Jump to content

For Elihu - God is Certainly Described as a Man


ScriptureLover

Recommended Posts

To Any and All,

I see that johnny has departed this thread presumably for the evening. I'll be glad to fill in. Ask me anything you like. If you're supplying scripture, I'd appreciate your doing so in context.

regards,

widdley

Link to post

For Widdley

Since you asked, and I suspect you might have been thinking of one of my earlier posts, since I am the one who brought up Acts 17, here you are........

Hi Widdley...........

And Paul is obviously contrasting the idols not having offspring, or being Gods, to the Father who is the Father of us all, since we are his offspring, yes? The living God, who creates, and begets children, us, since we are his "Genos" (genetics) his offspring. This is obviously the contrast between something dead made by men's hands, and not having the ability to produce offspring, and the living God who has the ability to produce offsring exactly as Paul states................yes?

Link to post
1dc writes,

Can you support that first part by scripture?.

John 1

18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

1) And which person of God will they be adopted to?

2) Why must they be adopted if He created them?

3) If he created them entirely and exclusively, then would that make Him the Father?

4) If He is the Father by their creation, why does He have another person of God who is Father?

1) They are sons of God.

2) Men are adopted because the are not brethren by nature.

3) "Father" reveals that he created them ... it does not mean heavenly parents.

4) I don't understand your question ...

Thanks, Johnny. Perhaps your assumed definition of Begotten is different than the norm . . .

"(of offspring) generated by procreation; "naturally begotten child""

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=...define:begotten

So why can Christ not be the Only in a literal sense of the word AND be the Firstborn in the spiritual sense?

Also, your response on 1 didn't make sense, perhaps my question wasn't clear. To which person of God will men be adopted to?

If Christ as God created us, then why must we be adopted? If the Father created us and also Christ, then why would we not be brethren (at some level)?

Not sure I understand your answer to #3. If Father created us then why do you declare He is not a Heavenly parent?

4. I had assumed you would say Christ and the Father are one, therefore if Christ created us, what is the Father's role and we're back to why we need to be adopted.

Link to post
Johnny - Maybe you are missing being born again

ALL of us are, since none of us are ONLY spirit as you contend the born again are as God is supposedly only spirit. That is my point. Somehow your doctrine is wrong........

Your point is not stated in the scripture of the New Testament. We first experience human birth, then spiritual birth. Christ's words, not mine.

Link to post
For Widdley

Since you asked, and I suspect you might have been thinking of one of my earlier posts, since I am the one who brought up Acts 17, here you are........

Hi Widdley...........

And Paul is obviously contrasting the idols not having offspring, or being Gods, to the Father who is the Father of us all, since we are his offspring, yes? The living God, who creates, and begets children, us, since we are his "Genos" (genetics) his offspring. This is obviously the contrast between something dead made by men's hands, and not having the ability to produce offspring, and the living God who has the ability to produce offsring exactly as Paul states................yes?

No. You are missing Paul's style of preaching/teaching. Paul does not teach that we are literal offspring of God. He is building on an existing "belief" to make a point between Pagan Idols and the One God, the Living God. It is much the same as when he references those who baptize for the dead (Pagans in those days) using that to confirm bodily resurrection.

Link to post
Johnny,

I'm not going to let you weasel out of my original question about Christ's perfect body.

Paul O

Paul Osborne,

Please tell me why you are conviently taking shots at a man who has logged off for the evening? You have posed your question multiple times. I doubt that johnny is "weasling" out of anything. He is simply outnumbered. You may find that I have less difficulty keeping up with an onslaught. Let's give it a try.

Christ took on a human body (with all the plumbing we'd expect I suppose) and still inhabits that human body, now glorified. So the answer to you question is, following that line of reasoning, yes, Christ has a perfect penis.

Are we done with the adolescent giggling now?

regards,

widdley

Link to post
Johnny,

I'm not going to let you weasel out of my original question about Christ's perfect body.

Paul O

Paul Osborne,

Please tell me why you are conviently taking shots at a man who has logged off for the evening? You have posed your question multiple times. I doubt that johnny is "weasling" out of anything. He is simply outnumbered. You may find that I have less difficulty keeping up with an onslaught. Let's give it a try.

Christ took on a human body (with all the plumbing we'd expect I suppose) and still inhabits that human body, now glorified. So the answer to you question is, following that line of reasoning, yes, Christ has a perfect penis.

Are we done with the adolescent giggling now?

regards,

widdley

Oh give it a rest. :P

I'm not laughing - but I'm tired and am going to take a bath and go to bed.

Have a great night.

Paul O

Link to post

Widdley -

No. You are missing Paul's style of preaching/teaching. Paul does not teach that we are literal offspring of God. He is building on an existing "belief" to make a point between Pagan Idols and the One God, the Living God. It is much the same as when he references those who baptize for the dead (Pagans in those days) using that to confirm bodily resurrection.

