₦airaland Forum

@Biblezap,

Much appreciate yours; and I blush on your compliments while trusting you're also one who loves the Lord.

Biblezap:
Hmm, let's remember that the Romans quote is in regard to the Jews and those (like us) who are 'grafted in' and who can 'be cut off' - simply cut off from the Almighty God's favor us-ward. See?

Indeed such would be terrible-horrible, Yes yes YES InDEED God's action of so-doing would be reminniscent of a loving Father (say your's or say mine) adopting you/me as a son (yes? do you see , yes?!) and then 'cutting me/you OFF!!'
That would be painfull altogether to the point of it being oh so very severe!

Okay, I've considered your input above; and I must ask: what's your point?

Biblezap:
NOW, my friend, I lovingly ask you to consider the Second Chapter of the Book Of ACTS of the APOSTLES: wherein it is stated clearly that Jesus 'could not be held of death' for he was sinless!!

I think syrup has dealt with that:

syrup:
He paid the price, but it was NOT possible that He should be held bound by death.
"Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. . . Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. . . He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption." (Act 2:24, 27, 31).

Biblezap:
Refer also to 1 Cor . 15 and there we see (v. 51 , think ) that Jesus died as RANSOM for mankind to RE-PURHASE that which Adam lost FOR all mankind -- Life-right!

1 Cor. 15:51 - 'Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed'.

Biblezap:
We , you Stimulus and me BibleZap die ON ACCOUNT of Adam's disobedience. A baby, too without committing a sin, so dies on account of Adam's sin.

Okay.

Biblezap:
Be very careful of a statement likened unto that which you ask in regards to Jesus becoming "extinct' -never say that!

Obviously, that was what you broad statement would lead some to believe.

Biblezap:
Without Jesus - ALL are lost!! With Him - ALL are saved! ! Please read John 12 : 32 .

I would need you to clarify that statement. I agree with the first part, that without Jesus all are lost. However, does the second part mean that the unrepentant and wicked who die in their sins are still saved and will not face the final judgement?

Biblezap:
Stimulus, respects man! I look forward to our further dialogue,, keep bringing the Scriptures,

Me, too. Plenty respects broda!

@KAG,

KAG:
Yes, I read it, and it seems you've employed your rather irritating habit of highlighting words to give a different impression from their contexts.

Which is immaterial to the gist of my pointers. Even if I didn't highlight any word, how does that take away from the substance of the excerpts quoted from the website you recommended?

KAG:
Yes, so? The argument isn't whether Isaiah 9 could be interpreted as a messianic prophecy, the argument is whether the writer of Isaiah was not only talking about the Christian concept of the trinity, but also alluding to an only Son of God. If you hadn't decided to instigate the games we play, you'd have noticed that I wasn't arguing against a midrash reading that offered a prophecy of a messiah.

You preempted your games and offered a weblink that diffused your argument. My position still remains unwavered as to Isaiah 9:6 pointing to the Messiah who in that verse is called 'the Mighty God'.

KAG:
So, once again, that portion of the verse should read, "The Mighty God is planning grace" and not the attempt to take it out of context by simply highlighting just "the mighty God".

When you're done with your 'translation', could you offer us a contextual interpretation as to who Isaiah referred to as the Mighty God in Jewish understanding? Please go back and read the article on the weblink you offered.

KAG:
Also, that the verse couldn't be an out and out refernce to Hezekiah and his seed is debatable, but that's not the point here.

Glad you noted that.

KAG:
While, the verse makes it clear that YHVH will pour out his spirit, the verses that both precede and follow verse 10 all allude to both Jerusalem and the house of David

Which is not what my initial question was about. I offered the context of Zachariah 12:10 as pointing out that the 'The One who pours out the Spirit is the same One who would be pierced' in allusion to the Messiah.

KAG:
So, in essence the book as a whole was speaking of the relationship between YHVH and the Jews. By the way, I still don't see how you concluded from that verse that Zechariah was talking about an equality between the Messiah and YHVH.

I don't remember debating 'the book as a whole'; nor contrasting an equality between the Messiah and YHVH. The point of Zachariah 12:10 was that the One who pours out the Spirit is the same One who would be pierced. Who would that be other than the Messiah?

KAG:
Other than YHVH, the inhabitants of Judah, no one else.

Aiight, so in your 'context' the inhabitants of Judah would be 'pierced' and they also would pour out the Spirit?

