Jesus, before becoming a man

Praise the Lord

No… I will not be taking any advice from you.
When you are handed study’s you are unfamiliar with, like the “Katabole” you resort to insults. You can’t even control your tongue, even if I am wrong (which I’m not) how does associating me with a poodle help me or edify anyone else…

James 1:26
If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain.

So you can have the win that you so desire, a win that hurts the mission of Christianity, because the same way you associate me with poodles, a babe in the word will associate Christianity with ego driven jerks as yourself.

No body is insulting you, and if you read Post 224, then you'd better understand my comments about "Yapping like a poodle." Your post is "yap," "yap," "yap." Much like this post is. It is not intended as an insult toward you, but pointing out that it is neither profitable to further advance the discussion. You are simply interested in arguing with another person who left comments that you took as a direct (and personal) insult, when you were not even mentioned even in his post by name. If you want to argue, then argue with the material that has been presented on the forum, and not directly with an individual who has provided his own personal comments in passing without any direct connection to you. That in no way advances a discussion. It's all "white noise," and nothing of "true substance." Just like a Poodle: "Yap," "yap," "yap."

Engage the arguments, not one another, that is the entire point.

for the long time posters who have been challenged by new posters, it would seem best to simply not engage with them. there have been a number of examples of this in recent weeks. their posts are designed to get a response and then enter into debate with those who respond. better to just read the posts and move on if nothing worthwhile is presented or if you disagree with their views.

The same way I speak online is the same way I speak in person. And I can guarantee if you were trying to spread the word around a bunch of convicts with dread locks, face tattoos and gold teeth, you wouldn’t dare mention the word poodle. Indeed, the Lord is the same, but you are not!

You ran from this…and you dare speak to me about addressing arguments.

Foundation of the World
This Is Appendix 146 From The Companion Bible.
To arrive at the true meaning of this expression, we must note that there are two words translated "foundation" in the New Testament: (1) themelios, and (2) katabole.

The Noun, themelios, occurs in Luke 6:48-49, 14:29, Acts 16:26, Romans 15:20, 1Corinthians 3:l0-12, Ephesians 2:20, 1Timothy 6:19, 2Timothy 2:19, Hebrews 6:1, 11:10, Revelation 21:14,19. It is never used of the world (kosmos) or the earth (ge). The corresponding Verb (themelioo) occurs in Matthew 7:25, Luke 6:48, Ephesians 3:17, Colossians 1:23, Hebrews 1:10 and 1Peter 5:10. The verb is only once used of the earth (ge). Hebrews 1:10.

A comparison of all these passages will show that these are proper and regular terms for the English words "to found", and "foundation".

The Noun, katabole, occurs in Matthew 13:35, 25:34, Luke 11:50, John 17:24, Ephesians 1:4, Hebrews 4:3, 9:26 , 11:11, 1Peter 1:20, Revelation 13:8, 17:8 and the corresponding Verb (kataballo) occurs in 2Corinthians 4:9, Hebrews 6:1 and Revelation 12:10.

A comparison of all these passages (especially 2Corinthians 4:9 and Revelation 12:10) will show that kataballo and katabole are not the proper terms for founding and foundation, but the correct meaning is casting down, or overthrow.

Consistency, therefore, calls for the same translation in Hebrews 6:1, where, instead of "not laying again", the rendering should be "not casting down". That is to say, the foundation already laid, of repentance, etc., was not to be cast down or overthrown, but was to be left and progress made unto the perfection.

Accordingly, the Noun katabole, derived from, and cognate with the Verb, ought to be translated "disruption", or "ruin".

The remarkable thing is that in all occurrences (except Hebrews 11:11) the word is connected with "the world" (Greek kosmos. Appendix 129.1), and therefore the expression should be rendered "the disruption (or ruin) of the world", clearly referring to the condition indicated in Genesis 1:2, and described in 2Peter 3:5-6. For the earth was not created tohu (Isaiah 45:18) but became so, as stated in the Hebrew of Genesis 1:2 and confirmed by 2Peter 3:6, where "the world that then was by the word of God" (Genesis 1:1) perished and "the heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word" were created (Genesis 2:4), and are "kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment" (2Peter 3:7) which shall usher in the "new heavens and the new earth" of 2Peter 3:13.

