Recent content by 101G

we suggest you read this post in order to understand the knowkedge I have on the the "OUR" and "US" Genesis 1:26 Revisited, the Ordinal “FIRST” then you will understand why I said, "the Son of God was not at Genesis 1:1, nor at Genesis 1:26.... but JESUS was... now go and find out the...

GINOLJC, to all. first thanks for the reply, second, drop Y...O...U...R bible and get a real bible. now, lets see where Ordinal is in the bible, maybe not in ..."YOUR" bible, but it's in God's Holy WORD. have you ever heard of, the "First", and the "Last?". well First and Last are ordinal...

see this rebuttal.... Genesis 1:26 Revisited, the Ordinal “FIRST” see ya, Just cain't take this anymore, or I'll laugh myself to ??????????? bye K, see you tommorrow....... maybe.. LOL. PICJAG 101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

lol, (shake head)... wow... :( just cain't believe it.

no rebuttal? ........ thought so. Remember, Don't argue with 101G, argue with the scriptures, God Holy Word. PICJAG 101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

you missed my answer, look back at this post... Genesis 1:26 Revisited, the Ordinal “FIRST” and understand the difference of the Ordinal First, and the Ordinal Last, the H430 אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym (el-o-heem') of Genesis 1:1... :D as I have been saying, the Son of God was not at Genesis 1:1 but...

LOL, has God changed? if it never was why did he say it? if the Son was with the Father/God in the beginning, as John 1:1 states, would it not Apply then at the Beginning too?? ..... LOL .... :eek: YIKES!. REPROVED, and CORRECTED again. Remember, Don't argue with 101G, argue with the...

well lets see, according to Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words "SON", It is often used metaphorically of prominent moral characteristics. (c) descendants, without reference to sex, Rom 9:27; (f) those who act in a certain way, whether evil, Matt 23:31, or good, Gal 3:7; (g)...

you again misse the Mark, and the whole target... listen who is equal to God? lets check the record, Isaiah 46:5 "To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like?" "ME" is a single person. so your whole belief syatem fails on this one verse. there is no one...

LOL, I have to laugh, see you're still carnal, did I not reprove you before, the term "Son", has no reference to descendants, and without reference to sex. see you're still carnal, a natural man. so since you are still in the flesh, then, once more, Matthew 1:20 "But while he thought on these...

Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" Remember, Don't argue with 101G, argue with the scriptures, God Holy Word. PICJAG 101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

and how many time must I say Jesus is God who is Father and "diversified"/Shared in Flesh as Son? now read and study Phil 2:6, else I will not answer you... STUDY TO SHOW YOURSELF APPROVE UNTO GOD. now study Phil 2:6 and then get back to me.... ok. Remember, Don't argue with 101G, argue...

the Name is not God, but the S[pirit he is.... so that want fly either... lol. see, if you have one God with ONE NAME, and all your three so called person, have the same one Name, well distinction goes right out the window. just like your belief, right out the window. Remember, Don't argue...

LOL, no to his "DIVERSIFIED" self in flesh. have you not read the bible? listen, Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" BINGO, now go and atudy that scripture, and the DIVERSITY in right in the verse. Remember, Don't argue with 101G...

this is ENGLISH, "diversity", the last time I looked, that's an English word....... :p but my source is the Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments. maybe if you picked up a Dictionary, and look up some words and see what they mean, it might just help you...