 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 6:46 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Apple Pie wrote: |
Scripture is clear.
You cannot have one without the other. |
and... this means that Muslims are worshiping Satan?
Come one, the Jews do the same exact thing. Does this mean they are worshiping Satan too?
I've posed this question several times and you have ignored it. It is completely relevant... either the Jews are too worshiping Satan... as they too don't have the Son. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Apple Pie
Alley Cat
Joined: 28 May 2006
Posts: 178
Location: Houston
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: | | Apple Pie wrote: |
Scripture is clear.
You cannot have one without the other. |
and... this means that Muslims are worshiping Satan? |
This means that they do not worship the same God as you.
| Quote: | | Come one, the Jews do the same exact thing. Does this mean they are worshiping Satan too? |
This was already answered...
Looks like you failed to read my reply.....again.... 
| Quote: | | I've posed this question several times and you have ignored it. It is completely relevant... either the Jews are too worshiping Satan... as they too don't have the Son. |
Try reading our replies before making yourself out to look even more obtuse that you already have....  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Apple Pie wrote: |
What part about this verse...1Jo 2:23 Everyone denying the Son does not have the Father. The one confessing the Son also has the Father. ...escapes your intellect...? |
You're misinterpreting the scripture. You seem to think it says that anyone who denies the Son does not believe in the father.
This is NOT what it says.
It says that anyone who denies the Son isn't doing a proper job worshipping the father.
"Does not have" really means "Does not have the father properly understood".
Besides, by your argument, Jews don't worship the same God as Christians, since they certainly deny the Son, and we certainly know that Jews worship the same God, since they worship the God in the Old Testament, and He is the same God as in the New Testament. So there must be something wrong with your argument. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Apple Pie
Alley Cat
Joined: 28 May 2006
Posts: 178
Location: Houston
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 9:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Apple Pie wrote: |
What part about this verse...1Jo 2:23 Everyone denying the Son does not have the Father. The one confessing the Son also has the Father. ...escapes your intellect...? |
You're misinterpreting the scripture. You seem to think it says that anyone who denies the Son does not believe in the father.
This is NOT what it says.
It says that anyone who denies the Son isn't doing a proper job worshipping the father.
"Does not have" really means "Does not have the father properly understood".
Besides, by your argument, Jews don't worship the same God as Christians, since they certainly deny the Son, and we certainly know that Jews worship the same God, since they worship the God in the Old Testament, and He is the same God as in the New Testament. So there must be something wrong with your argument. |
Your comprehension of classic Greek is just as non-existent as that of your classic Arabic...
G2192
echo
Thayer Definition:
1) to have, i.e. to hold
1a) to have (hold) in the hand, in the sense of wearing, to have (hold) possession of the mind (refers to alarm, agitating emotions, etc.), to hold fast keep, to have or comprise or involve, to regard or consider or hold as
2) to have, i.e. own, possess
2a) external things such as pertain to property or riches or furniture or utensils or goods or food etc.
2b) used of those joined to any one by the bonds of natural blood or marriage or friendship or duty or law etc, of attendance or companionship
3) to hold one’s self or find one’s self so and so, to be in such or such a condition
4) to hold one’s self to a thing, to lay hold of a thing, to adhere or cling to
4a) to be closely joined to a person or a thing
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: including an alternate form scheo, used in certain tenses only), a primary verb
Citing in TDNT: 2:816, 286
G3761
oude
Thayer Definition:
1) but not, neither, nor, not even
Part of Speech: conjunction
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G3756 and G1161 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Flashman
Pit Bull
Joined: 28 Apr 2006
Posts: 371
Location: MO
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 3:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Apple Pie wrote: | | P1234567890 wrote: | | Apple Pie wrote: |
What part about this verse...1Jo 2:23 Everyone denying the Son does not have the Father. The one confessing the Son also has the Father. ...escapes your intellect...? |
You're misinterpreting the scripture. You seem to think it says that anyone who denies the Son does not believe in the father.
This is NOT what it says.
It says that anyone who denies the Son isn't doing a proper job worshipping the father.
"Does not have" really means "Does not have the father properly understood".
Besides, by your argument, Jews don't worship the same God as Christians, since they certainly deny the Son, and we certainly know that Jews worship the same God, since they worship the God in the Old Testament, and He is the same God as in the New Testament. So there must be something wrong with your argument. |
Your comprehension of classic Greek is just as non-existent as that of your classic Arabic... |
Well, P...you'd better go learn classic Greek since this is all we're getting out of Pie. It will be the only way for you to understand him.
