John 1:1

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 15 2012,10:35)

Quote (jammin @ Aug. 13 2012,23:57)

mike,

do you believe that your Form is MAN? i know you answered yes a while ago. i just want to repeat it to you.

Yes jammin,

My form is “man” because I am a member of the species known as “man”. But you can't really apply that logic to Phil 2:6, unless you are saying that Jesus was existing in the form of the species known as “god”.

Are you saying that?

Hi Mike,

Good luck on getting an answer.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

August 15, 2012 at 8:37 am#309346

limjunus

Participant

[B]Jammin, is teaching another Jesus Christ by introducing that Jesus Christ, the begotten Son of God is the One and only true God.

Jammin, doctrine is, the true God did not sent anyone,.. He sent himself,..the One and only true God, step-down from Supreme Being to Human being; transforming from God to human.

So, what is the warning of the apostles? Galatians 1:6-9 New Living Translation (NLT)

There Is Only One Good News

Warning, some will preach different Jesus Christ. As what it was written in

“2 Corinthians 11:3-4 New Living Translation (NLT)

3 But I fear that somehow your pure and undivided devotion to Christ will be corrupted, just as Eve was deceived by the cunning ways of the serpent. 4 You happily put up with whatever anyone tells you, even if they preach a different Jesus than the one we preach, or a different kind of Spirit than the one you received, or a different kind of gospel than the one you believed.

The preaching of the apostles should not be altered until the end. “2 Cor. 1:13 New Living Translation (NLT)

13 Our letters have been straightforward, and there is nothing written between the lines and nothing you can’t understand. I hope someday you will fully understand us,

13 For we write no other things unto you than what ye read or acknowledge; and I trust ye shall acknowledge even to the end, (NKJV)

Jammin is preaching different Jesus Christ and different God,.. countering the preaching of the apostles.[B]

August 15, 2012 at 9:41 am#309358

jammin

Participant

edj,

i answered already mike and im giving him chance to give a translation that says individual being in phil 2.6
i stick what the bible says. i believe that form or nature is the topic in phil 2.6 bec paul said that.
give me single translation that says individual being in phil 2.6 then ill believe you,. but if you cnt give one, then you must stop talking boy.

limjunus,

study first your nlt
you said Chrst is not God. but NLT says he is GOD>
im not teaching a different christ bec the bible says Christ has the same nature just like his father and that is his nature God.

Philippians 2:6

New International Version (NIV)

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

believe it or not boy LOL

August 15, 2012 at 9:45 am#309360

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 15 2012,10:35)

Quote (jammin @ Aug. 13 2012,23:57)

mike,

do you believe that your Form is MAN? i know you answered yes a while ago. i just want to repeat it to you.

Yes jammin,

Are you saying that?

Quote (jammin @ Aug. 15 2012,20:41)

edj,

i answered already mike

Hi Jammin,

Can you please show us where?

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

August 15, 2012 at 9:51 am#309361

jammin

Participant

i said individual being is not what the bible says in phil 2.6
that is just mike's opinion.

if he want me to believe his illusion, he must read that in phil 2.6
i do not accept imagination boy.
i want verse. i want written

im challenging mike. give me any single translation tha says individual being in phil 2.6

maybe you want to help him

August 15, 2012 at 9:52 am#309362

jammin

Participant

Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 15 2012,13:56)

Quote (jammin @ Aug. 14 2012,06:12)

really???

you just cant accept the truth mike.
i told you to make your own bible LOL

commentaries also say that it refers to his (christ) nature as God (phil 2.6)
how about you boy? ill wait for your translation that says individual being or species in phil 2.6

you may ask for help boy LOL

Jammin,

You do make your own bibles and advise others to do the same no matter their teaching.

u just cant accpt the truth.

yiou know, if you preach, you must read it. illusion is not allowed here.

August 15, 2012 at 10:02 am#309363

Participant

Quote (jammin @ Aug. 15 2012,20:51)

i said individual being is not what the bible says in phil 2.6
that is just mike's opinion.

if he want me to believe his illusion, he must read that in phil 2.6
i do not accept imagination boy.
i want verse. i want written

im challenging mike. give me any single translation tha says individual being in phil 2.6

maybe you want to help him

Hi Jammin,

Saying what something is not is not an answer?

For example if someone asks you: “What is a cloud”?
It is not an answer to say 'a cloud is not a man'.

But if you really think you answered Mike –
you will probably not understand this.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

August 15, 2012 at 4:41 pm#309412

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 14 2012,12:01)

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Aug. 13 2012,18:34)

In most Greek literature, morphe means “outward
appearance,” that is, what can be perceived only by the senses. So, “form of God” seems
to refer to Jesus’ bodily existence rather than a pre-temporal, ontological preexistence.