KAG:
I'm glad you asked, because due to a discussion I had with a rather nice poster on this forum, I stumbled not only on David Rohl's (a source she kindly provided) theory that the Jewish God was the same as Enki of Sumerian fame, but also on this rather suggestive tidbit:

"At Kuntillet 'Ajrud (in Hebrew Horvat Teman) in the Sinai Desert in the 1975 excavation, a pottery ostracon was inscribed "Berakhti et’khem l’YHVH Shomron ul’Asherato" ("I have blessed you by YHVH of Samaria and His Asherah". This inscription would appear to show northern Israelite influence but others have suggested that "Shomron" should be read “shomrenu”, "our Guardian". There may also be another reference to YHVH and His Asherah in an inscription on the building wall.

, An additional reference to YHVH and His Asherah, has been found at Khirbet el-Qom, near Hebron, where an inscription reads "Blessed be Uriyahu by Yahweh and by his Asherah; from his enemies he saved him!" (Berlinerblau)." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asherah#Asherah_and_other_gods). Just a quick and easily referenced example that supports my "allegation".

I'm not nonplussed by that, because it doesn't come as a surprise that you were seeking to lead the discussion to such theories. And for all that, the weblink you offered earlier simply affirms what you tried to disprove - that Isaiah 9:6 was in reference to the Messiah whom honest Jewish interpretations affirm was being called 'The Mighty God.'

KAG:
You asked what the "Us" in Genesis meant, I replied that it was "either a throwback to the polytheistic roots of the story, a respectful term, or a schizophrenic"; you replied that it was none of the options I mentioned, I asked you "why isn't it any of the options I put forward?"

If you wanted to maintain an honest debate on the issue, I would oblige you. If, on the other hand, you take the liberty to be accusative with such terms as 'schizophrenic' just to drive a point, how does that help your reasoning?

KAG:
I'm trying to find some kind of reference to that in the verse, but for the life of me, I can't. Could you perhaps show me where in even the entire chapter it alludes or mentions what you've written?

As alluding to the Trinity, Gen. 1:26 has been offered. Already in verse 2 we find the Spirit; and in vs. 16 & 17 it is said that 'God made' and 'God set them'.

KAG:
Like I said, I have no idea what the chapter is about (it's certainly very strange both structurallay and grammatically), but it is plain that you have to stretch, drop words, and pull others out of context to get a reference to not a only the messiah, but also to a God that is the same as his son.

Repeating your allegation hasn't really helped your argument there. Even without my offering any interpretation of Prov. 30:4, what has been your difficulty offering one yourself instead of making so much of what you don't like about mine?

@abdkabir,

abdkabir:
The general knowledge as regards the meaning of the Injil in islam is that of the Word /Message given Jesus to Spread. That would be the message commanded him by God to Spread. It is on this basis that some consider the New Testament part of the Bible as a compilation of the reporting of the "Message of Jesus/ Glad Tidings of Jesus " by 3rd parties . Thus for the muslim, the purest form of the Injil was that revealed to the Heart of Jesus,which he preached to the people. THe Injil in its purest form is intangible.

If the Injil is intangible, then there was no message at all; and thus the Islamic apologetic that the NT has been 'corrupted from its original form' has no substance. Further, it would also mean that the Psalms which the Qur'an alleges were sent down and revealed to David are intangible by the same rule. And so on for all the other messages the Qur'an alleges were sent down and revealed by the same Allah of the Islamic faith.

Now, if the issue of compilation by any party should arise at all and thus be a problem to the Muslim, does that not apply in the case of the political redaction of the present Qur'an which was 'compiled' by third parties as well - the conference organized by the third Caliph, Uthman? In any case, the Qur'an stands in the very same problematic position that Muslims attribute to any portion of the Bible.

@KAG,

KAG:
I already told you: YHVH. That's why it's "The Mighty God is planning grace".

Here are excerpts from the weblink you offered for the 'Jewish' translation:

Jewish Interpretation of these verses

The Jewish interpreters see the meaning here much different from Christians. Some interpreters see these verses fulfilled in Hezekiah, the royal son, who sat on the throne of David, where his father Ahaz sat. Other Jewish interpreters clearly see this as messianic in nature, the names referring to the Messiah according to the Talmud and Midrash. Abraham ibn Ezra[5] agrees the names refer to the Messiah. Michael Brown’s work, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus volume III quotes Ibn Ezra’s views on this verse, he has the following footnote regarding the names of Messiah, quoting from Talmudic and midrashic sources.

