Is death just another life?

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
The Word is as much a "name" as God is a name.
You've misplaced your quotation marks. But were you to say that "The Word" is as much a name as the word "God" is a name, I'd agree with you. And, in fact, since The Word is named by the phrase "The Word", the phrase "The Word" is a name; since God is named by the word "God", the word "God" is a name.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Capital W "word" is a interpretation, since the original Greek didn't have capitals.
I like the KJV, but there are other good translations, some better than others.

"Word" is a terrible translation for the Greek "LOGOS" in John 1:1.

LOGOS means "logic" (literally where we get the english word "logic" and "-ology" and "-logical") and "reason."

@Clete knows more about this than I do, though.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
That man-child did not exist at one time. Are you saying Jesus the man existed before He was conceived?

Stolen concept fallacy.

Jesus existed prior to the flesh's existence that He tabernacled in. And yes, "tabernacled" is the verb used in John 1:14. ESKENOSEN means "to dwell as in a tent, encamp, have tabernacle."

As I stated before: In the Old Testament, God dwelt in temples made of cloth. In the New Testament, God dwelt in a tabernacle of flesh.

He BECAME FLESH by dwelling within it.

He didn't become a new Person.

He simply took on a new nature, that of "flesh," "man," "humanity."

His fleshy body did not exist prior to the Holy Spirit moving on Mary.

He wasn't called Jesus prior to him being 8 days old.

That doesn't mean He wasn't a Person before He was named, or conceived, and it DEFINITELY doesn't mean that He didn't exist prior to His conception (with Him being the only Person to have existed prior to conception, because He is God who took on flesh).

You and and Hoping are getting dangerously close to uttering the heresy that the heretic @keypurr was saying a few years ago, that Jesus was a person, and that his body was "taken over" by another entity that God created for the task of going to the cross.
 

Hoping

Well-known member
Banned
Why do you suppose that God could do something so irrational?
I guess I can't see what God will or has seen as "rational" to a mere human.
Do you think parting the Red Sea, or the Jordan River, was "rational" ?
The universe is EXTREMELY FINE TUNED, to the point where changing the laws even slightly would cause everything (yes, literally everything) to unravel.
Also, reality is an aspect of God's existence, not the other way around.
God cannot change reality, because to do so would be to change the fundamental aspects of Himself.
God made it all, by Jesus Christ, so He can "edit" or "redo" any part of it He wants.
Like He did when He caused the sun to stop moving in the sky for a day.
No. One God, who is three Persons.
Haven't you ever heard of the doctrine of the Trinity before?
I have heard of it.
The false church I once was a part of believed it.
If you love God, then why do you insult him by trying to work your way to heaven?
I love God so I will obey Him unto death, to get to heaven.
Compared to that, telling the truth, and remaining monogamous, are a breeze.
No, you haven't.
If you had, then you would actually trust Him.
I trust that what He had written in 1 Cor 10:13 is true.
That means that you wouldn't say things such as "you must continue to do good works, or else you won't be saved."
Your paraphrase is right on target.
If I quit trusting God, I will also quit feeding the hungry and clothing the naked.
How can anyone that trusts God let others go hungry and naked ?
If you had already put your trust in Christ, then you would affirm that His completed work on the cross was enough to save you and everyone else that has ever lived and is living and will ever live, because with His death we were reconciled, and "we shall be saved by His life."
I trust God, not the interpretations of men who still commit sin.
You seem to believe someone who told you you are already destined for heaven no matter what else you do, or don't do, during the rest of your life.
That sets off so many alarm bells that I can't hear.
Because it is through His righteous act, the free gift came to all men. It is through His and HIS OBEDIENCE ALONE we are made righteous.
There are no righteous liars, thieves, murderers, or adulterers.
His righteousness has made us free from committing sin.
Irrelevant, except to say that just because God won't allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able to bear doesn't mean that you won't fail to bear it.
I guess it just depends on from Whose seed one had been reborn of.
Only the devil's children will fail to seek, and use, God's promised escapes from temptations.
If you are not saved, then you are not a new creature.
They are synonymous.
Perhaps to you it is synonymous.
To me they are steps in a journey.
Water baptism doesn't save you. It just gets you wet.
Without it there is no remission of past sins, and no destruction of the old man, and no being raised with Christ to walk in newness of life.
And no being crucified with Christ, with the affections and lusts.
You present the perfect doctrine to keep on committing sin.
Be baptised with the Holy Spirit.
Thank you, I was.
My repentance from sin was true.
God's Spirit will not inhabit a polluted temple.
Hasn't happened if you aren't saved.
It happened to me when I was baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of my past sins.
Begging the question that you haven't sinned since then.
False premise, therefore your argument is falsified.
That unbelief is the fruit of your doctrine.
You can't see the truth that can make you free of committing sin.
 

Hoping

Well-known member
Banned
Stolen concept fallacy.

Jesus existed prior to the flesh's existence that He tabernacled in. And yes, "tabernacled" is the verb used in John 1:14. ESKENOSEN means "to dwell as in a tent, encamp, have tabernacle."

