Contradictions and the soul of man

[smaller]

The Lord is the ONE who has us quote scriptures to back up the words that He forms in the minds of His servants. If you have a problem with the way He uses them for His purpose, then blame Him. I'm only the flesh of a man who types those words for Him.

I hope the above isn't going to turn into another "all material is illusion" posture. Let's hit that posture now, yeah or nay?

For the record, I believe these are materially real states:

Romans 8:
20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

The reason I ask, is when I see writings that posture volcanoes melting everything and everyone on planet earth, and then I compare that posture to these scriptural presentations:

Isaiah 11:9
They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.

Habakkuk 2:14
For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.

Hebrews 8:11
And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

Rev. 5:
13 And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.

I just ain't seeing the external volcano melting everyone and everything thingy.

Revelation 21
21 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

Sometimes destruction is not what it's cracked up to be.

 

[smaller]

I don't know if this is the thread for it. But, what the apostle Paul taught.

6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.1 (1 Cor. 8:6 KJV)

I understand that it is difficult to perceive that the Fullness and Entirety of God Himself is "Expressed" in His Son, His Image, His Word, His Body. Now, do you have some lines to draw between the Expression and God Himself?

This is usually where the heart of the matter is:

1 Timothy 3:16
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

 

[Butch5]

I understand that it is difficult to perceive that the Fullness and Entirety of God Himself is "Expressed" in His Son, His Image, His Word, His Body. Now, do you have some lines to draw between the Expression and God Himself?

This is usually where the heart of the matter is:

1 Timothy 3:16
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Let's not use the word God, because that's where the confusion comes from. Deity was manifest in the flesh. The word "theos" means deity. The Father is Deity and Jesus is Deity. Deity was manifest in the person of Jesus the Christ. However, Jesus is not the Father.

 

[smaller]

Let's not use the word God, because that's where the confusion comes from. Deity was manifest in the flesh. The word "theos" means deity. The Father is Deity and Jesus is Deity. Deity was manifest in the person of Jesus the Christ. However, Jesus is not the Father.

John 10:30
I and my Father are one.

 

[Butch5]

John 10:30
I and my Father are one.

What does that mean?

 

[smaller]

What does that mean?

It means you:

"Jesus is not the Father."

And The Word:

John 10:30
I and my Father are one.

Obviously those two statements are not in alignment and only one of the statements matter anyway.

 

[Butch5]

It means you:

"Jesus is not the Father."

And The Word:

John 10:30
I and my Father are one.

Obviously those two statements are not in alignment and only one of the statements matter anyway.

No, please, answer the question. You see this is just what I was talking about. You interpret the passage a certain way to fit your theology and then claim I'm wrong. If I'm wrong please explain what Jesus meant and show how I'm wrong.

 

[Butch5]

It means you:

"Jesus is not the Father."

And The Word:

John 10:30
I and my Father are one.

Obviously those two statements are not in alignment and only one of the statements matter anyway.

Let's look at the passage in context instead of as a verse ripped from it's context.

26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
30 I and my Father are one.
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? (Jn. 10:26-36 KJV)

Like you, the Jews, misunderstood Jesus' words. They thought He meant that He was the Father God. Jesus points out that the Scriptures call men gods. Then He clarifies their misunderstanding, "because I said, I am the Son of God".

So, He shows that He wasn't claiming to be the Father when He said, "I and the Father are one." So there must be some other way that the Father and Son are one.

 

[smaller]

Let's look at the passage in context instead of as a verse ripped from it's context.

Context can never be legitimately used to eliminate scriptures.

So, He shows that He wasn't claiming to be the Father when He said, "I and the Father are one." So there must be some other way that the Father and Son are one.

Well, maybe in your mind that's true. But, we have what He says, instead. Yes, The Fullness of God is Manifest in His Own Son, and they are in fact ONE. Fairly easy conclusion imho.

Hebrews 1:
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

 

[Douglas Summers]

The problem is your inferences. The spirit that returns to God is God's spirit. It's not man. Man is not a spirit. Gen2:7 tells us how God created man.

Again, study the Scriptures (1 Cor. 1:18-25.) The Jew requires a signs and the Gentile seeks after wisdom. Please read the posted Scriptures before you reply. That is my answer to your abstract theology.

 

[OzSpen]

Let's not use the word God, because that's where the confusion comes from. Deity was manifest in the flesh. The word "theos" means deity. The Father is Deity and Jesus is Deity. Deity was manifest in the person of Jesus the Christ. However, Jesus is not the Father.

From which Greek lexicon did you obtain the meaning that θεὸς (theos) does not mean God?

 

[Butch5]

Context can never be legitimately used to eliminate scriptures.

Context doesn't eliminate Scripture it helps explain it.

Well, maybe in your mind that's true. But, we have what He says, instead. Yes, The Fullness of God is Manifest in His Own Son, and they are in fact ONE. Fairly easy conclusion imho.

Hebrews 1:
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

It's right there in the text. I understand that it shows that the passage doesn't support the illogical claim that two being are the same being. But hey, we didn't need to use Scripture to prove that it's just logical.

In Genesis God said the man would be joined to his wife and the two would become one flesh. Are they now they now the same person?

 

[Butch5]

Again, study the Scriptures (1 Cor. 1:18-25.) The Jew requires a signs and the Gentile seeks after wisdom. Please read the posted Scriptures before you reply. That is my answer to your abstract theology.

You're using the Scriptures out of context. How can you make a case when your understanding of the passage is out context and mine is within the context? You see, I understand it differently from you. So, unless you explain I don't know what you mean because I can't read your mind.