“R. Yose the Galilean said: “The name of the Messiah is Peace, for it is said, Everlasting Father, Prince Peace’” (Midrash Pereq Shalom, p. 101); “The Messiah is called by eight names: Yinnon[see Psalm 72:17], Tzemach [e.g. Jer. 23:5]; Pele’ [Wonderful, Isa. 9:6(5)], Yo’etz[Counselor, Isa. 9:6(5)], Mashiach [Messiah], El[God, Isa. 9:6(5), Gibbor[Hero. 9:6(5) and Avi Ad Shalom [Eternal Father of Peace, Isa. 9:6(5); see Deuteronomy Rabbah 1:20[6]

The Targum Jonathan also references these verses in Isaiah as referring to the Messiah.

“For to us a son is born, to us a son is given; and he shall receive the Law upon him to keep it; and his name is called from of Old, wonderful, Counselor, Eloha, The Mighty, Abiding to Eternity, The Messiah, because peace shall be multiplied on us in his days.” Targum Jonathan

The Midrash on Deuteronomy also references these verses as referring to the Messiah.
Rabbi Samuel, the son of Nachman, said, ‘When Esau met Jacob he said unto him, “My brother Jacob, let us walk together in this world. Jacob replied: Let my Lord, I pray thee, pass over before his servant” (Genesis 33:14) What is the meaning of, “I pray thee, pass over? Jacob said to him; I have yet to supply the Messiah, of whom it is said: “Unto us a child is born” Midrash (Deuteronomy 2;4)

Please note that all Jewish references in your argument (Talmud and Midrash; Targum Jonathan; and 'The Midrash on Deuteronomy') categorically point out that the verse in Isaiah was referring to the Messiah. The peripheral argument by some that it referred to Hezekiah is dissolved in the answers following the section quoted above. Clearly, Isaiah 9:6 referred to the Messiah as God.

KAG:
Yes, because taking it out of context and trying to make it a reference to a physical event is something apologists that site Jesus as the messiah have done for ages.

Specifically, my question was pointing to the One who pours out the Spirit. And if we adopt your own interpretation, how does Zachariah 12:10 indicate that the one being referred to was "Jerusalem and the house of David"? So, without 'taking it out of context', could you give your own contextual interpretation in the 21st century?

KAG:
Nope. No where in the verse does it mention or refer to a messiah.

That being so, who else was being referred to in that verse?

KAG:
If Judaism was forged from it's environs, then it most certainly had polytheistic roots.

Just because you say so does not establish your allegation.

KAG:
Now, you still haven't answered my question.

What question, please?

KAG:
Also, how does the verse point to the trinity as believed by most Christians?

Gen. 1:26 is one of the earliest texts that clearly indicates the Trinity; for both in the entire OT and NT a consistency is maintained as to the Father being the Source of creation; the Word (the Son who is the Logos) bringing creation into existence; and the Holy Spirit the agency by which creation subsists.

KAG:
How so? Just highlighting and taking wrds out of their context only works if the context isn't available to be seen.

Even without highlighting any word, what is 'prophecy' doing in that verse? If you had a context, why haven't we seen it earlier instead of:

KAG:
I have no idea, especially after reading it in context.

??

@KAG,

KAG:
"For a child has been born to us, a son has been given us. And authority has settled on his shoulders. He has been named “The Mighty God is planning grace; The Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler”—

In token of abundant authority And of peace without limit Upon David’s Throne and kingdom, That it may be firmly established In justice and equity Now and evermore. The zeal of the LORD of Hosts Shall bring this to pass."

For all of that, in reference to the 'Jewish translation', who is being referred to as the Mighty God in that verse other than the Messiah? Please read the article carefully in the weblink you recommended.

KAG:
Metaphorically, not physically.

Whether metaphorically, physically or any other way you choose, does it take away from my answer earlier? The One who pours out the Spirit is the same One who would be pierced - and that is the Messiah, which Zachariah 12:10 indicated as God Himself.

KAG:
I'd go for polytheism my self. Why isn't it any of the options I put forward?

You could choose whichever to suit your personal persuasion. Judaism was not founded on polytheism; nor any of the options you couldn't settle for.

KAG:
This context:

"The words of Agur the son of Jakeh, even the prophecy: the man spake unto Ithiel, even unto Ithiel and Ucal,

Surely I am more brutish than any man, and have not the understanding of a man.

I neither learned wisdom, nor have the knowledge of the holy.

Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son’s name, if thou canst tell?

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Two things have I required of thee; deny me them not before I die: "

The prophecy of Agur clearly indicated the answer to your question - the Son of God is deity Himself.

@Biblezap,

Biblezap:
But, believe me when I say that, the Righteousness of the ALL Mighty is incongruent with Eternal Suffering.

