Enquirer Posted January 20, 2007 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 119 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 22 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/09/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted January 20, 2007 PART IV (7) Shiloh357 continues his response: "You ask the question as to why I am surprised that God gave names above every name to a resurrected man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enquirer Posted January 20, 2007 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 119 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 22 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/09/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted January 20, 2007 PART V (9) To Enquirer's remark: "As for being called "Everlasting Father" (as opposed to "Father of eternity") He is a Father to God's children, because God invested them in Jesus by giving them to him." Shiloh357 responds: "Nice try, but that is wrong on two counts: Number one, the Bible NOWHERE says that Jesus is a Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enquirer Posted January 20, 2007 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 119 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 22 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/09/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted January 20, 2007 PART VI (11) To Enquirer's remark: 1. Since God cannot die, it is the blood of a man, the son of God. Shiloh357 responded - If God only need the blood of man, any man would have done just fine. God did not need human blood. By your standard, Moses could have died for mankind or any of the prophets or some other righteous figure, like John the Baptist. The blood had to be sinless, and man no matter how righteous He is, is born with a sin nature. If Jesus had been just like any other man, had he, simply been chosen out of other worthy candidates to be the Messiah, there is no way that a man could have ever lived up to God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enquirer Posted January 20, 2007 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 119 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 22 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/09/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted January 20, 2007 PART VII (13) To Enquirer's remark: 3. Jesus is an eikwn of the invisible God; Men are the image (eikon) and glory (doza) of God. [i Cor 11:7] Shiloh357 responded: I am sorry but you are mistaken in your application. In Colossians, when Paul says that Jesus is the image of the invisible God, Paul explains what He means. Paul is referring to Christ as the deliniation of God in terms of character, operations and attributes, and goes on to discuss Christ as the creator and sustainer of the universe. The New Testament is very clear in how it treats the concept of Jesus being the image of the Father. Man is the image of God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enquirer Posted January 20, 2007 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 119 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 22 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/09/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted January 20, 2007 PART VIII (15) To Enquirer's remark - 5. Not quite accurate. All things in heaven or earth, visible or invisible, WHETHER THEY BE THRONES, OR DOMINIONS, OR PRINCIPALITIES OR POWERS. [Col 1:16] DO YOU NOT SEE THAT LITTLE LIMITING PARAMETER, {EITE} whether? It limits the "all things" to all things whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities or powers. Shiloh357 responded - That is not true. The passage begins by saying all things in heaven or earth visible or invisible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enquirer Posted January 20, 2007 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 119 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 22 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/09/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted January 20, 2007 PART IX (17) Shiloh357 continued - Even if we operated from your limited parameter, you would still have to explain when and how every Kingdom, every spiritual and earthly dominion principalities were made (past tense) by Jesus if Jesus is just a resurrected man, and nothing more. Even Paul recognized that all of the earthly powers of His day including Rome as being under the authority of Christ (whether the Romans recognized it or not). If we take your limited parameter, you need to explain the dominion of the Kingdoms and principalities in the spiritual realm that existed LONG before Jesus birth in the Gospels, and how it is that Paul could claim that Jesus created those invisible dominions, IF Jesus did not exist prior to his sojourn on planet earth. Enquirer responds (NEW) - Whenever a nation conquers another nation, they impose upon the vanquished a new order. They creat for them a new arrangement of things. Though they are not new to the conquerer, when it is imposed, it makes all things new to the vanquished. Remember the story about the roman conquerors who paraded their vanquished foes in a victory parade, openly shaming them. Paul tells us of Jesus and his "victory parade" thusly: "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; 15 [And] having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it." [Col 2:14-15] He "made a shew of them openly" - he marched them in his victory parade, those whom he conquered by his death. And all the spiritual world of thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers were witness thereunto, after which they all moved down one place to accomodate his new position as head over them all. "And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:" [Col 2:10] Christ "recreated" the rank and importance of those authorities over whom he has been placed. He created all things in heaven or on earth, visible and invisible, WHETHER THEY BE Thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; And THAT is the significance of "Whether" in that verse. (18) To Enquirer's remark - 6. He, resurrected, is before all things resurrected. Shiloh357 responded - True, but that does not diminish His Deity. It is really not an argument that helps you at all. Enquirer's response (NEW) - His deity has yet to be established. One cannot diminish what has not been established. This certainly tells us something about Jesus being "before all things" that does not require a prehistoric existence. THAT is the significance of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enquirer Posted January 20, 2007 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 119 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 22 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/09/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted January 20, 2007 (edited) PART X (19) To Enquirer's remark - 7. All things are sustained by him because he has been promoted to second in heaven,and given all power. (Shiloh357:) No, that is not what the Bible says. The Bible teaches that Jesus created them and sustained them. The Bible does not teach that Jesus was promoted ahead of the creation He was once a part of. The Bible teaches that He created the very things He sustains. One cannot be both creator and creature at the same time. Jesus created them as creator, is separate from them. If He had the power to create them, He also possesses the power to sustain them. The Bible does not attribute Jesus power to sustain creation to a promotion. That is just something you made up. Enquirer's response (NEW) - "The Bible does not teach that Jesus was promoted ahead of the creation He was once a part of;" Sure it does. "Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him." [i Pet 3:22] (20) To Enquirer's remark - 8. And he is not "the father of eternity," he is the "Eternal Father" of the children God gave to him. Shiloh357 responded: - Wrong. I have already demonstrated above that the Hebrew means Edited January 20, 2007 by Enquirer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enquirer Posted January 20, 2007 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 119 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 22 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/09/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted January 20, 2007 PART XI (21) To Shiloh357's remark - "Our Heavenly Father also has this to say:" I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images. (Isaiah 42:8) For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another. (Isaiah 48:11) To ascribe the titles of Isaiah 9:6 to anyone would be give glory to that person. Those are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enquirer Posted January 20, 2007 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 119 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 22 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/09/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted January 20, 2007 PART XII (23) To Enquirer's remark - "Not what I have in my source material." 2088 / 8034 / 834 / 7121 / 3068 / 6666... [23:6] 2088 / .... / 834 / 7121 / 3068 / 6666... [33:16] The ONLY difference is the use of Strong's 8034 in 23:6 [shem] which references a definite and auspicious position; an appelation, as a mark or memorial of individuallity by implying honor, authority, character. [strong] And why is this applied to the branch and not to Jerusalem? Because God had already so honored both the people [Num 6:22-27] and the city by placeing his name in the land of Israel, [Deu 12:3-11;; and in Jerusalem [i Kings 8:29][i Kings 9:3][iI Kings 21:4], the city of God. It did not need to be placed there again. Shiloh357 responded - The first phrase refers to a name; hence, the presence of the word shmo. "He shall be named" (Jeremiah 23:16) In Jeremiah 33:16, the wording is different, Enquirer (continued) DIFFERENT HOW? 2088 / 8034 / 834 / 7121 / 3068 / 6666... [23:6] 2088 / .... / 834 / 7121 / 3068 / 6666... [33:16] The ONLY difference is the use of Strong's 8034 in 23:6 [shem] which references a definite and auspicious position; an appelation, as a mark or memorial of individuallity by implying honor, authority, character. [strong] And why is this applied to the branch and not to Jerusalem? Because God had already so honored both the people [Num 6:22-27] and the city by placeing his name in the land of Israel, [Deu 12:3-11;; and in Jerusalem [i Kings 8:29][i Kings 9:3][iI Kings 21:4], the city of God. It did not need to be placed there again. To which Shiloh357 responded with - Well, my source material is the Hebrew language. You are relying on Strong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 Minor point? And all this time I though the pre-existence (predating) of Jesus was the most important major premise of the "Jesus is God" doctrine. And your conclusion is correct; Jesus in prophecy in Gen 3:15 does NOT predate God, Adam, Eve, Satan, anyone else who predated Gen 3:15; i.e., angels, gods, whatever existed in the heavens, (Authorities, dominions, and etc). Actually, what I meant was that your unnatural use of Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.59eed8b93aa1c92d8b306f10811981dc.jpg)
Recommended Posts