Bingo! “Morphe” means “outward appearance”, and Jesus was existing with an outward appearance similar to the outward appearance of God before emptying himself of this cushy existence and being made in the likeness of a human being.

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Aug. 13 2012,18:34)

A divesture of any of
these divine attributes—for example, omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence—
would have been necessary because they are incompatible with being human, yet such
divesture necessarily results in something less than full deity.

Bingo again. Jesus never had “omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence”. Jesus' God is the only One who has those qualities. So apparently, someone who was “less than full deity” was existing in the form of the One who is “full deity” before becoming flesh.

In other words, a lesser god was with THE God in the beginning, but then was made flesh and dwelled among us with the glory of God's only begotten.

Just like I've been telling you all along, Frank.

Mike,

There is no “Bingo” here!

What you have been telling me all along is the deceptive lie that Yahshua pre-existed his birth as an actual being and that his being was as “a god” of which the author of the article and I completely disagree with.

The Pre-existence
Philippians 2:5-11
By Voy Wilks
1/29/92

WHO IS THE WORD?
John Chapter One

…

August 15, 2012 at 4:57 pm#309414

Participant

Did Jesus Preexist in Heaven?
By Servetus the Evangelical

The institutional church has always proclaimed that Jesus preexisted in heaven. And
it has concluded that Jesus’ preexistence indicates that he was and is God.
But in modern times, the idea that Jesus preexisted has been seriously challenged.
One argument is that if Jesus preexisted as a fully developed personality, that does not
allow for human development and therefore compromises his being human.
Luke claims Jesus had a normal human development. He says of Jesus’ childhood,
“The Child continued to grow and become strong, increasing in wisdom; and the grace of
God was upon Him” (Luke 2.40). Notice that Luke also distinguishes the Child Jesus
from God, which always indicates that Jesus was not God. Then Luke adds, “And Jesus
kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man” (v. 52). How
could Jesus have increased in favor with God if he was God? William Barclay therefore
states, “one of the most difficult of all ideas [is] the idea of the preexistence of Jesus.”
Christians claim that they base their beliefs on the Bible. While the first three gospels
of the New Testament (NT) contain nothing about Jesus having preexisted, the Gospel of
John SEEMS to have several important passages that do so. And there are notable texts in
the Apostle Paul’s letters and the book of Hebrews that do, which we will now consider.
Paul does not state explicitly anywhere in his NT letters that Jesus preexisted. Thus,
Karl-Josef Kuschel asserts, “there is no sign of any unambiguous and explicit statement
about pre-existence in the Christology outlined by Paul.” But most scholars have thought
that Paul states it implicitly. And Gerhard Kittel observes, “Christological pre-existence
sayings are a constituent part of the whole of Paulinism.”
But how did Paul conceive of Jesus having preexisted? Did he think it was a personal
subsistence or merely a personfication? There is quite a difference.
James Dunn contends, “There is no good evidence that Jesus thought of himself as a
pre-existent being” or that Paul thought Jesus either preexisted or possessed deity. Dunn
claims that much of Paul’s language of preexistence is personified Wisdom language, as
in “Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Corinthians 1.24), and that Paul
never intended for it to be understood as literal preexistence. Dunn maintains that by the
time Paul wrote Romans, in the mid-50s, “there is no evidence that Christian thought had
so far evolved the idea of incarnation, or that the language of preexistence when referred
to Christ (1 Cor 8:6) would as yet be taken to imply his personal preexistence, or that talk
of his being ‘sent’ (Rom 8:3) was as yet understood to imply a descent from heaven.”
Dunn concludes, “Paul was not seeking to win men to belief in a pre-existent being.”
Regardless of whether or not Jesus preexisted, D.A. Carson logically states, “preexistence
does not entail deity.” Indeed, Second Temple Judaism regarded certain pious
men as having preexisted, yet Jews did not think this compromised their monotheism.
John Knox warns, “the more fully the logic of pre-existence is allowed to work itself
out in the story [of Jesus], the less important the [his] resurrection is bound to become.”
Most Christians have thought that Paul implicitly affirms Jesus’ preexistence in 1
Corinthians 8.9. Therein, he states, “For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,
that though He was rich, yet for our sakes He became poor, that you through His poverty
might become rich.” The common view of this passage has been that the word “rich
indicates Jesus’ personal preexistence, and the words “poor” and “poverty” signify him
abandoning this lofty status at his incarnation. Karl-Josef Kuschel observes, “Traditional
exegesis has always interpreted this passage in terms of pre-existence Christology and
incarnation, as have present-day exegetes right across all confessional camps.”
But Dunn says concerning this passage, “Though he could have enjoyed the riches of
an uninterrupted communion with God, Jesus freely chose to embrace the poverty of
Adam’s distance from God, in his ministry as a whole, but particularly in his death” for
our salvation. Dunn adds, “2 Cor 8.9 is as a vivid allusion to the tremendous personal cost
of Jesus’ ministry … this self-impoverishment … That Paul intended an allusion to the
preexistent Christ’s self-abasement in incarnation must be judged unlikely.”
Until Jesus was thirty years old, he probably had an emotionally rich and fulfilling
life as the eldest of four brothers and several sisters (Mark 6.3). And he must have had a
good reputation as the carpenter of Nazareth and its vicinity. But in a most profound and
untold single act of self-denial, he laid aside this comfortable lifestyle, left home, and
undertook an itinerant, public ministry of financial poverty and even forfeiture of his life.
He once told his disciples about himself, “The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air
have nests; but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head” (Matthew 8.20/Luke 9.58).
Many Christians have thought that the author of the NT letter of Hebrews presents
Jesus as having preexisted. For example, he says God “through” Jesus “made the world”
(Hebrews 1.2). And he further explains of Jesus, “He comes into the world” by God
giving him “a body” (10.5). Yet this author also relates that at Jesus’ heavenly ascension,
“He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty [God] on high; having become as much
better than the angels” (1.3-4). But if Jesus preexisted as God, he always was better than
the angels and therefore could not later have become so. Dunn concludes that “the author
of Hebrews has no place in his thinking for pre-existence as an ontological concept.”
One thing seems to rule out the actual preexistence of Jesus in this letter of Hebrews.
For him to be Savior and High Priest, he had to be like us in every way except sin. The
author of Hebrews explains concerning Jesus, “He had to be made like His brethren in all
things, that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest” (Hebrews 2.17). Again,
this requires that Jesus did not literally preexist, since the rest of us humans did not. It
thus seems that God created the world “through” Jesus simply by having him in mind.
[PDF] SOURCE

The Pre-existence
Philippians 2:5-11
By Voy Wilks
1/29/92

WHO IS THE WORD?
John Chapter One

…

August 15, 2012 at 5:10 pm#309417

Participant

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Aug. 16 2012,03:41)

Mike,

There is no “Bingo” here!

What you have been telling me all along is the deceptive lie that Yahshua pre-existed his birth as an actual being and that his being was as “a god” of which the author of the article and I completely disagree with.

Hi Frank,

I completely disagree with as well.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

August 15, 2012 at 7:05 pm#309424

Participant

mikeboll64 gets owned and thought he had won a Bingo game to boot!

August 15, 2012 at 9:17 pm#309429

Participant

The Restitution of Jesus Christ with Servetus the Evangelical
To listen to this show in MP3 format CLICK HERE.

August 15, 2012 at 9:18 pm#309430

Participant

URL Correction:

CLICK HERE

August 15, 2012 at 10:20 pm#309441

Blocked

Quote (limjunus @ Aug. 15 2012,02:37)

You are being fooled by those who deliberately twist the truth concerning Christ.

These words sum up the people who believe Jesus actually is the God he is the Son of.

Some of them, like the ones who twist the words of scripture in the versions jammin likes to quote, are the ones doing the fooling.

Others, like jammin, are the ones being fooled by those ones who “twist the truth concerning Christ”.

August 15, 2012 at 10:34 pm#309443

Blocked

Quote (jammin @ Aug. 15 2012,03:41)

edj,

i answered already mike and im giving him chance to give a translation that says individual being in phil 2.6

jammin,

I already addressed this point a couple of days ago. This is what I wrote to you:

And btw, you're asking the wrong question about “individual being”. You shouldn't ask if I can “find a translation” that says what I want it to say, because then I'd just be like you. You should instead ask if the GREEK TEXT says anything about “individual being”. And the answer is “NO”.

But I've got some new questions for you to ponder:

jammin, is God ever said to be “in the form of God”?

Is God ever said to be “the exact representation of God”?

Is God ever said to “have the same nature as God”?

Of course not, because people are not compared to THEMSELVES. So any scripture that says Jesus is LIKE God is simultaneously saying Jesus is NOT God, because no one is ever said to be “like” themselves.

This is just common sense, jammin. So unless you can say, “God has the same nature as God”, it should be clear to you that Jesus is someone OTHER THAN God, who shares many of God's qualities, and is LIKE Him in many ways.

August 15, 2012 at 10:57 pm#309445

Blocked

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Aug. 15 2012,10:41)

Frank,

Can you tell me how the parts of your cut and paste that I quoted prove that Jesus didn't pre-exist? I simply agreed with some of the words your author posted.

I notice that the majority of your info centers on Jesus not being God Almighty Himself. I don't really see any arguments that he didn't pre-exist. Here's an example from a cut and paste you posted today:

But if Jesus preexisted as God, he always was better than
the angels and therefore could not later have become so.

But I'm not claiming that Jesus pre-existed “as God”, so how do those words prove ME wrong?

So you can go on “owning me”, and I'll go on giving your authors a pat on the back now and then – whenever I take the time to read your cut and pastes – which is not often.

August 15, 2012 at 11:14 pm#309448

Blocked

Hi Frank,

Just for fun, I will analyze a little bit of your newest huge cut and paste job:

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Aug. 15 2012,10:57)

And he must have had a
good reputation as the carpenter of Nazareth and its vicinity. But in a most profound and
untold single act of self-denial, he laid aside this comfortable lifestyle, left home, and
undertook an itinerant, public ministry of financial poverty and even forfeiture of his life.

Where are we told in the scriptures that Jesus had a “comfortable lifestyle” at any time in his life? And more importantly, how would “laying aside this comfortable lifestyle” equate with “existing in the form of God” before making himself of no account? How does this information tell us that Jesus didn't pre-exist, Frank?

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Aug. 15 2012,10:57)

Many Christians have thought that the author of the NT letter of Hebrews presents
Jesus as having preexisted. For example, he says God “through” Jesus “made the world”
(Hebrews 1.2). And he further explains of Jesus, “He comes into the world” by God
giving him “a body” (10.5). Yet this author also relates that at Jesus’ heavenly ascension,
“He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty [God] on high; having become as much
better than the angels” (1.3-4). But if Jesus preexisted as God, he always was better than
the angels and therefore could not later have become so.

How does your author's comment about angels answer the OTHER TWO bolded points he mentioned?

See Frank? This is why I don't often read the drivel you cut and paste here. The only GOOD points they ever make are when they post scriptures that prohibit Jesus from being God Almighty Himself. They never post ANYTHING that prohibits Jesus from pre-existing as a lesser being than God Almighty, do they?

Yep, you and your authors “own me” all the time.

August 15, 2012 at 11:50 pm#309452

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 16 2012,10:14)

Hi Frank,

Just for fun, I will analyze a little bit of your newest huge cut and paste job:

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Aug. 15 2012,10:57)

How does your author's comment about angels answer the OTHER TWO bolded points he mentioned?

Yep, you and your authors “own me” all the time.

Mike,

So, is it not clear to you by now that the author of these articles and I both do not believe that Yahshua pre-existed his birth as “a god”? If not, I would strongly suggest that you take a reading comprehension course so that you might clearly understand what the author of these articles and I are saying to you and especially what Father Yahweh's inspired prophetic word actually says. You also need to stop lying in saying that you don't often read what I cut and paste here, since it is quite obvious to me that you do. Maybe you could do this just for fun!

The Pre-existence
Philippians 2:5-11
By Voy Wilks
1/29/92

WHO IS THE WORD?
John Chapter One

…

August 16, 2012 at 12:07 am#309455

Participant

Did Jesus Preexist as “the Angel of the LORD”?
by Servetus the Evangelical

The most mysterious and enigmatic figure in the Old Testament (OT) is “the angel of
the LORD.” It occurs 56 times, and “the angel of God” occurs 10 times. He appeared to
Abraham, Hagar, Isaac, Jacob, Manoah and his wife, Moses, Joshua, and many others.
There has never been any consensus in Judaism about the identity of this figure. The
three eminent rabbinic Bible commentators in medieval times interpreted it as the “angel”
of Exodus 23 and 33, whom God said he would send to guard Israel on its way to the
promised land and taking possession of it. Many Jewish scholars have identified this
angel as the captain of God’s angelic armies, and some claim he is Michael the archangel.
Church fathers generally interpreted “the angel of the LORD” in the OT as the Logos-
Son. Since they also identified this Logos-Son as the preexistent Jesus Christ, they
deemed “the angel of the LORD” as substantial OT evidence that Jesus Christ was God.
Justin Martyr, a 2nd century church father, trumpeted this interpretation more than
anyone. In his Dialogue with Trypho, a seemingly fictitious Jew, he frequently calls Jesus
“the Angel.” The church later condemned such an identification. In fact, the author of the
New Testament (NT) book of Hebrews tries strenuously to prove that Jesus is superior to
angels, describing him as “having become as much better than the angels” (Hebrews 1.4).
Regardless, the majority of Christians have believed that “the angel of the LORD” in
the OT was the preexistent Christ. For instance, preeminent Protestant Bible teacher John
Calvin led the pastors of Geneva in condemning Michael Servetus as a heretic and getting
him executed for a laundry list of allegations that included his denial of this belief.
Those who believe that Jesus is God are called “traditionalists.” Most contemporary,
traditionalist Bible scholars do not believe that “the angel of the LORD” in the OT was the
preexistent Jesus, although many Evangelicals still do. Most agree with historical critics
that this figure was Yahweh himself. The two main reasons are that some OT narratives
interchange “the angel of the LORD” with “the LORD” and present “the angel of the LORD”
speaking in the first person on behalf of Yahweh. Therefore, James Dunn explains that
“the angel of Yahweh is simply a way of speaking about Yahweh himself.” Yet these
texts can be understood as an actual angel serving as Yahweh’s agent and therefore
sometimes being depicted as Yahweh himself when in fact he is only Yahweh’s agent.
So, the three primary interpretations of “the angel of the LORD” in the OT are that this
figure depicts Yahweh himself, the preexistent Jesus Christ, or an actual angel.
Some OT narratives relate that Israelites literally saw “the angel of the LORD.” Even
Balaam’s donkey did (Numbers 22.25, 27). These texts include conversations between
the angel and people. Some texts identify the figure as “a man” who is at first mistaken as
a man. (The Bible records many other events when humans literally saw and conversed
with an “angel(s),” and some of these narratives describe the angel(s) as a “man/men.”)
Other narratives tell merely that “the LORD appeared,” without mentioning an angel. In
such instances, “the angel of the LORD” probably should be presumed.
For example, Jacob wrestled all night with “a man” (Genesis 32.24). Jacob sensed
his supernatural status and asked him for a blessing. When he gave it and departed, Jacob
exclaimed, “I have seen God face to face, yet my life has been preserved” (v. 30).
The first biblical clue that “the angel of the LORD” in the OT is not Yahweh himself is
that some of these narratives present people literally seeing him and thereafter worrying
that they would die because they believed that no human being could literally see God
and live. Indeed, the Bible well attests to this truth. It is because God is unapproachable
by mortal humans, dwelling in a glorious light, and thus is “invisible” to them. Similarly,
theologians describe God as “transcendent”—existing beyond the material universe.
The best evidence that the angel of the LORD in the OT is to be distinguished from
Yahweh is those narratives in which these two communicate with each other. It occurred
when King David sinned by numbering Israel, and the angel appeared to him with raised
sword for judgment (1 Chronicles 21.15-16; 2 Samuel 24.15-16). When David offered a
sacrifice, “the LORD commanded the angel, and he put his sword back in its sheath” (1
Chronicles 21.27). Another time was when Yahweh and his angel spoke to each other in
Zechariah’s vision of four angels riding horses to patrol the earth (Zechariah 1.12-13).
The most important OT texts about the angel of the LORD, without being mentioned,
are those that tell about God informing Moses that he was going to “send an angel before
you to guard” Israel, making him Israel’s guardian angel (Exodus 23.21-23; 32.34; 33.2).
There is a progressive revelation in narratives containing the expression “the angel of
the LORD/God” and some other texts in the OT which lead to the identity of this figure.
Therefore, Gerhard von Rad rightly concludes, agreeing with some rabbis, “Michael [the
archangel] is the guardian angel of Israel.” The evidence can be summed up as follows:
o The angel of the LORD in the OT was associated exclusively with Israel.
o The angel of the LORD in the OT was not God himself but his personal representative.
o God appeared to certain Israelites by means of the angel of the LORD as his agent.
o God did not appear literally to these Israelites or they would have instantly died.
o God sent an angel as his intermediary to guard Israel (Exodus 23, 33).
o The OT angel of the LORD is the guardian angel of Israel (Exodus 3; Acts 7.30-35).
o The guardian angel of Israel is chief of the angelic armies of heaven (Joshua 5.13-15).
o The chief of heaven’s angelic armies is Michael the archangel (Revelation 12.7-9).
o Therefore, the guardian angel of Israel is Michael the archangel (Daniel 10.21; 12.1).
o Michael is the OT angel of the LORD, and God’s name is in his name (Exodus 23.21).
In my book, The Restitution of Jesus Christ, I devote 17 pages to an examination of
“the angel of the LORD” in the OT.
[PDF] SOURCE

The Pre-existence
Philippians 2:5-11
By Voy Wilks
1/29/92

WHO IS THE WORD?
John Chapter One