Kansasdad

Ecc 3:1 There is an appointed time for everything. And there is a time for every event under heaven Mar 13:23 "But take heed; behold, I have told you everything in advance. Mar 13:31 "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away. Mar 13:32 "But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. Mar 13:33 "Take heed, keep on the alert; for you do not know when the appointed time will come. Mar 13:37 "What I say to you I say to all, 'Be on the alert!'" It will all be revealed in it's appointed time. It has been a blessing and you've been a gentleman. There, how's that for namecalling? God Bless Yes it will all be revealed, and I could be wrong about the 1000 year part. That is one of the main reasons I come to this sight. If there are real signs, prophecy fulfilled, I want to be aware. God Bless, K.D.

When one looks at the Last Supper passage in context, there is no question that Jesus is using a figure of speech rather than initiating a doctrine of transubstantiation. In this case, "the context clearly indicates otherwise." There is room for idiomatic language. Actually when taken in context, it does not support a figurative interpretation, but that is a completely different topic. God Bless, K.D.

Hi K.D. I said I take the Word of God literally and I meant it. However, just because you take the Bible literally does not mean that there are not figures of speech written in the Bible, such as your are referring to here. Some things are symbolic, so obviously you cannot take these things literally. If I say "I'm so hungry, I could eat a cow.", do you really think I will go out and buy a cow and eat it?! Or if I say "it's raining cats and dogs outside", do you really think cats and dogs are falling from the sky? These are figures of speech and the Bible has them also, and are not to be taken literally and most people can discern the meaning of the figures of speech through the Holy Spirit's guidance and the context of the entire text, before and after, when reading God's Word. Then you might re-evaluate your statement that everything in the Bible MUST be taken literal. I think literal is not the word you are actually meaning, You say as much above, that some is literal and some is figurative. It can not be figurative and literal at the same time. God Bless, K.D.

That's the golden rule of interpretation - "When the plain sense makes the best sense, seek no other sense, but take every word at its primary literal meaning, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise." I understand what you are saying, but that is not what Toni R is saying, And I would question whether he really holds this true. for example does Toni R believe that the Bread and Wine are in reality the Flesh and Blood of our Saviour? This is the literal interpretation. God Bless, K.D.

You very well may be absolutely correct. ( I truly mean this) This is why I don't think it is an actual measurement of time. If you take it to be literal then you have the whole measuring of the millenium age, the age of the earth and the Pre-trib theory. All of which set up conflict with other verses of scripture, Thus we have endless debates over this verse says this but that verse says something else. I don't want to get into all of the examples but I think an honest look at the debates will see "conflicting" verses if this is literal. If it is not literal than all those conflicts go away. It very well may be, that we have a lack of understanding and because of this lack of understanding the conflicts exist. However I am more incline to believe in the interpretation that doesn't create the conflict in the first place. God Bless, K.D. and thank you for this open and fruitful discussion no name calling is needed at all

You seriously take everything in the Bible literal?

I agree that the complete prophecy is not finished, obviously we are still around and everything has not been destroyed. Lets look at the one day/thousand year verse and the one immediately following. 2Pe 3:8 But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. 2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. You are correct scripture places an emphasis on this "take notice" but then look to the next verse. God is talking about concepts of time, humans vs. Gods and how they are very different. This is a message of encouragment and a call to repentance, not a literal measurment of time. In fact God suggest that because of our humaness we are not able to comprehend Gods measurment of time. Lets look to the rest now. We see a description of ancient Rome. The symbolism fits perfectly, yet John then tells us that it won't end with Rome. He is specifically describing Rome but then tells us this same wickedness will continue to the end of days. The descriptions are of ancient Rome, the same wichedness will continue untill Jesus returns. The problem we have is that we try to take the descriptions and identify a current "model" Ancient Rome is the example of the wickedness that will continue, We see it played out through out history. Or I could be completely wrong and the 1000 years could be literal, But as of now I don't think so, which of course is just my opinion. God Bless, K.D.

oooops, the report I saw was on the deficit, not the national dept......sorry God Bless, K.D.

Actually I just saw on the news where the national dept has come down dramatically to a point it is considered meaningless. I believe it is about 1 or 2% of the GDP. The news of doom and gloom don't really add up. Just thought we could use some good news for a change God Bless, K.D.

I think a problem also exist in that people do not understand the symbolism in the language and do not consider that Revelations was written during a time of extreme persecution and they had to write in a cryptic way, or be killed. One example is with numbers. Certain numbers had meaning attached to them that had nothing to do with the actual number. The number was conveying a concept not an actual measurement. This is where we get all the time setting and date setting. It comes from taking a number literal when it was figurative. 144,000 is a great example of this. That number is full of conceptual meaning, not a literal counting. 1 day is as a thousand is another. The largest number they knew in those times were thousands. There was no concept of larger numbers. So figuratively the message is that one day to God is like the largest number you can think of....Now does that completely blow holes in some lines of thinking? God Bless, K.D.

said another way, 62% of democrats say they do not have excellent mental health. That is almost 2 out of every 3. This is their own assessment of themselves. I would have tended to think that income might play a role in depression, anxiety, but the study says it is constant within the categories. Very interesting.

From what I can see the only candidate that fits every description is ancient pagan Rome. Am I missing something here?

Hunting the Whore of Babylon a response to David Hunts assertion that the Whore of Bablyon is the Catholic Church. This comes from a Catholic web sight so I can not post the link, but I did want to make full disclosure. Hunting the Whore of Babylon Some anti-Catholics claim the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon of Revelation 17 and 18. Dave Hunt, in his 1994 book, A Woman Rides the Beast, presents nine arguments to try to prove this. His claims are a useful summary of those commonly used by Fundamentalists, and an examination of them shows why they don

Zogby Interactive accurately predicted the winner in 85% of the states that it polled, in 2004. Probably as good of a poll as any. But I am with Leanerd. Interesting when I looked at the poll, Huckabee and Thompson faired the best on the national level against Clinton.

I have never claim any such thing you believe Jesus was a man and so do I. I also believe him to be fully God,That is where we differ,You believe him to be 1/3 God or a lesser God or another God separate from the only true God ''The Father''.But I believe he IS GOD. Well that's simply not true. I believe Jesus to be the complete God - the fullness of the Godhead - which is Triune. According to your statement above I would have to believe that God stopped being God while He was incarnated as a man: Well if you believe that Jesus is the fullness of the Godhead then we are in agreement,The Godhead is the Father,Son, and H.S. I agree Jesus is the Father,Son,and H.S.,Col 2:9 The fullness of the Godhead dwelt is Christ bodily. I believe we can say it like this,you believe the 1 God to be 3 and I believe the 3 to be 1 God. Do you believe that Jesus the man was also fully Jesus God, or do you believe that Jesus was a man who was fathered by God and had the Spirit of God dwelling inside of him? K.D.

You declare that I am establishing your position as I refute it, that is really intellectual fraud. I know you can't actually support your position, but why don't you just admit it? Or disprove what I have said. I believe the kettle just called the pot black. I have given you many many scriptures that support my position. I have also given you historical teachings from as far back at the Apostle Johns time that supports my position. You on the other hand have grabbed a few verses while ignoring others to support yours. Your picture is incomplete. But as the above poster said this is getting us no where. God Bless, K.D.

