Praise to the Man!

Toms777 · Dec 30, 2003

DCP said:
Just deal with the issue and answer the question. Does the first part of 2 Corinthians 8:9 speak of the Kenosis. Yes or no? Why or why not?

I responded, maybe not the answer that you want, but why don't you respond to my comments.

Toms777 · Dec 30, 2003

DCP said:
Yet, the Bible plainly teaches us that we will be co-heirs with Christ of all things and that He is the first of many brothers, brothers who will come to be brothers in truth when they are united to God as one spirit and have become ones having been transformed into the same image and glory as God's Son and have become adopted sons themselves with incomparible glory, the adoption occurring at the redemption of the body but the process beginning now with our acceptance of the Holy Christ. But, God still retains primacy over his creation and never will anyone who is deified through the communication of the divine grace of Christ ever become fully equals to God.

Put forward the references from the Bible that you are using as the basis for your position and we can discuss these in context.

DCP 32Â° K.T · Dec 30, 2003

Toms777 said:
...I do not plan to argue JWs with you here. I told you what you could do should you wish to discuss further. Anyone else who wants documented evidence or wishes to discuss further, the offer is open to them as well....

Wait a minute. Are we or are we not discussing Theosis as believed by varying religious traditions? If the JWs do believe in such a teaching, then it is both pertinent and in keeping with the subject of this thread to discuss them. Don't tell me you are bailing out on this discussion. Are you really? Your evidence is both pertinent and important. Let's see it publically. Post it here. 1881 is too late and out of date--far more so than parts of Aid to Bible Understanding. Have you got anything more recent? Let's see it.

Toms777 · Dec 30, 2003

DCP said:
Wait a minute. Are we or are we not discussing Theosis as believed by varying religious traditions? If the JWs do believe in such a teaching, then it is both pertinent and in keeping with the subject of this thread to discuss them. Don't tell me you are bailing out on this discussion. Are you really? Your evidence is both pertinent and important. Let's see it publically. Post it here. 1881 is too late and out of date--far more so than parts of Aid to Bible Understanding. Have you got anything more recent? Let's see it.

The thread was to discuss the doctrine of elevating and equating man to God as put forward by the hymn "Praise to teh Man".

Though JW doctrine is an area of interest, if you want to discuss that, I gave you a couple of options. It is not germaine to this thread. Start another thread if you wish and then we can look at JW doctrine.

DCP 32Â° K.T · Dec 30, 2003

Toms777 said:
I responded, maybe not the answer that you want, but why don't you respond to my comments.

No, you haven't answered the questions. You keep skirting them. Here are the selfsame questions I have been asking. We still are waiting for you to answer them. Here they are again:

1. Does the first part of 2 Corinthians 8:9 speak of the Kenosis? Yes or no?

2. Why or why not?

DCP 32Â° K.T · Dec 30, 2003

Well, then, it is true that you do not use the Bible of the Apostles, just as I said. Nope, no personal attack here. Nope, no ad hominem argumentation there. Just answer the questions, Mr. 777.

1. Does the first part of 2 Corinthians 8:9 refer to the Kenosis? Yes or no?

2. Why or why not?

DCP 32Â° K.T · Dec 30, 2003

Toms777 said:
Put forward the references from the Bible that you are using as the basis for your position and we can discuss these in context.

[Edited by a moderator]

JVAC · Dec 30, 2003

I just want to state the fact that the Bible is an anthology of writings compiled by 'men'. Certain writings were deemed fit others unfit. It was all ratified by a church council sometime in the fourth century I think (correct my date if I am wrong). I am not sure at what and by whom the apocrapha was instated, but I would be interested to learn.

Toms777 · Dec 30, 2003

JVAC said:
I just want to state the fact that the Bible is an anthology of writings compiled by 'men'. Certain writings were deemed fit others unfit. It was all ratified by a church council sometime in the fourth century I think (correct my date if I am wrong). I am not sure at what and by whom the apocrapha was instated, but I would be interested to learn.

I disagree (2 Tim 3:16 and others), but that is not the subject of this thread.

Toms777 · Dec 30, 2003

DCP said:
This is a perfect example of the blindness caused by postreformation theology. The American Surgeon General should put a label on it.

