ECT Our triune God
- Thread starter Lon
- Start date
Gen 1:26 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.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
The firstborn of every creature is Christ of the new creation.
Adam was first of the old creation.
LA
keypurr
Well-known member
The creation of Man is not what I posting about.
(KJV) Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
This is addressing the creation of Christ. The first of his creations.
good grief.
Firstborn/protokos refers to Christ's preeminence as Creator. A different word would be used for first created. The word is even used in Jewish literature of God Himself.
http://www.watchman.org/jw/colossia.htm
http://www.watchman.org/jw/colossia.htm
Lon
Well-known member
..not following... it is hard to discover here where you stand on our triune God with brevity as this.
Lon
Well-known member
Did you even read the post Rainee was quoting? As I said, scripture makes these things quite clear whether you see them or not.
Jesus is the word made flesh, and any who believe Christ IS the word before Jesus was born, are antichrist according to the Bible--
1Jn 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
1Jn 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
1Jn 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
LA
Lon
Well-known member
I changed it up a bit because I'm not certain where your departure from a triune view lies. Rather, I restated because you fall between heterodox (not quite orthodox but somewhat close) and unorthodox (heresy).
Lon
Well-known member
Nope, you do. Again with posted the scripture that proves it: In the Beginning the Word was with God and was God.
Thus, God Himself calls you wrong because He clearly says it is both.
Your faults are , I believe, 1) misunderstanding the triune view. We simply see what God is saying and refuse to reject anything He is telling us. I do not understand both with and was fully. I simply embrace it as a truth from God. You don't though it is there in scripture as plain as the nose on your face and you obtusely or purposefully ignore Him. Why? Other than your satisfaction for how you personally think He 'must' be to fit your logic, and demand He acquiesce, why? Does it or does it not make sense that He should demand from us, and not we from Him when this much, regardless of clarity, is at least said in clarity that we cannot deny it?
2) I believe it a test of creature subservient to Creator and those who try to discount what is written plainly, fail. You will either be subversive or subservient to Him. He has made this passage clear enough.
Lon
Well-known member
I will give you a day to retract vulgarity and rebuttal with substantive posture.
This glorifies the Savior not at all.
Lon,
First you use a lot of words to judge my position in a negative manner based on one verse of the Bible according to your own understanding.
So I tell you that at least I am not a spiritual homosexual, to which you decide to threaten me in some way, instead of obeying the scriptures which tell you not to do that.
I am no better than you, but I am no worse either, so get off your big hobby horse, and your imagined spiritual superiority.
LA.
First you use a lot of words to judge my position in a negative manner based on one verse of the Bible according to your own understanding.
So I tell you that at least I am not a spiritual homosexual, to which you decide to threaten me in some way, instead of obeying the scriptures which tell you not to do that.
I am no better than you, but I am no worse either, so get off your big hobby horse, and your imagined spiritual superiority.
LA.
Lon
Well-known member
There is no excuse for a filthy mouth when discussing theology (or anything else for that matter).
You were disciplined because of your ungodly behavior.
You certainly reinforced expectations, to your discredit.
Lon
Well-known member
You'd have to go quite a distance to explain that "sexuality" has anything remotely to do with this thread. Because the gap is so incredibly wide between your comment and anything meaningfulin this thread, of course I would treat it as inappropriate. It was.
Don't try to excuse yourself from such vulgarity, just rid yourself and us of it.
If you do not inderstand spiritual adultery them you would not understand any other such term.
You introduced such a topic by not addressing the scriptures and instead decided to call me blind and the such.
I do not care really but I simply pointed out that at least I am not a spiritual homosexual as you tried to make of me in your comments.
but then again I ought to know better to think that you would examine the term as you seem to be of the view that if one does not agree with you that they must be blind and uncommited to the Lord as you did say that did'nt you.
Are you a denominational churchman?
LA