Jesus likened his death to the seed which dies. Only the outer shell of the seed dies. The germ remains ALIVE. He likened his death also to Jonah in the belly of the whale. Jonah was in the whale's belly ALIVE. So Christ was in sheol ALIVE.
the only ,thing I will say here mostly because you show no evidence of listening to what I am saying, is that when we do a word study, that is, we look to see what the original text says, the word for created, means to create, so it says that He created all things that in in heaven and in earth....the things that we can see and the things we can't see....all things, notice it does not say all things that are not about our earthly understanding of power but rather it says all things. Now, people like you can try to dismiss the "all things" all you want, but the reality is that the word says, all things, both those things we see and the things we don't. Your limitation is restricted to only those things we see, and ignores the things we don't see. To complicate your interpretation even further, we move down, (in context) to verse 17 which says that He was before all these things. Now, if Jesus was only before the things He has authority over government wise, you must not understand history, because it was the government of the time that Jesus was thought to come to destroy, yet verse 17 says that He was before (in your understanding) governments, right away we have a contradiction.
I mean no disrespect when I say this to you, but I have to laugh every time someone suggests that I don't know my scripture. This accusation is even funnier because I simply asked you to explain what you were trying to say and because I was courteous enough to ask you to clarify, you feel justified to accuse me of not knowing scripture. So here is a hint of how most of my days are, as a result of God's call on my life and His equipping me for that call. Most days, I spend 8-10 hours studying the word of God. When I am not studying I am most likely teaching or counseling people as to the truths of scripture. I take this calling very seriously and because of that I apply 5 or more safe guards against misinterpreting the intent of scripture. It is not uncommon for me to study 700 or more verses a week of those that apply to the topic I am studying (specifically, not in a round about way) I study the context and more times than not a word study so that translations are not getting in the way of true understanding. Before and after my time of study, I spend hours in focused prayer, not only for understanding, but for the things I have been asked over the day and week to pray for. I would estimate that I spend about 4-5 hours in focused prayer a day plus the brief moments I sneak in during the day. This is 6-7 days a week. I try to take one sabbath, even from study (never prayer) but whereas I seldom study on my sabbath, I more times then not, get called to teach or counsel someone in desperate need of finding God in the midst of their struggle.
I am not unclear about scripture, I am unclear as to what you want us to see in that passage. Your accusations sound a bit defensive rather than teachings.
lots of times, when I see a long post like this, I start to read thinking, cool, we get to see something we haven't seen before about the true nature and Love of God. Then I start reading and find things like this....you claim that the Father is the true light...yet scripture says that Jesus the Christ is the light of the world....John 8:12; John 1:4; John 9:5; John 12:35-36; John 12:46...you see, according to scripture Jesus is the light...It also says that the word is a lamp (aka light) Ps. 119:105...whereas the Lord (aka God-the Father) is said to be a pillar of fire that lights the way Ex, 13:21...even God Himself says that Jesus is a light sent to us II Cor. 4:6....but what is even more peculiar about your proclamations here is that we, the children of God, are to be a light as well Eph. 5:8....that means that this entire long post is built off a false premise of who God is and who the light is. How can we take it as truth when the very premise is false?
what does scripture tell us truth is? Ps. 119:160; John 17:17; James 1:18...the word
let's look at that, shall we, rather than just taking your word for it. I John 1
now, you seem to be confusing things again. Just because God is Christ and Christ is God and yet separate in our ability to comprehend, does not mean that they are without differences. I mean the most obvious difference is that when God became flesh, only the one we identify with as flesh possesses flesh.
now you seem to be mixing all kind of things that don't seem to belong, but I am behind and don't think I will take the time at the moment to unravel it for you, if it comes back up maybe I will try.
see above
seems to me that Jesus, being fully God and fully man would be the "only"...doesn't change what I said in the least little bit, nor does changing the wording of one of the most quoted passages in the bible change what I said. So, not sure your point.
sometimes, I just have to stop for a moment, take a deep breath and convince myself that people are asking because they don't know, not because they are being difficult. DEEP Breath...
what I was pointing out to you is that you are assuming things that are not being said, which just muddiest the discussion.
