- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote Jesus could not be the Angel of the Lord in the OT;
1) Because he is a human being NOT an angelic being
2) And as such he was not even conceived/begotten yet at the time of the OTQuote Jesus was & ever will be a human being And he's a human being right now? With flesh I presume?
Quick question Adam, that no one on here answers. You stated:
Quote Being made so much better than the angels
And you underlined the “better than the angels” part. Did you take any note of the words before the underlined words, or the words after. He inherited a name better than that of the anges and “became” or was “made” better than the angels. Of course, he has always been distinguished from the angels. But when you look at that verse in multiple Bibles, the meaning is clear. What does it mean that Jesus became better than the angels, by inheriting a name better then they?Anyway, back to your thought of Jesus being a human, still. So, the angels who applauded God's physical creation of the universe are then much older than Jesus? hmmm. I guess that would explain how Jesus, the new kid on the block would have to “become” better then the angels.
Adam, I'm not sure, but I think you're the only one on here who thinks Jesus is presently a human being. ARe there any others?
david
Hi Adam,
Certainly Jesus can be spoken of according to the flesh but we do not accept the Biblical Unitarian doctrine that says that is all he was. Even we are more than flesh enlivened by spirit.He was THE Son of God and there were other sons of God too as shown in Job and genesis 6. As firstborn son he has and had precedence in being as the Word and in glory by status as the one God created all other things , including angels and other sons, through.
Quote (david @ Sep. 27 2006,00:16) Quote Jesus could not be the Angel of the Lord in the OT;
1) Because he is a human being NOT an angelic being
2) And as such he was not even conceived/begotten yet at the time of the OTQuote Jesus was & ever will be a human being And he's a human being right now? With flesh I presume?
….Anyway, back to your thought of Jesus being a human, still. So, the angels who applauded God's physical creation of the universe are then much older than Jesus? hmmm. I guess that would explain how Jesus, the new kid on the block would have to “become” better then the angels.
Greetings DavidYou ask “And he's a human being right now? With flesh I presume? “
Scriptures say …
(Luke 24:37-40) But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. 38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? 39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. 40 And when he had thus spoken, he showed them his hands and his feet.
(1 Tim 2:5) For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
You ask “So, the angels who applauded God's physical creation of the universe are then much older than Jesus?”
WELL OF COURSE!
You yourself explained how the new kid on the block as you described him, has been made better than the angels.
The heir/inheritor doesn't need to be the same age or older than the angels to receive a greater inheritance, does he? Think about it!Something that I was just considering while reading the “angel of the lord' thread:
“Have you set your heart upon my servant Job, that there is no one like him in the earth, a man blameless and upright,”
Job was unique. No question. Jehovah himself said that there was “no one like him in all the earth.”
Maybe, similarly, THERE IS NO ONE LIKE JESUS IN HEAVEN. I truly believe that. I believe it just as much as I believe Jehovah's words about Job.
But that doens't mean Jesus isn't an angel anymore than it means that Job was not a man.
Job was the greatest of the orientals, unique, but he was a man.
I believe Jesus was the arch angel, unique, but still, he could be classified as an angel, and is.Hi Adam, I don't believe this is the right thread for this, but I wonder what you think of:
1 PETER 3:18
“Why, even Christ died once for all time concerning sins, a righteous [person] for unrighteous ones, that he might lead YOU to God, he being put to death in the flesh, but being made alive in the spirit.”1 CORINTHIANS 15:45
“It is even so written: “The first man Adam became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.”Also, with these scriptures in mind, think of that scripture in Luke 24 you mentioned.
Humans cannot see spirits, so the disciples evidently thought they were seeing an apparition or a vision. (Compare Mark 6:49, 50.) Jesus assured them that he was no apparition; they could see his body of flesh and could touch him, feeling the bones; he also ate in their presence.Similarly, in the past, angels had materialized in order to be seen by men; they had eaten, and some had even married and fathered children. (Gen. 6:4; 19:1-3)
Following his resurrection, it appears Jesus did not always appear in the same body of flesh (perhaps to reinforce in their minds the fact that he was then a spirit), and so he was not immediately recognized even by his close associates. (John 20:14, 15; 21:4-7)
However, by his repeatedly appearing to them in materialized bodies and then saying and doing things that they would identify with the Jesus they knew, he strengthened their faith in the fact that he truly had been resurrected from the dead.
