Does the Father have higher authority than the Son?

[Bob Crowley]

I think they're one God, but I also think there is a hierarchy, with God the Father as the "senior partner".

Christ was God in the flesh, but at the Garden of Gethsemene, He pleaded with the Father to be allowed to bypass what was coming, but complied with "Not my will but Thine be done". That implies separate wills, and the obedience of the Son to the Father.

On the cross, God the Father abandoned God the Son. Christ suffered the agony of the crucifixion and was abandoned by God the Father. God the Father suffered the loss of His Son, given up for us all.

God suffered.

At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son.

There's a hierarchy, with some qualification of roles, even if they are One.

And we'll never figure it out.

 

[Wayne Gabler]

I don't take my doctrine from prophetic riddles (Number 12:8) which are subject to more than one interpretation, the only rule being interpretation must not be in disagreement with NT apostolic teaching in order to not be incorrect, but which so much of it is.

I found the book of Job to be quite hard to read. When I read something that was not clear I usually went back to reading in the 4 Gospels as those were parts that I understood 'better'. Reading them helped me to understand the harder parts when I read then again a decade later. (slow reader, rather than the text is that hard to understand)
I still think your best chance at understanding the bible is with an e-version of the 1611kjv text as the search phrases will give you better results. It is also as close to the original documents that you can get, so there is less 'back pedalling'.
Now do this 10 minute 'test', Daniel:2 and 7 have visions that come as 'visions' that uses 'poetic terms', in that same passage there is an explanation of what the 'poem' means in literal terms. If you read the vision part again, it should mean 'something' when the 1st reading was 'meaningless'.
The vision and explanation in Daniel:7 has lots of other references, the part here is the same thing, the confusing vision should be a bit clearer after you read the explanation. Re:17 also comes with a vision and an explanation, if the visions in Daniel became clearer than the same should happen here.
The part I then read up on was about the 10 men mentioned, it turns out they are the same 10 men. The two witnesses also are in that vision, time, times, 1/2 a time is 3 1/2 days they are in the grave. That is why I say there are more references that add depth to the picture those vision 'paint'.
That can be done to any part, the bad news is it is you alone that will be able to supply 'the correct answer', such as putting these two verse together:
M't:24:36:
But of that day and hour knoweth no man,
no,
not the angels of heaven,
but my Father only.
Isa:49:2:
And he hath made my mouth like a sharp sword;
in the shadow of his hand hath he hid me,
and made me a polished shaft;
in his quiver hath he hid me;
Re:6:2:
And I saw,
and behold a white horse:
and he that sat on him had a bow;
and a crown was given unto him:
and he went forth conquering,
and to conquer.
Re:8:2-4:
And I saw the seven angels which stood before God;
and to them were given seven trumpets.
And another angel came and stood at the altar,
having a golden censer;
and there was given unto him much incense,
that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne.
And the smoke of the incense,
which came with the prayers of the saints,
ascended up before God out of the angel's hand.
.
.
.

 

[Wayne Gabler]

I think they're one God, but I also think there is a hierarchy, with God the Father as the "senior partner".

Christ was God in the flesh, but at the Garden of Gethsemene, He pleaded with the Father to be allowed to bypass what was coming, but complied with "Not my will but Thine be done". That implies separate wills, and the obedience of the Son to the Father.

On the cross, God the Father abandoned God the Son. Christ suffered the agony of the crucifixion and was abandoned by God the Father. God the Father suffered the loss of His Son, given up for us all.

God suffered.

At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son.

There's a hierarchy, with some qualification of roles, even if they are One.

And we'll never figure it out.

How about Christ being the only High Priest to God between Adam and Moses due to a change in law when David killed the 6-fingerd king known as Goliath in 1024BC.
Heb:7:1-4:
For this Melchisedec,
king of Salem,
priest of the most high God,
who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings,
and blessed him;
To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all;
first being by interpretation King of righteousness,
and after that also King of Salem,
which is,
King of peace;
Without father,
without mother,
without descent,
having neither beginning of days,
nor end of life;
but made like unto the Son of God;
abideth a priest continually.
Now consider how great this man was,
unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.

Christ's wisdom and witness of Ge:1:1 'to the death of the last 6-fingered person in the exodus wars' is found in Proverbs:8.

