ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

What Does Face To Face Mean

After reading Exodus 33 verses 11 and 20 to 23 what do you believe the phrase 'face to face' actually means?

Join Our Free Dating and Take The Love Bible Quiz
 ---M.P. on 5/20/06
     Helpful Blog Vote (11)

Post a New Blog



'add words or subtract words dragging it away from any likeness to the original!'- Warwick.

I notice you can't provide any evidence for your ridiculous accusation. All hot air and no action. Typical trinitarian impotent behaviour.

But let's see Warwick the Hypocrite at work! Who really is 'adding words to scripture, dragging it away from its original meaning'?

Warwick believes Romans 11:36 says, 'everything was created "through" God'. Where does the word 'created' appear in Romans 11:36? Nowhere! It's nowhere in chapter 11!

Warwick also adds words to John 14:14 to trinitarianise Jesus' statement.

Hypocrisy along with polytheism appears to follow trinitarian Warwick wherever he goes.
---David8318 on 6/15/12


'Polytheism' is defined in both as belief in more than one god'.- Marc.

Notice Marc's glaring omission? Glaring as his cut and paste isn't brilliant either! Marc omits the word 'worship'. He does so because as a Neo-Platonic trinitarian he doesn't just believe in 3 God's, but he worships them. That's the key. Worshipping and believing more than one God.

Granted, Jehovah's Witnesses acknowledge the existence of a number of god's- even Jesus acknowledged their existence, Satan being one of them (Jo.10:34,35 & 2 Cor.4:4). But like Jesus, JW's worship only one God, Jehovah- Matt.4:10.

Marc and Warwick openly worship and believe in more than one God as seen in their understanding of John 20:17, 28 and Hebrews 1.
---David8318 on 6/15/12


Romans 11:36 says 'everything was created "through" God.'- Warwick.

Really!? Ro.11:36 says 'For of him, and by him, and in him, are all things.'- Douay.

Your point is what Warwick? Romans 11:36 isn't speaking specifically of creation, rather the 'riches of God's wisdom', 11:33. Evidence you're grasping at straws and picking scriptures out of context to twist them.

'Through' or 'by' makes no difference to the point I'm making regarding your polytheist bent. You promote 2 God's at Hebrews 1 ie. the 'Son God' who 'created everything', and the God with whom the Son is contrasted with in Heb.1:9.

I haven't failed to shine the light on your pagan polytheist trinitarianism. You've failed to show where I'm wrong.
---David8318 on 6/15/12


"Sons of God." Marc

Red Herring alert!

My response to Marc's comment: "I am a son of Jehovah God" was:

"Then according to Warwick's theology you are therefore the Almighty God." (Scott) citing Warwick's repeated assertion:

"Jesus being called 'Son' means He is equal with God." (Warwick 7/14/09, etc.)

It's understandable why Marc would use some (albeit transparent) diversionary tactic here because clearly this has always been one of Warwick's strangest arguments.

The obvious problem that this reasoning creates is that angels have been called "Sons of God" (Job 38:7) as was Adam (Luke 3:38) even Israel! (Hosea 1:10).
---scott on 6/15/12


David,

Why did you capitalise the 'g' in god from the Oxford AND Collins dictionaries?

'Polytheism' is defined in both as belief in more than one god'. JWs belief in at least 2 gods, one being the Almighty. Belief in 1 God + belief in 1 god = polytheism. JWs, no matter how you divert attention away, ARE polytheists, just like the other major modern heresy, Mormonism.
---Marc on 6/14/12




Scott,

No, not according to Warwick, but by God's word we become sons of God. "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1)

I guess the reason you and David regard yourselves as slaves is because the 144,000 are the sons of God. You are truly slaves, but not of God.
---Marc on 6/14/12


"Lie"- Warwick

You you can read my three-part reply to you on this below. (6/12)
---scott on 6/14/12


"God/Origen" Ruben (1)

What you haven't addressed is the biblical and early Judeo/Christian use of the word "God".

As language evolves over time, in some cases, the contemporary meaning of a word will change and take on a more narrow definition.

For example Wycliff's translation says:

'Worship thy father and thy mother." Matthew 19:19

"If any man serve me, my Father shall worship him." John 12:26

It sounds strange today because "worship" carries a much more narrow meaning. But up until about 200 years ago the meaning was much broader.

David and God were both "worshipped" at 1 Chronicles 29:20 (KJV, RSV, ESV).

Continued
---scott on 6/14/12


"God/Origen" Ruben (2)

The word "God" also has a more narrow definition today than it did in biblical times and for centuries thereafter.