There was, therefore, no need for them to be fearful, which was the effect produced on Daniel by an awesome angelic appearance of a completely different nature. (Compare Da 10:4-9.) The situation was likewise very different from that of Saul of Tarsus, who was later blinded by Jesus’ appearance to him on the road to Damascus.—Ac 9:1-9; 26:12-14;
If the disciples had actually seen Jesus in the body that he now has in heaven, Paul would not later have referred to the glorified Christ as being “the exact representation of [God’s] very being,” because God is a Spirit and has never been in the flesh.—Heb. 1:3; compare 1 Timothy 6:16.
david
David,
“Following his resurrection, it appears Jesus did not always appear in the same body of flesh (perhaps to reinforce in their minds the fact that he was then a spirit), and so he was not immediately recognized even by his close associates. (John 20:14, 15; 21:4-7) “
This is pure and simple JW teaching and not commonsense.
Will you always preach their doctrine and not think for yourself?Quote This is pure and simple JW teaching and not commonsense.
Will you always preach their doctrine and not think for yourself?If you cannot provide a scripture to back your belief, just say so. Don't try to prove me wrong by saying I'm a JW.
That's like me saying you're wrong because your 80 or 90.Sorry, but what you are doing is just wrong. Do you understand that?
Hi david,
You say
“If the disciples had actually seen Jesus in the body that he now has in heaven, Paul would not later have referred to the glorified Christ as being “the exact representation of [God’s] very being,” because God is a Spirit and has never been in the flesh.—Heb. 1:3; compare 1 Timothy 6:16.”Jesus is now the man from heaven and indeed his body is not the battered old flesh body seen punctured and torn by the disciples but when he was raised to heaven he had to have a new heavenly body put on because perishable flesh cannot enter heaven.
1Cor 15
” 47The first man [is] out of the earth, earthy; the second man [is] the Lord out of heaven;48as [is] the earthy, such [are] also the earthy; and as [is] the heavenly, such [are] also the heavenly;
49and, according as we did bear the image of the earthy, we shall bear also the image of the heavenly.
50And this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood the reign of God is not able to inherit, nor doth the corruption inherit the incorruption;
51lo, I tell you a secret; we indeed shall not all sleep, and we all shall be changed;
52in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, in the last trumpet, for it shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we — we shall be changed:
53for it behoveth this corruptible to put on incorruption, and this mortal to put on immortality;
54and when this corruptible may have put on incorruption, and this mortal may have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the word that hath been written, `The Death was swallowed up — to victory;
55where, O Death, thy sting? where, O Hades, thy victory?'
56and the sting of the death [is] the sin, and the power of the sin the law;
57and to God — thanks, to Him who is giving us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ;”
What happened to him happens to us so once again we follow him.
This is to T8…I have been searching the Net for Trinity and Deity of Christ searches and came across this the other day. I was viewing this forum and found your info (or maybe your testimony) quite interesting and related with much if not everything you had to say. Let me give you a back drop and a little of my personal testimony. I repented at 19 on April 6th, 1997. I was raised Charismatic on my dad's side and Independent (KJV Only types
) on my mother's side. I believed in the gospel at 8 and was pretty much on fire for Jesus until 12 when I walked away due to the extreme Armineus teachings on the falling from Grace. I went all out becoming an alcoholic at 14 and getting involved with gang activities…my thought was, “If I'm going to hell then I am going there knowing why I am there and not going there in the Church!” (Though I do not believe in eternal hell now since I do not believe in the immortal spirit of a human)
Well moving on, I came back to the fold just prior to turning twenty. Since I have been serving Christ. The journey and inquiries have led me down some pretty interesting roads, discussions amongst theolgians, professors, priests, Muslim leaders, preachers-pastors, Mormons, JW's…etc, etc. Many of my friends I have now or have had do not understand my restlessness. They label me obssessive compulsive since I do not retain to one view long without questioning. I just say I am passionate for truth and do not accept doctrines and theoligal-philosphical-postmodern-presuppositions based from bias views on scripture, tradition, creeds, and opinions.
