ECT Totton Linnet has a lot of opinions.

[Totton Linnet]

Are you in the form of your father and mother?

Are you your father and mother?

What did you father and mother teach you? to sit around and be served or to learn to serve? say by picking up your toys and learning to keep your room orderly and to clean up dishes, etc.

They taught you to serve, you took on the form of a servant although you were but a child of someone who actually took care of you in those things you were incapable of doing for yourself.

Every Christian, every believer, though child of God, I John 3:1-2, Romans 8:14 is to learn service to God.

Romans 6:16-18

We are born in the form of our parents.

But your parents took care of you because you were incapable of taking care of yourself.

We are born again in the form of our Father, I Peter 1:23 by the word of God which abides forever.

It is God's seed in us that is incorruptible, the seed of our parents is corruptible seed for it provided only body and soul.

God is spirit, John 4:24, he provided spiritual seed which is incorruptible. We sin on our flesh but that spiritual seed does not sin. I John 3:9 for it is His seed, not our parent's seed.

A statue of Winston Churchill is in the form of Winston Churchill with good reason, it is supposed to represent Winston Churchill.

Yet the statue is not literally Winston Churchill.

The son of God is in the form of God, but "is in the form of God" is not the same as saying "is God"

Why would God beat around the bush?

If He meant "is me" or "is God" why didn't he say so, instead of saying "in the form of God"?

Because God did not mean "is God" He meant "in the form of God"

Don't you see what rubbish you are writing? He was in the form of God and equal with God is in relation to His taking upon Himself [it doesn't say God made Him into] the form of a servant.

But whatever form He is in He is God and He is a servant.

 

[oatmeal]

Don't you see what rubbish you are writing? He was in the form of God and equal with God is in relation to His taking upon Himself [it doesn't say God made Him into] the form of a servant.

But whatever form He is in He is God and He is a servant.

So why didn't God say "is God" instead of "in the form of God"?

You are not yet willing to think. Love God with all your heart and soul and MIND and strength.

Well, when you decide to read what is written instead of supposing you already know what is written, when you are humble to God's word, then you will learn something.

Until then, you remain imprisoned by your opinions and unscriptural traditions.

No one can help you until your decide you want to know what scriptures really teach.

 

[Totton Linnet]

So why didn't God say "is God" instead of "in the form of God"?

You are not yet willing to think. Love God with all your heart and soul and MIND and strength.

Well, when you decide to read what is written instead of supposing you already know what is written, when you are humble to God's word, then you will learn something.

Until then, you remain imprisoned by your opinions and unscriptural traditions.

No one can help you until your decide you want to know what scriptures really teach.

*
Wierewille taught you that, he exulted himself above the church of God so do you.

Carry on musing, I prefer to be in the ranks of those who believe and receive.

Our faith is not in word only but in power and demonstration of the Holy Ghost, He will only back up the truth. This is why you are in the realm of the intellect only but don't have the reality, the life of what you say.

That is what attracted me to look at the Way International...they said many good and true things but I witnessed that they had not those things whereof they spoke...this is what makes them so dangerous a deception.

If you and I were of the same faith and experience we would be brother and sister. That we most definitely are not.

The Holy Sprit comes only to glorify Christ.

Anyone can check out The Way International on the net, they are a cult devoid of the Spirit.

 

[oatmeal]

*
Wierewille taught you that, he exulted himself above the church of God so do you.

Carry on musing, I prefer to be in the ranks of those who believe and receive.

Our faith is not in word only but in power and demonstration of the Holy Ghost, He will only back up the truth. This is why you are in the realm of the intellect only but don't have the reality, the life of what you say.

That is what attracted me to look at the Way International...they said many good and true things but I witnessed that they had not those things whereof they spoke...this is what makes them so dangerous a deception.

If you and I were of the same faith and experience we would be brother and sister. That we most definitely are not.

The Holy Sprit comes only to glorify Christ.

Anyone can check out The Way International on the net, they are a cult devoid of the Spirit.

Dr. Wierwille sought to learn and teach sound doctrine, which he did very successfully.

I know of nothing he taught that did not originate with scripture.

He did not teach his opinions or traditions, he taught scripture and he taught the methods he used to rightly divide the word of truth.

