Prophets

[101G]

You're wasting your time 101G. Dave worships the Creeds and doesn't want anything else.

Well I have time, dave needs to know the truth.

but thanks

 

[ScottA]

Where has the idea come from that the job of a prophet today is different than the job of a prophet in the OT?

I've heard it said that the job of a prophet today is to encourage people and build up their trust, but not to warn them when they are going wrong, but that the job of a prophet in the OT was just to warn people when they were going wrong.

I think this might not be true. I think whether it's a warning or an encouragement depends on the listener, on whether they are rebellious or soft hearted, to either not accept or to soak it up.

Thoughts please.

By the way, hello, sorry I have been busy and haven T come in much to say hello for the last month or so. Still busy but will check every morning for your thoughts on this.

The answer is...that the office has not changed, only the circumstances.

Those who have redefined the term, do so for spite, jealousy, and a competitive spirit. All of which is a sin by those who "do not enter in themselves, and those who are entering in they hinder.”

 

[101G]

The Father and the Son are two different persons. I'm no modalist. Granted, the Son can and on occasion does use the "Father" title. But they are two different persons.

Hi Jane, not for an argument, but for understanding. how did you come to this conclusion?.

it's always good to ask instead of pre-Judging

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Hi Jane, not for an argument, but for understanding. how did you come to this conclusion?.

it's always good to ask instead of pre-Judging

In short: extensive study of the scriptures and prayer.

If you're wanting something longer/more specific, would you mind narrowing down your question?

 

[101G]

The Father and the Son are two different persons.

different, but meaning not the same Person?.

I'm no modalist. Granted, the Son can and on occasion does use the "Father" title. But they are two different persons.

I'm no modalist either. but how do the Son on occasion use the title "Father".

I'll be out for a few but I'll read what you have posted.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

different, but meaning not the same Person?.

Correct. Christ doesn't pray to Himself, nor pat Himself on the back with "This is my beloved son in whom I'm well pleased".

I'm no modalist either.

Thanks for clarifying that.

but how do the Son on occasion use the title "Father".

Honestly, I'm feeling really lazy right now, but will get you some verses not hat in a bit.

 

[101G]

Correct. Christ doesn't pray to Himself, nor pat Himself on the back with "This is my beloved son in whom I'm well pleased".

Thanks for clarifying that.

Honestly, I'm feeling really lazy right now, but will get you some verses not hat in a bit.

thanks so far, while you're getting the latter question ready, I'll comment on the first response.
1. "Christ doesn't pray to Himself", I agree, he don't, but consider this Christ pray "with" and "within"himself.... :)
2. Jesus Christ himself is Spiritual, and being in flesh he's the "Intrinsic Spatial", or the express Image of himself in the flesh, hence the pat on the back, (not really) "this is "MY" beloved Son is accurate, according to the Spirit. which also answer the "US" and the "OUR" in Genesis 1:26

on being "different", yet the "same" person? the Greek term G243 allos answer that for us. according to Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Allos expresses a numerical difference and denotes another of the same sort. this is how he can pray "with" himself, and "within" himself while on earth in flesh as the "beloved" Son. and at the same time in heaven as the EVERLASTING FATHER, without flesh. supportive scripture,
John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. while the Lord JESUS was speaking to Nicodemus here on earth as the Son in flesh, at the very same time in heaven, "WITHOUT" flesh, he's the Father.

read John 3:13 again.

be blessed.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

thanks so far, while you're getting the latter question ready, I'll comment on the first response.
1. "Christ doesn't pray to Himself", I agree, he don't, but consider this Christ pray "with" and "within"himself.... :)
2. Jesus Christ himself is Spiritual, and being in flesh he's the "Intrinsic Spatial", or the express Image of himself in the flesh, hence the pat on the back, (not really) "this is "MY" beloved Son is accurate, according to the Spirit. which also answer the "US" and the "OUR" in Genesis 1:26

on being "different", yet the "same" person? the Greek term G243 allos answer that for us. according to Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Allos expresses a numerical difference and denotes another of the same sort. this is how he can pray "with" himself, and "within" himself while on earth in flesh as the "beloved" Son. and at the same time in heaven as the EVERLASTING FATHER, without flesh. supportive scripture,
John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. while the Lord JESUS was speaking to Nicodemus here on earth as the Son in flesh, at the very same time in heaven, "WITHOUT" flesh, he's the Father.

read John 3:13 again.

be blessed.

What you're saying here sounds a lot like modalism.

 

[101G]

NO, it's not modalism, listen to the definition of G243 allos again, Allos expresses a numerical difference and denotes another of the same sort

a numerical difference is not one which is modalism... understand now?

 

[Jane_Doe22]

NO, it's not modalism, listen to the definition of G243 allos again, Allos expresses a numerical difference and denotes another of the same sort

a numerical difference is not one which is modalism... understand now?

No I do not understand your view.