 

[Butch5]

From which Greek lexicon did you obtain the meaning that θεὸς (theos) does not mean God?

Where did I say that OZ? If you're gonna start this again please don't bother responding to my posts.

 

[OzSpen]

Where did I say that OZ? If you're gonna start this again please don't bother responding to my posts.

Go back to #162 where you stated: 'Let's not use the word God, because that's where the confusion comes from. Deity was manifest in the flesh. The word "theos" means deity'.

I'm not imagining it. Now please tell me which Greek lexicon tells you that ὁ θεὸς (ho theos) does not refer to the God.

When you want to eliminate the meaning of theos to make it mean deity, at the expense of eliminating the meaning of God, I will respond to you.

You try to warn me: 'If you're gonna start this again'. Start what? Accuracy in translation of the Greek???

Oz

 

[Butch5]

Go back to #162 where you stated: 'Let's not use the word God, because that's where the confusion comes from. Deity was manifest in the flesh. The word "theos" means deity'.

I'm not imagining it. Now please tell me which Greek lexicon tells you that ὁ θεὸς (ho theos) does not refer to the God.

Yes, I said that. Where in there do you see that I said "theos" doesn't mean God? I didn't. I merely suggested using a different word for clarification purposes.

When you want to eliminate the meaning of theos to make it mean deity, at the expense of eliminating the meaning of God, I will respond to you.

I didn't eliminate anything. You simply read that into what I said.

You try to warn me: 'If you're gonna start this again'. Start what? Accuracy in translation of the Greek???

Oz

No, reading things into what I've said and then arguing against them. I stopped responding to you in the past for that reason. It's called a straw man argument, it's a logical fallacy. Nowhere in the post you quoted did I say that theos doesn't mean God. I simply chose a different word for clarification.

 

[OzSpen]

Yes, I said that. Where in there do you see that I said "theos" doesn't mean God? I didn't. I merely suggested using a different word for clarification purposes.

I didn't eliminate anything. You simply read that into what I said.

No, reading things into what I've said and then arguing against them. I stopped responding to you in the past for that reason. It's called a straw man argument, it's a logical fallacy. Nowhere in the post you quoted did I say that theos doesn't mean God. I simply chose a different word for clarification.

I suggest that you become more careful in your use of words. At #162 you did state: ''Let's not use the word God, because that's where the confusion comes from. Deity was manifest in the flesh. The word "theos" means deity'.

What does that mean except that translating theos as 'God' is confusing and 'theos' means deity? That's what you wrote.

No straw man here. Please admit that that is what you said and it was your wording that was confusing and not calling theos God that is confusing.

Bye, bye,
Oz

 

[Butch5]

I suggest that you become more careful in your use of words. At #162 you did state: ''Let's not use the word God, because that's where the confusion comes from. Deity was manifest in the flesh. The word "theos" means deity'.

What does that mean except that translating theos as 'God' is confusing and 'theos' means deity? That's what you wrote.

No straw man here. Please admit that that is what you said and it was your wording that was confusing and not calling theos God that is confusing.

Bye, bye,
Oz

I admitted that's what I said. You said that I said that theos didn't mean God. I did not say that. I can't help how you read my post. No offense, but you did jump into an ongoing conversation. Did you read the previous posts to see what the context of my statements?

 

[smaller]

Context doesn't eliminate Scripture it helps explain it.

It remains disingenuous theological methodology to divide Jesus from God.

It's right there in the text. I understand that it shows that the passage doesn't support the illogical claim that two being are the same being. But hey, we didn't need to use Scripture to prove that it's just logical.

In Genesis God said the man would be joined to his wife and the two would become one flesh. Are they now they now the same person?

1 Corinthians 6:17
But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

Ephesians 4:
4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Unless you are relegating A God And A Lord, DIFFERENT GODS, One Greater, one lesser? Which is I suspect where your mind is at on this subject.

Luke 1:
67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,
68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people

Acts 7:59
And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.

The petty difficulty most have is not seeing God in Christ, His Son, His Word, Gods Own Expression.

2 Corinthians 5:
19 To wit, that God was in Christ

 

[Butch5]

It remains disingenuous theological methodology to divide Jesus from God.

You're equivocating on the word God. How about you define the word as you see it.

This is why I said in the beginning let's not use the word God. It's because those who hold the opinion you do equivocate on the word God. Sometime, it's the Father, sometimes its the Son. It's just changed to fit whatever theological point is being made.

1 Corinthians 6:17

But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

I'm not sure how you think this proves a Trinity.

Ephesians 4:

4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Unless you are relegating A God And A Lord, DIFFERENT GODS, One Greater, one lesser? Which is I suspect where your mind is at on this subject.

Nothing here says they are one being.

Luke 1:

67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,
68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people

Nothing here says there is one being who consists of three persons.

Acts 7:59

And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.

The petty difficulty most have is not seeing God in Christ, His Son, His Word, Gods Own Expression.

2 Corinthians 5:
19 To wit, that God was in Christ

There's nothing here that says there is one being who consists of three persons.

What you've done is to show that your argument is a logical fallacy. It's called begging the question. You see your premise is that there is a being called God who consists of three persons. Then you posted passages that mention Jesus and God. None of the passages say that there is a being called God who consists of three persons. You're drawing that conclusion from those passages because you come to the text already believing that there is a being called God who consists of three persons. In other words, your interpretation of those passages is based on your belief that there is a being called God who consists of three persons. Since you already believe that you interpret those passages that way and thus your conclusion is nothing more than a restatement of your premise that is "begging the question". You've not actually proven anything.