Examination of the incarnation doctrine.

Blocked

Hey Keith,

Wispring started it!

(Btw Wispring, your last post was good. I now understand what you were trying to say previously.)

peace,
mike

June 14, 2011 at 1:58 am#248533

Blocked

Quote (Wispring @ June 12 2011,15:42)

I am not one of those Jews living in that spiritually darkened time. I understand spiritual things differently than they did.

Hi Wispring,

So it was because these Jews were “spiritually darkened” that they mistakenly thought Jesus said HE came down from heaven when he really said “the prophecy of me” came down from heaven? Did some of those Jews later eyewitness JESUS ascending to heaven, or “the prophecy of him” ascending to heaven?

mike

June 15, 2011 at 8:19 pm#248705

Worshipping Jesus

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 13 2011,20:58)

Quote (Wispring @ June 12 2011,15:42)

I am not one of those Jews living in that spiritually darkened time. I understand spiritual things differently than they did.

Hi Wispring,

mike

:laugh: :laugh:

June 17, 2011 at 3:05 pm#248853

Participant

Quote (Wispring @ June 12 2011,16:38)

Hi WJ,

Quote

Ha Ha! You deride me for committing a “logical fallacy” and yet you attempt to make the argument that ATR was a Baptist and indoctrinated therefore that means his Greek is biased. Do you see the irony of your claim? Paladin said…”What else would you expect from a trinitarian grammarian?”. It is wrong to attack ATR's Greek by claiming it is based on his theology, and insinuate he was dishonest. That works 2 ways also. What if Mike or I in referring to you and Paladin said…“What do you expect from a “Unitarian?”

To be honest WJ, I didn't think I was deriding you nor Mr. Robertson's honesty in his exegesis. I was stating that it is only natural that a person who was born and raised with the trinity being an absolute truth would exegete with this bias. Not that it's right or wrong, it would be only natural based on how the mind works in a psychological way. For myself I was raised with neither the Unitarian or the Trinitarian religious education. I was an athiest in my teen years and made science my god. I did learn what objectivity is. I did admire the Spock character from Star Trek who experienced the world through an objective, logical mind. I do believe that God is objective when it comes to processing factual data. This is what I am using now to understand the greek language.

Quote

The problem you have is when you say…

Quote (Wispring @ June 10 2011,12:23)
…Arguments from authority and from antiquity are at best “weak arguments” simply because the level of authority of any given individual in any given field can be a source for debate in and of itself.”

and then claim it is a “logical fallacy”, well that is just not true in this case.

First of all ATR is not just any individual, but in fact he is a “World renowned Greek Grammarian” who is recognized by many Greek Scholars to this day as being an expert in the field.

Who are you, and who is Paladin?

Where is the credible Greek scholar that disagrees with ATR and his Greek in John 6:38 or John 17:5? Are we just to take your word for it?

So I don’t buy your “logical fallacy” argument in reference to ATR. You and Paladin are making the argument that your Greek is more accurate than his. So you see it is a two edged sword that swings both ways. According to your own words how are you not making a logical fallacy by arguing for the “Authority” of yours and Paladins Greek over ATR’s based on your own “theology”? At this point I haven’t seen any evidence that I should reject ATR’s Greek over yours or Paladin’s! It seems to me you and Paladin rejects his Greek merely because of his theology.

You see this you posted above? It fits with high precision the situation described below.

Quote

Argument from authority
The basic structure of such arguments is as follows: Professor X believes A, Professor X speaks from authority, therefore A is true. Often this argument is implied by emphasizing the many years of experience, or the formal degrees held by the individual making a specific claim. The converse of this argument is sometimes used, that someone does not possess authority, and therefore their claims must be false. (This may also be considered an ad-hominen logical fallacy.)

In practice this can be a complex logical fallacy to deal with. It is legitimate to consider the training and experience of an individual when examining their assessment of a particular claim. Also, a consensus of scientific opinion does carry some legitimate authority. But it is still possible for highly educated individuals, and a broad consensus to be wrong – speaking from authority does not make a claim true.