As I stated before: In the Old Testament, God dwelt in temples made of cloth. In the New Testament, God dwelt in a tabernacle of flesh.

He BECAME FLESH by dwelling within it.

He didn't become a new Person.

He simply took on a new nature, that of "flesh," "man," "humanity."

His fleshy body did not exist prior to the Holy Spirit moving on Mary.

He wasn't called Jesus prior to him being 8 days old.

That doesn't mean He wasn't a Person before He was named, or conceived, and it DEFINITELY doesn't mean that He didn't exist prior to His conception (with Him being the only Person to have existed prior to conception, because He is God who took on flesh).

You and and Hoping are getting dangerously close to uttering the heresy that the heretic @keypurr was saying a few years ago, that Jesus was a person, and that his body was "taken over" by another entity that God created for the task of going to the cross.
Not a chance.
The Spirit of God came over Mary and she conceived a son whose name is Jesus.
He was the Word manifested in the flesh.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Not a chance.
The Spirit of God came over Mary and she conceived a son whose name is Jesus.
He was the Word manifested in the flesh.

You're literally arguing with scripture at this point, heretic!

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . . And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

Jesus IS and WAS and ALWAYS WILL BE the LOGOS.

Are you @keypurr?
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
If I quit trusting God, I will also quit feeding the hungry and clothing the naked.
You are not feeding or clothing anybody all the while you are writing and posting on TOL your heretical ravings. So, even if you were feeding or clothing someone before you switched to spending your time writing and posting, you nevertheless quit feeding or clothing them when you switched to spending your time writing and posting.
How can anyone that trusts God let others go hungry and naked ?
You are constantly letting others go hungry and naked, you self-righteous hypocrite. You're doing so right this moment.
 

Derf

Well-known member
Stolen concept fallacy.

Jesus existed prior to the flesh's existence that He tabernacled in. And yes, "tabernacled" is the verb used in John 1:14. ESKENOSEN means "to dwell as in a tent, encamp, have tabernacle."

As I stated before: In the Old Testament, God dwelt in temples made of cloth. In the New Testament, God dwelt in a tabernacle of flesh.

He BECAME FLESH by dwelling within it.

He didn't become a new Person.

He simply took on a new nature, that of "flesh," "man," "humanity."

His fleshy body did not exist prior to the Holy Spirit moving on Mary.

He wasn't called Jesus prior to him being 8 days old.

That doesn't mean He wasn't a Person before He was named, or conceived, and it DEFINITELY doesn't mean that He didn't exist prior to His conception (with Him being the only Person to have existed prior to conception, because He is God who took on flesh).

You and and Hoping are getting dangerously close to uttering the heresy that the heretic @keypurr was saying a few years ago, that Jesus was a person, and that his body was "taken over" by another entity that God created for the task of going to the cross.
It's pretty funny that in the post where you accuse me of heresy, you make the exact same points I made.

"His fleshy body did not exist prior to the Holy Spirit moving on Mary.

He wasn't called Jesus prior to him being 8 days old."

You would call me a heretic for that?
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
It's pretty funny that in the post where you accuse me of heresy, you make the exact same points I made.

"His fleshy body did not exist prior to the Holy Spirit moving on Mary.

He wasn't called Jesus prior to him being 8 days old."

You would call me a heretic for that?
Cyrus was called "Cyrus" some two hundred years before he was born. (Isaiah 44:28, 45:1)
 

Derf

Well-known member
Cyrus was called "Cyrus" some two hundred years before he was born. (Isaiah 44:28, 45:1)
Ok. Josiah was called Josiah before he was born, too. But neither of them existed before then. Jesus did not exist as a man before He was conceived in Mary.

Why is this controversial?
 

Derf

Well-known member
The point is that He did exist. He existed as God, the Creator of everything that exists that isn't God.
Jesus was both man and God. As such He did not exist. As God, He did, but that was before He was Jesus. To say, "Jesus existed from all eternity," has two possible meanings. If you pick one, and your debate opponent picks the other, you might both be right...until you say the other guy is wrong.

This is called the "false dichotomy fallacy." It's great for maintaining adversarial relationships. But Christians are called to be united rather than divided, whenever and wherever we can be. Asserting false dichotomies is definitely not a good tactic.
 

Derf

Well-known member
The point is that He did exist. He existed as God, the Creator of everything that exists that isn't God.
Jesus was both man and God. As such He did not exist. As God, He did, but that was before He was Jesus. To say, "Jesus existed from all eternity," has two possible meanings. If you pick one, and your debate opponent picks the other, you might both be right...until you say the other guy is wrong.

This is called the "false dichotomy fallacy." It's great for maintaining adversarial relationships. But Christians are called to be united rather than divided, whenever and wherever we can be. Asserting false dichotomies is definitely not a good tactic.
 

Right Divider

Body part
If Jesus is a man, then there was definitely a time when he did not exist. Adam was the first man, not Jesus.
You posted that Jesus is God. Is there a time that God did not exist?

We know that Jesus took on human flesh at a point in time. So stating that obvious fact is obvious.
 
Top