?

Don't know the word or what EXACTLY it means. My grandfather used to use Polish words here and there...

Was it Athanasius? Hippolytus? I don't remember... I'm trying to make a point on the looseness used of "God" concerning that age, and how it's obvious from John's writings, but I don't remember the "early church father" who said these things. I was astonished to see him saying that, as people seem to make it out like the "ECFs" only agree with their own doctrines, when I've found them to in fact disagree on various things.

...in the chorus, and it SOUNDS like it's from the 60s or 70s, but it could be later - I really don't know.

Sung by a male in a more sad, relaxed voice, but not slow necessarily.

Keep hearing it at work and try very hard to listen to understand what's being said, but I can't... :(

I'm not sure how to calculate how much data transference there is to match between RAM and QPI...

If I get a system, I don't want to pay more for RAM if the clock speed in it will just be wasted... :| After all, the higher you get, the more the money goes up!

I just remember there being three people. One was played by John Turturro, and he was with two other guys. The third guy was waiting for them in the car, and he was laughing about Eddie Murphy's standup and then quoting it offensively to a huge black guy who's like "even my mama wouldn't teach me to walk away from that kind of disrespect". Then he picks up a brick and throws it into the car, and it basically kills the guy. When John Turturro and the second guy go out to the car, they panic because the guy is dead.

I searched IMDB, but I couldn't seem to determine which movie it was...

does anyone know? :)

Thanks in advance!

I saw a reference to the Holy Spirit being "omniscient" because of 1 Corinthians 2:10,11:

10 but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit.

The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man’s spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.

How does that show omniscience? It's obvious that Paul is saying BELIEVERS search out all things, because they now have God's Holy Spirit. Why? Because that Holy Spirit searches out all things. If the Holy Spirit were omniscient based on that, then we would be too.

Not only that, when the Father gives Jesus the Spirit without limit, as in John 1:32-34 and John 3:31-36, how come Jesus doesn't know all things, such as the Father Yahweh does? See Zechariah 14:7 and Matthew 24:36/Mark 13:32.

Furthermore, if the Spirit knows by having the "being" of God, then why does He/It need to "speak only what He/It hears", as in John 16:13.

Now, when Jesus speaks the words of God, obviously it's the Father's words. When the Holy Spirit speaks the words of God, obviously it's the Father's words. The Father is the one identified as Yahweh through Zechariah and Matthew, Mark, and elsewhere. Jesus, given the totality of the Spirit, and given all the words of God, has the "form of God" and is the radiance of His glory, now seated at His right hand in power and authority.

Yet, the Father is always deemed as a step above the Son, and also His Own Spirit.

Why the grasping to try to prove something that doesn't have a need to be proven, just to comply with the erroneous decree that, unless you believe in the strict trinitarian doctrine, then you will die?

Can't seem to be a good husband or a good provider. The best job I ever had, I gave it up to be with my wife. Oh, everyone was soooo happy... Now what? I'm in the rut, and I can't make her happy, even though I gave up that job to be with her. Then I get blamed for not having a good job... Then if I bring up the other one, it's the "oh yeah, it's all my fault" type deal. I'm not even aggressive about that stuff, and seem to be on the defensive most of the time. If I do take the offense with justice, then I get the cold shoulder.

So you see, I can't seem to be a good provider, given that I have been applying for jobs with no success, had interviews with proper etiquette and being on-point, still with no success... Rather than trying to understand, it's a snide "that's because you have no people skills", when I obviously did just fine. Not from a personal standpoint, but from an observational one as well.

I think the reason she blames me for everything is because she thinks everyone is blaming her, when they're not.

And I can't give her children, even if I have an above-average sperm count which are active.

Anyone else tired of failing at like EVERY turn like I am?

Many years ago...

Here's the dream:

I run through an old town from a vampire, going around corners to get an advantage, but it's always on my tail.

Then, I escape into a Catholic cathedral.

I sit on the floor, and I have no shoes, old pants, and there is a red carpet to the altar.

priests pass by, smiling and acknowledging me, carrying at least one golden artifact, like an incense burner. After this, I float up to the very pinnacle of the cathedral, and it's darker and darker to the top.

Then, at the very peak, there is a demon's head mounted on the wall that has a pentagram burned into its forehead and is sleeping. I wanted it dead, so I took a stick out of my pocket, jammed it into its ear, and jammed the stick around until it destroyed the brain, and the head deflated and it died in its sleep.

End of dream.

I think I realized what some of it meant while I was writing it down...

I was hoping someone had an AUTHORITATIVE source for a good estimate of when Irenaeus wrote his letters. The most authoritative sources I have seen say he wrote them between 90 something and 100 something AD, and the difference between the two of what I saw made me think the ones writing "late 100s" and such seem to point to a misunderstanding of what "first century" and "second century" mean.

For instance, say I said that he wrote late first, early second century. Someone misunderstanding might think I mean late 100s, early 200s, rather than "late in the period of 0-99 AD to early in the period of 100-199 AD".