your getting closer
what is a destroyed soul? One that dies, right? What is spiritual or soul death? Hell....shall we go through all those passages? Ephesians 2:1-3; Prov. 8:36; John 3:36; I John 5:12; Ephesians 4:18
okay, so apparently you are not familiar with Gal. 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
I have no idea what you are talking about...seriously. There is a joke that goes like this...I can speak every lang. except Greek...okay, speak Spanish...oh, that's Greek to me. This fits what you seem to be saying here. I respond to what you said, with a question of clarification and instead of addressing the clarification, you try to do a song and dance around the issue and in that, try to make me look like I am saying something I am not. All you have to do is clarify when asked for clarification.
as I pointed out in context, this passage says nothing about who Jesus is, thus does not answer the question of whether or not you believe Jesus is God in the flesh. In fact, if this is the passage you present to clarify your stand, I'm guessing you don't think Jesus is God in flesh as scripture tells us because it doesn't mention Jesus at all, only the "Lord" which is one title for the living God, thus not talking about trinity at all. But hey, at least you presented an unrelated passage to clarify something I asked you to clarify, so I guess in your eyes that makes you justified to try to play games and suggest untruths of another.....
what wine are we drinking now? What false Christ are you referring to now? I don't know, you often talk in riddles, which is problematic for true communication.
wow...you are just now figuring out that the will of the flesh and the will of the spirit are at war with each other? How did it take you this long to discover the truth written here? Gal. 5:17 For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want.
check out these passages....John 10:30 I and the Father are one." and Matthew 23:9 And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.
Not even sure what this riddle is suppose to me but it seems obvious from your posts that there are huge gaps in your understanding of scripture and word usage there.
As I said the word "monogenes" translates the Hebrew word "yachid" which simply means "only." The Angel said to Abraham, "You have not withheld your only (yachid) son from me." Hebrews 11 says, "Abraham offered up his only (monogenes) son."
HUH? why would I do that? Like I said, either meaning is fine with what I said to you. It doesn't change what I said at all....let me see, another way to say this simple concept....the differences in word meaning that have been presented do NOT affect what I said at all, in fact, both meaning support what I said. That basically means that at the root of the matter, I couldn't care less about which is the correct word meaning because both word meanings support what I told you. So why pray tell, would I need to prove one meaning over the other when both support what I said? that makes absolutely no sense and would just be trying to stir an argument for the sake of arguing....no thank you, I want to learn not argue just to argue.
the thayer lexicon on the Strong's concordance site disagrees with you, but like I said, arguing over it would just be to argue for the sake of arguing, which is something I detest. Either meaning supports what I said, so it is what it is...not sure why you want to argue about it as if is proves you right and everyone else wrong, cause it simply doesn't do that.
lol you think I am confused and you think I am going through a hard time...that is funny, especially given that I have been using the analogy of the HS being our battery for years now, in fact, not long ago had someone tell me it was a flawed analogy because it paints the picture that something about our abilities or not abilities or who knows, in the end of the matter the analogy stood firm. So what pray tell makes you think that is the problem? Now some of your Father/Son/trinity stuff is pretty far off as best I can tell, but that is why I asked for clarity and show you what you seem to be missing.
see, that is a huge part of the problem, you take one passage and ignore the totality of scripture.
okay, I often let people who are missing the point, play the game by their rules. So let's say that this means that Jesus was only a man, that is born of God...now think about this, He is the first born, before all things...that would mean He was born before Abraham (as the scripture says) before Adam and Eve...etc. So if Jesus was born before Adam and Eve, why didn't He get born until Joseph and Mary came on the scene? That doesn't add up....but if we look at the context, and focus our attention on the point of the passage not the words we can twist, what does it say? "He is the first born from the dead"...iow's His birth order here is referring to the resurrection not the birth order of creation.
Word study is what I offered you and you refused just as God revealed Jesus and Jesus God and you are refusing that.
yes, there are reasons I am not thinking clearly thus I ask for clarification on the things I don't understand, thing that given different circumstances I might understand. It's about why I ask for clarification so much right now, not a matter of me not...oh never mind, there is much you don't understand even about this.