Have you read Romans 11:22 - 'Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off'? The righteousness and holiness of God issues forth an awful judgement upon sin and wickedness.

Biblezap:
One Scripture: "Romans 6:23 - "The wages of sin is death" - See; Not eternal suffering. -Death = Extinction. Yes?

In that case, when Jesus died, did He become extinct? Or, do righteous people not die as well? Those who use Rom. 6:23 as a support for the doctrine of annihilation should very carefully study that verse in its connection with its surrounding texts.

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:
I think you're the one doing that just about now.

Doing what exactly?

Bobbyaf:
Not exactly if you take the time to read properly. The scriptures don't show that the word heart is the mind definitively , but I am saying that there is no doubt that the word heart means the mind.

That's where your confusion becomes perennial. If the Scriptures don't show that both are the same, you definitely want to apply a cultic approach of forcing your own thoughts into Scripture. And if you read carefully, you will not miss the distinction that is made between either faculties of man.

Bobbyaf:
Its always easy to look at scripture and take it at face value,

Which is what you often do.

Bobbyaf:
but its another matter to understand that different writers used different styles of writing, and in this case heart and mind were used interchangably, and metaphorically to emphasise something. Most bible writers used that approach.

I offered you texts from different writers to show precisely that they did not use either word interchangably or metaphorically: Mark 12:30; Matthew 22:37 and Luke 10:27. Besides, they were writing SCRIPTURE - God's inspired Word; and penning down what the Lord Jesus said, rather than their own thoughts. The Lord Himself did not use those words interchangably.

Bobbyaf:
Your point about the heart being the seat of our emotions and affections is no doubt correct, but what is also correct is that those attributes could only have found their origin in the mind.

You're only concretely establishing my convictions and nullifying yours: you can't it both ways, as Scripture does not teach that affections and emotions originate from the mind. I earlier made the point that one's intelligence and emotions are not the same.

Bobbyaf:
I didn't say they were. You're saying it. I simply asked you where do our emotions and affections come from if not from the mind.

Same wrong assumptions, which I never expressed.

Bobbyaf:
Dogs and cats show emotions and affection must we say that these come from their hearts too?

Until you can establish from Scripture that dogs and cats are supposed to express the very same emotions and affections in divine issues as man does.

Bobbyaf:
So in other words you don't have a bias. Good for you! Let me ask you again where do thoughts come from if not the mind?

As long as we're discussing Biblical issues, I don't believe my points are biased (see again 1 Tim. 5:21). And your question having been re-arranged does not take away from my earlier point.

Bobbyaf:
Of course they do. They offer us a bias towards the truth. Being biased goes both ways. We can either be biased towards the truth, or a lie. So if I prefer the truth above a lie then my being bias is a wonderful thing.

Even though you prefer to cleverly wiggle your bias, you haven't demonstrated a firm grasp of "truth". Your bias is often the direct opposite of what Scripture affirms, and that is what is called eisegesis - the very thing that God's Word expressly forbids (2 Pet. 1:20). Is your cultic bias still a 'wonderful' thing?

Bobbyaf:
So according to you those who die in the Lord go to heaven leaving their bodies on earth.

It's not surprising you have a difficulty with that. So, according to you, where do they go?

Bobbyaf:
Sorry this text has nothing to do with the point under discussion, and neither is it teaching that error either.

It has everything to do with the topic being discussed as long as you beat your own assertions into it. If it is an 'error' to you, please expound on it.

Bobbyaf:
Be careful lest you read Paul's writings unto your own damnnation.

You're neither Paul nor his personal elocutionist. You should rather be taking your own advice.

Bobbyaf:
Don't isolate a passage just to prove a point, and especially if you don't understand what the writer is trying to say. The better approach to take as I have always suggested, is to use the weight of evidence of multiple passages to throw substance for or against a topic.

And after all that rhetoric, what do you interpret 2 Cor. 5:8 to mean? Making noise against your trademark style of isolating passages to prove your point hasn't helped you the wiser, has it?

Bobbyaf:
Are you saying that light is paradise? Do better than that Stimulus. Right now you're not stimulating.

Where did I say that, Bobbyaf? Are you again trying to pretend your eisegesis into my post? And thanks for your usual cultic slobber, as if you did not know that "Bobbyaf" is a term for a British policeman who forgot his brains in Afghanistan .

Bobbyaf:
The bible speaks of a place where God dwells. It also speaks of a time when that place will be brought down to earth in which both God and man will live together. Listena s John speaks cleary:

John 14:1-3, 1 Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me. 2 In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.

