasons of fluidity so as to not to be so difficult for you... By what authority do you restrict a brother in Christ, from thinking freely, based upon the same Scripture?...I however do not impose anything whatsoever on your thought process, save one request, which I assumed you had agreed to but I was obviously mistaken. That is for you to agree to utilize reason.

I'm not just thinking of me here, but of the onlookers. You need to be considerate of them. Your claim that this is an attempt to restrict your thinking is baseless. Your accusation that I am not using reason is another attempt at distraction and turning the debate into a mud-slinging contest. Don't do it again unless you wish to concede the debate.

I have been instructed... I have not received the gift of tongues... tying my hands completely...

One does not need the gift of tongues to read the NIV. It's very plain. I could insult you as you have me by stating that if the NIV is too difficult for you we can use the NIVR, but I won't stoop to that level. How is "you, me, and the NIV" considered an uneven playing field in any way? What possible advantage does that give me?

You further add insult to injury by referring to me to be that of Satan, all because I refuse to abide by your doctrine of MAN as your post reveals. This is why I approached Beej, for which you have the audacity to rebuke me for, after having just done the very same thing!!!

You are bringing in comments from other threads. This is not acceptabel by any debate standards. Neither is spending your time between posts to find cheerleaders for your side. I will not refer to you in other threads as long as the debate continues, and I have every right to expect the same standards from you.

BTW, we ALL have "doctrines of man". That includes you. We all have different INTERPRETATIONS which is why we're having a debate. So your "I'm using the Bible and you're not" ploy is not going to fly.

Now, at long last, we can examine your actual debate content.

Fine!!! your God Head remains a possibility, for arguments sake, as does my view. Get out of MY head!!!

You can concede the point without personal insults. Any more such childish behavior and you will concede the debate!

Jesus is clearly being equated with Holy angels, and also being equated with God.

We are in agreement that The Father is distinct from Jesus. I do not believe that it is possible to be one being having more than one person, in a given time frame. I believe that to be unreasonable. My view however reasonably explains the ambiguity of the invoked Scripture.

How can you look at that passage and say Jesus is being equated with angels in any way? What part of "superior" doesn't mean superior? We agree that Jesus and the Father are distinct, but your assertion that it is "unreasonable" to believe the possibility of one being having more than one person is precisely the question at issue. You cannot assert the impossibility of the point being debated. We are looking at the Bible to see whether this is how God is shown, not to impose preconceived restrictions on it. Show me where the Bible says the Trinity is impossible, if you can. There is no ambiguity here at all.

If you continue to review my post you will clearly see that I attribute the title of God to Jesus when I feel it is reasonable to do so. Furthermore, if one "becomes" superior, then it is being denoted that there was a time when "He" was not superior. He also never sinned and therefore was always superior to men. "He" was annointed with The Oil of Joy or gladness, which set "Him" above "his" companions which must therefore be the angels. It is reasonable to draw these conclusions.

Your conclusions are not reasonable at all. You cannot attribute the title "God" to Jesus without equating Him with God, and it certainly is not up to YOU to decide when it is "reasonable to do so". "Becoming superior" refers to his having been first MADE lower than the angels, i.e. made MAN. He was, before being made human, with God "and the Word WAS God" in the beginning (see John 1:1). You assume this to mean he had been an angel, but again, not only does this passage not support that idea at all, the rest of Scripture clearly says otherwise. Look for example at Colossians 1:15-20:

15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

There is clearly no way any angel could be described this way.

The Kingdom that is in question pertains to the promise of The Father to give His Son a Kingdom in return for offering to ransom Himself in order to save the spiritual lineage of Adam. This Kingdom is the very same as the one being referred to in The Lord's prayer.

"Our Father who art in Heaven hallowed be Your Name Thy "Kingdom" COME Thy Will be done on "EARTH" as it is in Heaven". This most sacred of prayers clearly reveals that there are two Kingdoms in question. The latter to come in the future. It's closer than you think!!! It is the promise of The Father to the Firstborn Son, which clearly denotes that there are other sons.

Your insertion of that into the passage in Hebrews is out of context and therefore unwarranted. You cannot show that this meaning is intended in that passage. This practice of assigning other concepts into the wrong context is bound to lead to erroneous conclusions about the meaning of the text.

The distinct impression that I am left with is that there is one God that has elevated another being to a God that is to be worshiped, only after having been brought forth into the world. Again completely within the bounds of context and reason.

Elevated from where? Remember, Jesus BECAME flesh and dwelt among us, after having been GOD in the beginning. Look again at the passage in Hebrews we've been discussing: "to which of the angels did God EVER say...". God never said to an angel that he would be "elevated" as you claim. That's what the Bible says, so your "reason" is found lacking. See also Philippians 2:5-11:

5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:

6Who, being in very nature[a] God,

did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,

7but made himself nothing,

taking the very nature[b] of a servant,

being made in human likeness.

8And being found in appearance as a man,

he humbled himself

and became obedient to death—

even death on a cross!

9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place

and gave him the name that is above every name,

10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,

in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,

to the glory of God the Father.

Your conclusions are unreasonable by definition

That's a laughable non-answer to my point. Your definitions are not the standard here, and you made no attempt to prove me wrong on your point 1.

You are quite correct in that your box analogy is imperfect. You see you left out the other dimension the Bible refers to as BREADTH. To perfect your anology you would have to place the BREADTH into the box. The box you have constructed is the trinty doctrine. You place our God into that box, though when you remove the one plane, or lid, you find that The Breadth was inside as well as outside all along for it was the Breadth that let you build the box.

Dictionary meaning of breadth: "Distance from side to side of any surface or thing; measure across, or at right angles to the length; width." (Websters) A box cannot have TWO widths! It is therefore you who tries to put God in a box, Mr. Steve, every time you say it must be impossible for Him to be more than your mind can grasp.

I hate to be a stick in the mud but one of the many restrictions you have placed on me is, invoke Scripture, hammer it out and then move on. I didn't think at the time to bind you also by your own rules, as I assumed that your offer was honorable. Is it too late for that or do you just get to do as you please??? I ask that you give me the respect that my research deserves, and until that condition is met I will not afford you the same. You don't seem to recognize that I have been where you are now.

More insults and attempts to wiggle out of your agreement to debate me. What other resources outside of scripture, beyond clarifying the meaning of the word "breadth", have I tried to use? It is you who keep demanding more than the Bible. It's time for you to show respect, not only to me but to the others in this board, and most of all to God and His Word. Stop trying to improve or alter His writings. And no, you've never been where I am now. Stop whining and get down to business if you want to retain any measure of respect. You say "let's just look at the Scriptures" in one breath, then in the next you say "you're restricting me!". You can't have it both ways.

You made no attempt to answer the quote from Isaiah 9:6.


<< Return to the standard message view

fetched in 0.44 sec, referred by