- This topic is empty.
- Posts
nick, I think the background on that scripture you have mentioned on whether or not a spirit confesses whether Jesus Christ is come in the flesh..has had alot to do with (if not all) the many winds blowing back then. It is still alive and well today. Mainly gnosticism, but eastern religions which are known to have influenced Plato's writings, were present also.
The reason it is anti-christ, is because it is anti-productive to the very commission for why Christ had to identify himself as a man.
To try put it in a nut-shell, their were many spiritualized philosophies running rampant back then already. The whole eastern slant, is in looking back to their spiritual origins. That is, in their minds, the only thing real, is the spiritual world. There is actually a great chunk of truth here, but in a sense it is like saying, we want only to entertain the idea that the real can only be found in our past origins. Away with the meaning of flesh and illusion, we cannot entertain that.
For Christ, The Word of the very spiritual God of the Spiritual world, ran totally contrary to being made flesh. That would be like saying, The Word (Logos) became illusionary. What they could not understand was how the real became illusion so that the illusionary could become real.
Once again, for me, the Word became flesh in aliegnment with the scripture you quoted, in the chronological context of John chapter 1. I realize it is a thought that is out-of-the-box. I stated a number of reasons why. I try to stay open. I just haven't really been persuaded otherwise…yet.
side-note. The righteousness of God (which Jesus the Anointed One brought us) is often given as 'right-standing-with-God) ..for so it is. But I would contend that is also original or true-being. Like when Jesus said, “Seek you first the kingdom of God and his righteousness”.. it is also said that the seeking of the kingdom of God is to seek out God's way of doing things. hmmm, not sure if I should go here:) well I say, God's way of doing things is that..HE WORKS FROM THE INSIDE OUT!
It is by the identification of the man Jesus, and the Christ-Being who emptied himself and being found 'in the fashion of a man' (not necessarily a infant)..was able to establish a new covenant, a mystery hid in God from the foundations of the world. When The Anointed One Jesus became obedient, even unto the death of the cross.
Hi jm,
You are in a state of confusion,
You separate Christ, as the Word, from Jesus
and say that“Christ entered Jesus.”
and yet call Jesus
“Jesus the Anointed One”
when Christ means anointed??
How do you read 2 Cor 5
” 19To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.”
Was God
in Christ
in Jesus??nick, if you want to believe that Jesus was anointed, or the Anointed One from birth, that is perfectly fine with me. You may be right, and I may be wrong..or vise-versa. I never like to stay in conversation, if I feel that it is non-profitable and is apt to degenerate toward lower conceits. Just for the record.
I tend to believe that Jesus was smeared upon (to rub, is to anoint) and anointed by The Anointed One, whereby, yes, Christ at that point..was found in the fashion of a man they called Yeshua. Christ then permeated through the blood of Jesus.The life is in the blood.
So when I say, Jesus the Anointed One, I am really just saying 'Jesus Christ'.
As I pointed out, it is the same Christ who permeated the rock that followed the children of Isreal through the wilderness, the Christ who, as The Word of God, gave creation its existence..for the Word of God was before all things and by him all things consist.
So my understanding is that the Universal Word became flesh. When sin through disobedience entered the world, and death by sin..it brought in its wake a fallen dimension. But there is a dimension behind this fallen dimension, that is still there, and yet to be revealed. In a sense, we are spell-bound within a fallen dimension. At the end of this age, that spell will be broken and we will (by the grace of God) take on incorruptible, glorified bodies and be seized (raptured) back into that higher dimension from which we had fallen.
So we have the spotless holy seed of the second man Adam, conceived in the virgin Mary. And then Christ, the Creative Word of the Creator..step into this fallen dimension in the person of Jesus of Nazereth. Thereby tying that unfallen, uncursed blessed state of true-being..into identification with the fallen human race. Now Christ in man..by way of his sacrifice on the cross, now qualifies as the redeemer and savior of the world.
That is, the Universal Christ, who is everywhere present in his 'I AM'-ness, tied to a certain place and in a certain time in human history in human form..so that human forms can come to experience the realities of the Universal Christ.
Or, in other words, the Macrocosmic Christ, identified himself as microcosmic man, so that microcosmic man could partake in the everywhere present Macrocosmic Christ. No longer limited by a certain place in time.
Jesus, as The Anointed One, Christ..walked the shores of Galilee..but by way of his cross, and through the Universal Christ, is able to simultaneously deal with every soul on a universal scale..for the path of his sacrificed, opened the avenue whereby his Holy Spirit has taken up residence within his Universal Mystical Body.
Hi jm,
The anointed one is the one who is anointed at the Jordan, not the one who does the anointing.