Okay, mr 'Bobbyaf', where in John 14:1-3 did Jesus mention 'clearly' the word paradise? And did you read in that verse the same thing you supposed - 'that place will be brought down to earth'? Or is that another one of your 'wonderful' cultic bias?

Bobbyaf:
Christ didn't say that when they died they would go to this beautiful place to dwell with Him. He simply said that when He should come again He would take them to be with Him there. This can only happen after they tak epart in the first resurrection, and not before.

Maybe He didn't say what you suppose; and should we therefore discredit the entire NT that teach it so?

What did Stephen mean when he prayed, 'Lord Jesus, receive my spirit' (Acts 7:59)?

What did Paul mean in 2 Cor. 5: 6 & 8 - 'Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord. . .We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord'?

Does the above correlate or not with Phil. 1:23 - 'For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better'?

If you die before the Lord comes, Bobbyaf, where will you be?

Bobbyaf:
Your use of a text which shows no definitive statement about paradise is very lame if you ask me.

I didn't ask you; rather it's the other way round. And your own eisegesis is simply spider webs as you've been desperately quoting texts that have no bearing on your assertions.

Bobbyaf:
What makes it even worse is that you're trying to prove what doesn't exist.

Oh thanks. So, paradise doesn't exist? Hee-haw! Please come back with another 'wonderful bias!'

Bobbyaf:
In other words the bible doesn't teach that people go straight to paradise when they die, and it certainly did not mean for the thief to have been an exception either. The only exceptions I am aware of is Moses who spoke to Christ and was seen on the mount by Peter, James, and John.

Ah, there. You anticipated me on the mention of Moses (Luke 9:31). Your problem, however, is that cultists characteristically make 'exceptions' where truth confronts them.

That said, what do you say about the same situation without exception as in Matt. 27:52-53? 'And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.'

Bobbyaf:
Paul didn't qualify what he meant anyway as to whether such a person was dead so your use of this text wouldn't count. Since this text isn't addressing one who dies and goes to heaven right away as you're trying so hard to fit into scripture, it must be talking about something else then.

Your miscalculated dribble, Bobbyaf. The point of referencing 2 Cor. 12:2-4 was to show that 'Scripture distinguishes between the various spheres of "heaven", and not your new device of qualifying whether or not someone who dies goes to heaven right away.

Bobbyaf:
Paul simply had a vision, and when people have visions it feels as if their bodies are transported to where their minds go.

Paul was not speaking merely about a vision in that text. He used the word 'revelations' also (vs. 1); and in verse 3 he did not assume your assertions.

Bobbyaf:
The same happened to Ezekiel when the Spirit held him by his hair and carried him to the temple to see the pagan practises that was conducted by God's people. Ezekiel never moved an inch from his verandah.

And by Ezek. 8:3 you suppose that your rule applies in all cases. There are incidences well documented in Scripture to show that people were literally transported away from one place to another by the Spirit of God:

'And it shall come to pass, as soon as I am gone from thee, that the Spirit of the LORD shall carry thee whither I know not; and so when I come and tell Ahab, and he cannot find thee, he shall slay me: but I thy servant fear the LORD from my youth.' 1 Kings 18:12. (see also 2 Kings 2:16)

'And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea.' Acts 8:39-40.

Even the same Ezekiel you claimed 'never moved an inch from his verandah' actually was literally transported by the Spirit of the Lord to different places. He was first 'in the land of the Chaldeans by the river of Chebar' (ch. 1:3); and when the Spirit lifted him up and took him away, he came 'to them of the captivity at Telabib' (ch. 3:14-15). Was he still within the inch of his verandah?

Bobbyaf:
I would agree that there are different spheres of heaven.

Good then.

Bobbyaf:
The first heaven is the atmospheric, the second is the stary heavens, where we find all those beautiful galaxies. David said that such a heaven declares the glory of God. The third heaven is where God dwells. Its His control tower from which He sees the entire universe. Paul saw lots of things but he was not permitted to speak about those things, and that is why he used the words "not lawful, "

If the third heavens is 'the control tower from which He sees the entire universe', where in Scripture did you read your assertion that the same place shall be brought down to earth? Reminder:

Bobbyaf:
'The bible speaks of a place where God dwells. It also speaks of a time when that place will be brought down to earth in which both God and man will live together'

Could you kindly clear up your cacophony between these two assertions?

Bobbyaf:
My reason for saying its Paul is based on what he said in other writings. Listen: Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." 1 Corinthians 2:9.

