The Duality -- The Father and The Son (page 8)

UnDisfellowshipped

fjtoth said:

You just want to argue over words, it seems.

I'm not trying to "argue" over anything. I am trying to reason using logic and Scriptures. It may be a heated reasoning, but, at least on my end, I'm not trying to argue.

fjtoth said:

I did not have in mind "more important," and you know it!

Am I supposed to be a mind-reader? How can I know what you are thinking? And how can you know that I know something? When you post something on here, all I can go on are the words you wrote, I am sorry, I cannot read minds. That is one of the prerogatives of God.

fjtoth said:

Yes, that makes it superior, but it doesn't make it more important [...]

And, that, to me, is playing a word game, using double-speak, or, at least very confusing speech.

If I said Jehovah was superior to anyone else, that means He is more important than anyone else. That is the way I understood your statement. And, that is definitely how I understand Hebrews chapter 2.

fjtoth said:

You're just trying to make mountains out of molehills, as I said before. Instead of getting down to the basics as to who Jesus really is in comparison with the Father, you want to waste away your time and mine over trivialities.

All night, you have been telling me that all Scripture is equally important, none lesser or greater in importance, but now, you accuse me of wasting time over "trivialities" and "making mountains out of molehills."

But, according to you, there are NO TRIVIALITIES in the Bible -- everything is equally important! And what is a "triviality" in the Bible according to you?

Also, are you saying that there are some "BASICS" in the Bible that we should spend more time reading than other parts of the Bible, and that we should spend more time reading about The Father and Jesus than on these "trivialities"?

If so, that is exactly what I said several posts earlier.

fjtoth

Undisf'd,

Here is another distortion of yours. You insist on applying what the Scriptures say about the foundations of the church to the teachings of the church. That is highly absurd! What can I do to make you understand that the two are not one and the same? Perhaps I'll submit a cartoon to show you the difference, but this should not be necessary. Why can't you see that the foundations are persons, not teachings, as if some teachings in the Bible can be questioned. You like to run to references like the dictionary and Wikipedia, etc., but why aren't you then more careful with the meaning of terms when you use them?

You quoted from the Jaimieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, thinking that it supports your claim when it absolutely does not. The Commentary is discussing the foundations of the church, not its teachings. It says, according to your quote:

As one with Him and His fellow workers, they, too, in a secondary sense, are called “foundations”

The compilers of the Commentary would be appalled to discover that their words are being used out of context. Your twisting of words is no better than saying Secondary School Children are Secondary Citizens. Why can't you see the difference? Do you really believe deep down in your heart that God approves of this strange opinion that you have? Do you think you make his heart glad by making it seem that some parts of the Bible are important but other parts can be treated with a grain of salt, as it were?

I'm finding it hard to take you seriously. I think you get an opinion fixated in your mind due to emotion, and then you stick with it no matter what facts are presented to you.

Nowhere is there an indication in the Bible that some of God's Word can be treated lightly, as you've tried to illustrate by distorting the meaning of various verses, even saying that there are myths and endless geneologies within its pages.

Your views, if widely heard, would cause grief to the hearts of many who love God and who hold his Word in high regard.

Frank

fjtoth

Undisf'd,

You're going to call this an ad hominem attack, but I've got to tell it like it is. All you want to do is fight over words. You should know without having to go to the dictionary that some words have a variety of meanings. But now you are insisting that "superiority" ALWAYS means "important"! Why am I wasting my breath with you? As I said above, you're only interested in arguing and fighting over words. I thought you were a sincere Christian wanting to grow as the rest of us do in understanding the Bible. But I have to say that I see you very differently now. Our discussion tonight has opened my eyes and mind to the games you like to play. Discussions like we are having tonight go absolutely nowhere even if engaged in for years.

Frank

UnDisfellowshipped

fjtoth said:

Nowhere is there an indication in the Bible that some of God's Word can be treated lightly

I have not and will not treat God's Word lightly.

You claimed that all parts of the Bible are equally important for us, but then out of the other side of your mouth, you claimed that it is a waste of time to talk about "trivialities" instead of the "basics" about who Jesus is and what His relationship is with The Fat her.

