It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Why do peole think that Jesus was god?
page: 29share:
originally posted by: chiram
a reply to: orangetom1999
ORANGETOM, what I picked up on is you’re angry because people fail to control their emotions, but isn’t that just what you are doing. You seem to be the one not able to control your anger E-motion. I believe its showing in your writing. I have studied the emotions and believe me anger is the worst one, it causes a slow poisoning of the system. I wouldn’t want to be working with you Orangetom if it’s true that you assemble nuclear fuel rods.
Take a break, give your mind a rest and reap the benefits.
And thank you for your post.
Chiram
No...Chiram. I have certain viewpoints and understandings based on what I know and have learned...and voice them..often in disagreement with others. This you tend to call..anger.
As a Believer ..I am of the salt of the earth..not the sugar. Salt is what holds back corruption. Often the man made pattern and tradition of today is that any disagreement or voicing of a different view is anger...
The modern social group think/tradition of this kind of thing is Cognitive dissonance. That people will go to great lengths to conform and not cause any dissonance..even to keeping silent...ie..censorship. I hope you can tell that I am not into censorship as well as what passes for group think today.
I think I can back up much of what I know and understand. This tends often to cause disagreement when posted on boards like this.
No problem as long as it does not degenerate to name calling and or vulgarity so common on many boards ..even among leadership today.
A difference of opinion is not anger..it is a difference of opinion or views.
and yes..that is precisely the kind of work I do.
By the way...Chiram...anger is not the worst emotion. Love not properly handled is a disaster and often puts burdens on others that they do not want...this is called "High Maintenance."
People can have all the emotions they want. Just not around me ...or drag me into them..and or have me underwrite their maintenance needs because they did not think a thing through. I will be going the other way...away from them.
I've done enough of that over the years for undisciplined peoples...not anymore. Come out from amongst them and be ye separate.
And yes...thank you for your posts.
jmdewey60,
Yes..Jesus was YHWH of the OLde Testament..as well as the Lord of Hosts. For we have him described as The Word in the Book of John..The Word took on flesh and we beheld His Glory. The Word is also one of the names of God...from the Olde Testament into the New.
So too with the name Lord of Hosts...or as stated by Samuel when being asked to name the children of Israel a king.."The Lord of Hosts is our King and our God." For the children of Israel were not to have a king in the flesh to make them like other peoples. And Samuel finally , through God, gave them one in God's displeasure..not in God's pleasure.
As to the Prince of Peace..Yes..it is referring to God in those terms..and it is carried into the New Testament when the Word took on flesh and we beheld His Glory. He is still the Prince of Peace.
The Sabbath of the Olde Testament is a foreshadow..as is much In the Olde Testament...a shadow of what was to come when ushering in the New Testament..which was also foretold in the Olde Testament. That there would be a New Covenant made with a people who were not His people.
A Covenant..a Promise...a New Last Will and Testament.
Once again..thanks to all for their posts,
Orangetom
edit on 2-8-2014 by orangetom1999 because: (no reason given)
I got to think or perhaps re thinking...something I have known for some time now and often forget..it sort of just hangs there in the back of my
mind.
The pattern of which I know in the Word is that Angels ...Gods Angels do not accept worship and are recorded to tell those who are want to worship them...to do it not. For Worship was for the Father..the Almighty...God Himself.
Did not Jesus accept worship??
Something to think about.
We are tasked as Believers under discipline of the Gospel to know and recognize patterns. I try to do this also in Worldly/Secular affairs..to recognize by patterns..by the yardstick of History as well as by the Word.
Just a thought in adding additional Light to the title of this thread.
Thanks,
Orangetom
The pattern of which I know in the Word is that Angels ...Gods Angels do not accept worship and are recorded to tell those who are want to worship them...to do it not. For Worship was for the Father..the Almighty...God Himself.
Did not Jesus accept worship??
Something to think about.
We are tasked as Believers under discipline of the Gospel to know and recognize patterns. I try to do this also in Worldly/Secular affairs..to recognize by patterns..by the yardstick of History as well as by the Word.
Just a thought in adding additional Light to the title of this thread.
Thanks,
Orangetom
edit on 2-8-2014 by orangetom1999 because: (no reason given)
I was just over on another thread which caught my eye...and I posted on it
The thread is titled "The Lord Is My Shepard".
I have often spoken on this thread about "The Traditions Of Men."
Perhaps with this thread I posted some of you can now understand why I am so aware of and cautious about traditions.
Here is the link. I hope some of you will begin to recognize patterns now ..particularly the patterns of this world and it's traditions...verses God's instructions.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Thanks,
Orangetom
The thread is titled "The Lord Is My Shepard".
I have often spoken on this thread about "The Traditions Of Men."
Perhaps with this thread I posted some of you can now understand why I am so aware of and cautious about traditions.
Here is the link. I hope some of you will begin to recognize patterns now ..particularly the patterns of this world and it's traditions...verses God's instructions.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Thanks,
Orangetom
edit on 2-8-2014 by orangetom1999 because: (no reason given)
a reply to: orangetom1999
It talks about the Logos, which was used as a philosophical term, as well as also being a Greek word for "word".
That is just your theory about how it could be saying that Jesus was actually the Logos and a person at the same time.
The writer of the Gospel of John, is saying that himself, the disciples, Jesus, and John the Baptist, beheld (or perceived) the glory of the Logos.
How they knew that glory was by the Logos being in them.
The Logos was making prophecy and the will of God become fulfilled.
Otherwise, I can't think of where else "the word" could possibly be being used as a name of God.
It is using a Greek word that usually means "it happened" or "it came about".
What "came about" was what was usually meant when you see that word used with logos, which is that it was "made known".
So, the logos concerning flesh (mankind) was made known.
How it was made known was that it was in us (from the writer's viewpoint) so that we could comprehend the divinity of it (that it was of God).
Paul in Galatians 3 says we (gentiles) are accepted through Jesus, who is the promised (before the old covenant existed) person of Abraham's seed to bless the world.
The people "not His people" is talked about in hindsight in Ephesians 2:14-18, and doesn't include the concept of a "New Covenant".
You believe that for some reason, but the Bible never says that.
Yes..Jesus was YHWH of the OLde Testament..as well as the Lord of Hosts.
It doesn't describe Jesus as the word.
For we have him described as The Word in the Book of John..
It talks about the Logos, which was used as a philosophical term, as well as also being a Greek word for "word".
It does not use the phrase, "took on".
The Word took on flesh and we beheld His Glory.
That is just your theory about how it could be saying that Jesus was actually the Logos and a person at the same time.
The writer of the Gospel of John, is saying that himself, the disciples, Jesus, and John the Baptist, beheld (or perceived) the glory of the Logos.
How they knew that glory was by the Logos being in them.
The Logos was making prophecy and the will of God become fulfilled.
It does say in John 1:1, "and the Word was God.", meaning the Logos.
The Word is also one of the names of God...from the Olde Testament into the New.
Otherwise, I can't think of where else "the word" could possibly be being used as a name of God.
Again, it does not say in John one that anyone "took on" flesh.
As to the Prince of Peace..Yes..it is referring to God in those terms..and it is carried into the New Testament when the Word took on flesh and we beheld His Glory. He is still the Prince of Peace.
It is using a Greek word that usually means "it happened" or "it came about".
What "came about" was what was usually meant when you see that word used with logos, which is that it was "made known".
So, the logos concerning flesh (mankind) was made known.
How it was made known was that it was in us (from the writer's viewpoint) so that we could comprehend the divinity of it (that it was of God).
So your only argument that your theory is correct is that other things were "foreshadowings".
The Sabbath of the Olde Testament is a foreshadow..as is much In the Olde Testament...
There isn't literally a new covenat, where the old covenant "foreshadowed" it.
...a shadow of what was to come when ushering in the New Testament..which was also foretold in the Olde Testament. That there would be a New Covenant made with a people who were not His people.
Paul in Galatians 3 says we (gentiles) are accepted through Jesus, who is the promised (before the old covenant existed) person of Abraham's seed to bless the world.
The people "not His people" is talked about in hindsight in Ephesians 2:14-18, and doesn't include the concept of a "New Covenant".