The methods he used are scripturally sound. Sadly, for "mainstream Christianity", he discovered that denominational Christianity is riddled with fearfulness and traditions and opinions and error.

Most denominations do not read, let alone comprehend the simplest of truths.

Matthew 2:11 is one of my favorite examples. The wise men, the magi, did not show up at a stable, as is commonly depicted in nativity scenes, but at a house.

Does your intellect know the difference between a house and a stable?

I know the difference. That is but one of many examples.

Since most of Christianity doesn't care about such things, clearly I have no reason to trust them on larger matters, such as what is life vs. death, who is God? who is Jesus Christ? will we go through the wrath? what is the role of the gift of the Holy Spirit in our lives? Is speaking in tongues real or just a thing of the past?

Dr. Wierwille lead thousands into speaking in tongues. He studied the subject for years and was about to give up on it. He met someone who told him that he had the answers he was seeking. That man lead Dr. Wierwille into speaking in tongues and subsequently Dr. Wierwille lead many, many others into receiving power from on high.

Scripture teaches me what is right and wrong, not the internet.

Are you one of those people that believe that everything on the internet is true?

Or are you going to use scripture for the benchmark for truth and error?

So, where did the wise men show up? A house or a stable?

What does the word say?

 

[revpete]

Oatie # 33 No, no you will never understand how I read scripture.

I believe scripture is God's word, I come agog, I come in awe, I come to sit at the feet of Jesus to read it and be fed, I come hungry. I want for Him to plant His seed as He will in my heart.

You come to it with opinions, pre conceived ideas and doctrines which run contrary to scripture. So you sit down with a view to make scriptures conform to your doctrines....You will traverse land and sea to find linguists and theologians to make the bible say what you want it to say.

You cain't simply open the bible and read and believe.

The bible is not difficult to understand intellectually. I understand what it means "the Logos was with God and the Logos was God and all things were made by Him"

But YOU don't want it to say that. That's the nub of the problem.

I use my intellect to believe and learn, you use your intellect to dispute scripture [and if you could] prove it to be wrong.

Suppose I come to a doctrine that is difficult to understand? suppose I read "who God foreknew He also predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son that He might be the firstborn of many brethren. Moreover whom He did predestinate He also called....justified....glorified"

This is a difficult doctrine to understand.

It is not I declare to you difficult to understand intellectually, it is very plain, it's meaning is clear. But it seems to teach something we don't like to think about God and His salvation.

The FIRST thing I do is I say "Father this is a very difficult doctrine for me to understand, I know it must be true for it is your word, Father won't you teach me what this doctrine means?"

Now others take a far different approach to the doctrines of Predestination and Election than I do.

We know how John Calvin read it and understood it [and I must say he took a similar approach to me] he did not immediately as others do throw it out in disgust, he did take the view that if Predestination and Election are taught in scripture they must be true. In that John Calvin does well and gets little credit for it, Calvin does a LOT wiser than those who read the scripture and who reject it in disgust.

He did not get the chance to do what I do, he was asked point blank and had to give a direct answer to the problem of what seems to be implied by the doctrines of Predestiny and Election. I think if he had been allowed time to think it through carefully and prayerfully he might have come to a more balanced view of the doctrines than he did. But he gave an instant answer. He was asked "If God has predestinated and elected us does this mean that He has purposely passed by those who are not so predestined and elected?" and he replied rather regretfully that yes it must be so....

I come to a different conclusion than Calvin but I come to an even MORE different conclusion to those who will not listen at all to anything about Predestiny and Election.

Why am saying all this?

I want to show you that the bible is not difficult to understand, we know what it says, what is difficult is BELIEVING it in simple faith, even when it says something contrary to our own opinion.

Well I agree with you The Bible is not difficult to understand and that is exactly what I've been saying about Jn.1:1. It's meaning couldn't be clearer, the language and context are indisputable. You judge me, you say that I do this and I do this when I do not. You read and study but no scripture is of private interpretation, all of us need the illumination of The Holy Spirit in our study of God's Word. You say you read The Bible for what it says. If that were true then you would agree that Jn. 1:1 says plainly in the original that God was the Logos.

