- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (martian @ Mar. 27 2010,12:17) When I have questioned WJ about the impossibility of God becoming a man, he has replied (in essence) that his God can do anything.
Hi ALLThe above response is a fallacy and a ludicrous assumption that God cannot appear in what ever form he would like. Found here.
This is one of the many ways that Arians create red herrings and straw mans in an attempt to reduce YHWH and his unlimited power to do or become whatever he wants!
I AM THAT I AM…Ehyeh asher ehyeh is generally interpreted to mean I am that I am, though it more literally translates as “I-shall-be that I-shall-be“! Wikipedia
Yes it is true God who made man in his own image can take on that image. Nothing is impossible to God except sin. And we know that Jesus never sinned! Temptation is not sin, and God was touched with the feelings of our infirmities, but he was also moved to wrath by men tempting him.
Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: “for God cannot be tempted with evil“, neither tempteth he any man: James 1:13
The Arians always say “God cannot be tempted”, leaving out part of the scripture. But as you can see it says “God cannot be tempted with evil“!
But has or can God be tempted? Sure he can…
And he called the name of the place Massah, and Meribah, because of the chiding of the children of Israel, and because they “tempted (Heb-nacah) ” the LORD, saying, Is the LORD among us, or not? Exod 17:7
Ye shall not “tempt (Heb-nacah)” the LORD your God, as ye tempted (Heb-nacah) him in Massah. Deut 6:16
When your fathers “tempted (Heb-nacah)” me, proved me, and saw my work. Pss 95:9
The Hebrew word “nacah” was translated in the Greek Septuagint as “πειράζειν” peirazō which is the same Greek word used in James 1:13-15 and Matt 4:1-11 where Jesus was “tempted” of the devil.
So God cannot be tempted with evil but God can be tempted.
Jesus was tempted in all points like us but not with evil for James goes on to say…
But “every man is tempted“, when he is “drawn away of his own lust, and enticed“. James 1:14
Jesus did not have lust for lust conceives and brings forth sin. It is sin in our members that Paul talks about in Romans 7 and every man was conceived in it.
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and “in sin did my mother conceive me“. Pss 51:5
So James goes on to say…
Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. James 1:15
A simple example of the sin nature in man is a little new born baby. You do not have to teach that little baby how to throw a temper tantrum or to be deceitful, devious or to even lie or steal when they grow older. It is in the fallen human nature passed down from the first Adam.
The Blood of Jesus is the Blood of God and his flesh never saw corruption, (Acts 20:28 – Acts 2:31) which makes him the “Second Adam” without sin or a sin nature. (Heb 4:5 – 2 Cor 5:21 – 1 Peter 2:22) This is why the scriptures use the terms “Likeness of sinful flesh” or “likeness of men” in referring to Jesus and no other. (Rom 8:3 – Phil 2:7). He was in the flesh without the fallen sinful nature.
Since the “First Adam” a soulish being who was without sin when he was created, failed because of the weakness of the flesh, (Mark 14:38, Rom 8:3) God sent Jesus the Word that was with God and was God to become a “Son” (John 1:1 – John 1:14) so that he as a “quickening Spirit” (1 Cor 15:45) the Second Adam would condemn sin in the flesh and be the first of a New Creation of “Sons of God” that walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit and thereby overcome the world, the flesh, and the devil through the Spirit of Christ that dwells in them. (Phil 4:13 – Rom 8:1-11 – 1 John 4:4, 5)
If God wants to take on human form then he can and in fact he has and did. (Phil 2:6-8 – John 1:1-3)
John didn't say that those who do not confess Jesus is a man is “Anti-Christ”, Johns language was anyone who denies Jesus has “come in the flesh” is “Anti-Christ”.
And every spirit that confesseth not that “Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. 1 John 4:3
For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that “Jesus Christ is come in the flesh“. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. 2 John 1:7
God has also come to live in our flesh, so why is it so illogical that he would come in his own flesh and with his own blood to condemn sin in the flesh? (Acts 20:28)
Oh, that’s right, he did. (John 1:1, 14, 18 Phil 2:6-8 NIV, NET)
Beyond all question, “the mystery of godliness is great“: “HE APPEARED IN A BODY“, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory. 1 Tim 3:16 (Some manuscripts say God appeared)
Blessings WJ
t8
Sorry to bother you again. The title should be “God” with a capitol “G” and the word “Arian” with a capitol “A”
Thanks WJ
I am not going to dig through all of your diatribe nonsense. I will only deal with the core of your lies.
Jesus makes it very clear as to how he was tempted.
Mathew 4
1Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil. 2After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”
4Jesus answered, “It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'”(Here Jesus is tempted to live by something other then that which comes from God. Not Evil?)
5Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6″If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written: ” 'He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'”
7Jesus answered him, “It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'”(Here Jesus is tempted to “test” God. He quotes Deuteronomy 6:16 ” You shall not put the LORD your God to the test, as you tested Him at Massah. Jesus was tempted to sin by the ultimate extension of evil, Satan.)(Jesus was tempted to worship Satan)
8Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9″All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”
10Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'”(Jesus was tempted to worship Satan and you say that is not evil?)