If you think that wanting to establish doctrine by the Bible is a sickness, then I could only hope to get a more severe case of that sickness.
I love God's word and want to continue to grow in knowledge and understanding of his wiord and look forw3ard to be accused of wanting to establish all doctrine solely on the Bible.

I will loudly shout that I am more than just guilty!!! Amen!!!! May that illness affect all mankind!!!

Toms777 · Dec 30, 2003

DCP said:
Well, then, it is true that you do not use the Bible of the Apostles, just as I said. Nope, no personal attack here. Nope, no ad hominem argumentation there. Just answer the questions, Mr. 777.

1. Does the first part of 2 Corinthians 8:9 refer to the Kenosis? Yes or no?

2. Why or why not?

I am not going around in circles. I responded even if you don't like the response, and will be pleased to respond to subsequent questions if you will do me the same favour of responding to my comments.

JVAC · Dec 30, 2003

Toms777 said:
I disagree (2 Tim 3:16 and others), but that is not the subject of this thread.

With this quote that you gave 2Tim 3:16 "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." Here Paul is talking about the Old Testament Scriptures. One can find this on many levels, but most of all, the Christian Bible, scriptures, did not exist to Timothy or Paul.

Now, the books of the bible were compiled later and assembled into the Christian Bible. This happened much later. After the creed of Nicea even. This in no way takes away from them, for they were all writen soon after the death of our Lord, to bear witness and teach his followers. Yet, they were assembled by 'men'. Such books as, The Gospel of Thomas and The book of Enoch didn't make it in. The church leaders, however, established it. We have been taught from it ever since.

It is indeed relevent, for it so establishes that, IF a Church council validated and added the Apocrapha to the Cannon, THEN, it is every bit as valid as any of the 66. So, It is permissable in usage.

I do not posses the knowledge about the Apocrapha to go any further though.

Toms777 · Dec 30, 2003

JVAC said:
With this quote that you gave 2Tim 3:16 "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." Here Paul is talking about the Old Testament Scriptures. One can find this on many levels, but most of all, the Christian Bible, scriptures, did not exist to Timothy or Paul.

Let me say upfront that this is off topic for this thread, so i will respond once and leave it there. If you would like to continue, I suggest that a new thread be started.

Consider that paul did nothing but pen this statement and that it was the Holy Spirit speaking through Paul...otherwisde Paul was lying about even this verse. that being the case, the Bible was completely defined from before the foundation of the earth and the canon was simply identified later. In fact, the books that make up the canon were largely identified prior to the end of the 1st century thopugh perhaps not formalized until later. Thus a legitimate church council will not establish canon but rather reflect taht which God has already established.

Lastly, there is very little if anything doctrinally added by the NT that one cannot find in the OT. Clarified, and illuminated yes, but new, no, there is little or nothing. At one time I would not have agreed with that, but studying for many years, I ahve come to realize this truth. Thus it was possible to test the truth of what was said in the NT times using the OT, and the validity of NT text could be confirmed in part by using OT texts.

There are many reasons for eliminating the apocrypha. they frequently contradict the Bible, and range from the fantasy/strange to books of historical if not canonical interest.

To repeat, I will leave it at this....for further discussion on this, we should take this to a new thread.

DCP 32Â° K.T · Dec 30, 2003

Toms777 said:
I am not going around in circles. I responded even if you don't like the response, and will be pleased to respond to subsequent questions if you will do me the same favour of responding to my comments.

You are indeed going around in circles, trying to do the two-step in avoiding the questions I've been asking. You have not addressed the questions directly. You have only responded to other items. You have not addressed the questions.

Why do you keep avoiding answering the questions, Mr. 777? Is it because you do not want to bind yourself to something you won't like? Is it because you do not want to admit the answer? Is it because you really do not know but want to feign knowledge? Please answer the questions directly, if you can.