I was at The Criswell Bible College & Seminary for three semsters (sister college to Dallas Theological Semnary) and learned under great men such as Dr. Charles Ryrie (the leading disensationalist who has published the Ryrie Study Bible. I have held leading postions at Charismatic Churches, was apart of a Oneness Pentecostal group for two years, studied Roman Catholicism for five years and attended RCIA at times, discussed at length with Jehovah's Witnesses (which for the most part I do not have many problems with…I guess not I will get to my point.
The main crux of my problem has been the Trinity for some time. I have held the Oneness position staunchly at times but now question the deity of Christ altogether. Yes, I believe the fear of man is the root of that. If I deny the Trinity I go against many great men of God I have the utmost respect and admarition for. Men such as James R. White, Dr Ryrie, Tommy Nelson (my father in Christ), RC Sproul just to name a few.
I am a five point Calvanist and hold to all five tenets of that teaching. No, I did not come to that based on studying, I actually came to predestination after reading the bible cover to cover my first time; before I even knew who Calvin was. I hold to annihilationism of the wicked, and obviously that when we die, we are dead until the resurrection. I do not believe in a “rapture.” I do not believe in praying to Mary or any of the other canonized “saints” of Rome…after all, why talk to dead people who can't hear you…
My biggest issue is the Trinity though (Forgive me, I am rabbit chasing). The only “group” I know who hold to this view are JW's, The Worldwide Church of God, Universalist (http://bible-truths.com/) and Unitarians (who are just screwed up altogether). Yes, I am looking for a “group” to fellowship with. I have two kids, a girl who is 7 and a boy who is 5. We pray, I teach them and at times we go to some churches. I have perosonally visted over 50 Churches. My problem is when we came out of Rome who is without a doubt the Whore of Babylon, why did we not come ALL THE WAY OUT?!!! Luther was great but he didn't go far enough. He rebuked Rome for the papacy, indulgences and others but forgot some things…Disputation On The Power And Efficacy Of Indulgences Commonly Known As The 95 Theses
By Dr. Martin Luther
Out of love and concern for the truth, and with the object of eliciting it, the following heads will be the subject of a public discussion at Wittenberg under the presidency of the reverend father, Martin Luther, Augustinian, Master of Arts and Sacred Theology, and duly appointed Lecturer on these subjects in that place. He requests that whoever cannot be present personally to debate the matter orally will do so in absence in writing.
1. When our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ, said “Repent”, He called for the entire life of believers to be one of penitence.
2. The word cannot be properly understood as referring to the sacrament of penance, i.e. confession and satisfaction, as administered by the clergy.
3. Yet its meaning is not restricted to penitence in one's heart; for such penitence is null unless it produces outward signs in various mortifications of the flesh.
4. As long as hatred of self abides (i.e. true inward penitence) the penalty of sin abides, viz., until we enter the kingdom of heaven.
5. The Pope has neither the will nor the power to remit any penalties beyond those imposed either at his own discretion or by canon law.
6. The Pope himself cannot remit guilt, but only declare and confirm that it has been remitted by God; or, at most, he can remit it in cases reserved to his discretion. Except for these cases, the guilt remains untouched.
7. God never remits guilt to anyone without, at the same time, making humbly submissive to the priest, His representative.
8. The penitential canons apply only to men who are still alive, and, according to the canons themselves, none applies to the dead.
9. Accordingly, the Holy Spirit, acting in the person of the Pope, manifests grace to us, by the fact that the papal regulations always cease to apply at death, or in any hard case.
10. It is a wrongful act, due to ignorance, when priests retain the canonical penalties on the dead in purgatory.
11. When canonical penalties were changed and made to apply to purgatory, surely it would seem that tares were sown while the bishops were asleep.
12. In former days, the canonical penalties were imposed, not after, but before absolution was pronounced; and were intended to be tests of true contrition.
13. Death puts and end to all the claims of the Church; even the dying are already dead to the canon laws, and are no longer bound by them.
14. Defective piety or love in a dying person is necessarily accompanied by great fear, which is greatest where the piety or love is least.15. This fear or horror is sufficient in itself, whatever else might be said, to constitute the pain of purgatory, since it approaches very closely to the horror of despair.
16. There seems to be the same difference between hell, purgatory, and heaven as between despair, uncertainty, and assurance.
17. Of a truth, the pains of souls in purgatory ought to be abated, and charity ought to be proportionately increased.
18. Moreover, it does not seem proved, on any grounds of reason or Scripture, that these souls are outside the state of merit, or unable to grow in grace.
19. Nor does it seem proved to be always the case that they are certain and assured of salvation, even if we are very certain ourselves.
20. Therefore the Pope, in speaking of the plenary remission of all penalties, does not mean “all” in the strict sense, but only those imposed by himself.
21. Hence those who preach indulgences are in error when they say that a man is absolved and saved from every penalty by the Pope's indulgences;22. Indeed, he cannot remit to souls in purgatory any penalty which canon law declares should be suffered in the present life.
23. If plenary remission could be granted to anyone at all, it would be only in the cases of the most perfect, i.e. to very few.
24. It must therefore be the case that the major part of the people are deceived by that indiscriminate and high-sounding prom
ise of relief from penalty.
25. The same power as the Pope exercises in general over purgatory is exercised in particular by every single bishop in his bishopric and priest in his parish.
26. The Pope does excellently when he grants remission to the souls in purgatory on account of intercessions made on their behalf, and not by the power of the keys (which he cannot exercise for them).
27. There is no divine authority for preaching that the soul flies out of the purgatory immediately the money clinks in the bottom of the chest.
28. It is certainly possible that when the money clinks in the bottom of the chest avarice and greed increase; but when the church offers intercession, all depends in the will of God.29. Who knows whether all souls in purgatory wish to be redeemed in view of what is said of St. Severinus and St. Pascal? (Note: Paschal I, Pope 817-24. The legend is that he and Severinus were willing to endure the pains of purgatory for the benefit of the faithful).
30. No one is sure if the reality of his own contrition, much less of receiving plenary forgiveness.
31. One who _bona fide_ buys indulgence is a rare as a _bona fide_ penitent man, i.e. very rare indeed.32. All those who believe themselves certain of their own salvation by means if letters of indulgence, will be eternally damned, together with their teachers.
33. We should be most carefully on our guard against those who say that the papal indulgences are an inestimable divine gift, and that a man is reconciled to God by them.
34. For the grace conveyed by these indulgences relates simply to the penalties of the sacramental “satisfactions” decreed merely by man.
35. It is not in accordance with Christian doctrines to preach and teach that those who buy off souls, or purchase confessional licenses, have no need to repent of their own sins.36. Any Christian whatsoever, who is truly repentant, enjoys plenary remission from penalty and guilt, and this is given him without letters of indulgence.
37. Any true Christian whatsoever, living or dead, participates in all the benefits of Christ and the Church; and this participation is granted to him by God without letters of indulgence.
38. Yet the Pope's remission and dispensation are in no way to be despised, form as already said, they proclaim the divine remission.
39. It is very difficult, even for the most learned theologians, to extol to the people the great bounty contained in the indulgences, while, at the same time, praising contrition as a virtue.
40. A truly contrite sinner seeks out, and loves to pay, the penalties of his sins; whereas the very multitude of indulgences dulls men's consciences, and tends to make them hate the penalties.
41. Papal indulgences should only be preached with caution, lest people gain a wrong understanding, and think that they are preferable to other good works: those of love.42. Christians should be taught that the Pope does not at all intend that the purchase of indulgences should be understood as at all comparable with the works of mercy.
43. Christians should be taught that one who gives to the poor, or lends to the needy, does a better action than if he purchases indulgences.
44. Because, by works of love, love grows and a man becomes a better man; whereas, by indulgences, he does not become a better man, but only escapes certain penalties.
45. Christians should be taught that he who sees a needy person, but passes him by although he gives money for indulgences, gains no benefit from the Pope's pardon, but only incurs the wrath of God.
46. Christians should be taught that, unless they have more than they need, they are bound to retain what is only necessary for the upkeep of their home, and should in no way squander it on indulgences.
47. Christians should be taught that they purchase indulgences voluntarily, and are not under obligation to do so.48. Christians should be taught that, in granting indulgences, the Pope has more need, and more desire, for devout prayer on his own behalf than for ready money.
49. Christians should be taught that the Pope's indulgences are useful only if one does not rely on them, but most harmful if one loses the fear of God through them.
50. Christians should be taught that, if the Pope knew the exactions of the indulgence-preachers, he would rather the church of St. Peter were reduced to ashes than be built with the skin, flesh, and bones of the sheep.