 

[oatmeal]

Well I agree with you The Bible is not difficult to understand and that is exactly what I've been saying about Jn.1:1. It's meaning couldn't be clearer, the language and context are indisputable. You judge me, you say that I do this and I do this when I do not. You read and study but no scripture is of private interpretation, all of us need the illumination of The Holy Spirit in our study of God's Word. You say you read The Bible for what it says. If that were true then you would agree that Jn. 1:1 says plainly in the original that God was the Logos.

I already said that God is the logos. I related Genesis 1:1 with John 1:1 a

However, did you read what I posted about the word "with" in the second phrase of John 1:1?

If you had you would realize that God uses the word logos in the second phrase not in reference to himself, but in reference to His means of communicating himself to the world. Namely, scripture, the written word of God, and His son, the word of God in the flesh.

It is one thing to read words from scripture, it is another to read of Jesus Christ's actions to do the will of the Father. In Jesus' lifestyle we really see what it is to do the word of God in action, thus we have no room for error in learning of God's love, light, compassion, mercy, power

Since Jesus choose to do the will of his Father, instead of his own will, we have a sermon we can see about what the Father's will really is.

 

[revpete]

I already said that God is the logos. I related Genesis 1:1 with John 1:1 a

However, did you read what I posted about the word "with" in the second phrase of John 1:1?

If you had you would realize that God uses the word logos in the second phrase not in reference to himself, but in reference to His means of communicating himself to the world. Namely, scripture, the written word of God, and His son, the word of God in the flesh.

It is one thing to read words from scripture, it is another to read of Jesus Christ's actions to do the will of the Father. In Jesus' lifestyle we really see what it is to do the word of God in action, thus we have no room for error in learning of God's love, light, compassion, mercy, power

Since Jesus choose to do the will of his Father, instead of his own will, we have a sermon we can see about what the Father's will really is.

The Logos is the eternal thought and expression of God, not the personification of His Word. JWs teach that Jesus is the personification of the wisdom of God, that is false also. Even though Jesus knew the word of God through and through and He possessed the wisdom of God He was the personification of neither. Again I respectfully ask you, support your argument with scripture. Disprove my interpretation of Jn.1:1 using scripture and leave out the tenuous connections.

 

[oatmeal]

The Logos is the eternal thought and expression of God, not the personification of His Word. JWs teach that Jesus is the personification of the wisdom of God, that is false also. Even though Jesus knew the word of God through and through and He possessed the wisdom of God He was the personification of neither. Again I respectfully ask you, support your argument with scripture. Disprove my interpretation of Jn.1:1 using scripture and leave out the tenuous connections.

The basic meaning of logos is a message, a communication, the focus on the thoughts behind the words or the means used to communicate.

That is the meaning that is the correct understanding of what God intends for John 1:1 to say.

Since you ignore my posting on the word "with" I take it you have not learned Greek as well as you thought.

When you acknowledge that pros means "with, yet distinctly independent of" as illustrated by its use in Mark 9, then I will know you are open to learning.

 

[Totton Linnet]

The basic meaning of logos is a message, a communication, the focus on the thoughts behind the words or the means used to communicate.

That is the meaning that is the correct understanding of what God intends for John 1:1 to say.

Since you ignore my posting on the word "with" I take it you have not learned Greek as well as you thought.

When you acknowledge that pros means "with, yet distinctly independent of" as illustrated by its use in Mark 9, then I will know you are open to learning.

And what is the greek for "was" God? not that we care for your intellectual games, we have Christ Himself.....we know He is God.

All you have is in your mind. So we see who it is who has all the opinions

 

[Totton Linnet]

Well I agree with you The Bible is not difficult to understand and that is exactly what I've been saying about Jn.1:1. It's meaning couldn't be clearer, the language and context are indisputable. You judge me, you say that I do this and I do this when I do not. You read and study but no scripture is of private interpretation, all of us need the illumination of The Holy Spirit in our study of God's Word. You say you read The Bible for what it says. If that were true then you would agree that Jn. 1:1 says plainly in the original that God was the Logos.

We are in agreement, my post was a reply to Oatmeal.

 

[oatmeal]

And what is the greek for "was" God? not that we care for your intellectual games, we have Christ Himself.....we know He is God.

All you have is in your mind. So we see who it is who has all the opinions

Have you read my post on the word "with" if not, you need to attend to the scriptures that I posted.

If you have read it, you need to attend to the scriptures I have posted.

Until you attend to the scriptures I posted concerning the word "with" or pros in the Greek, you are getting ahead of yourself.