That is an analogy, and not literal.
A Covenant..a Promise...a New Last Will and Testament.
edit on 2-8-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no
reason given)
a reply to: orangetom1999
In the New Testament, they don't.
Jesus and the temptation in the wilderness points that out, where if it was Moses in the same situation, he would have worshiped the person asking to be recognized as being so worthy.
The idea is that angels are ferociously powerful beings that can make things happen, such as in a battle, killing the enemy.
In Revelation you have "the word of God" defeating the enemy, which is the lack of the true word in the world.
Angels accepted worship in the Old Testament.
The pattern of which I know in the Word is that Angels ...Gods Angels do not accept worship and are recorded to tell those who are want to worship them...to do it not. For Worship was for the Father..the Almighty...God Himself.
Did not Jesus accept worship??
Something to think about.
In the New Testament, they don't.
Jesus and the temptation in the wilderness points that out, where if it was Moses in the same situation, he would have worshiped the person asking to be recognized as being so worthy.
The idea is that angels are ferociously powerful beings that can make things happen, such as in a battle, killing the enemy.
In Revelation you have "the word of God" defeating the enemy, which is the lack of the true word in the world.
originally posted by: orangetom1999
originally posted by: chiram
a reply to: orangetom1999
ORANGETOM, what I picked up on is you’re angry because people fail to control their emotions, but isn’t that just what you are doing. You seem to be the one not able to control your anger E-motion. I believe its showing in your writing. I have studied the emotions and believe me anger is the worst one, it causes a slow poisoning of the system. I wouldn’t want to be working with you Orangetom if it’s true that you assemble nuclear fuel rods.
Take a break, give your mind a rest and reap the benefits.
And thank you for your post.
Chiram
No...Chiram. I have certain viewpoints and understandings based on what I know and have learned...and voice them..often in disagreement with others. This you tend to call..anger.
As a Believer ..I am of the salt of the earth..not the sugar. Salt is what holds back corruption. Often the man made pattern and tradition of today is that any disagreement or voicing of a different view is anger...
The modern social group think/tradition of this kind of thing is Cognitive dissonance. That people will go to great lengths to conform and not cause any dissonance..even to keeping silent...ie..censorship. I hope you can tell that I am not into censorship as well as what passes for group think today.
I think I can back up much of what I know and understand. This tends often to cause disagreement when posted on boards like this.
No problem as long as it does not degenerate to name calling and or vulgarity so common on many boards ..even among leadership today.
A difference of opinion is not anger..it is a difference of opinion or views.
and yes..that is precisely the kind of work I do.
By the way...Chiram...anger is not the worst emotion. Love not properly handled is a disaster and often puts burdens on others that they do not want...this is called "High Maintenance."
According to the classification of the emotions, we have five negative one’s which we should always try to control, Anger is a NEGATIVE EMOTION. Of the five positives, Love is a POSITIVE EMOTION and is therefore beneficial. I think you are getting your emotions a little mixed up.
Orangetom: People can have all the emotions they want. Just not around me ...or drag me into them..and or have me underwrite their maintenance needs because they did not think a thing through. I will be going the other way...away from them.
I've done enough of that over the years for undisciplined peoples...not anymore. Come out from amongst them and be ye separate.
I would like to point something out about Anger, it’s classified as a disease of the mind. Let me tell you how this disease manifests by a set of symptoms:
1. Thinking ill of others.
2. Taking offence easily.
3. Criticising the actions of others.
4. Lecturing or discoursing on the mistakes of others, either to the person himself, or to others about him.
5. Chronic fault-finding or pointing out the defects of character or conduct of others, making them out to be really bad.
As I said previously you can’t change how people think, or their emotions. You can only ever control your own emotions. One CAN NEVER escape people’s emotions either, unless one wants to go live on a desert island. We have to live in this world, but try not to be of it, only to be an observer who does nothing more. And I don’t ever think it serve a purpose to debate peoples negative qualities – as believe me we all have them, even me. You see there’s far too much negativity in this world without adding to it. Think of how much more beneficial it would be for people if more uplifting subjects were open to discussion. Now that’s just my opinion.
Thank you for your post
Chiram:
edit on 3-8-2014 by chiram because: (no reason given)
a reply to: jmdewey60
Sure it does. In Isaiah...somewhere about chapter 47.
Sure it does. In the beginning was the Word... This is a description of God...Logos is also one of the names for God. What else was there in the beginning but God??
And continues on to state that the Word dwelt among us and we beheld His Glory. My Glory will I not give to another...as it states in Isaiah 42:8.
For how else could God give his Glory?? Unless it was to a flesh dwelling amongst us??? His flesh.
You are correct here..this is a misquote on my part. It states that the Word dwelt among us and we beheld His Glory.
or more fully..
From the KJV...who is the only begotten of the father...for whom glory is shared?? It was indeed of God..for He is God who dwelt among us at that time and later ascended after the cross.
Oh..Goodness me...no..I can also make the argument from Faith..but nonetheless..much in the Olde Testament is a foreshadow of things to come..and God makes this clear.
It took me some time to realize that there were many man names for God...who became flesh ...and dwelt amongst us...
When you see the list of names and how they are used both in the OLde and New Testaments...it becomes clear as a pattern of God..which has not changed from the Olde to the New Testament. And we are even told that ...that He changeth not.
Wow!!! This is an astonishing admission. It is textbook of educated philosophical man...the upward reach of man and mankind. Rational logical reasonable men.
A covenant ..is also a testament...a promise. A will and testament. And Paul goes to great lengths to clear this up in the Book of Hebrews..for he is talking to Hebrews there..therefore Paul would use much more Olde Testament ...for the Hebrews would know more Olde Testament than would a gentile.
The custom among many nations and peoples is that a testament or will and testament..a promise/ a covenant can be changed many times...but the one which goes into effect is the Last Will and Testament. The Last Promise. The Last Covenant.
The event which makes a Will and Testament go into effect..a Last Will and Testament is the death of the Testator.
And it is obvious that no one died for the Olde Testament.
Paul goes to great lengths to clear this up in the book of Hebrews. I have also found very few ministers who will make this clear to their flocks.
I believe this is about Hebrews Chapter 9. This is also a very good example of foreshadowing what was to come from the Olde Testament to the New Testament and as to why. Also an explaination of observing patterns in the Word.
Wow!!! Good Grief. So Paul goes to great lengths to clear up something which is not literal...and also unto Pauls death??
Paul testifies to something not literal???
This puts a interesting philosophical point on what happened to Jerusalem by 70 ad. That too was an analogy...not literal?? For it is obvious by the history recorded that by 70 ad ..the protections that God provided to Israel were no longer happening.
Do you remember the passages where God states that He would not put it in the minds of Israel's enemies to attack during the time that the young men were called to meet...and worship..meaning Israel was unprotected?? By 70 ad this protection had ceased. Not literal???
Well some here might understand of what I speak. No problem. It is literal or Paul would not go to such lengths to make the point and die for it at the hands of Rome...or even be persecuted/hated by his fellow Hebrews stuck on the traditions of men.
Hope this helps some out here.
Orangetom
Yes..Jesus was YHWH of the OLde Testament..as well as the Lord of Hosts.
You believe that for some reason, but the Bible never says that.
Sure it does. In Isaiah...somewhere about chapter 47.
Isaiah 47:4 As for our redeemer, the Lord of hosts is his name, the Holy One of Israel.
For we have him described as The Word in the Book of John..
It doesn't describe Jesus as the word.
It talks about the Logos, which was used as a philosophical term, as well as also being a Greek word for "word".
Sure it does. In the beginning was the Word... This is a description of God...Logos is also one of the names for God. What else was there in the beginning but God??
And continues on to state that the Word dwelt among us and we beheld His Glory. My Glory will I not give to another...as it states in Isaiah 42:8.
For how else could God give his Glory?? Unless it was to a flesh dwelling amongst us??? His flesh.
Again, it does not say in John one that anyone "took on" flesh.
You are correct here..this is a misquote on my part. It states that the Word dwelt among us and we beheld His Glory.
or more fully..
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
From the KJV...who is the only begotten of the father...for whom glory is shared?? It was indeed of God..for He is God who dwelt among us at that time and later ascended after the cross.