I don't remember arguing against the person being Paul; nor does 1 Cor. 2:9 necessarily establish your previous argument.

Bobbyaf:
Thanks for supporting my point with such a wonderful passage. See my explanation above.

You didn't make the point earlier; and I'd just offered that text to clear up your confusion.

Bobbyaf:
Well, now that you know what paradise really means I figure my words still stand.

Have you actually explicated the meaning of paradise?

Bobbyaf:
Jesus didn't put those confusing punctuation marks where we happen to see them today. It is these nuances that are causing people to not take the bible seriously. Roman catholic scholars so-called placed those marks to buttress their already erroneous views about what happened to good people when they died.

Neither did Jesus suggest your own confusing punctuation marks where you happen to see them. For the very same reason as you accuse others, you've been propounding your already erroneous views with your nuances.

Bobbyaf:
And why should there be a question about the place? There is no issue with that at all. The issue lies with whether or not generally, people, and more specifically the repentant thief, go to paradise when they die in the Lord. I say no to that teaching.

You really don't need to sweat it - you're not the one who decides otherwise where the repentant thief or others go when they die in the Lord. the Scriptures are clear on that; and it really doesn't matter if you shout 'NO' a thousand times.

Bobbyaf:
You mean the use of vague ones that have no relevance to the topic?

The same ones you have been running away from and foaming in the mouth about.

Bobbyaf:
You lost me there!

No bother; I didn't expect you'd get the gist of your confusion.

Bobbyaf:
You mean scroll to your vague use of passages?

You couldn't do better than your cheap and weathered foibles, could you?

@donnie,

Thanks - those are some of the marks of a good church. They:

- preach the kingdom of God

- share the love of Christ

- believe in the saving, healing and sanctifying power of the Spirit
and the Word of God.

donnie:
Preach the kingdom of God. Share the love of christ. Believe in the saving healing and sanctifying power of the Spirit and the Word of God.

@abdkabir,

abdkabir:
Having said that, as a Muslim i would posit that,"If i were to assume that the Bible Verse In the Beginning was the Word --- " is truely part ofthe Glad tidings of Jesus the Son of Mary, then the Question to ask is this.Please when i say the Glad Tidings of Jesus, i mean the (Injil) the Quran mentioned.

I appreciate your intelligent reasoning and question on this subject. However, I haven't seen any Muslim provide the documents of the Injil of the Qur'an so we may read and examine the claims of Islam against the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the Bible.

abdkabir:
Since God is Such without beginning nor End thus God was before the beginning and we say Jesus is the Word ,how possible then is Jesus God since He only was in the Beginning.

Nowhere in the Bible are we taught that the 'WORD' (the Logos), was created. If He was created, then by what did God create Him? If you argue the Muslim way that He was created by the 'Word', then you're making reference to two LOGOS, which is neither taught in the Qur'an nor in the Bible.

God is without beginning nor end, certainly. The Logos did not have a beginning, nor will He have an end. The LOGOS did not begin to exist; but John 1:1 says that 'In the biginning was the Word'; that is, the Word already was in the beginning. If He began to exist in the "beginning", we would expect the verse to say something rather like: "in the beginning, the Word began to exist" - which is not the sense at all in the original language.

abdkabir:
Simply put, He isnt God , he couldn't be God. We might argue that he is a son of God which might be acceptable though some may not expect that of a Muslim. But certainly He's not God and he's certainly a servant of God.

It's alright to deny the Deity of the Word, afterall that's what Islam teaches. But before Islam, the prophets Isaiah, Micah, and Zachariah (among others) have well established the Deity of the Messiah centuries before He was born as a Man.

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:
These texts don't prove that the word heart and mind don't mean the same thing. The simple fact is that they are used interchangably in the same sentences. These are two different words meaning the same thing.

You're forcing your own thoughts into Scripture - the very same thing you've often done and yet unable to defend your presumptions when scrutinized. The Lord Jesus never meant to use heart and mind interchangably in those text. If that were the case, your assumptions would mean that "soul" and "strength" are used interchangably in those verses.

Bobbyaf:
While the scripture doesn't show that the heart represents the mind, there exists no doubt that it does.

Another confused assumption. On the one hand it doesn't;  on the other hand it does - all in the same breath!

Bobbyaf:
I will even use your own words to prove it. You say that "the heart is the seat of man's emotions and affections". Now let me ask you a simple question, where does one's emotions and affections originate if not in the mind?

You haven't proven anything with my own words. One's affections and intelligence are not the same things. The heart is the seat of one's emotions and affections; unless you don't know the meaning of these words.