Either the word pros makes you uncomfortable or the Greek is not as important to you as you claim, or you simply would rather not discuss or acknowledge a truth that denies your belief, your simple reading of John 1:1

Whatever the reason for ignoring the word pros, you choose not to learn that one Greek word and acknowledge its devastating death blow to your threeology.

When you recover from your realization that John 1:1 does not say what you thought it said, well, and you are over your emotions, then we might continue

 

[Totton Linnet]

What I have is the inner Christ life, if you did likewise you would know that He is God. THAT kind of theology is unassailable.

 

[revpete]

The basic meaning of logos is a message, a communication, the focus on the thoughts behind the words or the means used to communicate.



That is the meaning that is the correct understanding of what God intends for John 1:1 to say.



Since you ignore my posting on the word "with" I take it you have not learned Greek as well as you thought.



When you acknowledge that pros means "with, yet distinctly independent of" as illustrated by its use in Mark 9, then I will know you are open to learning.

Ok, for the final time here it is . Please read all the post!

And the Word was God ( καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος )

In the Greek order, and God was the Word but θεὸς, God, is the predicate and not the subject of the proposition. The subject must be the Word was with God.

Was with God ( ἦν πὸς τὸν Θεὸν )

With ( πρός ) does not convey the full meaning, that there is no single English word which will give it better. The preposition πρός or pros which, with the accusative case, denotes motion towards, or direction, is also often used in the New Testament in the sense of with; and that not merely as being near or beside, but as a living union and communion; implying the active notion of intercourse. Thus: Are not his sisters here with us ( πρὸς ἡμᾶς ), i.e., in social relations with us (Mark 6:3; Mat 13:56). How long shall I be with you ( πρὸς ὑμᾶς), Mark 9:16). I sat daily with you (Mat 26:55). To be present with the Lord ( πρὸς τὸν Κύριον , 2Co 5:8). Abide and winter with you (1Co 16:6). The eternal life which was with the Father ( πρὸς τὸν πατέρα , 1Jn 1:2). Thus John's statement is that the divine Word not only abode with the Father from all eternity, but was in the living, active relation of communion with Him.

John is not trying to show who is God, but who is the Word. Notice that Θεὸς is without the article, which could not have been omitted if he had meant to designate the word as God; because, in that event, Θεὸς would have been ambiguous; perhaps a God. Moreover, if he had said God was the Word, he would have contradicted his previous statement by which he had distinguished (hypostatically) God from the word, and λόγος (Logos) would, further, have signified only an attribute of God. The predicate is emphatically placed in the proposition before the subject, because of the progress of the thought; this being the third and highest statement respecting the Word - the climax of the two preceding propositions. The word God, used attributively, maintains the personal distinction between God and the Word, but makes the unity of essence and nature to follow the distinction of person, and ascribes to the Word all the attributes of the divine essence. There is something majestic in the way in which the description of the Logos, in the three brief but great propositions of Jn 1:1, is unfolded with increasing fullness

Now, are you open to learning?

Pete

 

[revpete]

We are in agreement, my post was a reply to Oatmeal.

My apologies!

Blessings: Pete

 

[oatmeal]

What I have is the inner Christ life, if you did likewise you would know that He is God. THAT kind of theology is unassailable.

If you actually read and believed scripture, you would not make such unsubstantiated conclusions.

The only reason you could have "the inner Christ life" is because you read about in scripture.

But you seem to think that having this "inner Christ life" is license to ignore scripture.

Well, when your idea of living your version of "inner Christ life" fails you, limits your spiritual growth, you can always go back and read the instructions.

 

[oatmeal]

Ok, for the final time here it is . Please read all the post!

And the Word was God ( καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος )

In the Greek order, and God was the Word but θεὸς, God, is the predicate and not the subject of the proposition. The subject must be the Word was with God.

