Search results

I think you misunderstand the use of ἄγγελον. The primary meaning is messenger. It does not matter whether the messenger is a man or a supernatural being. The word does not define the nature of the being, it defines function. This is the designation scripture gives to the second position of the...

First, this is not an interpretation, it is a generalization of revealed principles. As to the question of Satan's involvement, Satan is the instigator of all persecution of the saints and men are used by Satan to accomplish this. What Satan did to Paul, he also did to Job. Whether one chooses...

What precisely would you like to challenge in my post?

It has been a very long time since I have posted on this site but, I would like to examine this question of Paul's thorn in the flesh. Let us open up the context of chapters 11 and 12. The context is Paul's defense of his apostleship. If one is able to boast according to the standard of the...

The root problem in trying to comprehend that which is not accessible to the mind of man is that of linguistic valence. Linguistic valence refers to the definitions that we attach to words in order to connect language to an idea. The problem that shows up in defining the nature of God is that we...

No, not two separate gods, two separate persons of one God. The discussion of Phil 2 begins of post #93.

v It is not a reverence to Isa 11. This is the same vision given to Ezekiel in 1:1-14 and 10:1-22. The definition of the seven spirits of God is supplied by the text. We do not have the right to assign a different definition to the symbolism.

"And from the seven spirits who are before His throne." There is no justification for the capitalization of "spirits". This is not a description of the nature of God. This statement cannot be understood apart from 4:5 which reads, "And there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne...

I rest my case.

If someone else had asked me this question, I should be happy to respond. Your track record however has been to regard me as a liar no matter what text I offer you so no, I think you and I are done.

Your questions do not seem to be an honest search for either knowledge nor understanding so I am not sure I am interested in wasting my time answering this.

If you are asking about part three of Phil. 2, that is on post #95. If you are wanting to think beyond Phil 2 we can look at Hebrews one and how it relates to Phil 2.

I was really not referring to my last post. I was referring to everything I have said. You really have understood nothing I have said. I was not defending the adding of the verse. I was quite clear that it should not be there. It still does that change the fact that everything this verse says is...

You have not comprehended a single thing I have said. Perhaps I am wasting my time.

I agree. The textual evidence supporting this verse is virtually nonexistent, at least in all of the mss of 1John that we have found thus far. No Greek MSS extant contains verse seven in the body of the text until 1520. There are some 300 Gk mss. of 1Jn. Of these, the longer reading appears in...

Because she was intended to form a different set of functions. In the Triadic Unity, all three members of that unity form a different set of functions as well.

The burdens were the endless regulations of Pharisaic tradition. These were not part of the Law of Moses rather, they were the product of centuries of Rabbinic interpretation of the Law such as the washing of hands, the prescribed limitations of travel on the Sabbath, regulations regarding...

Of course there is only one God. This is the most fundamental truth in all of scripture. This is not even debatable. What we are examining is simply the complex of this one God. We know that scripture confirms that the Father is God, Christ is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and we see them...

Ok. I am finally back home. My service at home is rather poor and that is why you may have to sometimes wait for a response. But is certainly better than where I was earlier. In Deut 6:4, you have a form of Elohim, which as I am sure you are aware, is a plural noun. This plural Elohim then...

I am afraid I am going to have to wait until I get back home to respond to this. I am sorry. Service here is very poor.