Does that seem feasible, and isn't the earlier date more accurate? I'd just like some confirmation from an authoritative source is all...

Thank you in advance! :D

Is it not true that this must be speaking of rank, then, rather than a period of time? Every other place in the Bible where it's speaking of the past, it uses a past form of eimi - yet here, it (seemingly confusingly) says it in the singular.

The reason I'm asking is to get confirmation, because people keep trying to throw it in my face as PERSONAL pre-existence of Jesus.

there are four oven racks...

for instance, one might say "the Bible clearly says Jesus existed in eternity (Micah 5:2) without understanding that's where Peter got 1 Peter 1:20 from, and that it has to do with Jesus being determined from eternity, "slain from the foundation of the world".

Or "The Bible clearly teaches Jesus is God because all creation worships Him", and they forget that

a. Jesus said He'd cause false Jews to worship the church

b. the "all creation" is all the resurrected people (are people in hell worshiping Him? are the wicked?), because He is the "first-born of all creation". NOT the first of all created things, or else He would have also reconciled the animals and the planets to God - but He reconciled those newly-created Sons of God, of which He was the first, being the first resurrected, the unique Son of God who was to come into the world.

"Today (not in eternity) I have begotten you"

:|

Isaiah 40:7?

I will not listen to those that say it's because He says "I am he", meaning that it's the divine name, because it isn't - also, if it is, show me how it fulfills what is written about him from the old testament, otherwise, I will not listen

Now, it's evident that Jesus' new name is God's name, because He was "given the name which is above all names" (Philippians 2:9-11) and is exalted and very high (Isaiah 53) so that men of all nations will worship Him (Daniel 7:13,14), and that this new name is the name of His God (Revelation 3:12), which is Yahweh, which is akin to the one who exists or even causes to exist. (Exodus 3:14,15; Revelation 1:17,18)

I haven't seen conclusively that this was ever Jesus' name before the incarnation, as the "glory which he had" with the Father "before the world was" seems evident to me to be talking about His expression of the Father and His will in the self-sacrifice and pouring out of blood as the Lamb. (John 17:1-5; Revelation 5:12; John 17:24; Revelation 13:8)

I'm not extrapolating too much on the verses, because I'm hoping someone who is knowledgeable might help with the answer. The reason being is that, through all of these things, it seems that Jesus is "foreknown" and "foreloved", but according to for instance James White, we are also "foreknown" in that certain way, but I don't think the dots are connected in the sense that it doesn't necessarily mean that Jesus was at His current status at that point except in God's love and acceptance - not as a Divine Person.

Now I believe that He is God's very love and Word made into a human, but I'm not so sure I should classify that as a third, eternally-existing person in the sense that He would not have been eternally-existing AS a person, but was distinct upon the incarnation. Not that God didn't foreknow Him, but He would have necessarily CURRENTLY "known" Him in that sense if He was at that status before He was incarnated.

As far as Jesus making Himself out to be a servant, since it was His right to be Messiah-King and ultimately the "Son of Man" whom men from every nation would worship at His exaltation, I don't see a contradiction with that if He had been previously in such a High estate as a distinct person, seeing that He was tempted by the devil with just that prospect in the flesh, and that, because of His obedience while on earth, He was therefore found worthy to attain that title. It seems to imply that the title wasn't held, nor that it was merited beforehand, although He foreknew Him (just as you don't punish a man who hasn't yet committed wrong, although God knows all things), and that His Name is Jesus' NEW name seems to imply that it hadn't been His previously.

I think what orthodoxy says is that He is "co-eternal and co-equal" with the Father and the Spirit, and meaning that He was pre-existing in the form of a Divine Person, co-equal with them. I may be mistaken.

Simply put, can anyone demonstrate where He was existing previously as a distinct and previously-exalted person, if that is the orthodox view, or give any kind of explanation further where I am mistaken; also, if I am mistaken on the passages, can it be demonstrated honestly and faithfully?

I don't hear much on this specific matter and how all of these things relate to His Divinity, so it's been difficult to be strengthened among the company of believers - this type of thing has mainly been understood through personal reading with helps here and there through His Body and by His Spirit. Thanks in advance!

Perhaps like a one-upper, but more specifically someone who pretends to themself be different or acts like they believe various different things depending on the situation, when they obviously don't from their life. I'm not thinking of the word "hypocrite" or "phony", either, but something more specific.

Thanks in advance!

during the hook, it sounds like the main singer dude goes "running awaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay" and in the background, the backup singers are saying like "run away, run away, run away" or something, sounds kind of like "lovin' it", but someone told me it was about running away

Here's a picture of what Jennifer Behm looks like:

http://cmsimg.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bi...

The person I'm thinking of is a little older and has thinner or more squinted or sharper-looking eyes. Besides that, she looks identical in my memory, and it's aggravating that I don't remember who I'm thinking of...please help! :(

http://www.eindiabusiness.com/chainmail/gifs/haube...

Such as on that haubergeon: what would the triangular pattern be called, or any such design on the edge of clothing, whether tasseled or what have you? Is there a technical term?