Was with God ( ἦν πὸς τὸν Θεὸν )

With ( πρός ) does not convey the full meaning, that there is no single English word which will give it better. The preposition πρός or pros which, with the accusative case, denotes motion towards, or direction, is also often used in the New Testament in the sense of with; and that not merely as being near or beside, but as a living union and communion; implying the active notion of intercourse. Thus: Are not his sisters here with us ( πρὸς ἡμᾶς ), i.e., in social relations with us (Mark 6:3; Mat 13:56). How long shall I be with you ( πρὸς ὑμᾶς), Mark 9:16). I sat daily with you (Mat 26:55). To be present with the Lord ( πρὸς τὸν Κύριον , 2Co 5:8). Abide and winter with you (1Co 16:6). The eternal life which was with the Father ( πρὸς τὸν πατέρα , 1Jn 1:2). Thus John's statement is that the divine Word not only abode with the Father from all eternity, but was in the living, active relation of communion with Him.

John is not trying to show who is God, but who is the Word. Notice that Θεὸς is without the article, which could not have been omitted if he had meant to designate the word as God; because, in that event, Θεὸς would have been ambiguous; perhaps a God. Moreover, if he had said God was the Word, he would have contradicted his previous statement by which he had distinguished (hypostatically) God from the word, and λόγος (Logos) would, further, have signified only an attribute of God. The predicate is emphatically placed in the proposition before the subject, because of the progress of the thought; this being the third and highest statement respecting the Word - the climax of the two preceding propositions. The word God, used attributively, maintains the personal distinction between God and the Word, but makes the unity of essence and nature to follow the distinction of person, and ascribes to the Word all the attributes of the divine essence. There is something majestic in the way in which the description of the Logos, in the three brief but great propositions of Jn 1:1, is unfolded with increasing fullness

Now, are you open to learning?

Pete

Thank you!

his sisters were with yet distinctly independent of the speakers, they are not one and the same, they are not part of a "triune" being.

Yes, Jesus Christ was with, yet distinctly independent of that unbelieving generation

You support "with, yet distinctly independent of"

Jesus sat with, yet was independent of those who were his students, disciples or who ever was was listening, which may have included those who desired to catch him at his words.

God's word, scripture is as much God as God is for God's word, scripture is theo pneustos, God breathed. II Timothy 3:16

Even as your words are you for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks, out of the abundance of your heart, you speak

Out of the abundance of my heart, I speak.

Out of the abundance of His heart God speaks

Out of the abundance of Jesus' heart, he speaks. He chose, as a faithful prophet to speak what God told him to speak, even a Moses foretold he would being a prophet like himself, who God would raise up out of his brethren.

He did not raise himself out of his brethren, (who is Jesus' brethren?) but rather God raised him our of his (Jesus' ) brethren.

God raised Jesus Christ out of Jesus' brethren. Who is Jesus' brethren? Not the Father for a your brother is not your father, unless there is a case of mistaken identity.

God and Jesus Christ are separate entities, one being the Father of the other. They are similar as all parents and offspring are, but as parents and off spring are never identical, neither is God, Jesus' Father and His offspring, His son.

Since Matthew 1:18 tells us of Jesus beginning, his gennessis, we learn Jesus had a beginning, namely his conception and birth.

The tunnel vision regarding both the threeology and focus on John 1 without the context of other scripture is one of the causes of the error of trinitarianism

John 1:1 says nothing of a trinity, nor does it suggest that Jesus was, is or will ever be God, but it does clearly say that the logos, the message of God, was with, yet distinctly independent of God in the beginning.

I am up for learning scripture, but not theology.

Many, if not most trins do not yet understand the basic meaning and use of elohim or theos as used in scripture. Nor do they want to.

That is their loss and it saddens me that my brothers are not willing to learn, but that is their decision, not mine.

 

[oatmeal]

Thank you!

his sisters were with yet distinctly independent of the speakers, they are not one and the same, they are not part of a "triune" being.

Yes, Jesus Christ was with, yet distinctly independent of that unbelieving generation

You support "with, yet distinctly independent of"

Jesus sat with, yet was independent of those who were his students, disciples or who ever was was listening, which may have included those who desired to catch him at his words.

God's word, scripture is as much God as God is for God's word, scripture is theo pneustos, God breathed. II Timothy 3:16

Even as your words are you for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks, out of the abundance of your heart, you speak

Out of the abundance of my heart, I speak.

Out of the abundance of His heart God speaks

Out of the abundance of Jesus' heart, he speaks. He chose, as a faithful prophet to speak what God told him to speak, even a Moses foretold he would being a prophet like himself, who God would raise up out of his brethren.

He did not raise himself out of his brethren, (who is Jesus' brethren?) but rather God raised him our of his (Jesus' ) brethren.