 

[101G]

No I do not understand your view.

OK, let me explain. what I Am is a "Diversified" oneness. and the key that separate me form a triune belief is "Share" vs "Separation".

see, a numerical difference is the "SHARE" without seratation.

and the scripture that supports this numerical difference is,
Phil 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God".

and the root of ,G3444, morphe (FORM) here give us the answer, G3313 μέρος meros (me'-ros) n.
which means 1. a portion. and another word for portion is "share".

 

[Jane_Doe22]

OK, let me explain. what I Am is a "Diversified" oneness. and the key that separate me form a triune belief is "Share" vs "Separation".

see, a numerical difference is the "SHARE" without seratation.

and the scripture that supports this numerical difference is,
Phil 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God".

and the root of ,G3444, morphe (FORM) here give us the answer, G3313 μέρος meros (me'-ros) n.
which means 1. a portion. and another word for portion is "share".

This is one of those times I smile and nod.

 

[101G]

first thanks for the response.
are you able to follow me? see, I rather discuss with question instead of argue with answers.

 

[101G]

Jane_Doe22, if there is something you don't understand, ask.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

first thanks for the response.
are you able to follow me? see, I rather discuss with question instead of argue with answers.

I don't like arguing either-- despise it actually. So no worries about that from me.

The exact relationship between the Father, Son, and Spirit is one that people have many answers. A lot of those times are people just using different words to describe different parts of the elephant -- an elephant that a lot of life long theologians say they don't understand. And even when there is an actual difference in the understanding of things.... frankly I don't think it's something to fight over.

I don't understand your exact view here @101G . And I'm not sure it's something I really can understand about you (acknowledging my limitation that way). And while I could spend oodles of effort trying to understand this part of your view to maybe maybe succeed, I think that that same effort could be put to much more profitable conversations about God.

 

[101G]

thanks for the reply,

ok, let's use your elephant for example, just for ... argument sake. is the elephant trunk separate from the elephant itself? ... ok, say for instance the elephant trunk pulled some leaves off a tree and the elephant ate the leaves. who pulled the leaves off the tree, was it the elephant himself or the elephant "OWN" trunk?

and let's give one more example, this time a man,... just for argument sake. there was a penny on the floor the man reached over and picked up the penny off the floor. who picked up the penny? the man or his "OWN" Arm.

now scripture,
Isa 63:5 And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me.

now I ask, is your "OWN" arm separate from you?.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

thanks for the reply,

ok, let's use your elephant for example, just for ... argument sake. is the elephant trunk separate from the elephant itself? ... ok, say for instance the elephant trunk pulled some leaves off a tree and the elephant ate the leaves. who pulled the leaves off the tree, was it the elephant himself or the elephant "OWN" trunk?

and let's give one more example, this time a man,... just for argument sake. there was a penny on the floor the man reached over and picked up the penny off the floor. who picked up the penny? the man or his "OWN" Arm.

now scripture,
Isa 63:5 And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me.

now I ask, is your "OWN" arm separate from you?.

How would you describe your view as being different from modalism?

 

[101G]

How would you describe your view as being different from modalism?

thanks for the reply

imange your hand. you put on a glove, you pull up a plant with dirt on it roots. the glove acts JUST as your hands in them? note, do your hands touch the actual dirt of the plant? no, listen,
Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.

the Glove is the express Image of your hand in this world. we see your gloves, but not your hands in them but we see the "Work" that your hands inside gloves produce. see the Son of God is flesh the outward man the glove. it was the one who touche the sin of this world. that's the glove. but your "OWN" hands, the son of man who is spirit touched not the dirt/sin of this world.

your, "OWN" hands inside the gloves is you in the work of pulling up the plant, follow me so far?
I know it's a crude example, please forgive me.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

thanks for the reply

imange your hand. you put on a glove, you pull up a plant with dirt on it roots. the glove acts JUST as your hands in them? note, do your hands touch the actual dirt of the plant? no, listen,
Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.

the Glove is the express Image of your hand in this world. we see your gloves, but not your hands in them but we see the "Work" that your hands inside gloves produce. see the Son of God is flesh the outward man the glove. it was the one who touche the sin of this world. that's the glove. but your "OWN" hands, the son of man who is spirit touched not the dirt/sin of this world.

your, "OWN" hands inside the gloves is you in the work of pulling up the plant, follow me so far?
I know it's a crude example, please forgive me.

Thank you for the effort, but it doesn't help me understand how your view is essentially different from modalism.

 

[101G]

Thank you for the effort, but it doesn't help me understand how your view is essentially different from modalism.

ok, what if I sent my OWN hands to New york and pulled up the plants from Alabama, but notice these are hands in gloves without my mind controling them. while my "OWN" hands are in New York, I remotely send instruction to them to carry out my mission. now is it me in New York or "MY" own hands in New York?.

follow me now. I know it's a crude example, but.. gotto work with what I have as the closes example.