Your cut and paste interpretations show a complete dishonesty with scripture. You pull out individual scriptures out of context and jam them together to form something contrary to the tenor of God’s word.To say that Jesus was not tempted by evil is pure stupidity. Not only was he tempted by the ultimate in evil (satan) but he was tempted to do evil.
Martin ……..You are right Jesus overcame himslef , in the wilderness , that nature that is in all men he put to death by the Power of the Holy Spirit given Him at the Jordan river, Before He started his ministry. Jesus was certainly tempted in all manor of sin as we also are. And to Him who overcomes (EVEN AS I HAVE) I WILL GRANT TO SIT WHIT ME IN MY KINGDOM , EVEN AS I HAVE OVERCOME AND AM SIT DOWN WITH MY FATHER IN HIS KINGDOM. IMO
peace and love to you and yours………………..gene
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 28 2010,06:45) Quote (martian @ Mar. 27 2010,12:17) When I have questioned WJ about the impossibility of God becoming a man, he has replied (in essence) that his God can do anything.
Hi ALLThe above response is a fallacy and a ludicrous assumption that God cannot appear in what ever form he would like. Found here.
This is one of the many ways that Arians create red herrings and straw mans in an attempt to reduce YHWH and his unlimited power to do or become whatever he wants!
I AM THAT I AM…Ehyeh asher ehyeh is generally interpreted to mean I am that I am, though it more literally translates as “I-shall-be that I-shall-be“! Wikipedia
Yes it is true God who made man in his own image can take on that image. Nothing is impossible to God except sin. And we know that Jesus never sinned! Temptation is not sin, and God was touched with the feelings of our infirmities, but he was also moved to wrath by men tempting him.
Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: “for God cannot be tempted with evil“, neither tempteth he any man: James 1:13
The Arians always say “God cannot be tempted”, leaving out part of the scripture. But as you can see it says “God cannot be tempted with evil“!
But has or can God be tempted? Sure he can…
And he called the name of the place Massah, and Meribah, because of the chiding of the children of Israel, and because they “tempted (Heb-nacah) ” the LORD, saying, Is the LORD among us, or not? Exod 17:7
Ye shall not “tempt (Heb-nacah)” the LORD your God, as ye tempted (Heb-nacah) him in Massah. Deut 6:16
When your fathers “tempted (Heb-nacah)” me, proved me, and saw my work. Pss 95:9
The Hebrew word “nacah” was translated in the Greek Septuagint as “πειράζειν” peirazō which is the same Greek word used in James 1:13-15 and Matt 4:1-11 where Jesus was “tempted” of the devil.
So God cannot be tempted with evil but God can be tempted.
Jesus was tempted in all points like us but not with evil for James goes on to say…
But “every man is tempted“, when he is “drawn away of his own lust, and enticed“. James 1:14
Jesus did not have lust for lust conceives and brings forth sin. It is sin in our members that Paul talks about in Romans 7 and every man was conceived in it.
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and “in sin did my mother conceive me“. Pss 51:5
So James goes on to say…
Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. James 1:15
A simple example of the sin nature in man is a little new born baby. You do not have to teach that little baby how to throw a temper tantrum or to be deceitful, devious or to even lie or steal when they grow older. It is in the fallen human nature passed down from the first Adam.
The Blood of Jesus is the Blood of God and his flesh never saw corruption, (Acts 20:28 – Acts 2:31) which makes him the “Second Adam” without sin or a sin nature. (Heb 4:5 – 2 Cor 5:21 – 1 Peter 2:22) This is why the scriptures use the terms “Likeness of sinful flesh” or “likeness of men” in referring to Jesus and no other. (Rom 8:3 – Phil 2:7). He was in the flesh without the fallen sinful nature.
Since the “First Adam” a soulish being who was without sin when he was created, failed because of the weakness of the flesh, (Mark 14:38, Rom 8:3) God sent Jesus the Word that was with God and was God to become a “Son” (John 1:1 – John 1:14) so that he as a “quickening Spirit” (1 Cor 15:45) the Second Adam would condemn sin in the flesh and be the first of a New Creation of “Sons of God” that walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit and thereby overcome the world, the flesh, and the devil through the Spirit of Christ that dwells in them. (Phil 4:13 – Rom 8:1-11 – 1 John 4:4, 5)
If God wants to take on human form then he can and in fact he has and did. (Phil 2:6-8 – John 1:1-3)
John didn't say that those who do not confess Jesus is a man is “Anti-Christ”, Johns language was anyone who denies Jesus has “come in the flesh” is “Anti-Christ”.