God raised Jesus Christ out of Jesus' brethren. Who is Jesus' brethren? Not the Father for a your brother is not your father, unless there is a case of mistaken identity.

God and Jesus Christ are separate entities, one being the Father of the other. They are similar as all parents and offspring are, but as parents and off spring are never identical, neither is God, Jesus' Father and His offspring, His son.

Since Matthew 1:18 tells us of Jesus beginning, his gennessis, we learn Jesus had a beginning, namely his conception and birth.

The tunnel vision regarding both the threeology and focus on John 1 without the context of other scripture is one of the causes of the error of trinitarianism

John 1:1 says nothing of a trinity, nor does it suggest that Jesus was, is or will ever be God, but it does clearly say that the logos, the message of God, was with, yet distinctly independent of God in the beginning.

I am up for learning scripture, but not theology.

Many, if not most trins do not yet understand the basic meaning and use of elohim or theos as used in scripture. Nor do they want to.

That is their loss and it saddens me that my brothers are not willing to learn, but that is their decision, not mine.

"the word was with God"

The logos in this phrase was "with, yet distinctly independent of" God.

What does logos mean? It's basic definition? a message, not focusing on the actual words but on the thoughts behind the message, the intent of the message.

What would convey a message? Specifically God as the message?

Words, scripture, the Bible, the word of God! Was your Bible with God in the beginning? No, and mine wasn't either

But God having foreknowledge and perfect author, already knew the contents of scripture, word for word, jot and tittle by jot and tittle.

Likewise, the foreknowledge that He would have a son who would so perfectly live what was written, that God's heart would be conveyed by His son's lifestyle. Hence, Jesus could say, "he who has seen me has seen the Father"

How much of your lifestyle reflects what is written?

To whatever proportion and degree your life shows what the written word is all about, your life reflects that same heart.

How can any man do that? Well, not any man can, only those who choose to, like Jesus Christ did, to submit his will to do the Father's will.

We can do this because Jesus, as a prophet, who spoke what God told him to speak, said so. John 14:12

Not only can we do the same works as Jesus Christ, we can do greater works than Jesus Christ.

Is Jesus God? Can you do greater works than God? No and No, but you can do greater works than the son of God, the human, the "mere man" (as you trins like to deride God's works of Genesis 1:26), Jesus Christ.

To do greater works than Jesus Christ would require that we receive greater power and authority than Jesus Christ had.

If Jesus is God, which he is not, then we would have to be able to receive greater power and authority from a God that does not have it to give! For how can God give more authority than what He himself has? Greater power and authority than God himself?

Why don't trins use their minds? Their intellect.

As many times that one God believers have been insulted, called idiots, morons etc. it is clear that trins like to refer to the lack of use of the intellect as a detrimental method.

Yet, Totton claims that she refuses to use her intellect when she reads scripture, if she in fact could read scripture without using her intellect.

She obviously want to appear more "spiritual" than she is.

As if God would go through all the trouble of providing scripture, and then not expect people to read it.

 

[revpete]

Totton Linnet has a lot of opinions.

"the word was with God"



The logos in this phrase was "with, yet distinctly independent of" God.



What does logos mean? It's basic definition? a message, not focusing on the actual words but on the thoughts behind the message, the intent of the message.



What would convey a message? Specifically God as the message?



Words, scripture, the Bible, the word of God! Was your Bible with God in the beginning? No, and mine wasn't either



But God having foreknowledge and perfect author, already knew the contents of scripture, word for word, jot and tittle by jot and tittle.



Likewise, the foreknowledge that He would have a son who would so perfectly live what was written, that God's heart would be conveyed by His son's lifestyle. Hence, Jesus could say, "he who has seen me has seen the Father"



How much of your lifestyle reflects what is written?



To whatever proportion and degree your life shows what the written word is all about, your life reflects that same heart.



How can any man do that? Well, not any man can, only those who choose to, like Jesus Christ did, to submit his will to do the Father's will.



We can do this because Jesus, as a prophet, who spoke what God told him to speak, said so. John 14:12



Not only can we do the same works as Jesus Christ, we can do greater works than Jesus Christ.



Is Jesus God? Can you do greater works than God? No and No, but you can do greater works than the son of God, the human, the "mere man" (as you trins like to deride God's works of Genesis 1:26), Jesus Christ.