The Sabbath of the Olde Testament is a foreshadow..as is much In the Olde Testament...
So your only argument that your theory is correct is that other things were "foreshadowings".
Oh..Goodness me...no..I can also make the argument from Faith..but nonetheless..much in the Olde Testament is a foreshadow of things to come..and God makes this clear.
It took me some time to realize that there were many man names for God...who became flesh ...and dwelt amongst us...
When you see the list of names and how they are used both in the OLde and New Testaments...it becomes clear as a pattern of God..which has not changed from the Olde to the New Testament. And we are even told that ...that He changeth not.
There isn't literally a new covenat, where the old covenant "foreshadowed" it.
Paul in Galatians 3 says we (gentiles) are accepted through Jesus, who is the promised (before the old covenant existed) person of Abraham's seed to bless the world.
The people "not His people" is talked about in hindsight in Ephesians 2:14-18, and doesn't include the concept of a "New Covenant".
Wow!!! This is an astonishing admission. It is textbook of educated philosophical man...the upward reach of man and mankind. Rational logical reasonable men.
A covenant ..is also a testament...a promise. A will and testament. And Paul goes to great lengths to clear this up in the Book of Hebrews..for he is talking to Hebrews there..therefore Paul would use much more Olde Testament ...for the Hebrews would know more Olde Testament than would a gentile.
The custom among many nations and peoples is that a testament or will and testament..a promise/ a covenant can be changed many times...but the one which goes into effect is the Last Will and Testament. The Last Promise. The Last Covenant.
The event which makes a Will and Testament go into effect..a Last Will and Testament is the death of the Testator.
And it is obvious that no one died for the Olde Testament.
Paul goes to great lengths to clear this up in the book of Hebrews. I have also found very few ministers who will make this clear to their flocks.
I believe this is about Hebrews Chapter 9. This is also a very good example of foreshadowing what was to come from the Olde Testament to the New Testament and as to why. Also an explaination of observing patterns in the Word.
A Covenant..a Promise...a New Last Will and Testament.
That is an analogy, and not literal.
Wow!!! Good Grief. So Paul goes to great lengths to clear up something which is not literal...and also unto Pauls death??
Paul testifies to something not literal???
This puts a interesting philosophical point on what happened to Jerusalem by 70 ad. That too was an analogy...not literal?? For it is obvious by the history recorded that by 70 ad ..the protections that God provided to Israel were no longer happening.
Do you remember the passages where God states that He would not put it in the minds of Israel's enemies to attack during the time that the young men were called to meet...and worship..meaning Israel was unprotected?? By 70 ad this protection had ceased. Not literal???
Well some here might understand of what I speak. No problem. It is literal or Paul would not go to such lengths to make the point and die for it at the hands of Rome...or even be persecuted/hated by his fellow Hebrews stuck on the traditions of men.
Hope this helps some out here.
Orangetom
a reply to: orangetom1999
Why would the writer of the Gospel of John write that?
What would be the point?
God was with God?
What else was there in the beginning but God??
Why would the writer of the Gospel of John write that?
What would be the point?
a reply to: orangetom1999
In the Hebrew, the word is the verb, gaal, which is to act as a kinsman, which could include, redeemer, if the context demanded it, which it doesn't in the verse in question.
The context is taking vengeance for the humiliation of the people of Israel by Babylon.
God would punish Babylon, as if He was a relative upholding the honor of the family by avenging one of its members.
This is an OT way of looking at things, rather than being an example of what Jesus is expected to do in the NT.
It looks like you are saying that this is "proof" that the person, YHWH, in the Old Testament is the same person as Jesus, based on the idea that Jesus is our "redeemer".
What you are looking at is an English translation that was specifically designed to have these little theological "clues" built into it in order to have the clergy in the state owned church be able to make certain points yo their congregations.
In the Septuagint, the Greek word here translated as "redeemer" is, rhoumai, which means "deliverer".
O: Yes..Jesus was YHWH of the OLde Testament..as well as the Lord of Hosts.
J: You believe that for some reason, but the Bible never says that.
O: Sure it does. In Isaiah...somewhere about chapter 47.
Isaiah 47:4 As for our redeemer, the Lord of hosts is his name, the Holy One of Israel.
In the Hebrew, the word is the verb, gaal, which is to act as a kinsman, which could include, redeemer, if the context demanded it, which it doesn't in the verse in question.
The context is taking vengeance for the humiliation of the people of Israel by Babylon.
God would punish Babylon, as if He was a relative upholding the honor of the family by avenging one of its members.
This is an OT way of looking at things, rather than being an example of what Jesus is expected to do in the NT.
It looks like you are saying that this is "proof" that the person, YHWH, in the Old Testament is the same person as Jesus, based on the idea that Jesus is our "redeemer".
What you are looking at is an English translation that was specifically designed to have these little theological "clues" built into it in order to have the clergy in the state owned church be able to make certain points yo their congregations.
a reply to: chiram
Ahhh..chiram. I must have missed your post early this morning when replying to jmdewey60. We are quite the night owl here and often stand the night watches so to speak. But nonetheless thanks for your reply.
I don't worry to much about the classification of emotions...but rather the fruit they produce.
Notice something here..
Notice this is a proof text that God Hates....also is angered.
Now disapproval..today is often classified as Judging and even hate. We are to be tolerant of anything coming down the devolutionary pipeline no matter how ridiculous it is. No matter how vulgar ..or common if you prefer.
One would never know to separate if one does not judge..and or take the measure of a thing.
When one separates ..one leaves others just where they are. Just as or in like manner to the woman or person one does not marry ...one leaves them right where they are.
The pattern of today is to have everyone in one big happy lump of mixed multitudes..particularly In spirit..and the rest will follow..no matter how ridiculous or against the Word it is.
I am not impressed with those who try to imprint the label of Hate and Anger upon me. I go the other way. I am not interested in mixed multitudes..particularly in Spirit. This is indeed what is meant by we are in this world but not of this world. In your posting of that ..I agree.
I have reasons for this line of thinking and have been here many times.
No problem with what you post. I respect that you have your views and opinions on this . I just disagree and will continue to separate from that which is not of God and is of the traditions of men. And I am often want to point out why it is so.
For the traditions of men make the Word of God of none effect ..and that is the goal of these traditions.
Of those who understand and can see, hear, and understand...what I am saying ...no problem. Those who cannot ..I leave them right where they are...separate. I am not going to try to change them. Just leave them where they are.
I will remind you chiram...that the Ancient Hebrews were a people ..a small nation surrounded by the world..by much larger nations who did not like them. So too it is with todays Christians ..todays Believers. They are surrounded by a world which obviously does not like them and desires to get them dragged or seduced into the way of the world after the god of this world...after anything but God's Word and Way. This has never changed.
The enmity between the world and those who try to follow His Word is becoming more and more clear today. Those who do not want anyone to separate..but prefer mixed multitudes..mixed spiritual multitudes.
by the way...
That list you posted 1through 5 in your last post...
If you observe carefully..that is a list of the conduct of much of what today is leadership. Just thought I would point that out.
1. Thinking ill of others.
2. Taking offence easily.
3. Criticising the actions of others.
4. Lecturing or discoursing on the mistakes of others, either to the person himself, or to others about him.
5. Chronic fault-finding or pointing out the defects of character or conduct of others, making them out to be really bad.
A list of the traditions of men...particularly among todays educated enlightened leadership.
I am often want to observe much of leadership and their conduct and call them much like the title of a popular day time talk show. Goodness me...I cannot even remember what the show it called..I just call him the bald guy...used to be with Springer. Well...I think you get the point..drama drama drama..take the drama away ..and you have no show..
This is what leadership has become in this country...drama drama drama. Emotions, emotions, emotions. I can justify anything because of my emotions..and on the public purse of course. And one can see the fruit it is producing...even the fruit it is not producing.
One can tell because even non believers are beginning to catch on. They know something is very wrong and desire to separate from that which they sense is wrong.
And even our news formats have become drama, drama, drama. And I am including even the so called conservative news media...very tabloid like.
And in like manner to what tries to pass for leadership today...they are following the five points you have posted above...all of the media.
Well...just thought I would point that out..for those who can see, hear, and understand.
As I stated to nenothtu in a previous post, I do not care to be surrounded by people undisciplined In their emotions...nor predators who take advantage of peoples unguarded emotions. From both of these I will separate.
Thanks again for your post,
Orangetom
Ahhh..chiram. I must have missed your post early this morning when replying to jmdewey60. We are quite the night owl here and often stand the night watches so to speak. But nonetheless thanks for your reply.
I don't worry to much about the classification of emotions...but rather the fruit they produce.
Notice something here..
15 KJV So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate.
Notice this is a proof text that God Hates....also is angered.
Now disapproval..today is often classified as Judging and even hate. We are to be tolerant of anything coming down the devolutionary pipeline no matter how ridiculous it is. No matter how vulgar ..or common if you prefer.
One would never know to separate if one does not judge..and or take the measure of a thing.
When one separates ..one leaves others just where they are. Just as or in like manner to the woman or person one does not marry ...one leaves them right where they are.
The pattern of today is to have everyone in one big happy lump of mixed multitudes..particularly In spirit..and the rest will follow..no matter how ridiculous or against the Word it is.
I am not impressed with those who try to imprint the label of Hate and Anger upon me. I go the other way. I am not interested in mixed multitudes..particularly in Spirit. This is indeed what is meant by we are in this world but not of this world. In your posting of that ..I agree.
I have reasons for this line of thinking and have been here many times.
No problem with what you post. I respect that you have your views and opinions on this . I just disagree and will continue to separate from that which is not of God and is of the traditions of men. And I am often want to point out why it is so.
For the traditions of men make the Word of God of none effect ..and that is the goal of these traditions.
Of those who understand and can see, hear, and understand...what I am saying ...no problem. Those who cannot ..I leave them right where they are...separate. I am not going to try to change them. Just leave them where they are.
I will remind you chiram...that the Ancient Hebrews were a people ..a small nation surrounded by the world..by much larger nations who did not like them. So too it is with todays Christians ..todays Believers. They are surrounded by a world which obviously does not like them and desires to get them dragged or seduced into the way of the world after the god of this world...after anything but God's Word and Way. This has never changed.
The enmity between the world and those who try to follow His Word is becoming more and more clear today. Those who do not want anyone to separate..but prefer mixed multitudes..mixed spiritual multitudes.
by the way...
That list you posted 1through 5 in your last post...
If you observe carefully..that is a list of the conduct of much of what today is leadership. Just thought I would point that out.
1. Thinking ill of others.
2. Taking offence easily.
3. Criticising the actions of others.
4. Lecturing or discoursing on the mistakes of others, either to the person himself, or to others about him.
5. Chronic fault-finding or pointing out the defects of character or conduct of others, making them out to be really bad.
A list of the traditions of men...particularly among todays educated enlightened leadership.
I am often want to observe much of leadership and their conduct and call them much like the title of a popular day time talk show. Goodness me...I cannot even remember what the show it called..I just call him the bald guy...used to be with Springer. Well...I think you get the point..drama drama drama..take the drama away ..and you have no show..
This is what leadership has become in this country...drama drama drama. Emotions, emotions, emotions. I can justify anything because of my emotions..and on the public purse of course. And one can see the fruit it is producing...even the fruit it is not producing.
One can tell because even non believers are beginning to catch on. They know something is very wrong and desire to separate from that which they sense is wrong.
And even our news formats have become drama, drama, drama. And I am including even the so called conservative news media...very tabloid like.
And in like manner to what tries to pass for leadership today...they are following the five points you have posted above...all of the media.
Well...just thought I would point that out..for those who can see, hear, and understand.
As I stated to nenothtu in a previous post, I do not care to be surrounded by people undisciplined In their emotions...nor predators who take advantage of peoples unguarded emotions. From both of these I will separate.
Thanks again for your post,
Orangetom
a reply to: jmdewey60
Because that is all there was..in the beginning. This is not obvious?? God is the starting point..the starting reference.
Wow!!! jmdewey60,
Quite a post you have here. Let us try this again...
He is the Deliverer in the Olde Testament as well as the New Testament. Not changed. Good point here jmdewey60.
Yes..I know ..some schools of thought sometimes refer to Him as a "Kinsman Redeemer." Good point again and thanks for reminding me. I'd not thought or heard this phrase in some time..thanks.
As I recall..Israel was put into captivity some seven times and for disobedience...for their whoredoms. This is not the only people...Babylon to put them into captivity.
That is exactly what I am saying jmdewey60. The YHWH, redeemer, The Word, Glory, Mercy , Faith, Lord of Hosts, Grace...etc etc...all many names for Him..from the Olde Testament into the New Testament...for God Changeth not.
And The Word took on flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld His Glory...
His Glory He will not give to another...He had to give it to Himself...in the flesh form...which dwelt among us.
Wow!! I can make this point about the RCC and the conditions there under Divine Right of Kings and that reading the Word was discouraged except amongst trained clergy..not the people per se. It was often read in Latin..not the language of the people.
There is another problem...a huge historical problem...not an analogy but literal..
And that is what I stated in a previous post under the KJV translation...for there were English Translations before the KJV.
But with the KJV ...it took England by storm. This is evident when one reads surviving letters of the day..that people knew this Bible and lived and wrote correspondence in like manner to it.
What happened ...which could not have happened in a Catholic country ..was that these English people began to realize that their king was in heaven and not on the throne of England. They began to realize that their king was not divine right..but only an administrator of Just English Laws.
And when the king broke the Magna Carta and levied his own tax....the lines were drawn and a Civil War took place. Before this war ended..the King Charles 1st was led to the scaffold for treason...and executed. For the king tried to claim divine right and therefore he could not break the law...and could not be held accountable as such. The King James Bible told them that the king was only an administrator of just English Laws and that the king was accountable for his actions...even unto treason.
This historically marks the first time in the Western World where an ordinary people had ever executed a king.
This could not have happened in a Catholic country where the kings were divine right.
Had King James known what would happen in the line of kings as a result of him publishing this bible..the KJV...he would not have done it.
Since that time no king or queen has even declared themselves divine right.
Our separation of church and state is intended to prevent the historical "'mischief " of diving right of kings/absolute power...not to put a limit on the peoples ability to live their religion. It is a limit on government mischief...not the people as it is being done today under the Talmudic rule of "The Exclusionary Rule." A rule to get around the rules. A rule to allow government to get around the rules.
These things and history are not isolated separate disconnected dots.but directly related once you know. And once one knows..it becomes evident why someone wants us on anything but a King James. Anything to water down the Word and get us off it....by logic ..by reason...by intellect..by learned men..men of letters.
That Sir..is why I keep the King James..for this would not have happened under an NIV, a Septuigant...a Codex B, Aleph, or others.
And this is a history seldom taught to people for their knowledge and understanding ..even by their ministers today. We are never to know this much history and why it transpired. Nor are we to know it's connection to why events happened...or the Bible which caused it....nor why that Bible came to be when there were already many versions of the Bible in existence.
In like manner as pertains to the topic line of this thread..we are never to know that Jesus is the Word taken on flesh. God's very God...and we beheld His Glory..which He would not share with another.
For they work night and day...even on boards like this one to make sure and put question marks in our minds and souls on this issue...always to divide..not to unite.
Thanks to all for their posts,
Orangetom
God was with God?
Why would the writer of the Gospel of John write that?
What would be the point?
Because that is all there was..in the beginning. This is not obvious?? God is the starting point..the starting reference.
Wow!!! jmdewey60,
Quite a post you have here. Let us try this again...
In the Septuagint, the Greek word here translated as "redeemer" is, rhoumai, which means "deliverer".
He is the Deliverer in the Olde Testament as well as the New Testament. Not changed. Good point here jmdewey60.
In the Hebrew, the word is the verb, gaal, which is to act as a kinsman, which could include, redeemer, if the context demanded it, which it doesn't in the verse in question.
Yes..I know ..some schools of thought sometimes refer to Him as a "Kinsman Redeemer." Good point again and thanks for reminding me. I'd not thought or heard this phrase in some time..thanks.
The context is taking vengeance for the humiliation of the people of Israel by Babylon.
As I recall..Israel was put into captivity some seven times and for disobedience...for their whoredoms. This is not the only people...Babylon to put them into captivity.
It looks like you are saying that this is "proof" that the person, YHWH, in the Old Testament is the same person as Jesus, based on the idea that Jesus is our "redeemer".
That is exactly what I am saying jmdewey60. The YHWH, redeemer, The Word, Glory, Mercy , Faith, Lord of Hosts, Grace...etc etc...all many names for Him..from the Olde Testament into the New Testament...for God Changeth not.
And The Word took on flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld His Glory...
His Glory He will not give to another...He had to give it to Himself...in the flesh form...which dwelt among us.
What you are looking at is an English translation that was specifically designed to have these little theological "clues" built into it in order to have the clergy in the state owned church be able to make certain points yo their congregations.
Wow!! I can make this point about the RCC and the conditions there under Divine Right of Kings and that reading the Word was discouraged except amongst trained clergy..not the people per se. It was often read in Latin..not the language of the people.
There is another problem...a huge historical problem...not an analogy but literal..
And that is what I stated in a previous post under the KJV translation...for there were English Translations before the KJV.
But with the KJV ...it took England by storm. This is evident when one reads surviving letters of the day..that people knew this Bible and lived and wrote correspondence in like manner to it.
What happened ...which could not have happened in a Catholic country ..was that these English people began to realize that their king was in heaven and not on the throne of England. They began to realize that their king was not divine right..but only an administrator of Just English Laws.
And when the king broke the Magna Carta and levied his own tax....the lines were drawn and a Civil War took place. Before this war ended..the King Charles 1st was led to the scaffold for treason...and executed. For the king tried to claim divine right and therefore he could not break the law...and could not be held accountable as such. The King James Bible told them that the king was only an administrator of just English Laws and that the king was accountable for his actions...even unto treason.
This historically marks the first time in the Western World where an ordinary people had ever executed a king.
This could not have happened in a Catholic country where the kings were divine right.
Had King James known what would happen in the line of kings as a result of him publishing this bible..the KJV...he would not have done it.
Since that time no king or queen has even declared themselves divine right.
Our separation of church and state is intended to prevent the historical "'mischief " of diving right of kings/absolute power...not to put a limit on the peoples ability to live their religion. It is a limit on government mischief...not the people as it is being done today under the Talmudic rule of "The Exclusionary Rule." A rule to get around the rules. A rule to allow government to get around the rules.
These things and history are not isolated separate disconnected dots.but directly related once you know. And once one knows..it becomes evident why someone wants us on anything but a King James. Anything to water down the Word and get us off it....by logic ..by reason...by intellect..by learned men..men of letters.
That Sir..is why I keep the King James..for this would not have happened under an NIV, a Septuigant...a Codex B, Aleph, or others.
And this is a history seldom taught to people for their knowledge and understanding ..even by their ministers today. We are never to know this much history and why it transpired. Nor are we to know it's connection to why events happened...or the Bible which caused it....nor why that Bible came to be when there were already many versions of the Bible in existence.
In like manner as pertains to the topic line of this thread..we are never to know that Jesus is the Word taken on flesh. God's very God...and we beheld His Glory..which He would not share with another.
For they work night and day...even on boards like this one to make sure and put question marks in our minds and souls on this issue...always to divide..not to unite.
Thanks to all for their posts,
Orangetom
edit on 3-8-2014 by orangetom1999 because: (no reason given)
a reply to: orangetom1999
Again, you are looking at an English translation, not the Greek text, so you are looking at it as interpreted by someone who is upholding a certain tradition.
The particular tradition that the translator is supporting is that it is really about a person, and not a thing, so, takes the Greek word that can mean either, he, or it, and makes it "he", to make it fit with the interpretation that the writer of the Gospel of John is talking about Jesus.
If you look at the Greek word here translated as "among", it is the preposition, en, that literally means, "in".
If you look at the Greek word here translated as "beheld", it is in the Aorist tense, rather than the perfect tense (which would have meant something that is a completed event in the past), but is something ongoing, where they understood something by perceiving it, and they continue to this point and will continue to appreciate the glory.
So it does not fit with the idea that they saw Jesus, and noticed that he had glory, back at the time when they met him.
Rather than being stated as being "of" the father, as belonging to the father, it is stated with the preposition to show that it (the monogenés) comes from the father.
Where do you get the idea that God is giving His glory to anyone?
For how else could God give his Glory?? Unless it was to a flesh dwelling amongst us??? His flesh.
It is talking about the Logos, who the writer spent so many lines describing, as a thing.
And continues on to state that the Word dwelt among us and we beheld His Glory.
Again, you are looking at an English translation, not the Greek text, so you are looking at it as interpreted by someone who is upholding a certain tradition.
The particular tradition that the translator is supporting is that it is really about a person, and not a thing, so, takes the Greek word that can mean either, he, or it, and makes it "he", to make it fit with the interpretation that the writer of the Gospel of John is talking about Jesus.
If you look at the Greek word here translated as "among", it is the preposition, en, that literally means, "in".
If you look at the Greek word here translated as "beheld", it is in the Aorist tense, rather than the perfect tense (which would have meant something that is a completed event in the past), but is something ongoing, where they understood something by perceiving it, and they continue to this point and will continue to appreciate the glory.
So it does not fit with the idea that they saw Jesus, and noticed that he had glory, back at the time when they met him.
The word here translated as "only begotten" is the Greek word, monogenés, which literally means only begotten, but can also mean "unique".
...who is the only begotten of the father...
Rather than being stated as being "of" the father, as belonging to the father, it is stated with the preposition to show that it (the monogenés) comes from the father.
edit on 3-8-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)
a reply to: orangetom1999
"Logos" could mean the philosophical term for a universal prime mover concept, or it can mean, "word", or it can mean a life-giving message of God (prophecy), with the third thing that I just listed being probably how the logos word is being used in verse 14, that was made known by entering into the people who were ready to receive it, especially Jesus himself who the disciples expected to articulate it as the bearer of the name, which was to be believed in as the sign of (their accepting it, then, and our accepting it now) having received that light of the world.
Which means what . . that the person who told you this is worthy of worship as the upholder of the tradition that someone told him?
Oh..Goodness me...no..I can also make the argument from Faith..
You are only restating your earlier claim, but adding "God" into it to make it seem authoritative.
..but nonetheless..much in the Olde Testament is a foreshadow of things to come..and God makes this clear.
Which is a tradition that is supported by selectively translating the verse to obtain a predetermined outcome.
It took me some time to realize that there were many man names for God...who became flesh ...and dwelt amongst us...
"Logos" could mean the philosophical term for a universal prime mover concept, or it can mean, "word", or it can mean a life-giving message of God (prophecy), with the third thing that I just listed being probably how the logos word is being used in verse 14, that was made known by entering into the people who were ready to receive it, especially Jesus himself who the disciples expected to articulate it as the bearer of the name, which was to be believed in as the sign of (their accepting it, then, and our accepting it now) having received that light of the world.
edit on 3-8-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)
a reply to: orangetom1999
That is your personal experience, as you perceive it.
When you see the list of names and how they are used both in the OLde and New Testaments...it becomes clear as a pattern of God..which has not changed from the Olde to the New Testament. And we are even told that ...that He changeth not.
So rather than seeking truth, to you it seems the safer thing to just memorize the traditions that are handed down to you?
Wow!!! This is an astonishing admission. It is textbook of educated philosophical man...the upward reach of man and mankind. Rational logical reasonable men.
What makes you think that Paul wrote Hebrews, another tradition?
A covenant ..is also a testament...a promise. A will and testament. And Paul goes to great lengths to clear this up in the Book of Hebrews..
He was talking to Jewish Christians.
..for he is talking to Hebrews there..therefore Paul would use much more Olde Testament ...for the Hebrews would know more Olde Testament than would a gentile.
That isn't how Paul puts it. The writer of Hebrews uses an analogy of a will to make the point that Jesus had to die for it to go into effect.