And every spirit that confesseth not that “Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. 1 John 4:3
For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that “Jesus Christ is come in the flesh“. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. 2 John 1:7
God has also come to live in our flesh, so why is it so illogical that he would come in his own flesh and with his own blood to condemn sin in the flesh? (Acts 20:28)
Oh, that’s right, he did. (John 1:1, 14, 18 Phil 2:6-8 NIV, NET)
Beyond all question, “the mystery of godliness is great“: “HE APPEARED IN A BODY“, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory. 1 Tim 3:16 (Some manuscripts say God appeared)
Blessings WJ
WJhow can you temp someone who own you and that you can not reach??
who as power over your head,and live ,to hom you can not justify you live;unless he helps you??
you may able to test him to see if he exist.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 28 2010,06:45) Hi ALL I AM THAT I AM…Ehyeh asher ehyeh is generally interpreted to mean I am that I am, though it more literally translates as “I-shall-be that I-shall-be“! Wikipedia
Blessings WJ
Hi WJ,AKJV(English's most accurate)Bible, correctly translated [אהיה] Ehyeh into English as hundreds of times.
Theomatics confirms the proper translation as “will be” as well. I'm glad you (WJ) decided to research Exodus 3:14!
“Will be”=63 has the same Theomatic total as “YHVH”=63; proving what the God of “The Bible”=63 said in Exodus 3:14!
Hebrew also has NO “W” sound; which verifies YHVH as the proper English translation for [יהוה]; what he intended he “will Be”.God bless you WJ!
Ed JQuote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 28 2010,06:45) Hi ALL The Blood of Jesus is the Blood of God and his flesh never saw corruption, (Acts 20:28 – Acts 2:31) which makes him the “Second Adam” without sin or a sin nature. (Heb 4:5 – 2 Cor 5:21 – 1 Peter 2:22) This is why the scriptures use the terms “Likeness of sinful flesh” or “likeness of men” in referring to Jesus and no other. (Rom 8:3 – Phil 2:7). He was in the flesh without the fallen sinful nature.
Blessings WJ
Hi WJ,Science suggests blood in the fetus comes from the Father's genetics.
In Jesus case the “HolySpirit”(God) was his biological Father. (Matt.1:18 / Matt.1:20 / Luke 1:35)
Jesus=74 was indeed the “God Son”=74(Matt.1:23) and fulfilled “The Passover”=148 bodily! [74+74=148] (Rev.5:6)
Theomatics also confirms “Jesus”=74 had “God Blood”=74 running through his veins. In Hebrew 148=פסח peh sakh means Passover!God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Mar. 29 2010,02:55) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 28 2010,06:45) Hi ALL The Blood of Jesus is the Blood of God and his flesh never saw corruption, (Acts 20:28 – Acts 2:31) which makes him the “Second Adam” without sin or a sin nature. (Heb 4:5 – 2 Cor 5:21 – 1 Peter 2:22) This is why the scriptures use the terms “Likeness of sinful flesh” or “likeness of men” in referring to Jesus and no other. (Rom 8:3 – Phil 2:7). He was in the flesh without the fallen sinful nature.
Blessings WJ
Hi WJ,Science suggests blood in the fetus comes from the Father's genetics.
In Jesus case the “HolySpirit”(God) was his biological Father. (Matt.1:18 / Matt.1:20 / Luke 1:35)
Jesus=74 was indeed the “God Son”=74(Matt.1:23) and fulfilled “The Passover”=148 bodily! [74+74=148] (Rev.5:6)
Theomatics also confirms “Jesus”=74 had “God Blood”=74 running through his veins. In Hebrew 148=פסח peh sakh means Passover!God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
EDIf you are going to post your crap, please do it in the appropriate thread!
WJ
You know I find it interesting that WJ does not like being referred to as a Constantinian. (one who follows Constatine’s beliefs) Yet he seems right at home calling me an Arian. The difference between us is that no one can really be sure what Arius believed since all his works were destroyed by the church. All that is known is what his accusers say he believed. Not a credible source.
On the other hand everyone knows what Constantine believed. It has been well documented in the church and is common knowledge even in the secular world.
Following the example of his father and earlier 3rd-century emperors, Constantine throughout His life was a solar henotheist, believing that the Roman sun god, Sol, was the visible “manifestation” of an invisible “Highest God” {a plural God?} (summus deus), who was the principle behind the universe. Constantine's adherence to this pagan faith is evident from his claim of having had a vision of the sun god in 310 while in a grove of Apollo in Gaul.In 325 AD – Constantine convenes the Council of Nicaea in order to develop a statement of faith that can unify the Church and therefore his empire. Emperor Constantine who was also the high priest of the pagan religion of the Unconquered Sun presided over this council.
An interesting note is that of all the Christian bishops in the Empire those that were from the Eastern empire which held Jerusalem and still held onto the Hebraic herritage and undersdtanding of God, were not invited, while those of the Western Empre which centered on Greece and Platonic Abstract Reasoning were enchoraged to attend.The Nicene Creed is written, declaring that “the Father and the Son are of the same substance” (homoousios). This “same substance” theory became the backbone of the present day Trinity doctrine.According to the Encyclopedia Britannica:
“Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions and personally proposed the crucial formula expressing the relationship of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, `of one substance with the Father'.”The American Academic Encyclopedia states: “Although this was not Constantine's first attempt to reconcile factions in Christianity, it was the first time he had used the imperial office to IMPOSE a settlement.”