Pie is advancing the idea that the Father is the God Elohim. Not Jesus nor the Holy Spirit. Which is wrong. I'm in agreement that both the Muslims and the Jews are not worshipping my Triune God; they are not worshipping the God of my understanding - whom I believe to be the "one true God". That does not mean they don't worship Elohim, the God of the Bible from the Old Testament - as the God of their understanding. Once they accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior (a New Testament offering), they then gain a true understanding of who God is - and, access to the Father and heaven is now theirs.
God states many times in the Bible, that many will deny Jesus; but it only means they have no access to heaven and the Father (and salvation). Pie is wasting entirely too much blackboard and chalk when he could have argued with his own mind.
Perhaps he gets the idea that if you don't believe in the correct form of Elohim, then that's evil and since evil is Satan's domain, you are worshipping Satan. Again, hard to be clear and I'm not going to spend eternity just trying to decipher his posts. He'd be on much firmer ground by saying Buddha isn't Elohim. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fake
Tiger
Joined: 03 May 2003
Posts: 862
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 3:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Flashman wrote: | | God states many times in the Bible, that many will deny Jesus |
God do not state any such thing.
The one that made those claims were Peter, who is in no way, form, or shape, God.
Fake |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Flashman
Pit Bull
Joined: 28 Apr 2006
Posts: 371
Location: MO
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 5:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fake wrote: | | Flashman wrote: | | God states many times in the Bible, that many will deny Jesus |
God do not state any such thing.
The one that made those claims were Peter, who is in no way, form, or shape, God.
Fake |
Do you think Peter was just making this up? Peter is [one of the] voice[s] of God. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 5:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Apple Pie wrote: |
Your comprehension of classic Greek is just as non-existent as that of your classic Arabic...
G2192
echo
Thayer Definition:
1) to have, i.e. to hold
1a) to have (hold) in the hand, in the sense of wearing, to have (hold) possession of the mind (refers to alarm, agitating emotions, etc.), to hold fast keep, to have or comprise or involve, to regard or consider or hold as
2) to have, i.e. own, possess
2a) external things such as pertain to property or riches or furniture or utensils or goods or food etc.
2b) used of those joined to any one by the bonds of natural blood or marriage or friendship or duty or law etc, of attendance or companionship
3) to hold one’s self or find one’s self so and so, to be in such or such a condition
4) to hold one’s self to a thing, to lay hold of a thing, to adhere or cling to
4a) to be closely joined to a person or a thing
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: including an alternate form scheo, used in certain tenses only), a primary verb
Citing in TDNT: 2:816, 286
G3761
oude
Thayer Definition:
1) but not, neither, nor, not even
Part of Speech: conjunction
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G3756 and G1161 |
How does the idea of "not having the Father" correspond to the idea of not believing in the Father???
The verb to have / to hold does NOT mean that same thing as the verb to believe.
A much more reasonable translation is that to have / to hold is actually trying to say that by denying Jesus, you separate yourself from God.
In other words, according to this scripture, Muslims separate themselves from God by denying the Son, but THEY DO NOT deny His existence!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Apple Pie
Alley Cat
Joined: 28 May 2006
Posts: 178
Location: Houston
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 7:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Flashman wrote: | | Apple Pie wrote: | | P1234567890 wrote: | | Apple Pie wrote: |
What part about this verse...1Jo 2:23 Everyone denying the Son does not have the Father. The one confessing the Son also has the Father. ...escapes your intellect...? |
You're misinterpreting the scripture. You seem to think it says that anyone who denies the Son does not believe in the father.
This is NOT what it says.
It says that anyone who denies the Son isn't doing a proper job worshipping the father.
"Does not have" really means "Does not have the father properly understood".
Besides, by your argument, Jews don't worship the same God as Christians, since they certainly deny the Son, and we certainly know that Jews worship the same God, since they worship the God in the Old Testament, and He is the same God as in the New Testament. So there must be something wrong with your argument. |
Your comprehension of classic Greek is just as non-existent as that of your classic Arabic... |
Well, P...you'd better go learn classic Greek since this is all we're getting out of Pie. It will be the only way for you to understand him.
Pie is advancing the idea that the Father is the God Elohim. Not Jesus nor the Holy Spirit. Which is wrong. I'm in agreement that both the Muslims and the Jews are not worshipping my Triune God; they are not worshipping the God of my understanding - whom I believe to be the "one true God". That does not mean they don't worship Elohim, the God of the Bible from the Old Testament - as the God of their understanding. Once they accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior (a New Testament offering), they then gain a true understanding of who God is - and, access to the Father and heaven is now theirs.
God states many times in the Bible, that many will deny Jesus; but it only means they have no access to heaven and the Father (and salvation). Pie is wasting entirely too much blackboard and chalk when he could have argued with his own mind.