WHen Christ quoted Psalm 82:6, "Ye are Gods, and all of you are children of the Most High," (In Hebrew "Elyon, the Father), and he said the scripture cannot be broken, he was telling the Jews what they already taught, that we literally are the offspring of God. It is the Semitic background which Paul is using in declaring we are the offspring of God. It means "race," or "descent" and that quite physically mind you............ This appears to me to be what is the underlying idea of Hebrews 2:11 as well. "...both he that sanctifieth and they who are sancitified at all one (the Greek ex henos), for which he is not ashamed to call them brethren. We are all of the same family.

Paul appears to me, as you correctly note, of course, to be contrasting the dead and non-living idols to the Living God, the one who Creates, who births his children, who adopts them as well. Yes, I can see and understand how both modes work. It is not, I don't suppose, a contradiction and contrast with only one method as opposed to another, but in as many possible ways for God to save us as He possibly can. I'm not arguing you are wrong, or that I am right, I am merely noting how I understand it...........we are actually the offspring of God, which is a remarkably wonderful doctrine. Johnny says we are not. I disagree, God came down through Christ to unite the Godiness with the humanness into ONE, hence elevating us to God, as his children, through adoption, or birth, is secondary to the fact. Yes?

Link to post
Widdley -
No. You are missing Paul's style of preaching/teaching. Paul does not teach that we are literal offspring of God. He is building on an existing "belief" to make a point between Pagan Idols and the One God, the Living God. It is much the same as when he references those who baptize for the dead (Pagans in those days) using that to confirm bodily resurrection.

WHen Christ quoted Psalm 82:6, "Ye are Gods, and all of you are children of the Most High," (In Hebrew "Elyon, the Father), and he said the scripture cannot be broken, he was telling the Jews what they already taught, that we literally are the offspring of God. It is the Semitic background which Paul is using in declaring we are the offspring of God. It means "race," or "descent" and that quite physically mind you............ This appears to me to be what is the underlying idea of Hebrews 2:11 as well. "...both he that sanctifieth and they who are sancitified at all one (the Greek ex henos), for which he is not ashamed to call them brethren. We are all of the same family.

Paul appears to me, as you correctly note, of course, to be contrasting the dead and non-living idols to the Living God, the one who Creates, who births his children, who adopts them as well. Yes, I can see and understand how both modes work. It is not, I don't suppose, a contradiction and contrast with only one method as opposed to another, but in as many possible ways for God to save us as He possibly can. I'm not arguing you are wrong, or that I am right, I am merely noting how I understand it...........we are actually the offspring of God, which is a remarkably wonderful doctrine. Johnny says we are not. I disagree, God came down through Christ to unite the Godiness with the humanness into ONE, hence elevating us to God, as his children, through adoption, or birth, is secondary to the fact. Yes?

Again, no. If God is able to give literal birth to us as his literal offspring there is no need whatsoever for adoption. There is no rational reason for two "modes".

Link to post
Then we will simply have to agree to disagree. No biggie........

You assert that there are two possible "modes" for becoming the "offspring" of God. What possible reasons would there be for dual modes?

Link to post

because it's in the scripture......and we each take a mode we like the best and contextualize it around other scriptures. That's precisely why there are various denominations and varying beliefs. Paul had it correctly when he said we see through a glass darkly. We just won't get the fullest picture until we all get to the other side.........I am content with believing I am a child of God, no matter what mode it takes...............

Link to post

Heh........ another thought just struck me.......what possible reasons are there two modes of existence, the physical and spiritual? I suppose there are many modes to many things in life...............just blathering as it is late, and it looks like we all are finally winding down after a full afternoon and evening of scripture study. It's been most enjoyable. Sorry you came aboard so late. There will be other days and nights..... I'm looking forward to learning more with all of you. Ah the fun of learning different ways of seeing things..............

Link to post
because it's in the scripture......and we each take a mode we like the best and contextualize it around other scriptures. That's precisely why there are various denominations and varying beliefs. Paul had it correctly when he said we see through a glass darkly. We just won't get the fullest picture until we all get to the other side.........I am content with believing I am a child of God, no matter what mode it takes...............

A child has no choice over it's birth parent. If there is one God, I fail to see how there is a need for adoption. Either we are literal offspring of God or we aren't. If we, indeed, need to be "adopted" do you ask yourself adopted from whom?

In your post you say you are content with believing that you are a Child of God no matter what mode it takes. How do you know what mode it takes and how do you choose what mode you "like best"?

How do you figure that we take the mode we "like best" and contextualize it around other scriptures? Are you saying we have the ability to make up our own method of salvation? How so?

I disagree that picking the mode we "like best" is the reason there are various denominations. There are various denominations due to a continual process of evolving doctrine and schism. Evolving doctrine and schism, while definite indicators of mans changing mind, do not represent the changing of God's mind.

Link to post
Heh........ another thought just struck me.......what possible reasons are there two modes of existence, the physical and spiritual? I suppose there are many modes to many things in life...............just blathering as it is late, and it looks like we all are finally winding down after a full afternoon and evening of scripture study. It's been most enjoyable. Sorry you came aboard so late. There will be other days and nights..... I'm looking forward to learning more with all of you. Ah the fun of learning different ways of seeing things..............