They are again:

1. Does the first part of 2 Corinthians 8:9 refer to the Kenosis? Yes or no?

2. Why or why not?

DCP 32Â° K.T · Dec 30, 2003

JVAC,

Here is a list of the books in the Bible of the Apostles, for your interest:

GenesiV = Genesis
ExodoV = Exodus
Leuitikon = Leviticus
Ariqmoi = Numbers
Deuteronomion = Deuteronomy
IhsouV Nauh = Joshua
Rouq = Ruth
Basileiwn A' = 1 Kings (1 Samuel)
Basileiwn B' = 2 Kings (2 Samuel)
Basileiwn G' = 3 Kings (1 Kings)
Basileiwn D' = 4 Kings (2 Kings)
Paraleipomenwn A' = 1 Chronicles
Paraleipomenwn B' = 2 Chronicles
EsdraV A' = 1 Esdras
EsdraV B' = Ezra
NeemiaV = Nehemiah
Twbit = Tobit
Ioudiq = Judith
Esqhr = Esther
Makkabaiwn A' = 1 Maccabees
Makkabaiwn B' = 2 Maccabees
Makkabaiwn G' = 3 Maccabees
Yalmoi = Psalms
Iwb = Job
Paroimiai SolomwntoV = Proverbs
EkklhsiasthV = Ecclesiastes
Asma = Songs or Song of Songs or Song of Solomon
Sofia SolomwntoV = Wisdom of Solomon
Sofia Seirac = Wisdom of Sirach
Oshe = Hosea
AmwV = Amos
MicaiaV = Michaiah or Micah
Iwhl = Joel
Obdiou = Obediah
IwnaV = Jonah
Naoum = Nahum
Ambakoum - Habakkuk
SofoniaV = Zephaniah
AggaioV = Haggai
ZacariaV = Zechariah
MalaciaV = Malachi
HsaiaV = Isaiah
IeremiaV = Jeremiah
Barouc = Baruch
Qrhnoi Ieremiou = Lamentations of Jeremiah
Epistolh Ieremiou = Epistle of Jeremiah
Iezekihl = Ezekiel
Danihl = Daniel

Toms777 · Dec 30, 2003

DCP said:
JVAC,

Here is a list of the books in the Bible of the Apostles, for your interest:

GenesiV = Genesis
ExodoV = Exodus
Leuitikon = Leviticus
Ariqmoi = Numbers
Deuteronomion = Deuteronomy
IhsouV Nauh = Joshua
Rouq = Ruth
Basileiwn A' = 1 Kings (1 Samuel)
Basileiwn B' = 2 Kings (2 Samuel)
Basileiwn G' = 3 Kings (1 Kings)
Basileiwn D' = 4 Kings (2 Kings)
Paraleipomenwn A' = 1 Chronicles
Paraleipomenwn B' = 2 Chronicles
EsdraV A' = 1 Esdras
EsdraV B' = Ezra
NeemiaV = Nehemiah
Twbit = Tobit
Ioudiq = Judith
Esqhr = Esther
Makkabaiwn A' = 1 Maccabees
Makkabaiwn B' = 2 Maccabees
Makkabaiwn G' = 3 Maccabees
Yalmoi = Psalms
Iwb = Job
Paroimiai SolomwntoV = Proverbs
EkklhsiasthV = Ecclesiastes
Asma = Songs or Song of Songs or Song of Solomon
Sofia SolomwntoV = Wisdom of Solomon
Sofia Seirac = Wisdom of Sirach
Oshe = Hosea
AmwV = Amos
MicaiaV = Michaiah or Micah
Iwhl = Joel
Obdiou = Obediah
IwnaV = Jonah
Naoum = Nahum
Ambakoum - Habakkuk
SofoniaV = Zephaniah
AggaioV = Haggai
ZacariaV = Zechariah
MalaciaV = Malachi
HsaiaV = Isaiah
IeremiaV = Jeremiah
Barouc = Baruch
Qrhnoi Ieremiou = Lamentations of Jeremiah
Epistolh Ieremiou = Epistle of Jeremiah
Iezekihl = Ezekiel
Danihl = Daniel

I in fact do have a copy of all of them, but I do not recognize certain ones as canonical.

Toms777 · Dec 30, 2003

DCP said:
You are indeed going around in circles, trying to do the two-step in avoiding the questions I've been asking. You have not addressed the questions directly. You have only responded to other items. You have not addressed the questions.

Why do you keep avoiding answering the questions, Mr. 777? Is it because you do not want to bind yourself to something you won't like? Is it because you do not want to admit the answer? Is it because you really do not know but want to feign knowledge? Please answer the questions directly, if you can.

They are again:

1. Does the first part of 2 Corinthians 8:9 refer to the Kenosis? Yes or no?

2. Why or why not?

My last response to you on this. Please provide a response to my previous response to your requests and I'd be happy to deal with any additional follow-up questions which you may have.