It is known that many of His Constatine’s Pagan beliefs followed Him into Christianity and that those beliefs strongly influenced the Nicaea council. It is therefor clear that the council of Nicaea had been called in part to find a way to unify the Roman Empire under a statement of Faith. This council is known for it's Nicaean Creed detailing the doctrine of the Trinity which is the first time God is officially described, in any church document or biblical manuscript, as separated into three, The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. It was there at Nicaea that the first roots of the Trinity were rammed through in a Council that was overseen by the Emperor Constantine who, ironically enough, thought of himself as God-incarnate. (Constantine the Sun Worshiper only made an official conversion to “Christianity” on his death bed).
Several folowing councils tried (unsuccesfully) to explain this same substance theory. Finally settling on a mysterious “Dual Nature” that was no more clear then the original. This dual nature effectively made Christ different then the rest of humanity since normal humanity has only a single human nature.
The essence of the Trinity found in the “same substance” theory was not formed from scripture or even revelation of a Godly man, but rahter the rantings of a pagan high priest whoes motives were to unify his kingdom under one banner regardless of cost to the truth. This so called truth was forced on the church uner threat of banishment or death.WJ can claim all he wants that he is not a follower of Constantine but his theological theories fall in line with Constantine’s same substance dogma.
BTW Ed’s stuff is no more “crap” then yours.
Quote (martian @ Mar. 29 2010,11:55) You know I find it interesting that WJ does not like being referred to as a Constantinian. (one who follows Constatine’s beliefs) Yet he seems right at home calling me an Arian. The difference between us is that no one can really be sure what Arius believed since all his works were destroyed by the church. All that is known is what his accusers say he believed. Not a credible source.
On the other hand everyone knows what Constantine believed. It has been well documented in the church and is common knowledge even in the secular world.
Following the example of his father and earlier 3rd-century emperors, Constantine throughout His life was a solar henotheist, believing that the Roman sun god, Sol, was the visible “manifestation” of an invisible “Highest God” {a plural God?} (summus deus), who was the principle behind the universe. Constantine's adherence to this pagan faith is evident from his claim of having had a vision of the sun god in 310 while in a grove of Apollo in Gaul.In 325 AD – Constantine convenes the Council of Nicaea in order to develop a statement of faith that can unify the Church and therefore his empire. Emperor Constantine who was also the high priest of the pagan religion of the Unconquered Sun presided over this council.
An interesting note is that of all the Christian bishops in the Empire those that were from the Eastern empire which held Jerusalem and still held onto the Hebraic herritage and undersdtanding of God, were not invited, while those of the Western Empre which centered on Greece and Platonic Abstract Reasoning were enchoraged to attend.The Nicene Creed is written, declaring that “the Father and the Son are of the same substance” (homoousios). This “same substance” theory became the backbone of the present day Trinity doctrine.According to the Encyclopedia Britannica:
“Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions and personally proposed the crucial formula expressing the relationship of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, `of one substance with the Father'.”The American Academic Encyclopedia states: “Although this was not Constantine's first attempt to reconcile factions in Christianity, it was the first time he had used the imperial office to IMPOSE a settlement.”
It is known that many of His Constatine’s Pagan beliefs followed Him into Christianity and that those beliefs strongly influenced the Nicaea council. It is therefor clear that the council of Nicaea had been called in part to find a way to unify the Roman Empire under a statement of Faith. This council is known for it's Nicaean Creed detailing the doctrine of the Trinity which is the first time God is officially described, in any church document or biblical manuscript, as separated into three, The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. It was there at Nicaea that the first roots of the Trinity were rammed through in a Council that was overseen by the Emperor Constantine who, ironically enough, thought of himself as God-incarnate. (Constantine the Sun Worshiper only made an official conversion to “Christianity” on his death bed).
Several folowing councils tried (unsuccesfully) to explain this same substance theory. Finally settling on a mysterious “Dual Nature” that was no more clear then the original. This dual nature effectively made Christ different then the rest of humanity since normal humanity has only a single human nature.
The essence of the Trinity found in the “same substance” theory was not formed from scripture or even revelation of a Godly man, but rahter the rantings of a pagan high priest whoes motives were to unify his kingdom under one banner regardless of cost to the truth. This so called truth was forced on the church uner threat of banishment or death.WJ can claim all he wants that he is not a follower of Constantine but his theological theories fall in line with Constantine’s same substance dogma.
BTW Ed’s stuff is no more “crap” then yours.
MartianThis is not the thread! Please, why would you post this in this thread after I just said something about the appropriate thread?
WJ
Quote (martian @ Mar. 30 2010,03:55) You know I find it interesting that WJ does not like being referred to as a Constantinian. (one who follows Constatine’s beliefs) Yet he seems right at home calling me an Arian. The difference between us is that no one can really be sure what Arius believed since all his works were destroyed by the church. All that is known is what his accusers say he believed. Not a credible source.
On the other hand everyone knows what Constantine believed. It has been well documented in the church and is common knowledge even in the secular world.
Following the example of his father and earlier 3rd-century emperors, Constantine throughout His life was a solar henotheist, believing that the Roman sun god, Sol, was the visible “manifestation” of an invisible “Highest God” {a plural God?} (summus deus), who was the principle behind the universe. Constantine's adherence to this pagan faith is evident from his claim of having had a vision of the sun god in 310 while in a grove of Apollo in Gaul.In 325 AD – Constantine convenes the Council of Nicaea in order to develop a statement of faith that can unify the Church and therefore his empire. Emperor Constantine who was also the high priest of the pagan religion of the Unconquered Sun presided over this council.
An interesting note is that of all the Christian bishops in the Empire those that were from the Eastern empire which held Jerusalem and still held onto the Hebraic herritage and undersdtanding of God, were not invited, while those of the Western Empre which centered on Greece and Platonic Abstract Reasoning were enchoraged to attend.The Nicene Creed is written, declaring that “the Father and the Son are of the same substance” (homoousios). This “same substance” theory became the backbone of the present day Trinity doctrine.According to the Encyclopedia Britannica:
“Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions and personally proposed the crucial formula expressing the relationship of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, `of one substance with the Father'.”The American Academic Encyclopedia states: “Although this was not Constantine's first attempt to reconcile factions in Christianity, it was the first time he had used the imperial office to IMPOSE a settlement.”
It is known that many of His Constatine’s Pagan beliefs followed Him into Christianity and that those beliefs strongly influenced the Nicaea council. It is therefor clear that the council of Nicaea had been called in part to find a way to unify the Roman Empire under a statement of Faith. This council is known for it's Nicaean Creed detailing the doctrine of the Trinity which is the first time God is officially described, in any church document or biblical manuscript, as separated into three, The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. It was there at Nicaea that the first roots of the Trinity were rammed through in a Council that was overseen by the Emperor Constantine who, ironically enough, thought of himself as God-incarnate. (Constantine the Sun Worshiper only made an official conversion to “Christianity” on his death bed).
Several folowing councils tried (unsuccesfully) to explain this same substance theory. Finally settling on a mysterious “Dual Nature” that was no more clear then the original. This dual nature effectively made Christ different then the rest of humanity since normal humanity has only a single human nature.
The essence of the Trinity found in the “same substance” theory was not formed from scripture or even revelation of a Godly man, but rahter the rantings of a pagan high priest whoes motives were to unify his kingdom under one banner regardless of cost to the truth. This so called truth was forced on the church uner threat of banishment or death.WJ can claim all he wants that he is not a follower of Constantine but his theological theories fall in line with Constantine’s same substance dogma.
BTW Ed’s stuff is no more “crap” then yours.
martianwith all do respect ,you should not start this with WJ .he is not catholic for one and he does not care much for truth unless it is his,and his alone.
so you will waist your time ,so is TT they both will jion up against you ,
look in the other threads and see for yourself.
this is my opinion.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 30 2010,04:08) Quote (martian @ Mar. 29 2010,11:55) You know I find it interesting that WJ does not like being referred to as a Constantinian. (one who follows Constatine’s beliefs) Yet he seems right at home calling me an Arian. The difference between us is that no one can really be sure what Arius believed since all his works were destroyed by the church. All that is known is what his accusers say he believed. Not a credible source.
On the other hand everyone knows what Constantine believed. It has been well documented in the church and is common knowledge even in the secular world.
Following the example of his father and earlier 3rd-century emperors, Constantine throughout His life was a solar henotheist, believing that the Roman sun god, Sol, was the visible “manifestation” of an invisible “Highest God” {a plural God?} (summus deus), who was the principle behind the universe. Constantine's adherence to this pagan faith is evident from his claim of having had a vision of the sun god in 310 while in a grove of Apollo in Gaul.In 325 AD – Constantine convenes the Council of Nicaea in order to develop a statement of faith that can unify the Church and therefore his empire. Emperor Constantine who was also the high priest of the pagan religion of the Unconquered Sun presided over this council.
An interesting note is that of all the Christian bishops in the Empire those that were from the Eastern empire which held Jerusalem and still held onto the Hebraic herritage and undersdtanding of God, were not invited, while those of the Western Empre which centered on Greece and Platonic Abstract Reasoning were enchoraged to attend.The Nicene Creed is written, declaring that “the Father and the Son are of the same substance” (homoousios). This “same substance” theory became the backbone of the present day Trinity doctrine.According to the Encyclopedia Britannica:
“Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions and personally proposed the crucial formula expressing the relationship of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, `of one substance with the Father'.”The American Academic Encyclopedia states: “Although this was not Constantine's first attempt to reconcile factions in Christianity, it was the first time he had used the imperial office to IMPOSE a settlement.”
It is known that many of His Constatine’s Pagan beliefs followed Him into Christianity and that those beliefs strongly influenced the Nicaea council. It is therefor clear that the council of Nicaea had been called in part to find a way to unify the Roman Empire under a statement of Faith. This council is known for it's Nicaean Creed detailing the doctrine of the Trinity which is the first time God is officially described, in any church document or biblical manuscript, as separated into three, The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. It was there at Nicaea that the first roots of the Trinity were rammed through in a Council that was overseen by the Emperor Constantine who, ironically enough, thought of himself as God-incarnate. (Constantine the Sun Worshiper only made an official conversion to “Christianity” on his death bed).
Several folowing councils tried (unsuccesfully) to explain this same substance theory. Finally settling on a mysterious “Dual Nature” that was no more clear then the original. This dual nature effectively made Christ different then the rest of humanity since normal humanity has only a single human nature.
The essence of the Trinity found in the “same substance” theory was not formed from scripture or even revelation of a Godly man, but rahter the rantings of a pagan high priest whoes motives were to unify his kingdom under one banner regardless of cost to the truth. This so called truth was forced on the church uner threat of banishment or death.WJ can claim all he wants that he is not a follower of Constantine but his theological theories fall in line with Constantine’s same substance dogma.
BTW Ed’s stuff is no more “crap” then yours.
MartianThis is not the thread! Please, why would you post this in this thread after I just said something about the appropriate thread?
WJ
First of all you would be the last person on Earth whom I would take direction from
Second – I was responding to your calling me an Arian.Quote (terraricca @ Mar. 30 2010,07:07) Quote (martian @ Mar. 30 2010,03:55) You know I find it interesting that WJ does not like being referred to as a Constantinian. (one who follows Constatine’s beliefs) Yet he seems right at home calling me an Arian. The difference between us is that no one can really be sure what Arius believed since all his works were destroyed by the church. All that is known is what his accusers say he believed. Not a credible source.
On the other hand everyone knows what Constantine believed. It has been well documented in the church and is common knowledge even in the secular world.
Following the example of his father and earlier 3rd-century emperors, Constantine throughout His life was a solar henotheist, believing that the Roman sun god, Sol, was the visible “manifestation” of an invisible “Highest God” {a plural God?} (summus deus), who was the principle behind the universe. Constantine's adherence to this pagan faith is evident from his claim of having had a vision of the sun god in 310 while in a grove of Apollo in Gaul.In 325 AD – Constantine convenes the Council of Nicaea in order to develop a statement of faith that can unify the Church and therefore his empire. Emperor Constantine who was also the high priest of the pagan religion of the Unconquered Sun presided over this council.
An interesting note is that of all the Christian bishops in the Empire those that were from the Eastern empire which held Jerusalem and still held onto the Hebraic herritage and undersdtanding of God, were not invited, while those of the Western Empre which centered on Greece and Platonic Abstract Reasoning were enchoraged to attend.The Nicene Creed is written, declaring that “the Father and the Son are of the same substance” (homoousios). This “same substance” theory became the backbone of the present day Trinity doctrine.According to the Encyclopedia Britannica:
“Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions and personally proposed the crucial formula expressing the relationship of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, `of one substance with the Father'.”The American Academic Encyclopedia states: “Although this was not Constantine's first attempt to reconcile factions in Christianity, it was the first time he had used the imperial office to IMPOSE a settlement.”
It is known that many of His Constatine’s Pagan beliefs followed Him into Christianity and that those beliefs strongly influenced the Nicaea council. It is therefor clear that the council of Nicaea had been called in part to find a way to unify the Roman Empire under a statement of Faith. This council is known for it's Nicaean Creed detailing the doctrine of the Trinity which is the first time God is officially described, in any church document or biblical manuscript, as separated into three, The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. It was there at Nicaea that the first roots of the Trinity were rammed through in a Council that was overseen by the Emperor Constantine who, ironically enough, thought of himself as God-incarnate. (Constantine the Sun Worshiper only made an official conversion to “Christianity” on his death bed).
Several folowing councils tried (unsuccesfully) to explain this same substance theory. Finally settling on a mysterious “Dual Nature” that was no more clear then the original. This dual nature effectively made Christ different then the rest of humanity since normal humanity has only a single human nature.
The essence of the Trinity found in the “same substance” theory was not formed from scripture or even revelation of a Godly man, but rahter the rantings of a pagan high priest whoes motives were to unify his kingdom under one banner regardless of cost to the truth. This so called truth was forced on the church uner threat of banishment or death.WJ can claim all he wants that he is not a follower of Constantine but his theological theories fall in line with Constantine’s same substance dogma.