What possible reasons are there for two modes of existence, the physical and the spiritual? Because we humans are integrated beings...we are physical and emotional. It's what separates humans from stone images. Next question?

Link to post

Widdley -

In your post you say you are content with believing that you are a Child of God no matter what mode it takes. How do you know what mode it takes and how do you choose what mode you "like best"?

It doesn't matter what mode it takes. I know I am a child of God, because that's what an offspring of a parent is, a child of that offspring. I accept what Paul teaches here. Others don't like the Greek literalness so they find other ways to accept "getting in." It's honestly not a problem for me if others see it differently. If I do make a wrong choice, so what? That hardly equates to being lost forever. What kind of parent would be that idiotic to say to a child oh you made a mistake, and then lock them in the closet forever without mercy or food or water, to use an analogy. I know you Christians love to present we Mormons with the hell-fire theme (you haven't personally, so I'm not pointing fingers at you specifically) that if we don't do things the way the Evangelicals interpret them we are lost. Well, yes, that's one way to look at it all right..... :P Again, it's not much of a problem issue with me. I believe in where I came from and am quite content with that knowledge. It's really kind nifty. Have a nice night, and we shall catch you another time on the boards here. Thanks for your thougts and ideas, and questons.........I shall answer them when I am fresh instead of droopey eyed........

Link to post
Widdley -
In your post you say you are content with believing that you are a Child of God no matter what mode it takes. How do you know what mode it takes and how do you choose what mode you "like best"?

It doesn't matter what mode it takes. I know I am a child of God, because that's what an offspring of a parent is, a child of that offspring. I accept what Paul teaches here. Others don't like the Greek literalness so they find other ways to accept "getting in." It's honestly not a problem for me if others see it differently. If I do make a wrong choice, so what? That hardly equates to being lost forever. What kind of parent would be that idiotic to say to a child oh you made a mistake, and then lock them in the closet forever without mercy or food or water, to use an analogy. I know you Christians love to present we Mormons with the hell-fire theme (you haven't personally, so I'm not pointing fingers at you specifically) that if we don't do things the way the Evangelicals interpret them we are lost. Well, yes, that's one way to look at it all right..... :P Again, it's not much of a problem issue with me. I believe in where I came from and am quite content with that knowledge. It's really kind nifty. Have a nice night, and we shall catch you another time on the boards here. Thanks for your thougts and ideas, and questons.........I shall answer them when I am fresh instead of droopey eyed........

Paul does not teach that we are offspring of God. Once again, he uses an existing belief to make his point regarding stone images vs a living God. Paul, infact, teaches adoption. Please tell me what reasons you think Paul had for teaching both literal offspring and adoption? Is me making distinctions between groups of people? If so, who are the groups of people and why does he teach two ways? What reason do we have to trust the teaching of Paul?

Link to post

johnny if you are reading here. It takes quite alot of courage to post on a board where you are denominationally and doctrinally outnumbered. I feel that I am equipped to argue for or against God as man, in this case I choose to continue on in your place so long as the topic remains of interest to me. I suspect that you may be new to posting on discussion boards such as this. If that is the case let me tell you publicly that you are under no obligation to reply to every post directed your way nor are you expected to respond within a specific time frame. Posting as you have done here, in the midst of a "real time" onslaught isn't easy. The entire purpose of the onslaught, especially when posters are posting simultaneously as was done here, is to throw you off balance. It is highly likely that the other posters who pounded you would be just as easily thrown off balance were they too, outnumbered and they know it. Out numbered isn't out classed! Slow down.

regards,

widdley

Link to post

Hi Widdley,

There really was no collaboration of all us posters to try and throw Johnny off kilter as it were. We were all just posting as he was.........It does look like we were ganging up on him however. I was simply responding to his responses to me. It was all sort of fun actually.

As to Paul and his doctrine of adoption........I suspect the adoption element is for the so-called "Gentiles," while those who were born in the House of Israel in the first place, are simply understood and called the "children of the Most High" as in Psalms.........

Link to post
Widdley - Paul does not teach that we are offspring of God. Once again, he uses an existing belief to make his point regarding stone images vs a living God.

Yes he clearly does. I suppose we shall simply have to agree to disagree. Paul is saying that children of God come from the Living God, not from idols, as idols are literally powerless to produce offspring on their own. The Living God is not so powerless.........., and in fact, to the ancient Jews they did have the knowledge that they were the "children of the Most High."

I find it interesting that Paul used the word "Genos" as opposed to Teknon (sp?) for "offspring," showing a family, descent, race relationship.........

Link to post

Not sure if this has been brought up yet, but in regards to whether God is a man or not . . . I think I've found the answer. Deuteronomy 4:24 says: For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God. Before anyone starts screaming about context and stuff like that, look at Exodus 3:2 for support.

It is settled. God is not a man, but fire.

Link to post

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...