it'sme, you said:
>So I think I will leave you guys to your own ways.
But you can never say someone didn't tell you.
I do not know if you are looking after saying that, but I should say these things. I said earlier, "We agree, if it is your position in truth, to take the Bible as the final word." I had made very good points right from the Bible, and not I alone, but you say here you will just give up the discussion, not having really responded. I don't think you should have the position in so doing to have the final word.
You said this after in my preceding message I made excellent points that show otherwise, which you do not respond to:
>Jehovah was never created. Jesus was the first born of creation. Thus he is God's Son. Jesus when on the earth gave credit to his Father who was in heaven. He even prayed to him. Jesus even said not my will but your will.
This part just reiterates the position I have already successfully countered with no contradicting response from you. I said, in Luke 1 v 35, the angel told Mary in his announcement "also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." This is the event where Jesus who is to be born after that is first called the Son of God. This is how the incarnation of God (yes, that is not a Bible term, but it is our convenient way of saying in a word what was the reality when the Word who was with God and was God became flesh and dwelt among us) was to be known. And also earlier, the Lord is firstborn by virtue of preeminence, and by his life, the first and source of the resurrection. These points justify my position, that of so many Christians generally, and you did not respond directly to them. Of course, as separate persons that the Father and Jesus the Son are with distinct roles, other points you make are taken into account. It should not remain an unconsidered point leaving one in confusion that person does not at all mean the same as being, and with God, the persons are in complete union as one being. Do you just not want to even contemplate that? Even if we remain in disagreement, although I say it isn't justified, we have more in common than whole societies other than ours built around belief that there is one being which is God, and that that being is not any person. If God can be conceived as being no person, which we would both disagree with, we have a basis, in agreement that God is personal, that God may be more than one person, surely not impossible if a concept of God being no person can be told by these other societies. But the Bible, which is supernaturally supported, does give us our basis for plurality of persons, and an honest look at the Bible, one truly conforming to what the texts say in the original languages, not the version produced by just one organization for its members' use, will really show that. I implore you to really look, you can otherwise not have certainty, and remain with the wrong group, which I can demonstrate is so.
From Der Alter:
>Originally Posted by it'sme:
The so what ,is all the contradictions you have to have to understanding the meaning of this .
>You haven't mentioned any contradictions concerning the Holy Spirit.
I was going to respond to that. What contradictions are you talking about? You mentioned metaphors, and I agreed there were metaphors, in passages from the Bible regarding the Spirit of God. I told you it had to be decided which set of passages were metaphors, and whether you understood to take the set with the majority literally or not, no contradictions would come from that.
I said from early in the discussion "I hope you will truly look at the Bible and what it says on these things, and keep in mind that it should not be overridden by what would be said from one's congregation. A congregation might be wrong, however disagreeable it may be to contemplate that, but the Bible, never. I say these things without hostility, but in the spirit of a charitable dialogue, as things that should be discussed. It is good that we agree that Jesus is returning." And also, "I hope you will be honest, and to yourself too, if you find what I pointed out is true, and this is who Jesus is. It should mean a choice is to be made for the Bible, even if we come to a disagreement with our congregation, and in that case, hard though it may be, we might have to leave it and seek to be right with God, through Jesus Christ, and find the right congregation, church, or fellowship, that holds with the truth that was what could be found. My group would be good." You at one point asked me how I could tell you that because I had yet to establish my position on Jesus was right. If it is, the position of your organization is not. I have done well as I think I can to establish it, and you just needed to see it and consider it. I left it possible for you to question the faith in what your congregation teaches, as you can not know for certainty it has the essential truth as opposed to it being elsewhere such as with another group, but you would only have a blind faith. There are many others that make the same kind of claim with as much conviction. Christians generally know to put faith alone in what the Bible teaches for our belief and therefore have faith in Christ, and the Bible has plenty of basis for our faith. I was willing to remain in dialogue with you in such a case that you saw the need for change, and give support, as well as fellowship in a group, even as you would then need to be in a new congregation or church. I could instruct you in finding one that is founded on the Bible. That Jesus is our savior would be taught, for it is not by works we do that we may be saved. As it says in Acts 16:
30 And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
This is the message for our salvation, repeated in other scriptures many times. It is what we really need to do to be saved.
>There is a truth there and it is found in the bible. But most ... do not want it.
From the lack of response to most of the points I and others made indicating that you really saw them, it suggests that this would be true of you. You only had to show that you read them and considered them , or rejected them on some meritorious basis.