The custom among many nations and peoples is that a testament or will and testament..a promise/ a covenant can be changed many times...but the one which goes into effect is the Last Will and Testament. The Last Promise. The Last Covenant.
Which should tell you that Hebrews was using an incomplete analogy to refer to just one aspect of the situation that now exists with the old covenant being obsolete.
The event which makes a Will and Testament go into effect..a Last Will and Testament is the death of the Testator.
And it is obvious that no one died for the Olde Testament.
a reply to: orangetom1999
He made a version of the Bible to be read in the church that he was the Pope over.
You are repeating a circular argument.
And The Word took on flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld His Glory...
His Glory He will not give to another...He had to give it to Himself...in the flesh form...which dwelt among us.
King James was the virtual Pope of the Church of England, just under the term, King.
Wow!! I can make this point about the RCC and the conditions there under Divine Right of Kings and that reading the Word was discouraged except amongst trained clergy..not the people per se. It was often read in Latin..not the language of the people.
He made a version of the Bible to be read in the church that he was the Pope over.
a reply to: orangetom1999
CHIRAM: Good try Orangetom…. twisting what I said out of context. We were discussing your emotions, were we not, since you’ve put them on line here.
Not at peace with ourselves are we, I wonder why? Well let’s see, you work with a bunch of people that can’t control their emotions. On one hand you are compelled to work with them, but on the other hand you don’t want them displaying their uncontrolled emotions around you, right.
Goodness me…. you appear to have a big problem on your hands Orangetom. But anger does not beget one who professes to have all his emotions under control, right.
So Orangetom - what is the answer for you? Not work with people who can't control their emotions. Or come to some realization that controlling the emotions is something hard to do for a lot of people.
Better to sort YOUR emotions out soon Orangetom – or I can see you becoming very emotionally constipated. This is the best advice I can give to you as a therapist of many years. Hope this helps.
Thank You,
Chiram.
CHIRAM: I sense you are not at peace with yourself, am I right? Again you should not worry yourself with people control; this is beyond your control. Peace resides within you, this we can all create for ourselves.
ORANGETOM1999: Not when I keep being confronted with these people who don't have a clue outside of what they know and believe themselves entitled by emotions and they lack certain disciplines and I must get certain goals reached or accomplished with them. What they do on their own time I don't care. None of my business.
People can have all the emotions they want. Just not around me ...or drag me into them..and or have me underwrite their maintenance needs because they did not think a thing through. I will be going the other way...away from them.
I've done enough of that over the years for undisciplined peoples...not anymore. Come out from amongst them and be ye separate.
As I stated to nenothtu in a previous post, I do not care to be surrounded by people undisciplined In their emotions...nor predators who take advantage of peoples unguarded emotions. From both of these I will separate.
CHIRAM: Good try Orangetom…. twisting what I said out of context. We were discussing your emotions, were we not, since you’ve put them on line here.
Not at peace with ourselves are we, I wonder why? Well let’s see, you work with a bunch of people that can’t control their emotions. On one hand you are compelled to work with them, but on the other hand you don’t want them displaying their uncontrolled emotions around you, right.
Goodness me…. you appear to have a big problem on your hands Orangetom. But anger does not beget one who professes to have all his emotions under control, right.
So Orangetom - what is the answer for you? Not work with people who can't control their emotions. Or come to some realization that controlling the emotions is something hard to do for a lot of people.
Better to sort YOUR emotions out soon Orangetom – or I can see you becoming very emotionally constipated. This is the best advice I can give to you as a therapist of many years. Hope this helps.
Thank You,
Chiram.
a reply to: chirm
Ahh..good that you are a therapist. Excellent.
No Chiram ...you are discussing what you see as my emotions. I am describing why things are the way they are and how I choose to handle it.
You are attempting to persuade me that I need to get along with the emotions and beliefs of others...to compromise.
I am discussing getting a job done ...survival...and the disciplines it takes to reach these goals..including RISK TAKING...you are discussing emotions.
I am not interested in compromising on my survival in this or any other environment...particularly when I am taking the RISKS. Those with me must needs be aware of the risk and not substitute their beliefs and understandings for what is happening. They need to be on the same page. This is often briefed in meetings before any work takes place...including who will be working with this job or task. Right there is where one speaks up and states that you don't want so and so working with you. Particularly if they are a drama queen with few to no disciplines in going the distance.
Disciplines in reaching a goal..is often at cross purposes with emotional instant gratification beliefs. I have been out here long enough to see this over and over and over.
Emotions are often a substitution scheme or plan for people to reach goals while others take the RISKS.
Now here you are implying that I have to compromise with my survival and disciplines at stake. The ability to reach certain goals. To get along. No thanks.
I am also aware of something called the Pareto Principle. I've known it for a number of years but it is only recently that I found it was an actual named and identified principle of thought..identified and catalogued by a trained observer....Vilfredo Pareto,
No thanks. I am not interested in such substitution schemes with my safety and survival at stake. I'd rather be constipated as you state.
I have no problem with the understanding that controlling emotions is something that is difficult for many to do. No problem. I just don't want to be around many of these people. And I certainly don't want to be subsidizing their emotions. That is their responsibility.
Getting along and compromising safety and on another's RISK TAKING is not Maturity..but it is politic of today.
Discipline and understanding discipline is and requires maturity. Particularly in a very hazardous environment.
It requires stowing ones emotions and replacing them with disciplines.
I am often reminded of that fellow who landed the plane in the Hudson River some years ago when some birds flamed out both of the engines on the airliner of which he was captain.
That was a great feat of both discipline and skill under a very stressful situation. It is obvious by the recorded conversation that he was fighting back emotions and using training/discipline. And both he and the crew did very well in this incident. I salute them.
Do you think he should have compromised...for emotions sake?? To keep from being constipated??
The fruit born here in this case stems from disciplines..not from emotions.
Think it through.
Thanks for your post,
Orangetom
Ahh..good that you are a therapist. Excellent.
No Chiram ...you are discussing what you see as my emotions. I am describing why things are the way they are and how I choose to handle it.
You are attempting to persuade me that I need to get along with the emotions and beliefs of others...to compromise.
I am discussing getting a job done ...survival...and the disciplines it takes to reach these goals..including RISK TAKING...you are discussing emotions.
I am not interested in compromising on my survival in this or any other environment...particularly when I am taking the RISKS. Those with me must needs be aware of the risk and not substitute their beliefs and understandings for what is happening. They need to be on the same page. This is often briefed in meetings before any work takes place...including who will be working with this job or task. Right there is where one speaks up and states that you don't want so and so working with you. Particularly if they are a drama queen with few to no disciplines in going the distance.
Disciplines in reaching a goal..is often at cross purposes with emotional instant gratification beliefs. I have been out here long enough to see this over and over and over.
Emotions are often a substitution scheme or plan for people to reach goals while others take the RISKS.
Now here you are implying that I have to compromise with my survival and disciplines at stake. The ability to reach certain goals. To get along. No thanks.
I am also aware of something called the Pareto Principle. I've known it for a number of years but it is only recently that I found it was an actual named and identified principle of thought..identified and catalogued by a trained observer....Vilfredo Pareto,
No thanks. I am not interested in such substitution schemes with my safety and survival at stake. I'd rather be constipated as you state.
I have no problem with the understanding that controlling emotions is something that is difficult for many to do. No problem. I just don't want to be around many of these people. And I certainly don't want to be subsidizing their emotions. That is their responsibility.
Getting along and compromising safety and on another's RISK TAKING is not Maturity..but it is politic of today.
Discipline and understanding discipline is and requires maturity. Particularly in a very hazardous environment.
It requires stowing ones emotions and replacing them with disciplines.
I am often reminded of that fellow who landed the plane in the Hudson River some years ago when some birds flamed out both of the engines on the airliner of which he was captain.
That was a great feat of both discipline and skill under a very stressful situation. It is obvious by the recorded conversation that he was fighting back emotions and using training/discipline. And both he and the crew did very well in this incident. I salute them.
Do you think he should have compromised...for emotions sake?? To keep from being constipated??
The fruit born here in this case stems from disciplines..not from emotions.
Think it through.
Thanks for your post,
Orangetom
a reply to: jmdewey60
Wow!! That is obvious in John beginning at the first chapter and for us or we as it states... to behold His Glory.
And we are taught that His Glory He would not share with another. So from where or whom does He get His Glory?? Which we behold??
It does say concerning when or before the Child was borh...."that holy thing which is born of thee."
But by the time He is born..He has a name...Jesus. And a title..The Christ. For He shall save His people.
And this is further clarified for us...in the Book of John...under the Word...In the Beginning was the Word...etc etc...and goes on to bring it down to the Word which dwelt amongst us and we beheld His Glory. This is not an analogy or symbolic...or representative of ..but actual...physical. That much is clear and the author here is talking about God from the Beginning...from the Word..unto Jesus and His glory which was beheld when He dwelt with them.
Wow!! Notice Faith is spelled with a capital letter here....to differentiate it from faith. Faith is one of His names...I am using Faith to mean and indicate Him in this case...not Greek..but Him.
Where do you get the idea that God is giving His glory to anyone?
Wow!! That is obvious in John beginning at the first chapter and for us or we as it states... to behold His Glory.
And we are taught that His Glory He would not share with another. So from where or whom does He get His Glory?? Which we behold??
that it is really about a person, and not a thing,
It does say concerning when or before the Child was borh...."that holy thing which is born of thee."
But by the time He is born..He has a name...Jesus. And a title..The Christ. For He shall save His people.
And this is further clarified for us...in the Book of John...under the Word...In the Beginning was the Word...etc etc...and goes on to bring it down to the Word which dwelt amongst us and we beheld His Glory. This is not an analogy or symbolic...or representative of ..but actual...physical. That much is clear and the author here is talking about God from the Beginning...from the Word..unto Jesus and His glory which was beheld when He dwelt with them.
Oh..Goodness me...no..I can also make the argument from Faith..
Which means what . . that the person who told you this is worthy of worship as the upholder of the tradition that someone told him?
Wow!! Notice Faith is spelled with a capital letter here....to differentiate it from faith. Faith is one of His names...I am using Faith to mean and indicate Him in this case...not Greek..but Him.
..but nonetheless..much in the Olde Testament is a foreshadow of things to come..and God makes this clear.
You are only restating your earlier claim, but adding "God" into it to make it seem authoritative.
Hmmm so this is not clear In the Olde Testament ..that there would be a redeemer ...and that the Olde Testament would be replaced with a New Testament....a new covenant with people who were not His people???
A foreshadow...of things to come. This did not happen and was not foretold??? Wow!!
And Paul was wrong in the New Testament when he stated that the Olde Testament ...of Hagar with her son Ishmael...Mt Siani was in bondage with her children. And that the New Testament was free and the mother of us all...by Sarah and her child Isaac.
This is a foreshadow...from the Olde Testament unto the New Testament. I know this because...
"But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now."
Not changed..from the Olde Testament unto the New Testament..even today right now this is still going on...as this world tries to make us into Ishmael and away from Issac and his seed. This passage is very very very foreshadowing if one knows.
This is not accidental..but for our knowledge and perception..today ..right now.
I am not an Ishmaelite...either in Greek or in English...or in any other language.
"Logos" could mean the philosophical term for a universal prime mover concept, or it can mean, "word", or it can mean a life-giving message of God (prophecy), with the third thing that I just listed being probably how the logos word is being used in verse 14, that was made known by entering into the people who were ready to receive it, especially Jesus himself who the disciples expected to articulate it as the bearer of the name, which was to be believed in as the sign of (their accepting it, then, and our accepting it now) having received that light of the world.
Wow!!! Probably?????? This is not authorative...probably??..to speak with authority..this is speculation. Prime mover?? Wow!!
Here for prime mover ...I can say.."May the Force be with you!!"
Please speak with authority here. What you are quoting here is Philosophies of men...mans wisdom and knowledge..not what God teaches and His Wisdom...Wisdom..also one of His Names. Wow!!
If I want this kind of thing, Prime mover, I go to a Bible college or seminary.
IF I want prime mover ...I read Charles Darwin..or Richard Dawkins...or quantum Physics..Mechanics..et al.
Or...I will go right up the road from me and listen to some of the deeper speculations of the guys at the NASA Langley Research Center...or the particle collider across town. " A long time ago..in a galaxy far far away."
Prime mover?? Wow!!
I'll stick with the Word...Thanks...I'll stick with God...me and my house.
Or I can read some of the letters surviving of the people at Early Colonial Williamsburg..and how they wrote and thought..or just like those surviving letters of England at the time of the KJV and how they thought.
There are even surviving letters of people around here in Civil war times...very interesting reading.
You know...now that I think about it in that context...that is also what makes the Qumran findings very interesting.
What was learned from those tablets and scrolls about those times ...historically..the people..customs/traditions etc.
Same thing with the Civil war and Colonial era writings.
Well..continuing on...
When you see the list of names and how they are used both in the OLde and New Testaments...it becomes clear as a pattern of God..which has not changed from the Olde to the New Testament. And we are even told that ...that He changeth not.
That is your personal experience, as you perceive it.
This is what happens when you become familiar with His various names and begin to see them used or misused around you daily. This is what happens when you do what the Word teaches in recognizing patterns..even patterns in words.
When I hear people around me using the word faith...I begin to note carefully if they are speaking of faith or Faith...are they speaking of believer or Believer..grace or Grace...etc. I note this often around me when I speak with people.
I call this looking into their soul..to see to whom it belongs..who has purchased their soul. It is recognizing a pattern. I am doing it with you right now...have been doing it from the beginning. We are told to do this to note which things are of God or which things are of this world and the god of this world. Including the version of the Word.
So rather than seeking truth, to you it seems the safer thing to just memorize the traditions that are handed down to you?
Oh...goodness..no. For starters...I try to look at things through the prizm of Truth..not of truth. Memorizing ...goodness me. Memorizing...Wow!! I think nenothtu aptly used the word propaganda..in one of his posts.
This is much of todays public education going on about us.
Try this one out for size...
I know by thinking about what I have read in the word..Olde and New Testaments both..that there is no such instruction for a Believer..to celebrate a birthday. Birthdays are self glorification...and all glory and praise are to go to Him.... not to us.
This requires something a bit more than memorization. Do I get everything..certainly not..but I got that one by recognizing patterns. You don't have to be smart..just recognize patterns.
I can do this on a other things as well...but that one will suffice.
This is most likely quite long..I should start another post.
Orangetom
continued,
Hmmm so this is not clear In the Olde Testament ..that there would be a redeemer ...and that the Olde Testament would be replaced with a New Testament....a new covenant with people who were not His people???
A foreshadow...of things to come. This did not happen and was not foretold??? Wow!!
And Paul was wrong in the New Testament when he stated that the Olde Testament ...of Hagar with her son Ishmael...Mt Siani was in bondage with her children. And that the New Testament was free and the mother of us all...by Sarah and her child Isaac.
This is a foreshadow...from the Olde Testament unto the New Testament. I know this because...
"But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now."
Not changed..from the Olde Testament unto the New Testament..even today right now this is still going on...as this world tries to make us into Ishmael and away from Issac and his seed. This passage is very very very foreshadowing if one knows.
This is not accidental..but for our knowledge and perception..today ..right now.
I am not an Ishmaelite...either in Greek or in English...or in any other language.
Wow!!! Probably?????? This is not authorative...probably??..to speak with authority..this is speculation. Prime mover?? Wow!!
Here for prime mover ...I can say.."May the Force be with you!!"
Please speak with authority here. What you are quoting here is Philosophies of men...mans wisdom and knowledge..not what God teaches and His Wisdom...Wisdom..also one of His Names. Wow!!
If I want this kind of thing, Prime mover, I go to a Bible college or seminary.
IF I want prime mover ...I read Charles Darwin..or Richard Dawkins...or quantum Physics..Mechanics..et al.
Or...I will go right up the road from me and listen to some of the deeper speculations of the guys at the NASA Langley Research Center...or the particle collider across town. " A long time ago..in a galaxy far far away."
Prime mover?? Wow!!
I'll stick with the Word...Thanks...I'll stick with God...me and my house.