 

[Wayne Gabler]

At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son.

There's a hierarchy, with some qualification of roles, even if they are One.

And we'll never figure it out.

Which Bible are you reading? Jesus would have been standing there with the 11 people He had already baptized. That gave them perfect recall, this gift of languages (removing the tower of Babel curse) is so the 4 Gospels could be in perfect Greek by the end of the 40 days He was with those 11 people:
Ac:2:2-4:
And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind,
and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire,
and it sat upon each of them.
And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost,
and began to speak with other tongues,
as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Adam and Eve are 'one'. In the OT, if you referenced a man, that included his wife. What happened to Adam happened to Eve.
God and the Holy Spirit are one because they are 'married', unlike the immortal angels they created.
Ge:1:1-2:
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form,
and void;
and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Ge:1:26-27:
And God said,
Let us make man in our image,
after our likeness:
and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,
and over the fowl of the air,
and over the cattle,
and over all the earth,
and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God created he him;
male and female created he them.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Well Mark, to be quite truthful, it is you alone that has determined my opinions of what the Bible means is 'bad logic' in this case. That should be a blanket condition for what your opinion comes up with.

Huh? Can you rewrite that please? I don't even know what you are saying. The first sentence is easy enough, but how do you apply it to the second?

Did the rain that fell on high hills and mountain tops fall as snow, rather than rain, as it stayed in place for 150 days.

What does this have to do with anything we have been talking about?

Is it also 'bad logic' to promote that Re:12 is an expansion on verse Ge:3:15? The 1st woman is Eve from Ge:3, the 2nd woman is Mary, the mother of Jesus, the last woman is Mary of Bethany, aka beloved Disciple of John the Baptist that is the author of the Gospel of John and the Revelation of John.
That theme should set your hair on fire as it puts a woman as being more important to Jesus than Peter, his best friend and Chief Apostle.

What in the world does this have to do with anything we have been discussing?

At least I can be logical and rant with the best of the trolls on the net. Since I only use facts and not fantasy, who do you think wins most of the argumentative discussions?

If your arguments are facts cast about in unpredictable fashion, I'm guessing they aren't even arguments.

I'm actually thinking that part may not have ever been noticed by you or your friends, this is the best argument you can make. Saying that Adam added it would mean you would have to agree with 'my logical conclusion' and that would kill your assessment that you are wise about the Bible and I cannot understand the clearest verse.
'Replenish the earth' means the angelic witnesses in Ge:1 would be leaving, and the megaliths they built would be left for the use of Adam and Eve's sinless children. Sin entered, so all the megaliths were 'taken apart'. That would be for the 'God the Scientist' thread.

Where is my "assessment that [I am] wise about the Bible and [you] cannot understand the clearest verse"? And what in the world does anything else you say there have to do with anything? (And how in the world do you come up with it? —Angelic witnesses in Ge:1 who built megaliths?)

Actually what I said was that it would mean Adam gave Eve that instruction.
'Would they have died if they touched it only' was my question that you missed replying to. This is not a one way street with you directing all the traffic.

I remember that. Your implication is that Eve (or Adam) had lied that God had told them not to touch it. Are you finally backing away from that now?

Grace is a gift from God that covers many sins that a person misses repenting, things like what these reference:
M't:5:28:
But I say unto you,
That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Jas:2:10-11:
For whosoever shall keep the whole law,
and yet offend in one point,
he is guilty of all.
For he that said,
Do not commit adultery,
said also,
Do not kill.
Now if thou commit no adultery,
yet if thou kill,
thou art become a transgressor of the law.

The above applies to thoughts if you are a Gentile, it is referencing the 10 Commandments only.

