- This topic has 1,981 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 16 2013,16:51) Quote (jammin @ Feb. 15 2013,07:42) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 15 2013,09:51) jammin, are the words “Jesus Christ” in the Greek mss of that verse TWICE – like the GW implies? YES or NO?
the word houtos refers to christ.
So then the honest and DIRECT answer to my question is “NO Mike, the words 'Jesus Christ' are NOT in that verse TWICE, like the GW twists it to be”.
Thanks for your answer of NO, jammin.Quote (jammin @ Feb. 15 2013,07:42) now if you want to prove your argument, then give me version that says that CHRIST IS NOT THE TRUE GOD
I'm still waiting for your version that says SATAN IS NOT THE TRUE GOD.When will you be posting that one for me?
ill repeat my answerthe word houtos refers to christ. therefore, there is nothing wrong with GW.
ουτος εστιν ο αληθινος θεος και η ζωη αιωνιος
i can give you version that says Christ is the true God in 1 john 5.20 and the greek word houtos refers to christ.
let me post other versions
I John 5:20Knox Bible (KNOX)
20 We can be sure, too, that the Son of God has come to us, and has given us a sense of truth; we were to recognize the true God, and to live in his true Son. He is true God, and eternal life.
Footnotes:I John 5:20 It is not certain whether the word ‘he’ refers to the word ‘God’ or to the word ‘Son’.
1 John 5:20
1599 Geneva Bible (GNV)
20 But we know that that Son of God is come, and hath given us a mind to know him, which is true, and we are in him that is true, that is, in that his Son Jesus Christ, the same is that very [a]God, and that eternal life.
Footnotes:1 John 5:20 The divinity of Christ is most plainly proved by this place.
1 John 5:20
The Message (MSG)
18-21 We know that none of the God-begotten makes a practice of sin—fatal sin. The God-begotten are also the God-protected. The Evil One can’t lay a hand on them. We know that we are held firm by God; it’s only the people of the world who continue in the grip of the Evil One. And we know that the Son of God came so we could recognize and understand the truth of God—what a gift!—and we are living in the Truth itself, in God’s Son, Jesus Christ. This Jesus is both True God and Real Life. Dear children, be on guard against all clever facsimiles.
————–now if you want to prove your argument, then give me version that says that CHRIST IS NOT THE TRUE GOD
can you give me version or not?
mike,
i already answered you
you can find it in james 4.7
James 4:7Worldwide English (New Testament) (WE)
7 So let God control you. Fight the devil and he will run away from you.
that devil is satan himself. we are instructed to fight the devil. are you instructed mike to fight christ?
2 Corinthians 11:14
Worldwide English (New Testament) (WE)
14 I am not surprised. Satan tries to make himself look like an angel of light.
how do you understand that verse?
Quote (Lightenup @ Feb. 16 2013,15:20) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 14 2013,17:47) Quote (Lightenup @ Feb. 14 2013,15:14) Jesus came out of God, the angels and men didn't.
Who did angels and men come from – if not God?I say “from” because I believe the scriptures say Jesus came FROM God, not OUT OF God.
I could be mistaken, but I just did an exact search for the words “out of God”, and got no results.
John 17:8For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me.
Mike,
These words in John 17:8 “I came from you” are from this Greek word, Strongs #1831:exerchomai: to go or come out of
Original Word: ἐξέρχομαι
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: exerchomai
Phonetic Spelling: (ex-er'-khom-ahee)
Short Definition: I go out, come out
Definition: I go out, come out.Here is the verse in the interlinear:
http://interlinearbible.org/john/17-8.htmAnd here is the verse in the KJB:
For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.
mikeboll64,Feb. wrote:[/quote]
Quote So when scripture says John the Baptist was a man sent FROM God, we can assume that he too came “out of” God the same way Jesus did? Mike,
Your corrupted mind,is manipulating you!
Jesus made use of both PROCEEDED AND CAME,and SENT purposely to leave no doubt about his divinity,but since you are Jesus' enemy as regard to his divinity,
HE HIMSELF KEEP YOU BLIND
John8:42 Jesus therefore said to them: If God were your Father, you would indeed love me. For from God I proceeded, and came; for I came not of myself, but he sent me:
hereunder is the equivalent to PROCEEDED AND CAME FORTH WHICH AS YOU CAN SEE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SENT
1831:exerchomai: to go or come out of
Original Word: ἐξέρχομαι
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: exerchomai
Phonetic Spelling: (ex-er'-khom-ahee)
Short Definition: I go out, come out
Definition: I go out, come out.strong's exhaustive concordance
come forth, depart, escape, get outFrom ek and erchomai; to issue (literally or figuratively) — come (forth, out), depart (out of), escape, get out, go (abroad, away, forth, out, thence), proceed (forth), spread abroad.