To do greater works than Jesus Christ would require that we receive greater power and authority than Jesus Christ had.



If Jesus is God, which he is not, then we would have to be able to receive greater power and authority from a God that does not have it to give! For how can God give more authority than what He himself has? Greater power and authority than God himself?



Why don't trins use their minds? Their intellect.



As many times that one God believers have been insulted, called idiots, morons etc. it is clear that trins like to refer to the lack of use of the intellect as a detrimental method.



Yet, Totton claims that she refuses to use her intellect when she reads scripture, if she in fact could read scripture without using her intellect.



She obviously want to appear more "spiritual" than she is.



As if God would go through all the trouble of providing scripture, and then not expect people to read it.

I think that intellect is of course important but understanding God's word is not primarily a matter of intelligence. The primary factor in really understanding God's word is God Himself granting Divine revelation through His grace. One is saved by grace and The Holy Spirit convicting of sin, righteousness and the coming judgement not by the intellect alone.

You have belittled those who study N.T. Greek and this involves using the intellect in partnership with prayer.

You refuse to accept the plain meaning of pros, or with as I have shown in my last post. You judge me along with the rest of the "trins" as you term those who believe in The Trinity and do not accept me as an individual as I do you.

μέγας {meg'-as} translated as "greater than" or literally "bigger" this word is related to

μείζων {mide'-zone}

μείζων irregular comparative of μέγας; larger (literally or figuratively, specially, in age): elder, greater(-est), more.

Used 25 times in the Bible.

This thought here is that believers will do bigger works in the numerical sense than Jesus because in the days of His flesh He could only be in one place at any one time. However, now since The Holy Spirit inhabits every true Christian the works are so much more in number. Once again, just as you did with pros you have completely misunderstood the meaning, sense and context of the original word. The word has nothing at all to do with authority.

The apostle uses a completely different word because he wants to convey a completely different meaning than the one which you have erroneously took from the verse.

I really think you have admirably demonstrated that it is you who refuse to use your God given intellect by applying correctly the sense and meaning of the original language and words.

I think that we shall have to agree to differ.

Pete

 

[oatmeal]

I think that intellect is of course important but understanding God's word is not primarily a matter of intelligence. The primary factor in really understanding God's word is God Himself granting Divine revelation through His grace. One is saved by grace and The Holy Spirit convicting of sin, righteousness and the coming judgement not by the intellect alone.

You have belittled those who study N.T. Greek and this involves using the intellect in partnership with prayer.

You refuse to accept the plain meaning of pros, or with as I have shown in my last post. You judge me along with the rest of the "trins" as you term those who believe in The Trinity and do not accept me as an individual as I do you.

μέγας {meg'-as} translated as "greater than" or literally "bigger" this word is related to

μείζων {mide'-zone}

μείζων irregular comparative of μέγας; larger (literally or figuratively, specially, in age): elder, greater(-est), more.

Used 25 times in the Bible.

This thought here is that believers will do bigger works in the numerical sense than Jesus because in the days of His flesh He could only be in one place at any one time. However, now since The Holy Spirit inhabits every true Christian the works are so much more in number. Once again, just as you did with pros you have completely misunderstood the meaning, sense and context of the original word. The word has nothing at all to do with authority.

The apostle uses a completely different word because he wants to convey a completely different meaning than the one which you have erroneously took from the verse.

I really think you have admirably demonstrated that it is you who refuse to use your God given intellect by applying correctly the sense and meaning of the original language and words.

I think that we shall have to agree to differ. ��

Pete ��

Your definition of pros is close, but does not tell the complete story. To be in social contact with someone does in no way imply identity. Are you with God? or against God? I am sure you are with God, but being with God does not mean you are God. You are with God, but you are distinctly independent of God because you are not God.

Logos, meaning communication or any of its synonyms is the basic definition, so leave the definition alone and work with that.

God is interested in communicating himself to us, and has done that in various ways, including scripture and His son.

Your bible was not with God in the beginning but God already knew what it would contain, likewise, God foreknew what His son would accomplish although the son did not yet exist because Matthew 1:18 tells us of his gennesis, his beginning

You, as most trins have done, have cluttered your mind with the trinity and precluded that the trinity is scriptural, you have put the cart in front of the horse. If you would actually clear your mind of your, yes, you, revpete, of the trinity, and simply read scripture for what it says, you would soon find yourself to be a "trinity denier"

I do not belittle those who have studied Greek because I too have studied some Greek.