The ball is in your court. If you choose to ignore my responses and not deal with the question that I raised, then I will choose not to response further to you with respect to this specific question, and we will get nowhere.

Treating others respectfully also involves considering their comments with equal importanmce to yours. I have responded to numerous of your questions, so I think it is fair to see you respond to one of mine.

Toss.....see the ball is now in your court. If you choose not to catch the ball, then expect no further discussion on this point.

DCP 32Â° K.T · Dec 31, 2003

Toms777 said:
My last response to you on this. Please provide a response to my previous response to your requests and I'd be happy to deal with any additional follow-up questions which you may have....

I went back through the thread. I've been replying concerning your comments to me. I also found that I have been asking you the same questions and getting no direct answers several pages of posts back. The selfsame questions were skited by you and yet continue to be so. If you refuse to answer these, which directly address your claim #1 several pages back, you show that you have no answer. Your choice. I didn't think you could answer them and you seem to be proving me right.

Those questions again are:

1. Does the first part of 2 Corinthians 8:9 refer to the Kenosis? Yes or no?

2. Why or why not?

Toms777 · Dec 31, 2003

I will relent one last time, assuming that you may have been ignoring me so long that maybe you honestly have forgotten that I responded.

If you choose to ignore this long cut and paste of my past comments, I will be left with no choice than to believe that you are playing games and that indeed it is you who have no answer and do not want to deal with the issue but rather simply wish to control the thread to push your agenda, whatever that may be. I dearly hope that you will prove me wrong on that point and will take advantage of willingness to give you the benefit of a doubt.

All the following are copied and pasted from this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by: DCP, 32°, K.T

There you go, Mr. 777. You understood part of the doctrine of Kenosis. Can you now see, then, how the first part of 2 Corinthians 8:9 refers to the Kenosis?

2 Cor 8:8-10
8 I speak not by commandment, but I am testing the sincerity of your love by the diligence of others. 9 For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich.
NKJV

It does not saya word about men becoming God or gods. As was shown on here earlier, it is necessary to alter the words to make it say that.

Consider this verse and think again about what you are saying.

Eph 2:4-7
4 But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.
NKJV

Verses cannot be forced to say something by taking them out of context and changing the words to what we would like them to say to fit our theological systems.

It refers to Jesus coming to earth, and though He is God, manifest himself in the flesh (1 Tim 3:16) making himself of no reputation (Phil 2:9) in order to submit himself voluntarily to the authority of God the Father.

The Roman catholic church, Mormons and JWs use variant theologies which attempt to suggest that the process can be reverted to make us gods or God. You have seen what the Mormons teach, JWs teach something similar though they at least do not claim that man can become equal to God, but Roman Catholics teach something virtually identical to the Mormons, and it is found in article 460 of the Roman Catechism:

460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81

Thus, there is an orthodox doctrine of the Kenosis, which is God the Son voluntarily submitting to the Father out of love for mankind that He might die on the cross for our sins. Other non-Christians religiosn try to reverse it, and instead of man humbling himself, they try to exalt themselves to the become gods or God, going beyond what the Bible teaches in an effort ot equate ourselves either to God the Son or God the father.

Colossains 2:9 actually argues against you:

Col 2:8-10
8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; 10 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.
NKJV

First, avoid the traditions of men. That is the point taht I have been trying to make with you.

Second, the fullness of God is in Jesus - that is because He is God! We are not.

Third - it says nowhere here that we will ebcome God.

Fourth, Throughout scripture we are told that we are sons by adoption, not by procreation, but by adoption. Adopted sons do not take on the nature of the parents.

Rom 8:15
15 For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, "Abba, Father."
NKJV

Gal 4:2-5
3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world. 4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.
NKJV

Now, please put away your theologiocal; system and show me from the Bible where it says that we can become God or gods.

TOmNossor · Dec 31, 2003

Toms777,

Just to clear up more of you misperceptions, neither Catholic, EO, nor LDS believe that men can become EQUAL to God.

Charity, TOm

Praise to the Man!

Contributor

Contributor

Active Member

Contributor

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Baptized into His name

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Baptized into His name

Contributor

Active Member

Active Member

Contributor

Contributor

Active Member

Contributor

Senior Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency