Bosnia
From Kristos Vocabulary Booster
| Table of contents |
English
Noun
Bosnia
- Northern 75% of the country of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Represents a geographic and historic entity, not an administrative unit.
Translations
See also
Bob Felts wrote:
> Gary McNees
>
> [...]
>
>
>>No it is not. I deny all five points of TULIP and Arminianism. Both
>>yours and theirs are not Scriptural.
>>
>
>
> Then what are you left with?
See if you can figure it out.
Gary
((( 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. )))
In article <104.17.14.05.062312000@srcbs.org>, basicallyblues says...
>
>>Next week I will be 75 years old, and I must say, I thought I had come
>>across just about all the theories concerning the Bible, but I must
>say
>>the "Jesus is Michael" theory Is a new one for me.
>
>JWs are far from the first people to believe Jesus is Michael. But why
>do we?
>
>to quote a post by a JW: ( I did not write this but I agree with it)
Well! I see our rebukes did not go _completely_ to waste! At least you are no
longer implicitly taking credit for what you did NOT write. But why won't you
take the next easy step and give credit where it is due?
>
>"The basis for our understanding Jesus is Michael is that many of the
>same things said of Michael are also said of Jesus.
And that is about a BAD a "basis for understanding" as I can imagine!
> You could liken it
>to the many instances where something is said of God and then said of
>Jesus, causing you to conclude Jesus is God.
You could, but then you would be wrong.
> Now you may think you see
>a double standard here but in reality you do not.
What I see is worse than just a "double standard", though it is that.
> Why do we think
>similarities between Jesus and Michael suggest he is Michael but
>similarities between Jesus and God do not mean Jesus is God?
Because you are obtuse?
> Mainly
>because we see too much counter evidence to Jesus being God.
But if you ever looked at it _closely_, you would see that it is NOT "counter
evidence". Yet if anyone tries to point this out to you, you resist, and falsely
accuse him of 'eisegesis'.
> In other
>words, if we saw a number of scriptures that say Jesus is standing next
>to Michael;
> was sent my Michael or that Jesus sent Michael; that he
>gave Michael life; that Michael's God was Jesus; etcetera, then we
>would not allow these similarities between Jesus and Michael to cause
>us to think he is Michael.
So the purpose of this long hypothetical parody of Trinitarian "proof-texts" was
to deny the obvious while asserting the nonsensical. I wish I could say I was
surprised.
> But this is precisely what we see with Jesus
>and God.
No, it is not.
> Thus, we have no real counter evidence that Jesus could not be
>Michael (other than a preconceived belief that he is God) to overturn
>the many similarities between the two. The first evidence is that both
>are said to take a position as King.
>
>Note Daniel 12:1
>
>Michael rules as King:
>
>"And during that time Michael will stand up, the great prince who
>is standing in behalf of the sons of your people"
Don't you know the difference between 'prince' and 'king'?
>
>What does it mean to "stand up" in the book of Daniel? Note earlier
>contexts in the previous chapter of Daniel:
Five citations do NOT make an "earlier context". This nameless JW you are
quoting appears to not even know the difference between 'citation' and
'context'!
Why even _think_ of following such a blind guide?
[snip]
>Note that in each of the instances to "stand up" meant someone
>taking authority as king.
So what? The verb used has a GREAT MANY meanings. It is simply illegitimate to
claim here (as you do) that your five citations fix the meaning in Dan 12:1.
[snip]
Instead of your fantasy about Michael as King, it is much more logical to
understand that Christ is and will be King, Michael rules not a King, but a
something more like a general, who could also then be called a 'great prince'.
Michael rules the heavenly hosts, but in obedience to Christ.
--
---------------------------
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. )))