BTW Ed’s stuff is no more “crap” then yours.
martianwith all do respect ,you should not start this with WJ .he is not catholic for one and he does not care much for truth unless it is his,and his alone.
so you will waist your time ,so is TT they both will jion up against you ,
look in the other threads and see for yourself.
this is my opinion.
thanks for your concern. I do it for entertainment value. I know WJ and TT are beyond truth and will not listen no matter what proof is presented.To get back on target ——
WJ You say –
So God cannot be tempted with evil but God can be tempted.Jesus was tempted in all points like us but not with evil for James goes on to say…
But “every man is tempted”, when he is “drawn away of his own lust, and enticed”. James 1:14
Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. James 1:15Response –
The word “lust” in this verse means “desires”. Jesus certainly had desires as is clearly shown in the Garden when he desires the cup be taken from him.
But “every man is tempted”, when he is “drawn away of his own desires, and enticed.
This is certainly what Satan did to Christ. Jesus was starving and desiring food. He was enticed to turn the stones into bread.
Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
The word “conceived” is sallambano and means “to take part with.”
Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin….
“Then when” here is the time frame
“Lust hath conceived” or desires been taken part in.
it brings forth sin.
Then when desires have been taken part of it brings forth sin.Hey WJ, you say Jesus was not tempted to do evil?
John 3:19 ”This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.
John 3:20 ” For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
John 5:29 and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.
Were these evildoers tempted to do evil or did it just happen to them.
AND if these MEN were tempted to do evil and Jesus was not tempted to do evil then Jesus was not tempted in all ways like us.
Jesus had to be tempted to do evil in order to be tempted in all ways like us. God is not tempted to do evil Jesus was tempted to do evil. Jesus is not God.Quote (martian @ Mar. 28 2010,18:25)
I am not going to dig through all of your diatribe nonsense.
This is a normal response by you. I am not surprised!
Quote (martian @ Mar. 28 2010,18:25) I will only deal with the core of your lies.
Lies? It is you that is saying God cannot be tempted when in fact I show you that he can!Quote (martian @ Mar. 28 2010,18:25)
Jesus makes it very clear as to how he was tempted.
Apparently you missed my point that the same Greek word for “tempted” is the same word in the LXX that reveals YHWH being tempted!Quote (martian @ Mar. 28 2010,18:25)
Mathew 4
1Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil. 2After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”
4Jesus answered, “It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'”(Here Jesus is tempted to live by something other then that which comes from God. Not Evil?)
Is there something evil about being hungry? Is it sin for Jesus to be tempted by satan?God cannot be “tempted with evil”, neither does he tempt any man (James 1:13), in other words it is not in the nature of God to do evil! But God can be tempted “by” evil. For it is obvious that the Children of God “Tempted” him by their evil ways.
Remember the same James that wrote verse 13 also gives us the scriptural definition of “temptation”…
But “every man is tempted“, when he is “drawn away of his own lust, and enticed“. James 1:14
Was Jesus drawn away with his own lust and enticed? No, he was tempted by satan and not by his own lust! There was nothing in Jesus to respond to satan, (John 14:30)!
Quote (martian @ Mar. 28 2010,18:25)
5Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6″If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written: ” 'He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'”
7Jesus answered him, “It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'”(Here Jesus is tempted to “test” God. He quotes Deuteronomy 6:16 ” You shall not put the LORD your God to the test, as you tested Him at Massah. Jesus was tempted to sin by the ultimate extension of evil, Satan.)
You are confused! The first part of you statement is wrong. You say…” Here Jesus is tempted to “test” God”. No Jesus is tempted “by satan” to test God. There was nothing in Jesus to want to test the Father. Jesus had lived a sinless life to this point and it was satan that came to find weakness in him because he was the Son of God, and satan found nothing in him!Quote (martian @ Mar. 28 2010,18:25)
(Jesus was tempted to worship Satan)8Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9″All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”
10Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'”(Jesus was tempted to worship Satan and you say that is not evil?)
Yes it was evil, but the evil was in satan, for there was no desire in Jesus to worship satan. Therefore it is satan doing the tempting and the evil and not Jesus being tempted by any evil desire in him! Again the definition of temptation is to be tempted with evil by your own lust. Jesus was not tempted with evil by any lust that he had, but by the “Evil One”, for there was no lust in him to be drawn away!Quote (martian @ Mar. 28 2010,18:25)
Your cut and paste interpretations show a complete dishonesty with scripture. You pull out individual scriptures out of context and jam them together to form something contrary to the tenor of God’s word.
Dishonesty is to accuse someone of cutting and pasting scriptures without even addressing them but instead just call it “diatribe nonsense”.Quote (martian @ Mar. 28 2010,18:25)
To say that Jesus was not tempted by evil is pure stupidity. Not only was he tempted by the ultimate in evil (satan) but he was tempted to do evil.
Your patronizing is consistent, and at least you have the “By” evil part right. Jesus was not tempted “with evil” for that would mean that he had lust in himself and would be drawn away and enticed. It was satan that came to find fault in him by tempting him and there was nothing in Jesus to respond.Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for “the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me”. John 14:15
WJ
WorshippingJesus said to Martian:
Quote You are confused! The first part of you statement is wrong. You say…” Here Jesus is tempted to “test” God”. No Jesus is tempted “by satan” to test God. WJ,
You are absolutely correct bro! Jesus was not tempted from WITHIN Himself to test God. He was tempted to test God from OUTSIDE Himself. Jesus as God could not be tempted from within (James 1).
