In article , basicallyblues says...
>
>
>
>> No, he is right. The parallel is obvious. How can you deny it? Will
>you deny it
>>even when the two verses are set side-by-side, so that the whole NG
>can >see how
>>confused you are? REcall:
>
>>   In the beginning God created...(Gen 1:1)
>>   In the beginning was the Word  (Jn 1:1)
>
>based on your poor reasoning this verse would fit too:

No, it would not.

>
>"In the beginning of the royal rule of Je·hoiŽa·kim the son of
>Jo·siŽah, the king of Judah, this word occurred from YHWH..." (Jer.
>26:1)
>
>Hmmm...this "*word* occurred from YHWH

And you just repeated the difference: it was "word _occurred_
from". Not the
same at all.


>no, I don't think either Gen. 1:1 or John 1:1 references this verse but
>th point is that just because the wording is similar is not proof of
>anything (unless you are a trinitarian desperte to find support for
>his/her pagan trinity myth)

Then why were _you_ trying to claim that there was a parallel between Gen 1:1
and John 1:2? Can't you see how you are undermining your own position?


>Perhaps John 1:1 and Genesis 1:1 are parallel it really doesn't
>contradict what the Bible says anyway.

Stop trying to slither away by subtlely changing the topic. First you deny the
parallel and insist that John 1:1 has nothing to do with Trinity because of
this, and now, when you can no longer deny the parallel, you try to claim that
it makes no difference!

> Jesus is the "beginning of the
>Creation of God" (REv. 3:14)

That is NOT what the verse says. The word is ARCH, which means other things
other than 'beginning'.

> Jesus was the start of creation- the first
>created

And here you contradict yourself even _more_ carelessly! If He was Himself
created, how could He himself be the _start_ of creation? The beginning of the
road is not yet the road, as Augustine observed.

> and was created BEFORE the physical universe was created so YES
>Jesus was there at the beginning of the creation of the "heavens and
>the earth"

That is NOT what Scripture says. That is your irresponsible and impious false
interpretation.

>
>>Jesus is the only created "god".
>
>>No. There are no 'created gods'. TO believe that there is one _is_
>>paganism.
>
>I'm tempted to insult you right now (especially since you have a
>penchant for insulting me) but I will mildly point out how wrong you
>are.

It is typical of you fanatical anti-trinitarians to make a retort like this when
it is YOU who were first to fling insults. You were, you know.

>mnay personages are called "god" in the Bible and they were created
>(including Jesus)..here's a couple examples....

No, rather, the word used 'LOHIM, had multiple meanings.


[snip]

>mere humans are called "gods" by God himself and they are even called
>sons of God!

You are equivocating.

>>No, that is not damaging at all. You are interpreting too literally.
>If you
>>interpet it _that_ literally, then you have a contradiction between
>John and
>>Exodus, because Moses _did_ see God.
>
>You are contradicting the Bible.

No, you are. Why your own words below show this even more clearly.

> Do not forget that Jehovah had told
>Moses: "No man may see me and yet live." (Ex. 33:20) And later the
>apostle John reported as fact: "No man has seen God at any time."
>(John 1:18) Interestingly, however, concerning the time when angelic
>announcement was made to God-fearing shepherds about the birth of
>Jesus, Luke 2:9 reports: "Suddenly Jehovah's angel stood by them,
>and Jehovah's glory gleamed around them." Thus it is shown that
>manifestations of Jehovah's glory could be made in connection with
>the angels. This evidently is what took place when Jehovah caused his
>glory to appear to Moses. However, it was not the full force of
>Jehovah's glory, thus resulting in Moses' death, but was only the
>afterglow, God's "back," as it were.

"As it were"? Scripture did NOT say that Moses "saw God's
back, as it were". It
says Moses saw God's BACK. Moses saw God and lived.

> This is consistent with
>Stephen's explanation that Moses was "with the angel that spoke to
>him on Mount Sinai."

Consistent, yes. But also irrelevant.

[snip]

>Although God had in the past spoken through angels to faithful men such
>as Noah and Abraham, and He had audibly conveyed the Ten Commandments
>to the entire nation by his angel on a single occasion, Jehovah spoke
>with Moses "mouth to mouth" or "face to face, just as a man would
>speak to his fellow." (Ex. 33:9-11)

And here you even admit that Moses spoke with God face to face. But when we
speak face to face, just as a man would to his fellow, we _see_ him. So Moses
saw God.

So it is you, not I, who contradict Scripture.

[snip]

>This is a dishonest tactic by you.

No, it is not. The dishonesty is yours, since you were trying to make it look
like Thayer's Lexicon supports your disastrous wrong dogma. It does NOT. This
would have been so clear, if you had not slyly left out half the citation.

[snip]


-- 
---------------------------
Subudcat se sibi ut haereat Deo
quidquid boni habet, tribuat illi a quo factus est.
(St. Augustine, Ser. 96)

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post.   )))


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/18/05 4:59:35 PM ---