From the other hand, the word SENT IS
apostelló: to send, send away
Original Word: ἀποστέλλω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: apostelló
Phonetic Spelling: (ap-os-tel'-lo)
Short Definition: I send forth, send, send away, dismiss
Definition: I send forth, send (as a messenger, commission, etc.), send away, dismiss.SO JESUS WAS CLEAR FIRST HE SAID for I proceeded forth and came from God,TO MAKE US AWARE THAT HE WAS NOT CREATED,HE WAS ETERNALLY IN GOD'S SPIRIT, AS THE WORD,
THEN HE SAID THAT HE WAS SENT TO DO GOD'S WILL AS THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH! THE GODHEAD IN JESUS!
Peace and love in Jesus
Charles
Lightenup,Feb. wrote:[/quote]
Quote Terrific verse Charles! I hadn't even noticed that one. Lightenup,
It's his GLORY not mine!
Peace and love in Jesus
Charles
Charles and Kathi, this is from the “Divider” thread:
Luke 5:8
When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at Jesus’ knees and said, “Go away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!”The bolded words above are also Stong's 1831, but that doesn't mean Jesus was inside of Peter when he said those words.
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely believe Jesus was brought into existence “from within” his God and Creator – just as all things were.
Now because of the scripture I posted above, you should both accept that you can't use Strong's 1831 as some kind of proof that Jesus eternally existed within his God before his God “popped him out”.
And as long as you accept this, my job here is finished.
Quote (Lightenup @ Feb. 16 2013,14:16) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 14 2013,17:59) Hi Kathi, I am interested to know your thoughts about these points I made yesterday:
Surely God knew how we humans would understand the words “son”, “firstborn”, and “only begotten”. Why do you suppose God would TRICK us by using these words for His own “Son” – if the the standard things that go along with those words didn't also apply to Jesus?
Ie: If Jesus has existed as long as his “Father” and “God”, why does Jehovah call him “my Son”? Why does God even mention the word “begotten” at all?
Surely God would have known how these terms would confuse us, if Jesus truly had existed from eternity, right?
And, if Jesus truly has existed for as long as his “Father”, then the terms “Father” and “Son” aren't even accurate. If that was the case, then Jesus is a “Brother” to, or “Co-God” with Jehovah.
Mike,
you said:Quote If Jesus has existed as long as his “Father” and “God”, why does Jehovah call him “my Son”? Why does God even mention the word “begotten” at all? The Father calls Him 'my Son' because He was an entity of the same kind as Himself, within Him and then born/begotten/brought forth from out of Him.
The Son wasn't a 'brother' to the Father as would be if He did not come out of the Father but always existed side by side to the Father.
So weak, it's laughable, Kathi. Show me the scriptures that teach what you've claimed here, and I'll believe.Quote (Lightenup @ Feb. 16 2013,14:17) Quote Surely God would have known how these terms would confuse us, if Jesus truly had existed from eternity, right? “He was an entity of the same kind as Himself, within Him and then born/begotten/brought forth from out of Him.”
Sons are an entity within the parent of the same kind as the parent and then born/begotten/brought forth out of the parent.
And sons, as far as humans know, are subject to a time they don't exist at all until they are conceived/begotten, right?And it was to humans that Jehovah called Jesus “my Son”, right? Surely Jehovah would have known that we humans would understand “my Son” to mean that the Father existed first, and then, at some later point, conceived/begot a son, right?
Hmmmm…………….
Quote (jammin @ Feb. 16 2013,19:09) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 16 2013,16:51) Quote (jammin @ Feb. 15 2013,07:42) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 15 2013,09:51) jammin, are the words “Jesus Christ” in the Greek mss of that verse TWICE – like the GW implies? YES or NO?
the word houtos refers to christ.
So then the honest and DIRECT answer to my question is “NO Mike, the words 'Jesus Christ' are NOT in that verse TWICE, like the GW twists it to be”. Thanks for your answer of NO, jammin.Quote (jammin @ Feb. 15 2013,07:42) now if you want to prove your argument, then give me version that says that CHRIST IS NOT THE TRUE GOD
I'm still waiting for your version that says SATAN IS NOT THE TRUE GOD.When will you be posting that one for me?
ill repeat my answer
In that case, just read my words in the quote box above, and pretend that I repeated my response to your answer, and that I'm STILL waiting for you to address MY RESPONSE.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 18 2013,19:48) Quote (Lightenup @ Feb. 16 2013,14:16) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 14 2013,17:59) Hi Kathi, I am interested to know your thoughts about these points I made yesterday:
Surely God knew how we humans would understand the words “son”, “firstborn”, and “only begotten”. Why do you suppose God would TRICK us by using these words for His own “Son” – if the the standard things that go along with those words didn't also apply to Jesus?
Ie: If Jesus has existed as long as his “Father” and “God”, why does Jehovah call him “my Son”? Why does God even mention the word “begotten” at all?