So…yes it is a logical fallacy.
Back to the issue being debated. Actually, the indicative mood refers to something that is actual, something that really occured or is considered matter of fact as opposed to possible or potentially from the authors perspective or viewpoint of the person speaking in the written account whether or not the the event is true or not. In other words, a lie is written in the indicative mood as well as a true factual statement according to the grammatical use of the indicative mood.
It is a fact that Christ Jesus is the fullfillment of prophesy. It is a fact the prophesy came down from heaven. It is a fact that Christ Jesus knew he was the fullfillment of prophesy. It is a fact that he was conceived in Mary's womb via the Holy Spirit that came down from heaven. Now, it is never revealed in the scriptures that Christ Jesus was aware that he was conceived via the Holy Spirit; I assume that sometime during his life on earth with all the authority, wisdom, knowledge and power that God gave him he did become aware of this fact, however, he may not have known about this until after he was resurrected. It is a fact that the phrophesies that God gave to the prophets of the OT that predict the coming Christ Jesus are, indeed, a part of God's plan for mankind. This is the understanding of many of those who do not adhere to the Trinitarian or pre-existence doctrines go by.
Let's review the meaning of the word literal now.

Quote

Definition of LITERAL
1a : according with the letter of the scriptures b : adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression : actual c : free from exaggeration or embellishment d : characterized by a concern mainly with facts
2: of, relating to, or expressed in letters
3: reproduced word for word : exact, verbatim

Anything written about in a factual manner is considered literal even a prophesy or a plan.

Quote

But you ignored my post when I quoted ATR…

[Compare A. T. Robertson, “A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 864, 879]:

“It is not wise therefore to define the present indicative as denoting 'action in progress'”

No WJ, I did not ignore it. The scriptures in view are John 6:38 and John 6:42

Quote

John 6:38-42
King James Version (KJV)

38For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

39And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

40And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the la
st day.

41The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.

42And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?

These are perfect tense. They are not present tense, therefore, the present tense rules and definitions do not apply.

Quote

Quote (Wispring @ June 10 2011,12:23)
Please sir, do not think that I believe you are going to hell for holding on to your theology and defending it until the day of your death.

It seems to me that is what all you anti-preexistence people are doing.

Please sir, do not lump me in with some stereotypical generality that you may or may not have for people who do not believe in the pre-existence doctrine. I still believe that both you and I are disciples of Christ Jesus and are both doing our best to live our lives in accordance with loving him and keeping his words so that both he and God the Father will dwell within us in spirit. I still believe that both of us are in agreement that Christ Jesus is the truth, the light, and the way. I still believe that both of us are doing our best to love God with all our hearts, mind, strength and soul. I still believe we are doing our best to love one another as we love ourselves. At least I hope this is so.

With Love and more love,
Wispring

Wispering…………You have it right brother. IMO

peace and love to you and yours…………………gene

June 19, 2011 at 12:33 am#248987

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 12 2011,03:40)

Quote (Paladin @ June 11 2011,06:36)

So tell me WJ, what do you think of wescott and Hort as scholars?

Hi Paladin

It doesn't really matter much what I think about Wescott and Hort simply because much of the debate has already been settled over which are the best or more accurate manuscripts. Most modern Translations use eclectic editions and agree for the most part on what the original intent of the inspired writer was. The variations in the major translations usually do not affect major Christian doctrine.

In reality, to argue for the purity of the Byzantine stream, as opposed to the pollution introduced by the Alexandrian manuscripts, is to blow out of proportion what the differences between these two texts really are–both in quantity and quality.For over 250 years, New Testament scholars have argued that no textual variant affects any doctrine. Carson has gone so far as to state that “nothing we believe to be doctrinally true, and nothing we are commanded to do, is in any way jeopardized by the variants. This is true for any textual tradition. The interpretation of individual passages may well be called in question; but never is a doctrine affected.” 25 The remarkable thing is that this applies both to the standard critical texts of the Greek New Testament and to Hodges's and Farstad's Majority Text; doctrine is not affected by the variants between them. 26

If the quality of the text (i.e., its doctrinal purity) is not at stake, then what about the quantity? How different is the Majority Text from the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament or the Nestle-Aland text? Do they agree only 30 percent of the time? Do they agree perhaps as much as 50 percent of the time? This can be measured, in a general sort of way. There are approximately 300,000 textual variants among New Testament manuscripts. The Majority Text differs from the Textus Receptus in almost 2,000 places. So the agreement is better than 99 percent. But the Majority Text differs from the modern critical text in only about 6,500 places. In other words the two texts agree almost 98 percent of the time. 27 Not only that, but the vast majority of these differences are so minor that they neither show up in translation nor affect exegesis. Consequently the majority text and modern critical texts are very much alike, in both quality and quantity. Source

As far as the chronological order of the NT books, well that is still an on going debate.

Blessings!