He was anointed by God,
with His Spirit.Acts 10
“Acts 10
” 38How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.”The Rock from which the prophet Moses drank and ministered to the Israelites was not Jesus but the Spirit that is the Spirit of Christ and the Spriit of God.
1Cor 10
” 1Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;2And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
3And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
4And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.”
Compare these verses.
1Peter1
” 9Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.10Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:
11Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
12Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into. “
and
Rev 19
” worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. “2Peter 1
” 19We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:”hey nick, thanks for lining out some rich passages of scripture. I see that you are playing right into my hands (jabs rib as if to say, 'way to go bro'
“The anointed one is the one who is anointed at the Jordan, not the one who does the anointing”.
The Anointed One, anoints Jesus, in accordance with 'How God' anointed Jesus of Nazereth..etc. If Jesus was already the Anointed One, there is no real reason to anoint him, is there?
1 John 5:7 “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost (Spirit): and these three are One.
It is also these three as One whole unit and collective representive of 'God', where by Jesus of Nazereth was anointed.
“The Rock from which the prophet Moses drank and ministered to the Israelites was not Jesus but the Spirit that is the Spirit of Christ and the Spriit of God”.
The Spirit of Christ is the Spirit of God, distinctive offices, but of the same Spirit.
Now I'm getting confused because you seem to agree that the Rock was not Jesus, but the Spirit of Christ?
Hi jm,
Christ was not alive on earth before he came or he would have advantages over us and we could not follow him.1Jn 5.7 as you read it was added to the bible and there is a thread on this.
Jesus was the prophesied messiah but was not anointed till the Jordan.
nick, I wish to put aside the topic on when, where and how Jesus became the Christ, The Anointed One. Either way, it is after the fact that where, when or how..Jesus is now Christ and has been since his earthly ministry.
The Anointed One, having shed incorruptible blood through the form of a man (Yeshua) opened the avenue of grace for the souls of humanity to now partake of. We are drawn nigh unto God by the blood of his cross.
Upon resurrection from the dead, the testimony of Jesus (as the representive of man) is (indeed) the spirit of prophecy.
The other scripture you quoted also plays into how this is so.
2Peter 1
” 19We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:”I find it interesting to note that the Greek word for 'day star' that is to arise within the hearts of humanity, is: 'phosphorus'.
The righteousness, or true-being..that is redeemed, restored, original, made whole kind of being..of God in Christ, is the road map to the testimony of Jesus, which in turn is the spirit of prophecy.
The righteousness of Jesus Christ is the representation of wholeness. Which means, the cure and answer for every ailment caused by the fall of man and the consequent curse thereby, is to be found through the resurrection power of this man Jesus, the Christ.
It is now possible, as the Hebrew writer put it, 'to taste of the powers of the world to come'.
The truth of the matter is: If someone is born again and now has that resurrection life regenerated in his spirit-man..he has just then step into his or her heavenly restoration or redemption. What we already are, is what we will become. That is the meaning in this: 'which is, Christ in you, our hope of glory'.
When Christ identified himself as a man, it cannot be altered. So scripture uses Jesus Christ or Christ Jesus without hestiation or apology, for indeed this is so.
Philemon 1:6 renders the testimony of Jesus Christ this way: “That your faith may become effectual through the acknowledgment of every good thing that is in you, in Christ Jesus”.
Paul echos his sediment in 2 Corinth 13:5 “Examine yourselves, whether you be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know you not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except you be reprobates?” (without spiritual understanding).
The point is, it is possible to come into our future selves. Our prophetic selves. It is based on the souls own knowing of what already lies in his spirit-man.
The spiritual world of God is not held by time and space, time and space is held by that everlasting world. Here then, Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever.
Hi jm,
You say
“The Anointed One, having shed incorruptible blood through the form of a man (Yeshua)”Spirit beings do not have blood.
“The point is, it is possible to come into our future selves. Our prophetic selves. It is based on the souls own knowing of what already lies in his spirit-man.”
No
God takes no account of sonship to Him through Adam, or Abraham.
Our spirit only gives us three score years and ten.
We need to find the fountain of life before our cord breaks and the bucket falls to the bottom of the well[Ecc12]
We must be reborn from above[Jn3]The Holy Spirit is a part of Father God he has given of himself to us who come to him through faith. And it was by the unction of the Holy Spirit all of creation came into existance through the Word and by the Word by the will of the Father. The Holy Spirit is all truth and righteousness. There is no truth and righteousness outside the Holy Spirit, God the Father, who is maker of heaven and earth.
Hi,
The adding of an extra verse to 1Jn 5 has caused men to believe God and His Spirit are separate beings in Heaven.But when John saw the visions of heaven he was in the Spirit on earth.