Surely God would have known how these terms would confuse us, if Jesus truly had existed from eternity, right?
And, if Jesus truly has existed for as long as his “Father”, then the terms “Father” and “Son” aren't even accurate. If that was the case, then Jesus is a “Brother” to, or “Co-God” with Jehovah.
Mike,
you said:Quote If Jesus has existed as long as his “Father” and “God”, why does Jehovah call him “my Son”? Why does God even mention the word “begotten” at all? The Father calls Him 'my Son' because He was an entity of the same kind as Himself, within Him and then born/begotten/brought forth from out of Him.
The Son wasn't a 'brother' to the Father as would be if He did not come out of the Father but always existed side by side to the Father.
So weak, it's laughable, Kathi. Show me the scriptures that teach what you've claimed here, and I'll believe.
Which part do you want scriptures for?Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 18 2013,19:52) Quote (Lightenup @ Feb. 16 2013,14:17) Quote Surely God would have known how these terms would confuse us, if Jesus truly had existed from eternity, right? “He was an entity of the same kind as Himself, within Him and then born/begotten/brought forth from out of Him.”
Sons are an entity within the parent of the same kind as the parent and then born/begotten/brought forth out of the parent.
And sons, as far as humans know, are subject to a time they don't exist at all until they are conceived/begotten, right?And it was to humans that Jehovah called Jesus “my Son”, right? Surely Jehovah would have known that we humans would understand “my Son” to mean that the Father existed first, and then, at some later point, conceived/begot a son, right?
Hmmmm…………….
At some point further the Father did beget His Son, as bringing Him from within to with. No conception here. The words conceive and born are two different words in the Scriptures.See this verse in the interlinear and notice conceive is a different Strong's number than 'birth.'
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 19 2013,11:55) Quote (jammin @ Feb. 16 2013,19:09) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 16 2013,16:51) Quote (jammin @ Feb. 15 2013,07:42) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 15 2013,09:51) jammin, are the words “Jesus Christ” in the Greek mss of that verse TWICE – like the GW implies? YES or NO?
the word houtos refers to christ.
So then the honest and DIRECT answer to my question is “NO Mike, the words 'Jesus Christ' are NOT in that verse TWICE, like the GW twists it to be”. Thanks for your answer of NO, jammin.Quote (jammin @ Feb. 15 2013,07:42) now if you want to prove your argument, then give me version that says that CHRIST IS NOT THE TRUE GOD
I'm still waiting for your version that says SATAN IS NOT THE TRUE GOD.When will you be posting that one for me?
ill repeat my answer
In that case, just read my words in the quote box above, and pretend that I repeated my response to your answer, and that I'm STILL waiting for you to address MY RESPONSE.
i said Christ is the true God in 1 john 5.20 and i can read that to you but you keep ignoring the truth.
what are you mike?
are you sick? take some medsQuote (jammin @ Feb. 20 2013,07:17) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 19 2013,11:55) Quote (jammin @ Feb. 16 2013,19:09) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 16 2013,16:51) Quote (jammin @ Feb. 15 2013,07:42) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 15 2013,09:51) jammin, are the words “Jesus Christ” in the Greek mss of that verse TWICE – like the GW implies? YES or NO?
the word houtos refers to christ.
So then the honest and DIRECT answer to my question is “NO Mike, the words 'Jesus Christ' are NOT in that verse TWICE, like the GW twists it to be”. Thanks for your answer of NO, jammin.Quote (jammin @ Feb. 15 2013,07:42) now if you want to prove your argument, then give me version that says that CHRIST IS NOT THE TRUE GOD
I'm still waiting for your version that says SATAN IS NOT THE TRUE GOD.When will you be posting that one for me?
ill repeat my answer
In that case, just read my words in the quote box above, and pretend that I repeated my response to your answer, and that I'm STILL waiting for you to address MY RESPONSE.
i said Christ is the true God in 1 john 5.20 and i can read that to you but you keep ignoring the truth.
what are you mike?
are you sick? take some meds
jammin,I've supersized the original question I asked you. And the HONEST answer to that question is an unequivocal “NO“.
So the claim that you CAN read “Jesus Christ is the true God in 1 John 5:20” is based on an ALTERATION OF THE SCRIPTURE by the GW, and NOT on the scripture itself. (I'm sure you can probably read that same false and illogical claim in the commentaries of many Trinitarian scholars.)
But since the facts are that that second “Jesus Christ” is NOT in the actual scripture itself, your claim is baseless, and therefore not worthy of further discussion.
This case is closed. If Jesus has a son named Jesus Christ, THEN he is the “true one” mentioned in 1 John 5:20. If, however, Jesus does NOT have a son named Jesus Christ, he is SO OBVIOUSLY NOT the “true one” mentioned.