It has been said that the differences between the Majority Text (KJV) and the Westcott & hort texts approximates 7%; though on this thread,

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 12 2011,03:40)

The variations in the major translations usually do not affect major Christian doctrine. ~ The Majority Text differs from the Textus Receptus in almost 2,000 places. So the agreement is better than 99 percent. But the Majority Text differs from the modern critical text in only about 6,500 places. In other words the two texts agree almost 98 percent of the time. 27 Not only that, but the vast majority of these differences are so minor that they neither show up in translation nor affect exegesis. Consequently the majority text and modern critical texts are very much alike, in both quality and quantity.

it has been suggested the difference is only less than 3%. Is that inconsequential, or is that significant? I maintain it is very significant.

Did you know that when God instructed Adam in the garden, as to the consequences of eating of the fruit of a certain tree, God used only 39 words?

Did you know that when Satan beguiled Eve when he changed only 1 word in God's instructions, or 2.564% of the message, the consequences were totally “out of Adam's world?”

And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat': 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and' evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the' day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”[39 words] [Gen 2:15-17] {1/39th = 2.564 %}

INFLUENCE OF 2.564%
“Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? 2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.4

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. 6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.” [Gen 3:1-6]

CONSEQUENCE OF 2.564% TO THE SEED OF THE WOMAN
“And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: 15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

CONSEQUENCE OT 2.564% TO THE WOMAN HERSELF
16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

CONSEQUENCE OF 2.564% TO ADAM AND THE REST OF MEN
17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

CONSEQUENCE OF 2.564% ON MAKNIND
20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living. 21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them. 22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.” [Gen 3:13-23]

LEGACY OF 2.564%
“But I fear, lest by any means, as th
e serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.”[II Cor 11:3]

“In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 10 But which becometh women professing godliness with good works. 11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.”

It was “only 2.564 %” but WoW! What a significant consequence. Anytime anyone tells you that Westcott and Hort “only” differ from the majority text by 2.564%, remind them of this little account of the enormous significance of a little percentage.

As a matter of fact, Recorded
Here

Quote

The fact is that the differences are large and serious and a choice must be made.

The following is from Dr. Donald Waite’s book Defending the King James Bible:

“The Westcott and Hort Text changes the Textus Receptus in over 5,600 places.

“Do you know how many changes they made? My own personal count, as of August 2, 1984, using Scrivener's Greek New Testament referred to above, was 5,604 changes that Westcott and Hort made to the Textus Receptus in their own Greek New Testament text. Of these 5,604 alterations, I found 1,952 to be OMISSIONS (35%), 467 to be ADDITIONS (8%), and 3,185 to be CHANGES (57%). In these 5,604 places that were involved in these alterations, there were 4,366 more words included, making a total of 9,970 Greek words that were involved. This means that in a Greek Text of 647 pages (such as Scrivener's text), this would average 15.4 words per page that were CHANGED from the Received Text. Pastor Jack Moorman counted 140,521 words in the Textus Receptus. These changes would amount to 7% of the words; and 45.9 pages of the Greek New Testament if placed together in one place.

“Rev. Jack A. Moorman, in December 1988, wrote a book entitled: ‘Missing in Modern Bibles–Is The Full Story Being Told?’ It was published by The Bible For Today in April, 1989. Rev. Moorman counted every word of the Received Greek Text and also every word of the Nestle/Aland Greek Text and, on a chapter by chapter count, came up with the Nestle/Aland text being SHORTER than the Received Text by 2,886 words. This is 934 words more than were omitted from the Westcott and Hort text. (1,952 vs. 2,886). The omitting of 2,886 Greek words is the equivalent, in number of English words involved, of DROPPING OUT THE ENTIRE BOOKS OF 1 PETER AND 2 PETER! Pastor Moorman's book is eighty large pages.” (Bible for Today, 900 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108)

I think 2.564% is a significant ammount of change, when it comes to its effect upon the word of God, don't you?

Hmmm?

June 19, 2011 at 12:56 am#248992

Blocked

Hi Paladin,

What claim to fame does the KJV have? They have themselves made many changes from the old version to the new, right?

Yet many people seem to think it is the “infallibly perfect” translation, and “written in stone”. Could you tell me why?

mike

June 19, 2011 at 12:41 pm#249036

Ed J

Participant

Quote (Paladin @ May 11 2011,09:35)

Jesus is called “son of God” 188 times in 74 verses in the N.T.
Jesus is called “Son of man” 274 times in 97 verses in the N.T.

Hi Paladin,

We don't always agree, but we should always seek to agree (here's an example).
This information (you gave) should “PROVE” to you there is something to my research.
This, I believe, was your spirit trying to tell you to reconsider my research; which you initially scoffed at. (See Matt.21:28-30)

“Son of God”(74) equals “74” and “Son of Man”(97) equals “97”.