If all parts of the Bible are equally important for us to spend time on, then how can it be a "waste of time" to discuss any part of the Bible, and how can any part of the Bible be called a "triviality"?

It appears very much to me that you contradicted yourself.

I am going to leave you with two Scriptures that explain what I believe about God's Word:

1 Corinthians 15:3 (ESV): For I delivered to youas of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,

1 Timothy 6:3-5 (ESV): If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.

UnDisfellowshipped

fjtoth,

I will let my words above in my posts tonight speak for themselves. You can choose to understand (or misunderstand) what I said however you like.

You can call me whatever names you want. You can accuse me of trying to sit on God's throne, and you can accuse me of distorting the very Word of God. I am not seeking glory from man. I am not trying to be a men-pleaser.

I'm sure I haven't worded things quite the way I should, and I know I've probably made some honest mistakes in my posts (I'm not perfect, that's why I need a Savior in the first place).

You have jumped to the conclusion that I am teaching that some parts of the Bible are not God-breathed, or not inspired, and that the Apostles' teachings are inferior and lesser than Jesus' teachings. I could spend a long time showing how you are wrong about what I believe, but not tonight.

I am going to bed.

I just think it is a very serious thing to accuse someone else of trying to be God and of distorting and corrupting the Word of God. In essence, you have judged me of a sin that Paul said was worthy of spending eternity in Gehenna for. (Galatians 1:8) I believe Jesus did say that we are not to condemn people, because He is the Judge, not us. It is good to check the fruitage of people, but not to condemn people to Gehenna.

UnDisfellowshipped

fjtoth,

About Jaimieson, Fausset, and Brown -- here is the entire quote about Ephesians 2:20 from their Commentary, I have highlighted parts I want you to especially notice:

foundation of the apostles, etc.

— that is, upon their ministry and living example (compare Mat_16:18 ). Christ Himself, the only true Foundation, was the grand subject of their ministry, and spring of their life. As one with Him and His fellow workers, they, too, in a secondary sense, are called "foundations" ( Rev_21:14 ). The "prophets" are joined with them closely; for the expression is here not "foundations of the apostles and the prophets," but "foundations of the apostles and prophets." For the doctrine of both was essentially one ( 1Pe_1:10 , 1Pe_1:11 ; Rev_19:10 ). The apostles take the precedency ( Luk_10:24 ). Thus he appropriately shows regard to the claims of the Jews and Gentiles: "the prophets" representing the old Jewish dispensation, "the apostles" the new. The "prophets" of the new also are included. Bengel and Alford refer the meaning solely to these ( Eph_3:5 ; Eph_4:11 ). These passages imply, I think, that the New Testament prophets are not excluded; but the apostle’s plain reference to Psa_118:22 , "the head stone of the corner," proves that the Old Testament prophets are a prominent thought. David is called a "prophet" in Act_2:30 . Compare also Isa_28:16 ; another prophet present to the mind of Paul, which prophecy leans on the earlier one of Jacob ( Gen_49:24 ). The sense of the context, too, suits this: Ye were once aliens from the commonwealth of Israel (in the time of her Old Testament prophets), but now ye are members of the true Israel, built upon the foundation of her New Testament apostles and Old Testament prophets. Paul continually identifies his teaching with that of Israel’s old prophets ( Act_26:22; Act_28:23 ). The costly foundation-stones of the temple ( 1Ki_5:17 ) typified the same truth (compare Jer_51:26 ). The same stone is at once the corner-stone and the foundation-stone on which the whole building rests. Paul supposes a stone or rock so large and so fashioned as to be both at once; supporting the whole as the foundation, and in part rising up at the extremities, so as to admit of the side walls meeting in it, and being united in it as the corner-stone [Zanchius]. As the corner-stone, it is conspicuous, as was Christ ( 1Pe_2:6 ), and coming in men’s way may be stumbled over, as the Jews did at Christ ( Mat_21:42 ; 1Pe_2:7 ).

The Duality -- The Father and The Son

Share this