Rev 1
” 9I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ
10I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,”The adding of an extra verse is your opinion. To those who translated the King James, since it was written in the majority of the over 5000 handwritten Holy Writs that were used in doing the translation, it was included in the King James. So your opinion is in direct conflict with that of the tranlators themselves and since the same process was used in discerning each verse of scripture on if it was or was not to be including in the bible, I would say I will side with the opinion of the translators instead of the opinion of Nick. For if a verse was in the majority of the translations, it was included in the King James. If the verse was not in the majority of the Holy Writs, it was not included in the King James. Thus the name, the Majority Text King James Bible. And the verse you claim is not suppose to be included was included in the beginning.
H, the reason it was added is because:-
when Erasmus prepared his Greek text of the NT; he knew full well of the spuriousness of 1 John 5:7.
In his first & second editions of his text he omitted it.
The Catholics were furious because it was one of their favorite prooftexts. Sadly, Erasmus made a rash promise
…
seeing that this verse did not exist in any Greek Mss., Erasmus stated that if they could find a genuine Greek Ms. with this verse in it, he would include it in his Greek text.So, they came up with the “Dublin” Ms: [codex 61, codex Montfortianus]
It was a Greek Ms. “made to order”.
Although Erasmus very much doubted its authenticity, nevertheless because of his rash promise, he included it in his third edition, for the sake, as he says, “of avoiding calumny.”And it has been with us ever since.
It originated in the margins of ancient notes/gloss.
It crept into Erasmus' 3rd edition.
And eventually into the KJV. Incidentally, Isaac Newton, wrote a treatise about the spuriousness of 1 John 5.7 (+ another verse!)
Adam, your is opionion as will. What it comes down to is oldest translation and who believes or stands on the opinion of which translation has more validity because of age. The controversy is pointless if for me, because I do not believe in the trinity doctrine and I believe the King James bible is the infallible Word of God. I believe this because I believe it was taken from the oldest Holy Writs and has more authority for that very reason, which puts all translations that play the flip side of the coin as counterfeit or corrupted in validity. For a little leaven, leaventh the entire lump. And it will stand above all the rest and it does. And Jesus said that the world will hate him. Today, there is a movement against the King James and those who stand on it. Most of the world does not stand on the King James, they stand on translations that have been changed with the biasness of men. If you don't believe me, think of this.
Let us discuss Wescott and Hort. The men most responsible for alterations in the New Testament text were B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, whose Greek New Testament was largely updated by Eberhard Nestle and Kurt Aland. All of these men were evolutionists. Furthermore, Westcott and Hort both denied Biblical inerrancy and promoted spiritism and racism. Nestle and Aland, like Kittel, were German theological skeptics.
Westcott and Hort were also the most influential members of the English revision committee which produced the English Revised Version of the Bible. The corresponding American revision committee which developed the American Standard Version of 1901 was headed by another liberal evolutionist, Philip Schaff. Most new versions since that time have adopted the same presuppositions as those of the 19th century revisers.
Is it mere coinsidence, being Wescott and Hort who were both evolutionists, that the world would come to accept evolution over the Word of God? Is this a coinsidence or an attack by satan? Have men lost the ability to know when they are under the attack of the enemy? If that is the case, then that means they are on the side of the enemy.
H,
THE KJV, The Textus Receptus … is based upon Erasmus' text!
That is a historical fact!So, I was informing you how 1 John 5:7 got into the Textus Receptus in the first place via Erasmus.
Again, that is a historical fact!GOD has NOT left us ignorant!
That is another fact!So Adam, you are saying that the over 5000 Holy Writs used by the King James translators came via Erasmus?
Put it this way, it was Erasmus [in the 16th century] who researched the various Mss in order to collate the Greek NT. Subsequent writers therefore based their work on his Greek text. Since he included 1 John 5.7 that is how it got into subsequent texts.
To date, there are absolutely no ancient Greek Mss (i.e. pre-7th cent) that contain 1 John 5.7.
At the time of Erasmus (October 27, probably 1466 – July 12, 1536) there were no existing Greek Mss with 1 John 5.7 except of course, the contrived Dublin Mss. which was brought about because of Erasmus' rash promise.
From the time of Tyndale right up to the KJV, the prominent Greek NT used were the ones based upon Erasmus' text/work.
In other words, if Erasmus had not included 1 John 5.7 in his work, then it would have never been introduced in the 16th-17th cent. English translations of the Bible, nor would it have been in the Textus Receptus!
For the simple fact that there were no genuine Greek Mss with this verse in it. It was only found in certain Latin text such as the Later Latin Vulgate.H,
do the research for yourself. Check it out.