Or I can read some of the letters surviving of the people at Early Colonial Williamsburg..and how they wrote and thought..or just like those surviving letters of England at the time of the KJV and how they thought.
There are even surviving letters of people around here in Civil war times...very interesting reading.
You know...now that I think about it in that context...that is also what makes the Qumran findings very interesting.
What was learned from those tablets and scrolls about those times ...historically..the people..customs/traditions etc.
Same thing with the Civil war and Colonial era writings.
Well..continuing on...
This is what happens when you become familiar with His various names and begin to see them used or misused around you daily. This is what happens when you do what the Word teaches in recognizing patterns..even patterns in words.
When I hear people around me using the word faith...I begin to note carefully if they are speaking of faith or Faith...are they speaking of believer or Believer..grace or Grace...etc. I note this often around me when I speak with people.
I call this looking into their soul..to see to whom it belongs..who has purchased their soul. It is recognizing a pattern. I am doing it with you right now...have been doing it from the beginning. We are told to do this to note which things are of God or which things are of this world and the god of this world. Including the version of the Word.
Oh...goodness..no. For starters...I try to look at things through the prizm of Truth..not of truth. Memorizing ...goodness me. Memorizing...Wow!! I think nenothtu aptly used the word propaganda..in one of his posts.
This is much of todays public education going on about us.
Try this one out for size...
I know by thinking about what I have read in the word..Olde and New Testaments both..that there is no such instruction for a Believer..to celebrate a birthday. Birthdays are self glorification...and all glory and praise are to go to Him.... not to us.
This requires something a bit more than memorization. Do I get everything..certainly not..but I got that one by recognizing patterns. You don't have to be smart..just recognize patterns.
I can do this on a other things as well...but that one will suffice.
This is most likely quite long..I should start another post.
Orangetom
Hmmm so this is not clear In the Olde Testament ..that there would be a redeemer ...and that the Olde Testament would be replaced with a New Testament....a new covenant with people who were not His people???
A foreshadow...of things to come. This did not happen and was not foretold??? Wow!!
And Paul was wrong in the New Testament when he stated that the Olde Testament ...of Hagar with her son Ishmael...Mt Siani was in bondage with her children. And that the New Testament was free and the mother of us all...by Sarah and her child Isaac.
This is a foreshadow...from the Olde Testament unto the New Testament. I know this because...
"But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now."
Not changed..from the Olde Testament unto the New Testament..even today right now this is still going on...as this world tries to make us into Ishmael and away from Issac and his seed. This passage is very very very foreshadowing if one knows.
This is not accidental..but for our knowledge and perception..today ..right now.
I am not an Ishmaelite...either in Greek or in English...or in any other language.
"Logos" could mean the philosophical term for a universal prime mover concept, or it can mean, "word", or it can mean a life-giving message of God (prophecy), with the third thing that I just listed being probably how the logos word is being used in verse 14, that was made known by entering into the people who were ready to receive it, especially Jesus himself who the disciples expected to articulate it as the bearer of the name, which was to be believed in as the sign of (their accepting it, then, and our accepting it now) having received that light of the world.
Wow!!! Probably?????? This is not authorative...probably??..to speak with authority..this is speculation. Prime mover?? Wow!!
Here for prime mover ...I can say.."May the Force be with you!!"
Please speak with authority here. What you are quoting here is Philosophies of men...mans wisdom and knowledge..not what God teaches and His Wisdom...Wisdom..also one of His Names. Wow!!
If I want this kind of thing, Prime mover, I go to a Bible college or seminary.
IF I want prime mover ...I read Charles Darwin..or Richard Dawkins...or quantum Physics..Mechanics..et al.
Or...I will go right up the road from me and listen to some of the deeper speculations of the guys at the NASA Langley Research Center...or the particle collider across town. " A long time ago..in a galaxy far far away."
Prime mover?? Wow!!
I'll stick with the Word...Thanks...I'll stick with God...me and my house.
Or I can read some of the letters surviving of the people at Early Colonial Williamsburg..and how they wrote and thought..or just like those surviving letters of England at the time of the KJV and how they thought.
There are even surviving letters of people around here in Civil war times...very interesting reading.
You know...now that I think about it in that context...that is also what makes the Qumran findings very interesting.
What was learned from those tablets and scrolls about those times ...historically..the people..customs/traditions etc.
Same thing with the Civil war and Colonial era writings.
Well..continuing on...
When you see the list of names and how they are used both in the OLde and New Testaments...it becomes clear as a pattern of God..which has not changed from the Olde to the New Testament. And we are even told that ...that He changeth not.
That is your personal experience, as you perceive it.
This is what happens when you become familiar with His various names and begin to see them used or misused around you daily. This is what happens when you do what the Word teaches in recognizing patterns..even patterns in words.
When I hear people around me using the word faith...I begin to note carefully if they are speaking of faith or Faith...are they speaking of believer or Believer..grace or Grace...etc. I note this often around me when I speak with people.
I call this looking into their soul..to see to whom it belongs..who has purchased their soul. It is recognizing a pattern. I am doing it with you right now...have been doing it from the beginning. We are told to do this to note which things are of God or which things are of this world and the god of this world. Including the version of the Word.
So rather than seeking truth, to you it seems the safer thing to just memorize the traditions that are handed down to you?
Oh...goodness..no. For starters...I try to look at things through the prizm of Truth..not of truth. Memorizing ...goodness me. Memorizing...Wow!! I think nenothtu aptly used the word propaganda..in one of his posts.
This is much of todays public education going on about us.
Try this one out for size...
I know by thinking about what I have read in the word..Olde and New Testaments both..that there is no such instruction for a Believer..to celebrate a birthday. Birthdays are self glorification...and all glory and praise are to go to Him.... not to us.
This requires something a bit more than memorization. Do I get everything..certainly not..but I got that one by recognizing patterns. You don't have to be smart..just recognize patterns.
I can do this on a other things as well...but that one will suffice.
This is most likely quite long..I should start another post.
Orangetom
edit on 4-8-2014 by orangetom1999 because: (no reason given)
new topics
-
White House Reporters Fume at Karine Jean-Pierre For Lying About Hunter Biden Pardon
US Political Madness: 10 hours ago -
Is it just me or is it the MSM
General Conspiracies: 11 hours ago
top topics
-
Trudeau Grabs More Guns To Save Democracy
Mainstream News: 12 hours ago, 15 flags -
Is it just me or is it the MSM
General Conspiracies: 11 hours ago, 11 flags -
White House Reporters Fume at Karine Jean-Pierre For Lying About Hunter Biden Pardon
US Political Madness: 10 hours ago, 10 flags -
Joe Biden Presidential Library In Doubt
US Political Madness: 16 hours ago, 8 flags -
FBI arrests Boston City Councilor Tania Fernandes Anderson on public corruption charges
Mainstream News: 15 hours ago, 8 flags -
Hitler's travels after WW2 The Why Files
History: 12 hours ago, 8 flags -
White Zombie - Back Yard Performance 10-21-1995
Music: 16 hours ago, 0 flags
active topics
-
Hitler's travels after WW2 The Why Files
History • 15 • : CosmicFocus -
Trudeau Grabs More Guns To Save Democracy
Mainstream News • 18 • : TzarChasm -
From the MUSK-RAMASWAMY Department of Government Efficiency commission - DOGE.
Above Politics • 45 • : VariedcodeSole -
Is it just me or is it the MSM
General Conspiracies • 26 • : Dalamax -
Salvatore Pais confirms science in MH370 videos are real during live stream
General Conspiracies • 162 • : Skinnerbot -
-@TH3WH17ERABB17- -Q- ---TIME TO SHOW THE WORLD--- -Part- --44--
Dissecting Disinformation • 3529 • : brewtiger123 -
Obama, in 1st remarks since election, says 'a line has been crossed'
US Political Madness • 32 • : billxam1 -
Petition Calling for General Election at 564,016 and rising Fast
Political Issues • 121 • : angelchemuel -
Post A Funny (T&C Friendly) Pic Part IV: The LOL awakens!
General Chit Chat • 7883 • : blend -
Sir Starmer and the Granny Harmers - Freezing This Christmas
Jokes, Puns, & Pranks • 1 • : McGinty