Youngs Analytical Concordance (Preface- "Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation)" says:

"65. God - any one (professedly) mighty...and is applied not only to the true God, but to ... magistrates, judges, angels, prophets, etc., e.g. Exod. 7:1 ... John 1:1, 10:33, 34, 35, 20:28 ... 2 Thess. 2:4".

So when the bible uses the word "God" it's clearly not always in reference to the Almighty.

Origen called Jesus a 'a work of creation'. Calling him "God" did not identify him as the Almighty.
---scott on 6/14/12


David, you say to use Scripture to contradict your nonBiblical views. Quite funny. Many have done so but if a Scripture is inconvenient for you deny the straight forward meaning, add words or subtract words dragging it away from any likeness to the original!

For example you attempted misdirection regarding Hebrews 1:2 stating that as God created 'through' His Son this means the Son isn't Creator. You know 11:36 states everything was created "through" God. By your reasoning God is also not Creator! You also know Colossians says all things were created by and for the Son, that He is eternal existing "before all things." If you will not accept these combined Scriptures you will accept nothing.
---Warwick on 6/14/12




Scott you cannot even lie straight in bed!

I wrote "if John meant to convey Jesus is 'divine' i.e. a nonphysical being (not God) why did he not use 'theios' (divine), which would have made the point without ambiguity?" But you falsely accused me of cutting and pasting this, misrepresenting anothers writings as my own. Certainly these exact words can be found on the web, and only under my name, because I wrote them. If they were on the web under anyone else's name you would have jumped to show where. But you haven't because you have, again, lied.

But what is new.

I am still waiting.
---Warwick on 6/14/12


David, on 12/6 you wrote "Hebrews 1 states God made the universe 'through' his Son." You would have us believe that "through" means the Son was not Creator but only the 'conduit' through whom God created. You are wrong, as Romans 11:36 says everything was created "through" God. If "through" in Hebrews 1:2 means the Son is not Creator then likewise Romans 11:36 proves God is also not Creator!

Colossians 1:16 shows the truth, saying all things were created 'by Him" "through Him" and "for Him." Therefore Jesus the Son of God is the Creator God, God the Son.

You have tried this ruse many times. It failed then, failed now, and it will fail when you again use it.
---Warwick on 6/14/12


'I don't know even where to start'- Micha9344.

Why not? If the trinity doctrine is scriptural, it should be quite easy for you to use scripture to refute what I'm saying. The fact that I use scripture to support what I'm saying and you do not speaks volumes in itself.

The fact that Jehovah God created his son Jesus, that Jesus came to earth as a man in the flesh, was put to death in the flesh and made alive in the spirit is supported by scripture as I've previously posted.

1800 to 2000+ years ago, this was the truth. This is what the 1st century Christians taught and what Christians teach today. Sadly your 'theological' perception stops 1700 yrs ago- during the 3rd cent. when the apostate mystery-trinity began.
---David8318 on 6/14/12


Origen-

"for it was to Him that God said regarding the creation of man, Let us make man in Our image, after Our likeness." Against Celsus, Book V, chapter XXVI (26), ANF, Vol. IV (4), p. 560, reprinting of April, 1982.
---scott on 6/13/12


we regard and believe [Jesus] to have been from the beginning God, and the Son of God. (Against Celsus 3:41)

although the Word which was in the beginning with God, which is also God Himself, should come to us, He does not give His place or vacate His own seat, so that one place should be empty of Him, and another which did not formerly contain Him be filled. (Against Celsus 4:5)

the Divine Wordis God. (Against Celsus 4:18)
---Ruben on 6/14/12


Cluny I missed your comments before. My references show that 'o (pronounced ho I am told) theos' defines the God as per Hebrews 1:8, John 20:28, and elsewhere. Bullinger says at some time it became necessary to call the God of Scripture '0 Theos' to distinguish Him from heathen Gods.

My point is that Jesus is called the God, by the God Himself, and by Thomas.
---Warwick on 6/14/12


Wow, David8318, that is some crooked theology there..
I don't know even where to start with the conglomeration of misinformed ideas brought into the doctrinal field.
Anything I post would be outright rejected anyhow as the Arian(from Arius) indoctrination could only be dealt with by the One Who has been offended by such teachings. It was blaphemy and heresy 1700+ years ago and still is today.
---micha9344 on 6/14/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Distance Learning


Warwick's 'story'?