However, I have seen people exalt their education above the clear reading of scripture.

Maybe you have too.

You have clearly demonstrated by the verses you chose that to define "pros" as "with, yet distinctly independent of" is a most appropriate definition.

My rejection of the trinitarian doctrine was the result of God's intervention in my life when I began to question the trinity and the associated theology that Jesus is God.

God clearly pointed out I Timothy 2:5 to me by means of another student. That verse absolutely pointed out that God is God, men are men and the one mediator between God and men is the man Christ Jesus.

Christ Jesus is a man, not God, not God the Son, not a Godman, not fully God/fully man, not a dual natured being, but a man.

All scripture that I have been present with since then has fit within that framework, there is no verse, although some did give me some challenges, that teaches a trinity or that Jesus Christ is God the Son.

John 1 most definitely does not teach a trinity, nor does it teach that Jesus is God, it does teach that the message, the logos was with God, yet distinctly independent of God.

Indeed, we must agree to disagree.

However, to suggest that I do not accept you as an individual is error.

I personalize all my posts to the one I am replying to. I most certainly generalize in many of them, but I am writing first and foremost to the one I am replying to.

If you do not see that, I am not to blame for that.

If you read some posts leveled against those who believe in one true God, you will find a great abundance of negative stereotyping. I know for I have been the target for a lot of that. Just read Totton's posts in reply to me in this thread alone.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Your definition of pros is close, but does not tell the complete story. To be in social contact with someone does in no way imply identity. Are you with God? or against God? I am sure you are with God, but being with God does not mean you are God. You are with God, but you are distinctly independent of God because you are not God.

Logos, meaning communication or any of its synonyms is the basic definition, so leave the definition alone and work with that.

God is interested in communicating himself to us, and has done that in various ways, including scripture and His son.

Your bible was not with God in the beginning but God already knew what it would contain, likewise, God foreknew what His son would accomplish although the son did not yet exist because Matthew 1:18 tells us of his gennesis, his beginning

You, as most trins have done, have cluttered your mind with the trinity and precluded that the trinity is scriptural, you have put the cart in front of the horse. If you would actually clear your mind of your, yes, you, revpete, of the trinity, and simply read scripture for what it says, you would soon find yourself to be a "trinity denier"

I do not belittle those who have studied Greek because I too have studied some Greek.

However, I have seen people exalt their education above the clear reading of scripture.

Maybe you have too.

You have clearly demonstrated by the verses you chose that to define "pros" as "with, yet distinctly independent of" is a most appropriate definition.

My rejection of the trinitarian doctrine was the result of God's intervention in my life when I began to question the trinity and the associated theology that Jesus is God.

God clearly pointed out I Timothy 2:5 to me by means of another student. That verse absolutely pointed out that God is God, men are men and the one mediator between God and men is the man Christ Jesus.

Christ Jesus is a man, not God, not God the Son, not a Godman, not fully God/fully man, not a dual natured being, but a man.

All scripture that I have been present with since then has fit within that framework, there is no verse, although some did give me some challenges, that teaches a trinity or that Jesus Christ is God the Son.

John 1 most definitely does not teach a trinity, nor does it teach that Jesus is God, it does teach that the message, the logos was with God, yet distinctly independent of God.

Indeed, we must agree to disagree.

However, to suggest that I do not accept you as an individual is error.

I personalize all my posts to the one I am replying to. I most certainly generalize in many of them, but I am writing first and foremost to the one I am replying to.

If you do not see that, I am not to blame for that.

If you read some posts leveled against those who believe in one true God, you will find a great abundance of negative stereotyping. I know for I have been the target for a lot of that. Just read Totton's posts in reply to me in this thread alone.

Good post.

Many have been called by God and have received the Spirit of God, but until they find the man Jesus in the Spirit of God then they do not really know the Father or His Son.

Making the scriptures fit their own opinion of God and His Son, is a folly.

One must come to know the Son of God and then allow the Spirit of the word form our understanding, before satan through men, implants a false view in the mind and distorts of the hearts of those who receive it.

LA