K.D. How can the Son and the Father be coequal if Jesus says that the Father is greater? Jesus, The author of life, humbled himself in obedience to the father and became flesh. Coequal is your word not mine. They coexist, but yet are one. Yes this is a mystery, a mystery given to us by scripture. Yes it is beyond our comprehension. Therefore I choose to have faith in what scripture tells me even if I don't understand it. You are trying to reduce God to your understanding. God Bless, K.D. Actually, coequal is not my word, but it comes from the trinity doctrine itself. http://www.allaboutgod.com/trinity-doctrine.htm Yet, not beyond our ability to define it and demand others to agree with the definition of that which is not comprehendable. http://www.allaboutgod.com/trinity-doctrine.htm Trinity Doctrine - How Can We Comprehend It? The most difficult thing about the Trinity Doctrine is that there is no way to adequately explain it. The Trinity is a concept that is impossible for any human being to fully understand, let alone explain. God is infinitely higher than we are, therefore we should not expect to be able to fully understand Him. The Bible teaches that the Father is God (Exodus 3:14), that Jesus is God (John 8:58), and that the Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-4). The Bible also teaches that there is only one God (Deuteronomy 6:4; James 2:19). How these two statements of doctrine can both be true is incomprehensible to the human mind. However, this doesn't mean that they're both not true. So, if you can't comprehend it, you can't understand it, and you can't explain it, why in the world would you believe that you can define it? And why should anyone trust your definition ? Actually you just did, from scripture. The word Trinity just puts a name to what the Bible teaches. It is not I that is defining it, but scripture. So by all means do not trust my definition, trust the definition given by scripture.

I always find it so interesting how about this time every election cycle the polls and the media always have the Democrat winning. Some times they are right, but just as often they are completely wrong, and they just can't figure out why.

K.D. How can the Son and the Father be coequal if Jesus says that the Father is greater? Jesus, The author of life, humbled himself in obedience to the father and became flesh. Coequal is your word not mine. They coexist, but yet are one. Yes this is a mystery, a mystery given to us by scripture. Yes it is beyond our comprehension. Therefore I choose to have faith in what scripture tells me even if I don't understand it. You are trying to reduce God to your understanding. God Bless, K.D.

I agree with your first statement that THE GOD is the Father and Jesus existed as God b4 incarnation,but I notice you used a lower case g for God and in your explaination made Jesus outr to be an lower god from the Father or another god than the Father,I dont think even your trinitarian friends would back you on this on kansas. Jesus is a man ''The Son'' while God is ''The Father'' if Jesus is or was God thn he is or was the Father because there is no God other than the Father. Don't try to apply meaning to typing errors, but most notable is that I didn't say this, you quoted from "other one" and ignored my post completely. Explain why God would exalt himself and then call himself his son. Your theory just causes confusion. And again you completely ignore scripture that says the author of life is the same person we killed. Yes obviously we killed the human part of Jesus but there is still the clear distinction that Jesus and the Author of Life are one and the same, and that the Son coexist with the Father, for the Father refers to the Son before incarnation. Again I point out that you have just ignored parts of scripture and then just restate your position. We know your position, but it does not line up with all scripture. You are pointing to an incomplete picture that ignores the whole truth. You need to look at all scripture has to say not just pick and choose a few that support your theory. God Bless, K.D. That is exactly the process used to come up with the trinity doctrine K.D. The pick and choose method. The trinity doctrine does nothing to explain the nature of the godhead and it is very much a private interpretation of the scripture. Actually this is not correct. The Trinity Doctrine takes all scripture has to say and reconciles every one. The oneness doctrine sets up contradictions, where as the Trinity doctrine fits with all of them. Secondly, the oneness doctrine is most definitely private interpretation, where as the trinity doctrine, as I have shown, has it roots in tradition taught by our church leaders back to the time when John the Apostle was still alive. This is what is known as Sacred Tradition, not personal interpretation. God Bless, K.D.

Jesus is the man born of mary,but God is the one who became the man. Yahwey is the name of God the Father not necessarily the name of the son. Jesus is the Father,Son,and Holy Spirit. Yahwey was revealed in Yeshua. The son is the MAN, The Father became. Yeshua is that man,Yahwey is the Father. They are not separate ''beings'' but distinct through Yeshua's humanity. I would disagree that the name Yahwey is the name of the Father...... Yahwey is the name of what Jesus was before ne sat it aside and became a human. The Father is who Jesus was b4 he set aside his deity to become a man. Then he calls himself his own son

I agree with your first statement that THE GOD is the Father and Jesus existed as God b4 incarnation,but I notice you used a lower case g for God and in your explaination made Jesus outr to be an lower god from the Father or another god than the Father,I dont think even your trinitarian friends would back you on this on kansas. Jesus is a man ''The Son'' while God is ''The Father'' if Jesus is or was God thn he is or was the Father because there is no God other than the Father. Don't try to apply meaning to typing errors, but most notable is that I didn't say this, you quoted from "other one" and ignored my post completely. Explain why God would exalt himself and then call himself his son. Your theory just causes confusion. And again you completely ignore scripture that says the author of life is the same person we killed. Yes obviously we killed the human part of Jesus but there is still the clear distinction that Jesus and the Author of Life are one and the same, and that the Son coexist with the Father, for the Father refers to the Son before incarnation. Again I point out that you have just ignored parts of scripture and then just restate your position. We know your position, but it does not line up with all scripture. You are pointing to an incomplete picture that ignores the whole truth. You need to look at all scripture has to say not just pick and choose a few that support your theory. God Bless, K.D.

Answer these question if you can kansasdad,as ovedya is the only one willing to attempt it so far. Unless you kansasdad are the one ignoring the truth,you should have some answers. Interesting as I am reading through Acts to see exactly which verse you are referring to and I run across the words of Peter: 12 But Peter seeing, made answer to the people: Ye men of Israel, why wonder you at this? or why look you upon us, as if by our strength or power we had made this man to walk? 13 The God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus, whom you indeed delivered up and denied before the face of Pilate, when he judged he should be released. 14 But you denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you. 15 But the author of life you killed, whom God hath raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses. God the father glorified his Son The Author of life you killed, Was the author of life around before Jesus was on earth....yes Yet he was killed. to hold on to your theory then God the father was killed.....hardly.. Then we see that God raised someone from the dead...Oh yes it was the Author of life, the Holy one. The same person that was killed. Interesting how scripture supports the trinity every time you look. God Bless, K.D. Whats your point,I dont think any one is denying that Jesus Christ the man born of mary is God's son Again you are taking only part of the scripture and ignoring the rest. Jesus in human form only could not also be the Author of life. Scripture clearly shows that Jesus the author of life has been around before human life was created. Yet scripture tells us that we killed the Author of life and the Author of life is the same person as Jesus. So scripture tells us that Gods Son has been here from before the beginning of time. Then we see that God glorified his Son who has been here forever. It makes no sense to say God glorified himself and then called himself his own Son. You keep trying to separate Jesus the Man from Jesus God. As I said before when you do this and make Jesus human with Gods spirit dwelling inside of him you open up the old heresy that we all can be just as Jesus. Sounds just like the ploy the anti-Christ uses in claiming to be Jesus. Your theory just opens that door very nicely. I notice you still have not answered Greg and explained why God would use the word us and our in genesis. Within your theory this makes no sense.

16 For he was not as yet come upon any of them; but they were only baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost. 18 And when Simon saw, that by the imposition of the hands of the apostles, the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, maybe this is what you are referring to......but it also blows holes in your theory. If Jesus and the Holy Ghost are the same then why the clear distinction of the two. This verse clearly shows the presence of Jesus but not the presence of the Holy Ghost. Not possible within your theory. God Bless, K.D.

and even more from Peter: 30 The God of our fathers hath raised up Jesus, whom you put to death, hanging him upon a tree. 31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand, to be Prince and Saviour, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins. 32 And we are witnesses of these things and the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to all that obey him. Is God exalting himself with his right hand??????????and making himself Prince???????????? Peter doesn't treat your theory very well. K.D.