'You have an angel, a creature who was created before anything was created' (Yes- 1 Thess.4:16, Col.1:15-17),

'or maybe created himself' (?) (No, Jehovah God created his son Jesus- Jo.1:14, 'and the Word became flesh... as of the only begotten from a Father'- ASV)

'who became a man' (Yes, Phil.2:7, 'Christ Jesus... being made in the likeness of men'- KJV)

'who allowed himself to be called God' (No, that's Warwick's polytheist trinitarian interpretation of John 20:17,28),

'then became an angel again' (Yes- 1 Peter 3:18, 'Because Christ... being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit'- ASV).

'Or is He still a man?' No, Peter says Christ was 'made alive in the spirit'.
---David8318 on 6/14/12


"I am a son of Jehovah God." Marc

Then according to Warwick's theology you are therefore the Almighty God.

"Jesus being called 'Son' means He is equal with God."
Warwick 7/14/09
---scott on 6/14/12


"Scott, I am still waiting you you..." Warwick

You you can read my three-part reply to you on this below. (6/12)
---scott on 6/14/12


'Polytheism', according to Collins and Oxford dictionaries, def: "the worship of or belief in more than one God".

I worship and believe in only one God- Jehovah. He alone is God Almighty ('yhwh... el shaddai'- Gen.17:1).

Trinitarianism as Warwick demonstrates in his understanding of Hebrews 1 and John 20 'believe in and worship more than one God'.

Trinitarian understanding of John 20:17,28 is a classic example of trinitarian polytheism: ie. the 'God' whom Jesus ascends to and the 'God' whom Thomas addresses. Blatant polytheism of which trinitarians are unable to refute.

Warwick's tunnel vision and indoctrination into polytheist trinitarianism blindly force him to conclude Thomas doubted who Jesus was.
---David8318 on 6/14/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Education


Scott, I am still waiting you you to show where my supposed cut and paste job came from. You said you knew where it came from but have since been silent, failing to provide the proof. It is therefore now obvious to all that you lied. You can show you are not a liar by giving the references.
---Warwick on 6/14/12


David: "I am a slave of Jehovah God."

Well, for someone who believes the Watchtower is NEVER wrong, that just about says it all.

For me, I am a son of Jehovah God.

You see the difference, David?
---Marc on 6/13/12


David, you are a slave of the WTS and a polytheist as you have a God and a god.

Christians quote John 20:28 as it has Thomas the doubter finally understanding who Jesus is: calling Him "My Lord and my God."

In John 17(part) Jesus says "I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God." He didn't say to our Father and our God, for good reason. Likewise the Father calls Jesus 'My Son." He is not our Son.

In your confused story you have an angel, a creature who was created before anything was created, (or maybe created himself), who became a man who allowed himself to be called God, then became an angel again. Or is He still a man?
---Warwick on 6/13/12


Origen-

"For the Son of God, "the First-born of all creation," although He seemed recently to have become incarnate, is not by any means on that account recent. For the holy Scriptures know Him to be the most ancient of all the works of creatione, for it was to Him that God said regarding the creation of man, Let us make man in Our image, after Our likeness." Against Celsus, Book V, chapter XXVI (26), ANF, Vol. IV (4), p. 560, reprinting of April, 1982.
---scott on 6/13/12


Send a Free Apostate Church Tract


Origen-

"For the Son of God, "the First-born of all creation," although He seemed recently to have become incarnate, is not by any means on that account recent. For the holy Scriptures know Him to be the most ancient of all the works of creatione, for it was to Him that God said regarding the creation of man, Let us make man in Our image, after Our likeness." Against Celsus, Book V, chapter XXVI (26), ANF, Vol. IV (4), p. 560, reprinting of April, 1982.
---scott on 6/13/12


Seeing God"- Origen, (185-254 ce)-scott on 6/13/12

For instance, suppose that there were a statue of so enormous a size as to fill the whole world, and which on that account could be seen by no one, and that another statue were formed altogether resembling it in the shape of the limbs, and in the features of the countenance, and in form and material, but without the same immensity of size, so that those who were unable to behold the one of enormous proportions, should, on seeing the latter, acknowledge that they had seen the former, because it preserved all the features of its limbs and countenance,
---Ruben on 6/13/12


For he who has understood the Son will understand the Father also. In this way, then, Moses too must be supposed to have seen God, not beholding Him with the bodily eye, but understanding Him with the vision of the heart and the perception of the mind, and that only in some degree. For it is manifest that He, viz., who gave answers to Moses, said, You shall not see My face, but My hinder parts."
---scott on 6/13/12

we listen to the God who speaks in Moses, and have accepted Jesus, whom he testifies to be God, as the Son of God, in hope of receiving the best rewards if we regulate our lives according to His word. (Against Celsus 5:51)
---Ruben on 6/13/12


John 20:28 is rolled out by trinitarians as if it were the only verse in John chapter 20. (calling Him "My Lord and my God!"- Warwick)

Everyone knows Thomas is termed 'Doubting Thomas' for the very reason he doubted Jesus had been resurrected. Thomas needed proof not of who Jesus was, but of his resurrection (20:24,25). When he got that proof, Thomas realised his Lord had been raised by his Father, Jehovah God. Thus Thomas' remark- 'my Lord and my God'.

The resurrected Jesus said previously- 'I am ascending to my God'- Jo.20:17. Again, the trinitarian view is a polytheist view, ie. 2 God's: the one Jesus ascends to, and the one Thomas addresses.

(Warwick- I am a slave of Jehovah God.)
---David8318 on 6/13/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Home Equity Loans


Origen-

"There are certain creatures, rational and divine, which are called powers [spirit creatures, angels], and of these Christ was the highest and best and is called not only the wisdom of God but also His power." ANF 10:321-322

"The LORD created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old." Proverbs 8:22, RSV
---scott on 6/13/12


"Seeing God"- Origen, (185-254 ce)-

"Whereas, on the contrary, God, the Father of Christ, is said to be seen, because he who sees the Son, he says, sees also the Father. This certainly would press us very hard, were the expression not understood by us more correctly of understanding, and not of seeing...

...For he who has understood the Son will understand the Father also. In this way, then, Moses too must be supposed to have seen God, not beholding Him with the bodily eye, but understanding Him with the vision of the heart and the perception of the mind, and that only in some degree. For it is manifest that He, viz., who gave answers to Moses, said, You shall not see My face, but My hinder parts."
---scott on 6/13/12


scott* Are you suggesting that Origen did not say the following?

"The Angel of God who came into the world for the salvation of men".
ANF p. 568, vol. 4

Of course not:

Are you suggesting that Origen did not say the following? :)


the divine benefits [are] bestowed upon us by Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which Trinity is the fountain of all holiness. (On First Principles 1:4:2)

Scott* Regarding references to Jesus as "God" let us not forget that both Theos and Elohim (God) are biblically applied to both men and angels. (Moses at Ex 7:1) and Jesus said:

But 'ONLY' Jesus can do as the Father did..


---Ruben on 6/13/12


An opportune question, since I just asked the same question on another blog.
The literal defintion "directly facing each other".

That said Jacob states, for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved. (Gen 32:30). However, God said no one can see his face and live (Ex 33).

So, please, without the personal attacks, can someone explain this?

---NurseRobert on 6/13/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Interest Rates


\\Are you suggesting that Origen did not say the following?\\

Origen is NOT always trustworthy doctrinally, and is best left alone, especially by most of the people here, who have NO understanding of Church History or experience in reading patristics, except to cherry-pick.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/12/12


David I am sure you slaves of the WTS had a wonderful conference time denigrating all those apostates who hold to the distorted lens of pagan Neo-Platonic apostate Trinitarian Babylonian three Gods on a log belief. I cudn spel Babilonyon till I met u!
---Warwick on 6/12/12


"Us[ing] the ECF"- Ruben

Are you suggesting that Origen did not say the following?

"There are certain creatures, rational and divine, which are called powers [spirit creatures, angels], and of these Christ was the highest and best and is called not only the wisdom of God but also His power." ANF 10:321-322

And:

"The Angel of God who came into the world for the salvation of men".
ANF p. 568, vol. 4

Regarding references to Jesus as "God" let us not forget that both Theos and Elohim (God) are biblically applied to both men and angels. (Moses at Ex 7:1) and Jesus said:

"Is it not written in your law, I said, You are gods?" John 10:34
---scott on 6/12/12


Ignatius-

The New Catholic Encyclopedia-


"During the last several centuries a warm controversy has been carried on by patrologists concerning the authenticity of the Ignatian letters. Each particular recension has had its apologists and its opponents. Each has been favored to the exclusion of all the others, and all, in turn, have been collectively rejected especially by the coreligionists of Calvin...

...In general, Catholic and Anglican scholars are ranged on the side of the letters written to the Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Romans, Philadelphians, Smyrniots, and to Polycarp, whilst Presbyterians, as a rule, and perhaps a priori, repudiate everything claiming Ignatian authorship."
---scott on 6/12/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Marketing


"There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit, both made and not made, God existing in flesh, true life in death, both of Mary and of God, first passible and then impassible, even Jesus Christ our Lord."--Ignatius (30-107AD)
This is well before the poison of Arius and it's continuation through JW false doctrine.
Also well before Constantine, whom many JW's have been brainwashed to believe started this whole "mess" about the trinity.
Ignatius said it best over 1900 years ago: "For they are dumb dogs, that cannot bark, raving mad, and biting secretly..."
yet not secretly any more...
---micha9344 on 6/12/12


Hebrews 1 is a clear identification of the relationship between God and His son Jesus Christ. There is no ambiguity unless of course you look at Hebrews through the distorted lens of pagan Greek philosophy- in the form of Neo-Platonic trinitarianism.

Pagan Greeks taught long before Jesus that the 'logos' must be at one with the supreme deity. Apostate christians adopted the same view in their understanding of the 'logos' at John 1:1.

Apostate trinitarians in their effort to avoid polytheism cleverly adopt Neo-Platonic thinking saying, 'Ah but we believe only in one God. We don't believe in 2 or 3 God's. Only 3 in one.'

But this is not what Paul taught in Hebrews chapter 1. The "3 in one" doctrine is unscriptural.
---David8318 on 6/12/12


"Same Origen..?" - micha9344

Yes, the same one that said:


---scott on 6/11/12

This (Logos) was in the beginning with God. In the first premise we learned where the Logos was: He was in the beginning, then we learned with whom He was, with God, and then who He was, that He was God. He now points out by this word He, the Word who is God, and gathers up into a fourth proposition the three which went before, In the beginning was the Word, The Word was with God, and The Word was God. (Commentary on the Gospel of John 2:4)
The Word was not made in the beginning, there was no time when the beginning was devoid of the Word,commentary on the Gospel of John 2:13)

Still trying to use the ECF, really!
---Ruben on 6/12/12


"Cut and pasted comments"- Warwick (3)

"I know these are my words." Warwick

Then you may want to start suing for plagiarism because many have stolen your words online. Some even stole these very words years before you wrote them!

Anyone can easily find this (or one of its many variations) online. You are well aware that we can not post website addresses so a simple Google search (using some of the language in this quote) will provide various locations it has been used.

"Pride comes before disaster, and arrogance before a fall."
Proverbs 16 CEB
---scott on 6/12/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Life Insurance


\\God, speaking of His Son calls Him "O God", (ho theos) Hebrews 1:8- Warwick.\\

Wrong.

The vocative "O" or "Oh" Is "WX' (omega chi) in Greek.

Omicron, which you are using here, is simply the nominative definite article.

Try again.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/12/12


"The Son... created everything"- Warwick.

Hebrews 1:1-2 says, 'In the past God... has spoken to us by his Son... and through whom he made the universe.' (NIV) Read it in whole from your Bibles.

Hebrews 1 states God made the universe 'through' his Son. Warwick's trinitarian, polytheist indoctrination wants you to believe however that the Son 'created everything'. Warwick believes the Son is 'the God' in verse 8. Thus Warwick has at least 2 Gods and 2 creators in Heb.1:2-9. Trinitarian polytheism!

Which is why Christians (ie. non-trinitarians) render Colossians 1:16 regarding Jesus, 'by means of him, all other things were created... through him and for him'. Gr: 'panta', 'all other things'.
---David8318 on 6/12/12


"Cut and pasted comments"- Warwick (1)

The more you gnash your teeth about being caught in an outright lie simply draws more attention it. All you had to say was "so what, big deal". But to deny it and then call my honesty into question instead is childish and shines a light on your mendacious character.

But since you choose to keep a fire burning under this, I will recap and let others decide for themselves.

On 6/7/12 you posted:

"if John meant to convey Jesus is 'divine' i.e. a nonphysical being (not God) why did he not use 'theios' (divine), which would have made the point without ambiguity?

Continued
---scott on 6/12/12


Haha, David8318 doesn't know the difference between trinitarian and polytheism. Lol.
---Jed on 6/12/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Make Money


"Cut and pasted comments"- Warwick (2)

I replied by posting a very familiar reply used frequently by those who disagree with Jason BeDuhn:

"if John meant to convey Jesus is 'divine' i.e. a nonphysical being (not God) why did he not use 'theios' (divine), which would have made the point without ambiguity?" 6/7/12

Your response is priceless:

"The inverted comma is a typo!" Warwick (Right, the old inverted comma defense. In English we call this a quotation mark.)

"Even if it were cut and paste the point stands". Warwick (Let's chew on this for a moment. "Even if it were..."?

If you weren't lying you would never have said this.
---scott on 6/12/12


God, speaking of His Son calls Him "O God", (ho theos) Hebrews 1:8- Warwick.

Hebrews 1:8-9 says (according to trinitarians), 'But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness, therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy"'. (NIV)

Thus again Warwick reveals his polytheist, trinitarian bent for he believes there are 2 "God's" in verses 8 and 9. Apparently, the Son is called 'O God' who is also contrasted with "his [your] God" in verse 9. Just how many God's does Warwick worship!? Polytheism knows no bounds!
---David8318 on 6/12/12


Scott with all your waffle and exposed deceit you "practise to deceive." You endeavour deceitfully to demote the Son to "a god" but Scripture calls Him the Creator God.

Hebrews 1:3 says the Son upholds the universe by his power. Colossians 1:16 shows He is able to do this because He created everything ever created by this same power. He made it, He owns, it, and He sets the rules!

God, speaking of His Son calls Him "O God", (ho theos) Hebrews 1:8.

Thomas (John 20:28) replies to Jesus, calling Him "My Lord and my God!" Again the Son is called 'ho theos', 'The God.'

But you would have us believe the Creator God is an angel!
---Warwick on 6/11/12


Scott you claim the Son is a created being, an angel, "a god." But Colossians 1:17 shows He existed before anything was created, therefore is eternal! How can a creature exist before anything was created? Are you saying He created Himself before He was created?

BTW you claim I cut and pasted comments about John 1:1, and continue with this false claim, but are unable to show any evidence to support your falsehood. We wait patiently but for no reason as I know these are my words. Again you are caught in deceit. That reminds me of the time/s when you cut and pasted whole paragraphs, posting them without inverted commas, so as to pass them off as your own work! You are at least entertaining.
---Warwick on 6/11/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Rehab Treatments


'Safeguard Your Heart' Convention"

Hi David. Yes, attended ours 3 weeks ago and, as always, was encouraged by the warm, informative and practical bible-based program.

And of course it's hard to beat spending three days with 36,000 of our brothers and sisters!
---scott on 6/11/12


"Same Origen..?" - micha9344

Yes, the same one that said:

"There are certain creatures, rational and divine, which are called powers [spirit creatures, angels], and of these Christ was the highest and best and is called not only the wisdom of God but also His power." ANF 10:321-322

"The Angel of God who came into the world for the salvation of men".
ANF p. 568, vol. 4

'Origen...drew a sharp distinction between [theos - 'a god'] and [ho theos - 'the god' or 'God']. As [theos], the Son is not only distinct from ('numerically distinct') but also inferior to the Father who is [ho theos] and [autotheos] (i.e. God in an absolute sense).' -Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God, p. 36, 1992
---scott on 6/11/12


Scott even in your apology you are deceitful.

You now quote "Finally, BeDuhn prefers the translation "and the Word was divine." BeDuhn sees "divine" as merely meaning a non-physical being, which may be the true God or lesser spirit beings, such as angels. We may ask, however, if John meant to convey Jesus is 'divine' i.e. a nonphysical being (not God) why did he not use 'theios' (divine), which would have made the point without ambiguity?"

In this new quote you have added what I wrote (in bold) in place of the second half of your previoius quote. Transparent deceit!!!

You could prove me wrong by giving the references regarding this quote. But you won't will you, because you can't!
---Warwick on 6/10/12


Jesus,John and Paul states no man has seen God or shape or heard his voice.
So which scriptures is authentic ?
---earl on 6/10/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Stocks


David,

Welcome back. Not heard from you for a while.

I didn't think numbers were ever a measure of truth. So, when all those 10's of 1000's of JWs LEFT the Watchtower when its prophecies FAILED, is that also a measure of the [lack of] truth of the Watchtower?


BTW, the Mormons, Muslims and goodness knows how many other groups all claim that their "increasing" numbers is a sign of their "truth". I guess for me to know the truth I'll just have to pick the biggest number, yes?
---Marc on 6/10/12


Mat 5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
---TheSeg on 6/10/12


Is this the same Origen that said this: The only-begotten Son, therefore, is the glory of this light, proceeding inseparably from (God) Himself, as brightness does from light, and illuminating the whole of creation?
Or this: the Son of God, divesting Himself of His equality with the Father, and showing to us the way to the knowledge of Him, is made the express image of His person?
And: Thus saith the Lord God, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. For who else was He which is to come than Christ? And as no one ought to be offended, seeing God is the Father, that the Saviour is also God, so also, since the Father is called omnipotent, no one ought to be offended that the Son of God is also called omnipotent.
---micha9344 on 6/9/12


Hi scott, hope you enjoy your 'Safeguard Your Heart' Convention this year. Not yet had mine but been busy with convention set up past few weeks. Have enjoyed your responses in defence of the truth on his thread.

Most people are aware of the false accusations made against Jehovah's Witnesses which is why 1000's are flocking to Jehovah, mostly from trinitarian organisations. Their false accusations serve only to cause honest people to make a sincere enquiry of Jehovah's Witnesses.
---David8318 on 6/9/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Diabetes


Scott,

Re Origen, I needed a reference, not a requote of the passage. Surely, you've actually got from which of Origen's works this came?
---Marc on 6/9/12


Seeing God- Origen, (185-254 ce)-

"Whereas, on the contrary, God, the Father of Christ, is said to be seen, because he who sees the Son, he says, sees also the Father. This certainly would press us very hard, were the expression not understood by us more correctly of understanding, and not of seeing...

...For he who has understood the Son will understand the Father also. In this way, then, Moses too must be supposed to have seen God, not beholding Him with the bodily eye, but understanding Him with the vision of the heart and the perception of the mind, and that only in some degree. For it is manifest that He, viz., who gave answers to Moses, said, You shall not see My face, but My hinder parts."
---scott on 6/9/12


Scott,

The Watchtower disfellowships people, breaks up families, murders children, and swaps hate for love. You say to me that you deserve an apology and will not do anything unless I first apologise. Can you tell me where in the Gospels it says that in order to first receive assistance one must kow-tow to another?

JWs work for their salvation, and such work never ceasing. Therefore salvation has never arrived. Jesus offered to carry your load, but you've refused his offer and reckon you'll do it yourself. What weight you must carry, Scott.
---Marc on 6/8/12


"Gobsmacked"- Marc

I stand by my comments to you.

You asked me to do your homework for you because you were unable to find the reference (as if you really looked) and then criticized me at the same time.

Keep in mind that my original post on Origen's quote included this citation: P. 277, vol. iv, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Eerdmans Publishing.

Where it is in Origen's actual writings will be easy enough for you to find while you continue to gnash your teeth and rail against those who question your doctrinal conclusions.
---scott on 6/8/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Depression


Scott: "I believe you are certainly capable of doing your own homework but I'm happy to provide the citation if, in return, you muster up a heartfelt apology for, yet another, false accusation."

Scott, that demonstrates how clearly He, the Spirit of God, does not LIVE in you. Your comment is blackmail and shows what your organisation has done to you. Someone truly close to the Lord would never frame a statement like that i.e. I will be nice to you if you apologise. I am gobsmacked by your order.
---Marc on 6/8/12


"Assume the Origen mangling was from De Principiis, Book I, ch 2. It should be read in context and not stripped of 99% of its words, as you do elsewhere by routinely passing off hacked-to-pieces passages as accurate." Marc

Sadly you, once again, have let pride cloud your judgment. It is clear that your disdain for Witnesses causes you to make wild accusations, peppered with insults that are, in the end, easily proven false. Ultimately that undermines any kind of credibility you may otherwise have.

I believe you are certainly capable of doing your own homework but I'm happy to provide the citation if, in return, you muster up a heartfelt apology for, yet another, false accusation.

I won't hold my breath.
---scott on 6/8/12


"You should study your ''enemy'' Marc

I don't consider anyone, including Trinitarians, my enemy.

If you feel that I've misrepresented how Trinitarians apply John 14:9 then illuminate me:

What exactly did Jesus mean by his words as recorded by John and how do they support the idea of a Triune God?
---scott on 6/8/12


Scott,

Because of your cut-and-paste preference (and now, a new talent for name-dropping), you've again failed to appropriately cite a quote. I can only assume the Origen mangling was from De Principiis, Book I, ch 2. It should be read in context and not stripped of 99% of its words, as you do elsewhere by routinely passing off hacked-to-pieces passages as accurate.

One thing I now know about you: You really don't understand, in the least, what you've rejected. Time and time again you believe that Trinitarians believe Jesus IS the Father. Concerning Jesus' saying ''seen me, seen the Father'' it's clear you've misapprehended Trinitarian theology. You should study your ''enemy'' better rather than straw-manning at every opportunity.
---Marc on 6/8/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Study


Scott,

I'd like to check the exact reference to your Origen quote. Can you give me book name and chapter for it i.e. in Origen?