Perhaps he gets the idea that if you don't believe in the correct form of Elohim, then that's evil and since evil is Satan's domain, you are worshipping Satan. Again, hard to be clear and I'm not going to spend eternity just trying to decipher his posts. He'd be on much firmer ground by saying Buddha isn't Elohim. |
Another doof that can't read.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Apple Pie
Alley Cat
Joined: 28 May 2006
Posts: 178
Location: Houston
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 7:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Apple Pie wrote: |
Your comprehension of classic Greek is just as non-existent as that of your classic Arabic...
G2192
echo
Thayer Definition:
1) to have, i.e. to hold
1a) to have (hold) in the hand, in the sense of wearing, to have (hold) possession of the mind (refers to alarm, agitating emotions, etc.), to hold fast keep, to have or comprise or involve, to regard or consider or hold as
2) to have, i.e. own, possess
2a) external things such as pertain to property or riches or furniture or utensils or goods or food etc.
2b) used of those joined to any one by the bonds of natural blood or marriage or friendship or duty or law etc, of attendance or companionship
3) to hold one’s self or find one’s self so and so, to be in such or such a condition
4) to hold one’s self to a thing, to lay hold of a thing, to adhere or cling to
4a) to be closely joined to a person or a thing
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: including an alternate form scheo, used in certain tenses only), a primary verb
Citing in TDNT: 2:816, 286
G3761
oude
Thayer Definition:
1) but not, neither, nor, not even
Part of Speech: conjunction
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G3756 and G1161 |
How does the idea of "not having the Father" correspond to the idea of not believing in the Father???
The verb to have / to hold does NOT mean that same thing as the verb to believe.
A much more reasonable translation is that to have / to hold is actually trying to say that by denying Jesus, you separate yourself from God.
In other words, according to this scripture, Muslims separate themselves from God by denying the Son, but THEY DO NOT deny His existence!!! |
As usual...no reasoning nor references for your position...
You can't even be bothered to "google" any....
Why take up space making a reply....?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fake
Tiger
Joined: 03 May 2003
Posts: 862
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 7:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Flashman wrote: | | Do you think Peter was just making this up? Peter is [one of the] voice[s] of God. |
As a matter of fact, yes I do think Peter made a lot of things up after Jesus' death.
Anyway, to claim God spoke of this denial of Jesus is plain wrong, and probably blasphemous, as God has not ever uttered a word about it.
Fake |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Apple Pie wrote: |
As usual...no reasoning nor references for your position...
You can't even be bothered to "google" any....
Why take up space making a reply....? |
EVERYONE knows that the verb 'to have / to hold / to possess' is NOT the same thing as the verb 'to believe in'.
You really need some kind of reference to confirm this fact for you?!? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Apple Pie
Alley Cat
Joined: 28 May 2006
Posts: 178
Location: Houston
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Apple Pie wrote: |
As usual...no reasoning nor references for your position...
You can't even be bothered to "google" any....
Why take up space making a reply....? |
EVERYONE knows that the verb 'to have / to hold / to possess' is NOT the same thing as the verb 'to believe in'.
You really need some kind of reference to confirm this fact for you?!? |
The only thing we know is that you "can't be bothered" with showing your reasoning.
You can "only be bothered" to endlessly rattle off your unreferenced opinion...
Put some effort into your replies.......for once.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Apple Pie wrote: |
The only thing we know is that you "can't be bothered" with showing your reasoning.
|
I have showed my reasoning. But fine, let me make it totally explicit:
I do not believe that the verb "to have / hold / possess" means the same thing as "to believe in". I therefore reject your argument which says that anyone who does not believe in the Son also does not believe in the father.
If you want to convince people here that "to have / hold / possess" is synonymous with "to believe in", then you're going to have to make a much more convincing argument.
As far as I can tell, you're making an extremely far-fetched claim (that Muslims and Christians worship a different Gods), and you're supporting this argument with extremely flimsy points. This latest effort is just a little word game, and doesn't even come CLOSE to making your controversial case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Apple Pie
Alley Cat
Joined: 28 May 2006
Posts: 178
Location: Houston
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Apple Pie wrote: |
The only thing we know is that you "can't be bothered" with showing your reasoning.
|
I have showed my reasoning. But fine, let me make it totally explicit:
I do not believe that the verb "to have / hold / possess" means the same thing as "to believe in". I therefore reject your argument which says that anyone who does not believe in the Son also does not believe in the father.
If you want to convince people here that "to have / hold / possess" is synonymous with "to believe in", then you're going to have to make a much more convincing argument.
As far as I can tell, you're making an extremely far-fetched claim (that Muslims and Christians worship a different Gods), and you're supporting this argument with extremely flimsy points. This latest effort is just a little word game, and doesn't even come CLOSE to making your controversial case. |
Again...
You can only give us your opinion.
You just flat-out "can't be bothered" to give us anything more than "what you feel" is the meaning....
What a doof.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