Christian have to repent sinful thoughts as well as sinful deeds. OT only believers have to repent nothing as their resurrection is based on their family tree:
Eze:37:11-17:
Then he said unto me,
Son of man,
these bones are the whole house of Israel:
behold,
they say,
Our bones are dried,
and our hope is lost:
we are cut off for our parts.
Therefore prophesy and say unto them,
Thus saith the Lord GOD;
Behold,
O my people,
I will open your graves,
and cause you to come up out of your graves,
and bring you into the land of Israel.
And ye shall know that I am the LORD,
when I have opened your graves,
O my people,
and brought you up out of your graves,
And shall put my spirit in you,
and ye shall live,
and I shall place you in your own land:
then shall ye know that I the LORD have spoken it,
and performed it, saith the LORD.
The word of the LORD came again unto me,
saying,
Moreover,
thou son of man,
take thee one stick,
and write upon it,
For Judah,
and for the children of Israel his companions:
then take another stick,
and write upon it,
For Joseph,
the stick of Ephraim,
and for all the house of Israel his companions:
And join them one to another into one stick;
and they shall become one in thine hand.

This part is about the different emotions both groups experience, based on sinful thoughts being allowed or not. Feeding the poor and taking revenge or stealing something create completely different emotions. Jews feel the good emotions when helping others, that is other Jews as Gentiles are viewed as 'the land of the enemy'. God puts death as being the land of the enemy. That point is also lost so the meaning of OT prophecies is changed
Heb:8:7:
For if that first covenant had been faultless,
then should no place have been sought for the second.
Jer:31:31-33:
Behold,
the days come,
saith the LORD,
that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel,
and with the house of Judah:
Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt;
which my covenant they brake,
although I was an husband unto them,
saith the LORD:
But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel;
After those days,
saith the LORD,
I will put my law in their inward parts,
and write it in their hearts;
and will be their God,
and they shall be my people.

M't:2:16-18:
Then Herod,
when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men,
was exceeding wroth,
and sent forth,
and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem,
and in all the coasts thereof,
from two years old and under,
according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men.
Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet,
saying,
In Rama was there a voice heard,
lamentation,
and weeping,
and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children,
and would not be comforted,
because they are not.
Jer:31:15-17:
Thus saith the LORD;
A voice was heard in Ramah,
lamentation,
and bitter weeping;
Rahel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children,
because they were not.
Thus saith the LORD;
Refrain thy voice from weeping,
and thine eyes from tears:
for thy work shall be rewarded,
saith the LORD;
and they shall come again from the land of the enemy.
And there is hope in thine end,
saith the LORD,
that thy children shall come again to their own border.

The above is showing the Eze:37 resurrections are a literal event, the second covenant God makes with 'the whole House of Israel' is made with people like Jesus was when He was resurrected. That includes being able to appear in a room with a locked door and no windows. The mortal body God viewed as 'flawed' in Isaiah:53 was replaced by the one He had in the 40 days after His resurrection. It is the immortal body that will be walking to the living water and tree of life as defined in Eze:47. The 'house' is referencing the Temple Christ will build and then it is decorated by the people over the next 1,000 years.
Satan's last view is his capital city being melted like Sodom was will be replaced by what the city and land around it would have been like if sin had never entered the world. The Throne from the Re:4 Temple (represents the Holy Spirit from Ge:1:2), the water is from God in Ge:1:1.
The people alive at the end of the same day the two witnesses are resurrected are not given in marriage, they never have children.
During the 1,000 years, Israel plays the older brother who is in front of Jesus and the 24 Elders 24/7 minus the 30 days when the Gentile Church comes for a sinless version of Passover. Israel makes the red wine and the Church brings the ripe barley for the bread. What they are being shown is how a shepherd/flock relationship with 'strangers' is how immortal people can experience 'the joys of parenthood' without having actual children like the 100 each married couple in the flock will have.
These two group become a single group in the new earth. They can never fall into sin as they never leave the city. Children come to them when they are 120 years. When they eat from one tree, the other tree is also ready to be eaten from before the mortal person 'dies'. Repeat the same pattern for the next 40B years. Then the people in the city will be as wise as the angels in their perfected heaven in Hebrews:12, aka Mount Sion.

They are sinless immortals by the time all sinful immortals are in the fiery lake, they can enter new Jerusalem as soon as they get there. The rest of Adam and Eve's children enter after going through judgment by God. They are as innocent as the people alive at the end of day1 of the 1,000 years will be. The trip from heaven to the new earth means the people in the city first will have 2 days of wisdom about God to pass on when they first meet.
It will be like Adam explained to Eve how the garden came into being, Adam was the witness to the literal events because he was the first creation on day 6 in the garden, Eve only saw it through the stories her husband to her because she was the last creation on that day.

Huh? And I'm the one they say causes people's eyes to glaze over! But I'm beginning to see why you say the things you do, and float from one subject to another even in the simple arguments!

Why do you go into a spiel about Grace, as an answer to the question of why you morph the discussion on whether-or-not God told Adam not to touch the tree, into an attack on those who take grace for granted? If it is only to compare you speculation of Adam telling latecomer Eve what had happened, to your speculation of one group in the New Jerusalem telling another group of latecomers, it is certainly anticlimactic.

@Clare73 was right when she said something to the effect of, "I don't build doctrine out of prophetic riddles"

 

[Clare73]

I found the book of Job to be quite hard to read. When I read something that was not clear I usually went back to reading in the 4 Gospels as those were parts that I understood 'better'. Reading them helped me to understand the harder parts when I read then again a decade later. (slow reader, rather than the text is that hard to understand)
I still think your best chance at understanding the bible is with an e-version of the 1611kjv text as the search phrases will give you better results. It is also as close to the original documents that you can get, so there is less 'back pedalling'.

Now do this 10 minute 'test', Daniel:2 and 7 have visions that come as 'visions' that uses 'poetic terms', in that same passage there is an explanation of what the 'poem' means in literal terms. If you read the vision part again, it should mean 'something' when the 1st reading was 'meaningless'.
The vision and explanation in Daniel:7 has lots of other references, the part here is the same thing, the confusing vision should be a bit clearer after you read the explanation.

I see the prophetic riddles of Daniel 2 as fulfilled during the Roman Empire "in the time of those kings" (Daniel 2:40-43) which conquered the Greek empire (Daniel 2:29, Daniel 8:21), so that the Messianic kingdom was set up during the past Roman empire, at the first coming of Christ (Matthew 12:28).
I see the prophetic riddles of Daniel 7, 8 as four kingdoms:
lion -- Babylonia
bear, ram -- Medo-Persia
leopard, goat -- Greece
the beast -- Rome (63 BC to 476 AD)

Re:17 also comes with a vision and an explanation, if the visions in Daniel became clearer than the same should happen here.
The part I then read up on was about the 10 men mentioned, it turns out they are the same 10 men. The two witnesses also are in that vision, time, times, 1/2 a time is 3 1/2 days they are in the grave. That is why I say there are more references that add depth to the picture those vision 'paint'.
That can be done to any part, the bad news is it is you alone that will be able to supply 'the correct answer', such as putting these two verse together:
M't:24:36:
But of that day and hour knoweth no man,
no,
not the angels of heaven,
but my Father only.
Isa:49:2:
And he hath made my mouth like a sharp sword;
in the shadow of his hand hath he hid me,
and made me a polished shaft;
in his quiver hath he hid me;
Re:6:2:
And I saw,
and behold a white horse:
and he that sat on him had a bow;
and a crown was given unto him:
and he went forth conquering,
and to conquer.
Re:8:2-4:
And I saw the seven angels which stood before God;
and to them were given seven trumpets.
And another angel came and stood at the altar,
having a golden censer;
and there was given unto him much incense,
that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne.
And the smoke of the incense,
which came with the prayers of the saints,
ascended up before God out of the angel's hand.

I don't take my doctrine from prophetic riddles (Numbers 12:8).

 

[Wayne Gabler]

I see the prophetic riddles of Daniel 2 as fulfilled during the Roman Empire "in the time of those kings" (Daniel 2:40-43), which conquered the Greek empire (Daniel 2:29, Daniel 8:21), so that the Messianic kingdom was set up during the past Roman empire, at the first coming of Christ (Matthew 12:28).
I see the prophetic riddles of Daniel 7, 8 as four kingdoms:
lion -- Babylonia
bear, ram -- Medo-Persia
leopard, goat -- Greece
the beast -- Rome (63 BC to 476 AD)

I don't take my doctrine from prophetic riddles (Numbers 12:8).

If you see all prophecy as a riddle that is not solved, when you apply it to some doctrine you believe in, when you might only find 15% of the book as being 'clear', how is that going to end up being 'sound doctrine'?
It turns out that death in Job was the topic. God allowed Satan to kill all that Job loved to show God would restore those things. That applies to what he loved that Satan killed the 2nd time.
When Job:14 says his resurrection will be after all wrath is past. That would mean he is referring the Re:20:5 resurrection, . . yet most people see all of 'the rest' as going to the lake of fire.
Isa:42:9:
Behold,
the former things are come to pass,
and new things do I declare:
before they spring forth I tell you of them.
2Tm:3:16:
All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine,
for reproof,
for correction,
for instruction in righteousness:

The Bible doesn't agree with your assessment.

 

[Wayne Gabler]

Huh? Can you rewrite that please? I don't even know what you are saying. The first sentence is easy enough, but how do you apply it to the second?

My point was that you could not agree with my version with any verse in any part of the Bible as it would destroy your assessment that you are wise about what the bible promotes, and I am clueless, even after studying the book for 3 decades.
When you are confused, why not stop there and get some clarity first. By powering on you only showed the rest of my post was above your comprehension level.

What does this have to do with anything we have been talking about?

I was after your assessment of how that water was able to stay in place for 5 months

What in the world does this have to do with anything we have been discussing?

Was the author May or Bethany or not? You are claiming I am illogical and you are logical. I'm just looking to see how well you know the Bible. Why avoid giving me your opinion if all you have to say is logical?

If your arguments are facts cast about in unpredictable fashion, I'm guessing they aren't even arguments.

Most of that post was questions for you to answer just so I could compare it to what I believe. Perhaps you have no opinion on those verses.

Where is my "assessment that [I am] wise about the Bible and [you] cannot understand the clearest verse"? And what in the world does anything else you say there have to do with anything? (And how in the world do you come up with it? —Angelic witnesses in Ge:1 who built megaliths?)

Are you promoting the megaliths were build by primitive man using stone hammers and copper chisels?
I can at least envision the 'sons of God' being more advanced than we are today. If not, why would anyone follow them if they are more primitive than modern man.

"Impossible" statues, "Impossible" ancient jewellery, Moscow nuked, "Impossible" steel.

I remember that. Your implication is that Eve (or Adam) had lied that God had told them not to touch it. Are you finally backing away from that now?

Why are you now promoting that God didn't put Adam under law until Eve was there to hear it as well?
Did they die because they ate it or because they touched it? Adam can make a mistake, God cannot.
Ge:3:11-13:
And he said,
Who told thee that thou wast naked?
Hast thou eaten of the tree,
whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
And the man said,
The woman whom thou gavest to be with me,
she gave me of the tree,
and I did eat.
And the LORD God said unto the woman,
What is this that thou hast done?
And the woman said,
The serpent beguiled me,
and I did eat.

Huh? And I'm the one they say causes people's eyes to glaze over! But I'm beginning to see why you say the things you do, and float from one subject to another even in the simple arguments!

I highly doubt that, considering how many topics I can cover in great detail.
Rome in the brass is the topic in post #39.

Why do you go into a spiel about Grace, as an answer to the question of why you morph the discussion on whether-or-not God told Adam not to touch the tree, into an attack on those who take grace for granted? If it is only to compare you speculation of Adam telling latecomer Eve what had happened, to your speculation of one group in the New Jerusalem telling another group of latecomers, it is certainly anticlimactic.

The Bible is the topic, why are all my questions in a form you find impossible to reply to? That is how an internet troll operates.

@Clare73 was right when she said something to the effect of, "I don't build doctrine out of prophetic riddles"

Is that why you have a list of verses rather than long threads about what the book actually says that is clear to readers skilled in Christian theology.

 

[Wayne Gabler]

I see the prophetic riddles of Daniel 2 as fulfilled during the Roman Empire "in the time of those kings" (Daniel 2:40-43), which conquered the Greek empire (Daniel 2:29, Daniel 8:21), so that the Messianic kingdom was set up during the past Roman empire, at the first coming of Christ (Matthew 12:28).
I see the prophetic riddles of Daniel 7, 8 as four kingdoms:
lion -- Babylonia
bear, ram -- Medo-Persia
leopard, goat -- Greece
the beast -- Rome (63 BC to 476 AD)

I don't take my doctrine from prophetic riddles (Numbers 12:8).

Whose words gave you the list above if you have no opinion of the references you posted?
Did you read the document, the link in comment #39. It has a different counting system:
Re:17:11:
And the beast that was,
and is not,
even he is the eighth,
and is of the seven,
and goeth into perdition.

Only the bruise to the heel in Ge:3:15 was completed, Da:11-12 is about the 3 1/2 years the iron/clay kingdom lasts.

 

[Clare73]

If you see all prophecy as a riddle that is not solved, when you apply it to some doctrine you believe in,

I don't apply prophetic riddles to NT doctrine, I apply NT doctrine to prophetic riddles, as in
Daniel 2:40-43.
I may relate a few prophetic riddles, with which I am familiar, to NT doctrine, and understand them in the light of NT doctrine, but I do not study prophecy, and prophetic riddles most definitely do not determine my doctrine. That is reserved for the NT.

when you might only find 15% of the book as being 'clear', how is that going to end up being 'sound doctrine'?
It turns out that death in Job was the topic. God allowed Satan to kill all that Job loved to show God would restore those things. That applies to what he loved that Satan killed the 2nd time.
When Job:14 says his resurrection will be after all wrath is past. That would mean he is referring the Re:20:5 resurrection, . . yet most people see all of 'the rest' as going to the lake of fire.
Isa:42:9:
Behold,
the former things are come to pass,
and new things do I declare:
before they spring forth I tell you of them.
2Tm:3:16:
All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine,
for reproof,
for correction,
for instruction in righteousness:

The Bible doesn't agree with your assessment.

And that means I understand all Scripture in the light of authoritative NT apostolic teaching.

 

[Clare73]

Whose words gave you the list above if you have no opinion of the references you posted?

Are you referring to the four kingdoms of historical record to which Daniel 7, 8 are applied?
That is my view of a prophetic riddle as I read it from my Bible, I make no claims to its authority.
I see Daniel 2 as I do because I see it as in agreement with NT doctrine.
I do not defend my view of Daniel 7, 8 as the necessarily correct meaning.
It's unclear prophetic riddle (Numbers 12:8), not doctrine.

Did you read the document, the link in comment #39. It has a different counting system:
Re:17:11:
And the beast that was,
and is not,
even he is the eighth,
and is of the seven,
and goeth into perdition.

Only the bruise to the heel in Ge:3:15 was completed, Da:11-12 is about the 3 1/2 years the iron/clay kingdom lasts.

I have no view regarding any of those things.

 

[Mark Quayle]

My point was that you could not agree with my version with any verse in any part of the Bible as it would destroy your assessment that you are wise about what the bible promotes, and I am clueless, even after studying the book for 3 decades.
When you are confused, why not stop there and get some clarity first. By powering on you only showed the rest of my post was above your comprehension level.

Longevity of study does not qualify anyone to do anything, unless maybe to expound on their notions. There are some very long-term well-studied JW's —does that qualify them for anything?

You will find it useless to attempt make me quayle (haha!) into a gibbering lump of regret at ever having dared to question the integrity of your use of Scripture. I may stop responding to your posts, but not because you shouted me down.

I was after your assessment of how that water was able to stay in place for 5 months

Why? What does that have to do with whether-or-not God might have told Adam that he was not even to touch the tree?

Was the author May or Bethany or not? You are claiming I am illogical and you are logical. I'm just looking to see how well you know the Bible. Why avoid giving me your opinion if all you have to say is logical?

Why? What does that have to do with whether-or-not God might have told Adam that he was not even to touch the tree?

Most of that post was questions for you to answer just so I could compare it to what I believe. Perhaps you have no opinion on those verses.

Why? What does that have to do with whether-or-not God might have told Adam that he was not even to touch the tree?

Are you promoting the megaliths were build by primitive man using stone hammers and copper chisels?
I can at least envision the 'sons of God' being more advanced than we are today. If not, why would anyone follow them if they are more primitive than modern man.

What does that have to do with whether-or-not God might have told Adam that he was not even to touch the tree?

"Impossible" statues, "Impossible" ancient jewellery, Moscow nuked, "Impossible" steel.

What does that have to do with whether-or-not God might have told Adam that he was not even to touch the tree?

Why are you now promoting that God didn't put Adam under law until Eve was there to hear it as well?
Did they die because they ate it or because they touched it? Adam can make a mistake, God cannot.
Ge:3:11-13:
And he said,
Who told thee that thou wast naked?
Hast thou eaten of the tree,
whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
And the man said,
The woman whom thou gavest to be with me,
she gave me of the tree,
and I did eat.
And the LORD God said unto the woman,
What is this that thou hast done?
And the woman said,
The serpent beguiled me,
and I did eat.

I'm only promoting the fact that you don't know for sure whether-or-not God told Adam not to touch the tree; which you seem to assume merely by the fact that it is not mentioned in Genesis. Why you go to all these other things is, well, weird.

"Mark Quayle said: ↑
...why you say the things you do, and float from one subject to another even in the simple arguments!"

I highly doubt that, considering how many topics I can cover in great detail.
Rome in the brass is the topic in post #39.

Huh? Where is the logic in the claim that the fact you can cover many topics in great detail shows that you don't float from one subject to another?

Indeed you do cover many topics in detail I would not attempt to teach as fact. And you float from one to the other without any (apparent) attempt at linking them to, or even returning to, the subject at hand: that of whether-or-not God might have told Adam that he was not even to touch the tree.

But why cover unrelated topics so, in a discussion on whether-or-not God might have told Adam that he was not even to touch the tree?

The Bible is the topic, why are all my questions in a form you find impossible to reply to? That is how an internet troll operates.

Well, no. The topic is how one can claim with any authority, whether-or-not God might have told Adam that he was not even to touch the tree, merely by the fact that it is not mentioned in Genesis that he did so.

Is that why you have a list of verses rather than long threads about what the book actually says that is clear to readers skilled in Christian theology.

You must be mistaking me with someone else. I am the one that supposedly loses doctrinal confrontations by failing to make lists of verses. It was you, in our little fun here, that have made long posts of verses, unlinked to the question at hand: "Can you positively claim that God did not tell Adam not to touch the tree it, simply by the fact that it is not said in Genesis that he did tell him not to touch the tree?"

 

[Wayne Gabler]

I don't apply prophetic riddles to NT doctrine, I apply NT doctrine to prophetic riddles, as in
Daniel 2:40-43.
I may relate a few prophetic riddles, with which I am familiar, to NT doctrine, and understand them in the light of NT doctrine, but I do not study prophecy, and prophetic riddles most definitely do not determine my doctrine. That is reserved for the NT.

And that means I understand all Scripture in the light of authoritative NT apostolic teaching.

Test question:
Is the letter actually the whole Book of Revelation? Is the 'thing' two prophecies that have to be fulfilled?
(possible only during the time the two witnesses are in the grave)
2Th:2:1-2:
Now we beseech you,
brethren,
by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,
and by our gathering together unto him,
That ye be not soon shaken in mind,
or be troubled,
neither by spirit,
nor by word,
nor by letter as from us,
as that the day of Christ is at hand.
Let no man deceive you by any means:
for that day shall not come,
except there come a falling away first,
and that man of sin be revealed,
the son of perdition;
Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God,
or that is worshipped;
so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God,
shewing himself that he is God.
Remember ye not,
that, when I was yet with you,
I told you these things?
And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.

 

[Wayne Gabler]

I have no view regarding any of those things.

Do I seem at all confused or unsure about the material we have covered so far?

How much of your current belief level would fall if the giants God killed with a flood and in the exodus wars were not part of the people in Re:21 that are being welcomed into the Kingdom of God? 6-fingered people in the Bible are directly related to fallen angels in Ge:6. God saves all those sinful people because their mothers were 5-fingered women, like Eve.

I think that brings this topic to an end.

 

[Clare73]

Test question:
Is the letter actually the whole Book of Revelation? Is the 'thing' two prophecies that have to be fulfilled?
(possible only during the time the two witnesses are in the grave)

Do I seem at all confused or unsure about the material we have covered so far?

How much of your current belief level would fall if the giants God killed with a flood and in the exodus wars were not part of the people in Re:21 that are being welcomed into the Kingdom of God? 6-fingered people in the Bible are directly related to fallen angels in Ge:6. God saves all those sinful people because their mothers were 5-fingered women, like Eve.

I think that brings this topic to an end.

I don't study prophecy.

 

[Wayne Gabler]

Longevity of study does not qualify anyone to do anything, unless maybe to expound on their notions. There are some very long-term well-studied JW's —does that qualify them for anything?

Is that your confession because it certainly has nothing to do with me opening the Bible up that long and then reading it for myself. I assume your version only required listening to some Priest or Rabbi and then not talking back at all.
I go to a different Church, you entered it the moment you made your first comment:
M't:18:20:
For where two or three are gathered together in my name,
there am I in the midst of them.

You will find it useless to attempt make me quayle (haha!) into a gibbering lump of regret at ever having dared to question the integrity of your use of Scripture. I may stop responding to your posts, but not because you shouted me down.

Since I have read your whole comment, let me help you with this part.

Click

 

[Wayne Gabler]

I don't study prophecy.

Do you feel your current level of knowledge lets you try and mock people who do study prophecy and have a clear understanding of what the Bible means when it tells a single story?

If it is unclear to you and that means it has to be unclear to everybody, you have a vanity issue.

 

[Clare73]

You must be mistaking me with someone else. I am the one that supposedly loses doctrinal confrontations by failing to make lists of verses. It was you, in our little fun here, that have made long posts of verses, unlinked to the question at hand: "Can you positively claim that God did not tell Adam not to touch the tree it, simply by the fact that it is not said in Genesis that he did tell him not to touch the tree?"

I suspect I am the candidate. . .the shoe fits.

What an exercise!

 

[Clare73]

Do you feel your current level of knowledge lets you try and mock people who do study prophecy and have a clear understanding of what the Bible means when it tells a single story?

If it is unclear to you and that means it has to be unclear to everybody, you have a vanity issue.

As I've demonstrated, my issue with you is nothing more, and nothing less, than that the interpretations of prophecy which you present are in disagreement with authoritative NT apostolic teaching, with which, unlike prophecy, I am familiar.

 

[Wayne Gabler]

As I've demonstrated, my issue with you is nothing more, and nothing less, than that the interpretations of prophecy which you present are in disagreement with authoritative NT apostolic teaching, with which, unlike prophecy, I am familiar.

Those teaching came after the Christian Reformation Wars began in the 1300's, Right?
Martin Luther - Wikipedia
Martin Luther
Martin Luther OSA (/ˈluːθər/;[1] German: [ˈmaʁtiːn ˈlʊtɐ] (audio speaker iconlisten); 10 November 1483[2] – 18 February 1546) was a German priest, theologian, author, composer, former Augustinian friar,[3] and is best known as a seminal figure in the Protestant Reformation and as the namesake of Lutheranism.

Luther was ordained to the priesthood in 1507. He came to reject several teachings and practices of the Roman Catholic Church; in particular, he disputed the view on indulgences.
.
.
In 1501, at age 17, he entered the University of Erfurt, which he later described as a beerhouse and whorehouse.[18] He was made to wake at four every morning for what has been described as "a day of rote learning and often wearying spiritual exercises."[18] He received his master's degree in 1505.[19]

The funding he received was from profits of the Dutch Slave Trade:

Thirty Years' War - Danish Intervention 1626-1629 DOCUMENTARY
In the previous episode of our animated historical documentary series on the Thirty Years' War we have covered Bohemian Rebellion and the battle of the White Mountain between the Catholic and Protestant forces. This new episode will see Denmark under its king Christian IV joining the war on the Protestant side and fighting a 4-year campaign against the Catholic League and Holy Roman empire armies led by Johann Tilly and Albrecht von Wallenstein. The battles of Lutter and Stralsund represented the peak of this part of the Thirty Years' War.

Gustavus Adolphus - Breitenfeld 1631 - 30 YEARS' WAR DOCUMENTARY
Another episode in our animated historical documentary series on the Thirty Years' War and Gustavus Adolphus enters the field to fight for the Protestant cause. The Swedish King would fight against the Catholic commander Tilly at the battle of Breitenfeld

I'm not sure if they are interested in making sure their flocks gets the proper version, they seem to be control-freaks really and would lie to their own group at the drop of a hat.
Best of luck with that.