Thanks
---Marc on 6/7/12


Origen, (some would argue- the greatest and most knowledgeable scholar of the NT Greek) explained John 14:9:

"But ... God is invisible .... Whereas, on the contrary, God, the Father of Christ, is said to be seen, because `he who sees the Son,' he says, `sees also the Father.' This certainly would press us hard [to explain], were the expression not understood by us more correctly of understanding, and not of seeing. For he who has understood the Son will understand the Father also."

P. 277, vol. iv, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Eerdmans Publishing.
---scott on 6/6/12


Scott,

Since you are a member of "God's only organisation on earth" then you should have no problem answering all the questions I've posed rather than avoiding them or throwing up the evasive red-herrings.

Let's begin with two things.

1. Explain how God the Father becomes God the grandfather. [BTW, Scott, do you pray "Our Grandfather, who art in heaven."?]

2. The added words to Exodus 24, "and they saw [A TRUE VISION OF] the God of Israel", care to explain on whose authority you've ADDED MEANING-CHANGING words to God's Word?
---Marc on 6/4/12


"Unless your a Jehovah's Witness..." Marc

"The lady doth protest too much, me thinks." Shakespeare

Marc's continual references to Jehovah's Witnesses on various threads, even when JW's have nothing to do with the discussion or topic, have not even posted, etc., is fascinating and, well, really adorable"...

...like an 8-year old boy throwing rocks at the little girl that he secretly has a crush on.

Who knows, perhaps at some point he will muster his 8-year old courage to ask if he can hold her hand.

(See conversion of Saul).
---scott on 6/4/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Verses


John 6:46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

But the son of God has made many face to face appearances in the Old testement
---francis on 6/3/12


Cluny,

You omit the verse in Exodus 24 which states that despite Moses et al seeing God, He did not raise his hand against them. LOGICALLY, if they did not really see God, then why add that part?

Here is a great example of God setting aside a "rule" for the sake of the person.

Speaking of logic, the Jehovah's Witnesses are more logical than you, Cluny. Why? Because they understand the clarity of this passage and so they are forced to special plead and ADD words to it to remove its clarity. In this they are logical but, unfortunately, quite dishonest.
---Marc on 6/3/12


\\What ever 'face-to-face' means, is it not certain that Moses, Aaron et al "saw the God of Israel" (Exodus 24:10), as Scriptures say?\\

It's certain from the Scriptures that they didn't.

Remember the "cleft of the rock" episode? God told Moses, "No man can see My face and live."

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/2/12


What ever 'face-to-face' means, is it not certain that Moses, Aaron et al "saw the God of Israel" (Exodus 24:10), as Scriptures say? Unless you're a Jehovah's Witness and are forced, because of your heretical belief, to ADD altering words to God's word i.e. "and they saw A TRUE VISION of the God of Israel".

"Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men...and not according to Christ. FOR IN HIM DWELLS ALL THE FULLNESS OF THE GODHEAD BODILY." (Colossians 2:8,9)
---Marc on 6/2/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Arthritis


Face to face ALWAYS means direct contact, without an intersessor.

In some contaxt it is not visual contact

examples: Deuteronomy 5:4 The LORD talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire,
Deuteronomy 4:12 And the LORD spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude, only [ye heard] a voice.

In this context " face to face" did not mean visual contact, but without an intersessor.

In other contaxt it is visual contact:
Deuteronomy 34:10 And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face,

remember the glowing face of moses because he was face to face with God
---francis on 6/2/12


Its a report of GOD in three persons. First the column of cloud, in this chapter its also referred to as His Presence (Holy Spirit), Lord who spoke with Moses face to face (literally) if you meet some one say a King and you spoke face to face you will report that, if he turned his back to you, you will report it like so, in this chapter he did both. So the face to face was the Son, and when Moses asked show me your Glory the Lord say go stand by the rock and I will let my Glory pass by so that you may not see my face as no one has seen the face of God the Father and live. Remember Moses sought God's assurance that He was with them, that its not just a dream or misguided plan. GOD in three persons appeared in this critical meeting.
---Isikeli on 5/30/12


Ah, that's an interesting issue, how Moses could not see the LORD's face and live. And in Deuteronomy 5:4 Moses says to the Jews, "'The LORD talked to you face to face on the mountain from the midst of the fire.'" (Deuteronomy 5:4) And we know they were not up on that mountain > "you did not go up the mountain" Moses says, in the next verse. So, I'd say "face to face" is an expression meaning God spoke in person.
---Bill_bila5659 on 9/3/07


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.