Bobbyaf:
Ah there you go! Here heart is used to represent one's mind, because only the mind can think and reason.

Wrong. You only sliced that verse to butter your bias. Read the whole verse and see the connections - it is referring to the motive of man's thoughts rather than just merely his thinking.

Bobbyaf:
You're not qualified to say that.

I'm very well qualified to do so.

Bobbyaf:
All of us have a bias including you, but my problem doesn't lie with anyone being biased, as long as being biased is consistent with the general understanding of what scripture teaches.

Scripture doesn't offer us a ticket to be biased, whether or not one is claiming to be consistent with the general understanding of what scripture teaches. 1 Tim. 5:21 - "I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality."

Bobbyaf:
No where in scripture does it teach that people who acknowledge Christ as being the Son of God goes to paradise the same day. Christ Himself spoke of the resurrection taking place on the last day.

It all depends on what you define as paradise. But as regarding those who sleep in the Lord, here's what the Scripture says: "We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord." - 2 Cor. 5:8.

Bobbyaf:
Secondly, there can be no paradise other than where His Father dwells, and to which He Jesus made reference when He spoke to Mary saying (I am paraphrasing) touch me not or hold not unto me for I have not yet ascended to my Father which is in heaven

Is paradise the place you identify as where the Father dwells? Here's actually what the Bible identifies as God's dwelling - "Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen" - 1 Tim. 6:15-16.

Indeed, Scripture distinguishes between the various spheres of "heaven"; and even the apostle Paul speaks of paradise in this way: "I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter" - 2 Cor. 12:2 - 4.

And again in the OT, the prophets recognized the various spheres of heaven: "Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee" - Neh. 9:6.

So, your paraphrase does not strengthen your argument. It was a weak attempt to establish your own thoughts.

Bobbyaf:
What is in the expression "not yet ascended to My father" that you seem not to understand?

I haven't argued for or agaisnt John 20:17. The question was about the place; not about the expression or the ascension.

Bobbyaf:
Really how would you know who is right or wrong on the topic? On what basis are you saying that?

On the basis of a careful reading and studying of the texts.

Bobbyaf:
I take nothing from Shahan, but what does her being a deep thinker have to do with the obvious fact that what is said in Luke 23:43 runs contrary to what was said by Jesus Himself explaning to Mary that He had not yet ascended to His Father?

I haven't said that shahan is the final authority on Scripture; but obviously, she is a deep thinker. No one has to take anything from you either as you're unable to articulate your arguments on sound Scriptural principles.

Second, it's only your characteristic debate to make one verse run contrary to another. You quoted Luke 23:43 and made referrence to John 20:17 in the same connection; so who's now sweating to make them run "contrary" to each other?

Bobbyaf:
How can one text be saying that Jesus and the thief would be going to paradise or heaven the very same day, and the other be saying that Christ rose on the third day and went to His Father?

So, there's your problem. Scroll above and see the difference for yourself.

Bobbyaf:
Quote from: Bobbyaf on March 17, 2007, 04:33 AM
Then how do you explain to the fora that Christ didn't enter paradise until after His resurrection? . .

We all know that Jesus didn't go to heaven until after He was resurrected, which was on the third day of His death.

There can only be one paradise, and that is where God dwells. Jesus said He was going to His Father. Is there another paradise that you know of?

I knew where He went and that was the grave. Where else do you think He might have gone? I suspect that you're going to say how He went to preach to spirit world. If that is what you're coming with don't waste your time.

I won't waste my time since you've already expressed your intimidation thereto. If you assume He went to the grave and that settles the matter for you, then you really have a weak grasp of your arguments.

@KAG,

KAG:
YHVH. see: http://www.truthnet.org/TheMessiah/7_Messiah_Objections_Isaiah/ for a Jewish translation of the verse.

What exactly is the "Jewish" translation of Isaiah 9:6?

KAG:
Jerusalem and the house of David.

Read Zachariah 12:10 again - carefully: "And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn."

The One who pours out the Spirit is the same One who would be pierced.

KAG:
Either a throwback to the polytheistic roots of the story, a respectful term, or a schizophrenic.

Which is which? None of what you allege.

KAG:
I have no idea, especially after reading it in context.

In what context did you read it?

[quote author=ope_emi link=topic=44339.msg975604#msg975604 date=1174396205]I think you have a wonderful observation stimulus, and as trini_girl will say, "ope_emi is giving adulation to stimulus just like he did to shahan". [/quote]Thank you, and you too. The next I know is that another "observation" will be made insinuating that stimulus is ope_emi!

@KAG,

KAG:
Which prophets in the OT indicated the son of God is God?

In Isaiah 9:6, who was the prophet Isaiah referring to by the name "The mighty God"?

Who was the prophet referring to in Zachariah 12:10?

KAG:
Furthermore, which, if any, of them mentioned or alluded to a trinity?

What did Genesis 1:26 point to - "Let Us make man in Our image"?

And what does Proverbs 30:4 point out?


@misright,

misright:
The question is 'Is Jesus the son of God or, '

. . . Or what??

@dafidixone,

dafidixone:
This are some basic guide to choose the right church:

i. Worship must be Christ centered.

ii. They must give high premium to celeberating God frequently for his goodness.

iii. Their must be emphasis on Bible teaching

iv. They must have a fellowship like the way Christ demonstrate on earth.

v. You must feel sense of belonging.

vi. Evangelism must be giving much priority.

vii. Their must be opportunity for members to use their talent fo God.

Your efforts are well-appreciated. However, almost all churches today would claim to be applying those principles; so that it becomes all the more difficult to choose a good church for fellowship. Could you possibly expand on these points? How does one distinguish a pseudo-Christian denomination or cult from a sound evangelical church?

@trini_girl,

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=44339.msg973478#msg973478 date=1174323123]It's interesting that this syrup character hasn't commented on the real issue at hand,[/quote]After all the 'observation', have you commented on the real issue at hand? Where's your own contribution to the topic of this thread?

@sage,

sage:
The trinity is the biggest fraud ever perpertrated by the Church. Its a lie that slanders God right to his face. A fourth century doctrine incoperated into the Church at the council the pagan emperor Constantine arrainged.

I'm sorry to observe that you don't even have a good grasp of theology and Biblical history. Long before Constantine was born, the inspired apostles of the NT and the prophets of the OT have all indicated that the Son of God is God; and the Trinity is a central Biblical teaching in the Christian faith.

sage:
Funny how the doctrine f eternal torment was shown as having no bases in the bible and all the pro eternal torment brigade disappeared .

I guess they got tired of saying that Rev 20:8 = Hellfire and seeing that it can't conflict and contradict the rest of the bible

Mr sage,

I don't think they 'disappeared'. If at all that were the case, then my questions that are yet unanswered would indicate the same - that the pro-annihilationists have disappeared as well.

It appears to me that regardless of the great divides or dichotomy of views held on this subject, the annihilationists are not all agreed as to what they believe thereto; neither are the eternal-torment propagators (including me). We all differ in our views; and people are endeavouring to put across their views as best they can.

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:
The heart is not the soul. The heart as used in scriptures represents the mind. Our mind is the seat of intelligence in which our thoughts are formed. The bible says "as a man thinketh so is he"

You are mistaken in assuming that the heart represents the mind. On the contrary, they are distinguished and contrasted.

'And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.' (Mark 12:30 _{see also Matt. 22:37 and Luke 10:27}).

'This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them' (Heb. 10:16).

Scripture does not use the heart to represent the mind; they are distinguished from each other. The heart is primarily the seat of man's emotions and affections; the mind (as you suggested) is the seat of his intelligence.

'For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he: Eat and drink, saith he to thee; but his heart is not with thee' (Prov. 23:7). The substance in this and akin constructs is indicating the motive in a man's thoughts, not just merely his thoughts.

Bobbyaf:
The issue is punctuations were never a result of inspiration. Men placed punctuations in some instances to suit their religious biases, and this is one such case. . .

Did these experts punctuate the NT scriptures?ll they are doing is continuing the deception.

Your punctuation is rather weak and untenable; and in just the same way was crafted to suit your own uninspired bias. The punctuations as appearing in those versions and translations are accurate and give the sense of what the Lord intended in Luke 23:43. Besides taking the trouble to explain them to you, I think shahan is quite a deep thinker and correct in her outline.

Bobbyaf:
Then how do you explain to the fora that Christ didn't enter paradise until after His resurrection? . .

We all know that Jesus didn't go to heaven until after He was resurrected, which was on the third day of His death.

There can only be one paradise, and that is where God dwells. Jesus said He was going to His Father. Is there another paradise that you know of?

Perhaps you should explain to the Forum where you believe the Lord Jesus went when He died in the flesh, before He rose and ascended to heaven.

(Perhaps, it is better to use the singular form of the word "Forum" instead of the plural "fora". I notice you have made the same honest mistake several times).