To be tempted from WITHIN is weakness and Hebrews says that Jesus was without weakness
28The Law appoints priests who have weaknesses. But God's oath, which came later than the Law, appoints his Son. And he is the perfect high priest forever.
This is unmistakeably clear! The law appoints men who have weakness. But Jesus was appointed by oath. Ergo, He did not have weakness.
Martian argues that this put Christ at an advantage over us. But Martian fails to realize that a perfect man is what we needed to secure success. The oath which was immutable was fulfilled in our behalf by a perfect man.
Martian's argument that Christ could not have had an advantage over us fails because Jesus was given the Spirit WITHOUT MEASURE. So even if Jesus had weakness He still had a great advantage by the fact that He had the Spirit “above His fellows.”
thinker
Martians response to WJ…
Quote (martian @ Mar. 30 2010,03:55) BTW Ed’s stuff is no more “crap” then yours.
Hi Martian,WJ's hostility on this site is so prevalent that even when I agree with Him offering proof of his assertions he still bad mouths me?
God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (martian @ Mar. 30 2010,08:56) To get back on target —— WJ You say –
So God cannot be tempted with evil but God can be tempted.Jesus was tempted in all points like us but not with evil for James goes on to say…
But “every man is tempted”, when he is “drawn away of his own lust, and enticed”. James 1:14
Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. James 1:15Response –
The word “lust” in this verse means “desires”. Jesus certainly had desires as is clearly shown in the Garden when he desires the cup be taken from him.
But “every man is tempted”, when he is “drawn away of his own desires, and enticed.
This is certainly what Satan did to Christ. Jesus was starving and desiring food. He was enticed to turn the stones into bread.
Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
The word “conceived” is sallambano and means “to take part with.”
Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin….
“Then when” here is the time frame
“Lust hath conceived” or desires been taken part in.
it brings forth sin.
Then when desires have been taken part of it brings forth sin.Hey WJ, you say Jesus was not tempted to do evil?
John 3:19 ”This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.
John 3:20 ” For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
John 5:29 and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.
Were these evildoers tempted to do evil or did it just happen to them.
AND if these MEN were tempted to do evil and Jesus was not tempted to do evil then Jesus was not tempted in all ways like us.
Jesus had to be tempted to do evil in order to be tempted in all ways like us. God is not tempted to do evil Jesus was tempted to do evil. Jesus is not God.
martian…………right on brother.peace and love to you and yours……………gene
Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 29 2010,20:51) Martians response to WJ… Quote (martian @ Mar. 30 2010,03:55) BTW Ed’s stuff is no more “crap” then yours.
Hi Martian,WJ's hostility on this site is so prevalent that even when I agree with Him offering proof of his assertions he still bad mouths me?
God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
EDYour post was totally off topic and you know full well how I feel about your heritcal doctrine that the Holy Spirit is the Father and the Father is his own spoken Word and the Holy Spirit is the Word and the Father of Jesus!
What is the difference in me calling your doctrine “crap” and you constantly accusing everyone else here that doesn't agree with you by saying…
“The systems of religion and traditions of men communicate except
distortions of truth, confusion of mind, and distractions of spirit“.
WJ
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Mar. 30 2010,15:20) Quote (martian @ Mar. 30 2010,08:56) To get back on target —— WJ You say –
So God cannot be tempted with evil but God can be tempted.Jesus was tempted in all points like us but not with evil for James goes on to say…
But “every man is tempted”, when he is “drawn away of his own lust, and enticed”. James 1:14
Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. James 1:15Response –
The word “lust” in this verse means “desires”. Jesus certainly had desires as is clearly shown in the Garden when he desires the cup be taken from him.
But “every man is tempted”, when he is “drawn away of his own desires, and enticed.
This is certainly what Satan did to Christ. Jesus was starving and desiring food. He was enticed to turn the stones into bread.
Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
The word “conceived” is sallambano and means “to take part with.”
Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin….
“Then when” here is the time frame
“Lust hath conceived” or desires been taken part in.
it brings forth sin.
Then when desires have been taken part of it brings forth sin.Hey WJ, you say Jesus was not tempted to do evil?
John 3:19 ”This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.
John 3:20 ” For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
John 5:29 and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.
Were these evildoers tempted to do evil or did it just happen to them.
AND if these MEN were tempted to do evil and Jesus was not tempted to do evil then Jesus was not tempted in all ways like us.
Jesus had to be tempted to do evil in order to be tempted in all ways like us. God is not tempted to do evil Jesus was tempted to do evil. Jesus is not God.
martian…………right on brother.peace and love to you and yours……………gene
Hush Gene,You have been exposed here. You do not assign the same level of devotion to the Father that Jesus did. You say that having eternal life is greater than knowing the father when Jesus made eternal life and knowing the Father equal in greatness.
You are insincere Gene. We all have your number now.
thinker
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