"The disruption of the world" is an event forming a great dividing line in the dispensations of the ages. In Genesis 1:1 we have the founding of the world (Hebrews 1:10 = themelioo), but in Genesis 1:2 we have its overthrow.

This is confirmed by a further remarkable fact, that the phrase, which occurs ten times, is associated with the Preposition apo = from (Appendix 104. iv) seven times, and with pro = before (Appendix 104. xiv) three times. The former refers to the kingdom, and is connected with the "counsels" of God; the latter refers to the Mystery (or Secret; See Appendix 193) and is connected with the "purpose" of God (see John 17:24, Ephesians 1:4, 1Peter 1:20).

Ample New Testament testimony is thus given to the profoundly significant fact recorded in Genesis 1:2, that "the earth became tohu and bohu (i.e. waste end desolate); and darkness was on the face of the deep", before the creation of "the heavens and the earth which are now" (2Peter 3:7).

All post are designed to get a response, how can you have a discussion forum without people responding. Sorry, but truth doesn’t care about how long you have been a member. And perhaps you should stop dividing us into new and old.

1 Corinthians 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

Peter came to the faith before Paul; Paul
wrote most of the New Testament.

I don't get it. I love you as a sister, but of all, you have cited non-inspired source materials and continue to do so every single day. Those sources (through your mems) may contain some bit of truth, but so do the sources I have cited. Numerous people here have cited "uninspired" sources, and so has Jude (the topic of my comments). Don't forget that: Jude 9, Jude 1:13-14.

"Assumption of Moses"
"1 Enoch"

Either you can "handle" the materials, or can be completely dismissive. If that be the case, two can play that game.

Agreed, you are quite the character Magenta. You be blessed!

Angels are created beings. The Son is the Creator Who created all things. The timing of the Angels creation is fairly insignificant and why it was not mentioned directly in Scripture.

I don't even know what that is. If you are trying to say I have used it to try to prove something you are wrong.

But it is very doubtful you will admit it. You would rather pretend you are justified to do
something simply because you believe everyone else is doing it, whether they are or not.

Plus, when you said "here," I took it to mean this thread...

The text that Jude refers to in Jude 1:9, and has been mentioned more than I can count on two hands. Perhaps it may do you some good to read my comments in the correct chronological order.

Like someone mentioned, the ancient scholars spent lots of time trying to understand the timing of creation, but for millennia now they cannot even discern the Son and Father and Spirit speaking in the Psalms. Which is more important and worthwhile of spending time on?

Let's try this, but this time with our thinkings caps on.

I just quoted you. Does that mean I think you are inspired? No, in fact, I totally disagree with you.

Yes, Jude is inspired. But that does not mean that every source he cites, is. The NT is replete with examples where "uninspired" and even "pagan" sources are cited in order to help illustrate a main point. Jude does that in Jude 1:9 ("the Assumption of Moses"), and Jude 1:13-14 ("1 Enoch"), both of which are uninspired. Paul also does that when he cites pagan philosophers and poets.

Thinkings caps? Did you have yours on when you wrote that?

It seems your point is a non-point. So what's the point?

You request I read your endless walls of texts when you make no sense.

To wit: Job certainly does prove that angels predated the creation of our universe.

You say it does not.

Or perhaps they make "no sense" because you don't read with your cap on, Magenta.
What is the point? Are you absolutely clueless? Did you forget the question? Did you forget the downvote? Did you forget the objection?

No. You are simply wrong to state that Job in no way proves that angels pre-existed the creation of our universe.

It is an opinion you hold that Scripture plainly refutes.

You went back and edited your post after I responded. No, Job does not. And I provided ample evidence. Handle it. Post 224.