I am not making this stuff up. It is a matter of historical fact.
Erasmus, Isaac Newton, + many more way back in the 16th-17th centuries were fully aware that 1 John 5.7 was spurious.No Greek (so-called) father ever quoted it.
Neither was it ever quoted in the Arius-Athanasius-Nicene controversies.
One writer of that era even quoted 1 John 5:8 in an attempt to prove the trinity.
Why didn't he quote verse 7. Because it did not exist! It wasn't in their biblesH, Be Berea … check it out for yourself.
Hi,
Of course not every version of the KJV has included the verse
so it is hard to claim it an infallible translation,
if not every version is even the same.Quote (heiscomingintheclouds @ Sep. 16 2006,18:08) The adding of an extra verse is your opinion. To those who translated the King James, since it was written in the majority of the over 5000 handwritten Holy Writs that were used in doing the translation, it was included in the King James. So your opinion is in direct conflict with that of the tranlators themselves and since the same process was used in discerning each verse of scripture on if it was or was not to be including in the bible, I would say I will side with the opinion of the translators instead of the opinion of Nick. For if a verse was in the majority of the translations, it was included in the King James. If the verse was not in the majority of the Holy Writs, it was not included in the King James. Thus the name, the Majority Text King James Bible. And the verse you claim is not suppose to be included was included in the beginning.
To heiscomingintheclouds.When a fact contradicts that which you preach, you should humble yourself and admit your wrong. But pride says “I am right” and ignores the truth.
The addition to I John 5:7 is not even contested by Trinitarian scholars, even though it is the strongest verse they have. It is accepted as being an addition and has even been traced, SO THERE IS A RECORD. It was originally a note in the margin.
Now on one hand you judge Nick by saying that he cannot admit when he is wrong, and then on the otherhand you are wrong concerning your view of I John 5:7 and cannot admit it. Is this not hypocritical?
It is ironic but true; when you start accusing people, you first need to be squeaky clean in the area that you make an accusation, otherwise the finger you point comes right back at you. And this very thing has happened. “Take the log out of your eye, before trying to remove the speck from your brother”.
I am not here to take sides but to defend truth and to try and discourage useless quarrels. I personally think that you should admit that you are wrong here, or show the proof that you are right. A denial of a historical record that is not contested even by those who have more to lose than yourself, shows the strength of the proof.
I have never agreed with your teaching on KJV, and I think it only creates unnecessary division and is not wise. But when you deny that your teaching is not right, and go against a historical record that is plainly there to be seen, then what more can one say. You have the record, but you deny the record.
The only conclusion is to leave you in this delusion, but shine the light wherever you promote this doctrine, lest you actually plant that into another person.
It is a shame that it has come to this, but had you not promoted this decisive doctrine and not got on the bandwagon of accusing another brother, then I think that you would have more authority. But I think you blew it to some degree and I think that you shouldn't be so proud and think that everything you believe and do is of God and that others should accept all that you do and say.
heiscomingintheclouds, do you have the character to truly find out if the KJV contains an addition? Are you willing to check the evidence without bias with regards to the I John 5:7? Or will you join the multitudes of people who had a chance to check all things that they believe, but couldn't be bothered challenging there belief and preferred their comfort zone and protection of their reputation.
I personally would certainly have more respect for your faith if you were able to check it out and be challenged.
Is the verse truth? Whether added or not? If it is truth, that is the imperative, not the squabble of lesser spirits. These are only distractions from truth.
Scripture is not a foundation that ought discourage building upon, only take heed on how it aleigns with scripture. In the end, the fire will reveal of what sort it is. If it is so, why carry on as if it were not so?
btw, the portion about adding or taking away from what is written in the book of Rev. Is subject to that book. If we were beholden only to say what is in the covers of The Book, we ought not need teachers, or the leading of the Holy Spirit into all truth..because we could as easily conclude that it is an addition. The spirit of the Lord is like a fountain of life, that springs up in liberty..not of judgmental sorts that want to entrap.
Quote more validity because of age.
Well H, perhaps Nicks opinion has more validity than yours. He's older.Quote To date, there are absolutely no ancient Greek Mss (i.e. pre-7th cent) that contain 1 John 5.7. I believe that above quote, bears repeating:
THE OLDEST AVAILABLE MANSUSCRIPTS DO NOT CONTAIN THIS SPURIOUS VERSE.
Yes, the KJV is old. But not old compared to the oldest manuscripts. One day, the Bibles of today will be old. Does that mean they are all “infallible” too?There is absolutely no reason for this scripture to be in any Bible. It shouldn't be there. It was added.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