However, your information has proven to be 'faulty'. … I checked! (1Thess.5:21)

“Son of man” is written in 84 verses in the N.T.; and 192 verses in all.
“Son of God” is written in 46 verses in the N.T.; and 47 verses in all.

1Thess.5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
TOO BAD your info wasn't correct, I could have used it!

Your brother
in Christ, Jesus!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

June 19, 2011 at 1:37 pm#249043

Participant

Ed j……….Paladin is correct in his post above it only takes 1 or 2.54 as he said to totally change the meaning of scriptures, i believe his point and example was quite accurate brother.

peace and love to you and yours………………………………………..gene

June 19, 2011 at 1:49 pm#249044

Blocked

Hi Gene,

What about 0.00000%?

“Your throne, God, is forever………….”

“God is your throne forever…………..”

(Hebrews 1:8/Psalm 45:6)

June 19, 2011 at 1:51 pm#249045

Ed J

Participant

Hi Gene,

And that ties in to what I said exactly how?

God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

June 19, 2011 at 6:49 pm#249121

Blocked

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ June 19 2011,07:37)

Ed j……….Paladin is correct in his post above it only takes 1 or 2.54 as he said to totally change the meaning of scriptures, i believe his point and example was quite accurate brother.

peace and love to you and yours………………………………………..gene

Gene,

How many percentage points does it make by adding the word “IN” into John 1:14?

How about changing “Root of David” to “FROM the Root of David”?

How about changing “angels are ministering spirits” to “angels HAVE ministering spirits inside of them”?

I bet that last one is close to 10%.

mike

June 19, 2011 at 9:19 pm#249141

Participant

Mike…………..Your ignorance of the simple logic here is so obvious, so again i will see if these repeat will help you.

Lets try this ……………….Was Jesus the root of Jesse as Isiah (AND) Paul said he was. Now first get that into you brain, now after that has found a place in your mind then use your God given mind and think about this , Was King David a root of Jesse also> YES, If you say yes then Jesus was also the root as well as the offspring of David , both root and Offspring in revelations is relating to Jesus as a decedent of King David.

Mike as far as the word (IN) in John 1:14 goes, show me one scripture that say a Spirit or Word is flesh. So if the word came to be flesh there is ONLY ONE WAY IT IS BE EXPRESSED ACCURATELY and that is the GOD who is the Logos was (IN) Jesus just as He said He was. Simple nothing complicated about it. It is your preexistence theology that is clouding you mind so you can't comprehend it right. Dump that false teaching and you will come out of your confusion. Your are no one else has ever seen a “FLESH WORD” and if you say you have i would like to know where is that Flesh word AT.

peace and love…………………………………..gene

June 19, 2011 at 9:27 pm#249142

Participant

Quote (Ed J @ June 20 2011,00:51)

Hi Gene,

And that ties in to what I said exactly how?

God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

Ed j……….I was not saying disputing your post i was just agreeing with Paladin that 1 or 2 % of changing the text can make a difference in the overall meanings. That all i was committing on brother.

peace and love………………………………..gene

June 20, 2011 at 1:21 am#249173

Ed J

Participant

Hi Gene,

OK; no harm, no foul.

God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

June 20, 2011 at 3:19 am#249195

Blocked

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ June 19 2011,15:19)

Was King David a root of Jesse also> YES,

Well, there's half of the problem, Gene. The correct answer is NO! David was a BRANCH of his father Jesse, not a ROOT of him. So much for MY ignorance of simple logic.

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ June 19 2011,15:19)

Mike as far as the word (IN) in John 1:14 goes, show me one scripture that says…………..

No, no, no, Gene! That is NOT how one deciphers scripture. One doesn't say, “Well, I can't understand how the actual words of scripture make sense the way they are written, so I guess I'll just add words into those scriptures until they DO make sense TO ME”.

MY understanding let's the words of scripture stay exactly how they are. If YOUR understanding requires you to add your own words into the scripture, then YOUR understanding is from Bizzaro World.

I will post this one in my new thread.

peace,
mike

June 20, 2011 at 9:41 am#249232

Participant

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ June 20 2011,00:37)

Ed j……….Paladin is correct in his post above it only takes 1 or 2.54 as he said to totally change the meaning of scriptures, i believe his point and example was quite accurate brother.

peace and love to you and yours………………………………………..gene

Gene, Ed is referencing a post I made back on may 11, found on threadpage 130; post #10.

June 20, 2011 at 9:42 am#249234

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 14 2011,01:38)

Hi All

Why is it that every thread ends up about the Trinity being true or false?

because people have egos that have to be stroked.

June 20, 2011 at 12:19 pm#249242