Perhaps it is you who needs to take meds to clear your head so you will start believing the words of the scriptures themselves, instead of the words of men that CONTRADICT those very scriptures.
Quote (Lightenup @ Feb. 18 2013,21:43) Which part do you want scriptures for?
This part:He was an entity of the same kind as Himself, within Him and then born/begotten/brought forth from out of Him.
Quote (Lightenup @ Feb. 18 2013,21:48) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 18 2013,19:52)
And sons, as far as humans know, are subject to a time they don't exist at all until they are conceived, right?And it was to humans that Jehovah called Jesus “my Son”, right? Surely Jehovah would have known that we humans would understand “my Son” to mean that the Father existed first, and then, at some later point, conceived a son, right?
At some point further the Father did beget His Son, as bringing Him from within to with. No conception here. The words conceive and born are two different words in the Scriptures.
Okay Kathi.I've altered my original post to omit the word “begot”. Please address my point as it is now written in the quote box above.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 21 2013,04:38) Quote (jammin @ Feb. 20 2013,07:17) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 19 2013,11:55) Quote (jammin @ Feb. 16 2013,19:09) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 16 2013,16:51) Quote (jammin @ Feb. 15 2013,07:42) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 15 2013,09:51) jammin, are the words “Jesus Christ” in the Greek mss of that verse TWICE – like the GW implies? YES or NO?
the word houtos refers to christ.
So then the honest and DIRECT answer to my question is “NO Mike, the words 'Jesus Christ' are NOT in that verse TWICE, like the GW twists it to be”. Thanks for your answer of NO, jammin.Quote (jammin @ Feb. 15 2013,07:42) now if you want to prove your argument, then give me version that says that CHRIST IS NOT THE TRUE GOD
I'm still waiting for your version that says SATAN IS NOT THE TRUE GOD.When will you be posting that one for me?
ill repeat my answer
In that case, just read my words in the quote box above, and pretend that I repeated my response to your answer, and that I'm STILL waiting for you to address MY RESPONSE.
i said Christ is the true God in 1 john 5.20 and i can read that to you but you keep ignoring the truth.
what are you mike?
are you sick? take some meds
jammin,I've supersized the original question I asked you. And the HONEST answer to that question is an unequivocal “NO“.
So the claim that you CAN read “Jesus Christ is the true God in 1 John 5:20” is based on an ALTERATION OF THE SCRIPTURE by the GW, and NOT on the scripture itself. (I'm sure you can probably read that same false and illogical claim in the commentaries of many Trinitarian scholars.)
But since the facts are that that second “Jesus Christ” is NOT in the actual scripture itself, your claim is baseless, and therefore not worthy of further discussion.
This case is closed. If Jesus has a son named Jesus Christ, THEN he is the “true one” mentioned in 1 John 5:20. If, however, Jesus does NOT have a son named Jesus Christ, he is SO OBVIOUSLY NOT the “true one” mentioned.
Perhaps it is you who needs to take meds to clear your head so you will start believing the words of the scriptures themselves, instead of the words of men that CONTRADICT those very scriptures.
you call it alteration bec it does not support your imagination. LOLthen give me version that says in 1john 5.20 that Christ is not the true God.
stop talking mike, just me version.
can you give me or not?make your own bible. LOL
Mike,
If God spoke with the wisdom from the world then we wouldn't have any verses that say the opposite of that. His words are meant to be understood by spiritual discernment and not worldly logic. Did you know this?It is said that Jesus IS the lamb of God, now are we as humans to take that to mean that Jesus is white or black and wooly and goes 'baaa'? So, get off your platform that insists that the Son must have been conceived because that is how humans would logically understand it. You see that this argument fails even with one example.
I don't believe Jesus was conceived. He was brought forth.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 20 2013,12:40) Quote (Lightenup @ Feb. 18 2013,21:43) Which part do you want scriptures for?
This part:He was an entity of the same kind as Himself, within Him and then born/begotten/brought forth from out of Him.
Heb 1:3 The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.Phil 2:6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Psalm 2:7 I will tell of the decree:
The Lord said to me, “You are my Son;
today I have begotten you.Begotten-Strong's 3205 Hebrew
yalad: to bear, bring forth, beget
Original Word: יָלַד
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: yalad
Phonetic Spelling: (yaw-lad')
Short Definition: fatherQuote (Lightenup @ Feb. 21 2013,13:16) I don't believe Jesus was conceived.
So?
If he is a son, then he was conceived. We always accept the DEFAULT, unless there are CLEAR scriptural words to the contrary, right Kathi?
So show me those CLEAR scriptural words.
If you can't, then what you personally believe on the matter is of no consequence to me, nor to any other person who understands the words “begotten”, “son”, “father”, and “firstborn”. These are, after all, the words God the Father used to describe His relationship with Jesus, right?
And surely God the Father knew how we'd understand those words, and what those words implied, right?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