51. Christians should be taught that the Pope would be willing, as he ought if necessity should arise, to sell the church of St. Peter, and give, too, his own money to many of those whom the pardon-merchants conjure money.
52. It is vain to rely on salvation by letters if indulgence, even if the commissary, or indeed the Pope himself, were to pledge his own soul for their validity.53. Those are enemies of Christ and the Pope who forbid the word of God to be preached at all in some churches, in order that indulgences may be preached in others.
54. The word of God suffers injury if, in the same sermon, an equal or longer time is devoted to indulgences than to that word.
55. The Pope cannot help taking the view that if indulgences (very small matters) are celebrated by one bell, one pageant, or one ceremony, the gospel (a very great matter) should be preached to the accompaniment of a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies.
56. The treasures of the church, out of which the Pope dispenses indulgences, are not sufficiently spoken of or known among the people of Christ.
57. That these treasures are note temporal are clear from the fact that many of the merchants do not grant them freely, but only collect them.
58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and the saints, because, even apart from the Pope, these merits are always working grace in the inner man, and working the cross, death, and hell in the outer man.
59. St. Laurence said that the poor were the treasures of the church, but he used the term in accordance with the custom of his own time.
60. We do not speak rashly in saying that the treasures of the church are the keys of the church, and are bestowed by the merits of Christ.
61. For it is clear that the power of the Pope suffices, by itself, for the remission of penalties and reserved cases.
62. The true treasure of the church is the Holy gospel of the glory and the grace of God.
63. It is right to regard this treasure as most odious, for it makes the first to be the last.
64. On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is most acceptable, for it makes the last to be the first.
65. Therefore the treasures of the gospel are nets which, in former times, they used to fish for men of wealth.
66. The treasures of the indulgences are the nets to-day which they use to fish for men of wealth.
67. The indulgences, which the merchants extol as the greatest of favors, are seen to be, in fact, a favorite means for money-getting.
68. Nevertheless, they are not to be compared with the grace of God and the compassion shown in the Cross.
69. Bishops and curates, in duty bound, must receive the commissaries of the papal indulgences with all reverence;
70. But they are under a much greater obligation to watch closely and attend carefully lest these men preach their own fancies instead of what the Pope commissioned.
71. Let him be anathema and accursed who denies the apostolic character of the indulgences.
72. On the other hand, let him be blessed who is on his guard against the wantonness and license of the pardon-merchant's words.
73. In the same way, the Pope rightly excommunicates those who make any plans to the detriment of the trade in indulgences.
74. It is much more in keeping eith his views to excommunicate those who use the pretext of indulgences to plot anything to the detriment of holy love and truth.
75. It is foolish to think that papal indulgences have so much power that they can absolve a man even if he has done the i
mpossible and violated the mother of God.
76. We assert the contrary, and say that the Pope's pardons are not able to remove the least venial of sins as far as their guilt is concerned.
77. When it is said that not even St. Peter, if he were now Pope, could grant a greater grace, it is blasphemy against St. Peter and the Pope.
78. We assert the contrary, and say that he, and any Pope whatever, possesses greater graces, viz., the gospel, spiritual powers, gifts of healing, etc., as is declared in I Corinthians 12 [:28].
79. It is blasphemy to say that the insignia of the cross with the papal arms are of equal value to the cross on which Christ died.
80. The bishops, curates, and theologians, who permit assertions of that kind to be made to the people without let or hindrance, will have to answer for it.
81. This unbridled preaching of indulgences makes it difficult for learned men to guard the respect due to the Pope against false accusations, or at least from the keen criticisms of the laity;
82. They ask, e.g.: Why does not the Pope liberate everyone from purgatory for the sake of love (a most holy thing) and because of the supreme necessity of their souls? This would be morally the best of all reasons. Meanwhile he redeems innumerable souls for money, a most perishable thing, with which to build St. Peter's church, a very minor purpose.83. Again: Why should funeral and anniversary masses for the dead continue to be said? And why does not the Pope repay, or permit to be repaid, the benefactions instituted for these purposes, since it is wrong to pray for those souls who are now redeemed?
84. Again: Surely this is a new sort of compassion, on the part of God and the Pope, when an impious man, an enemy of God, is allowed to pay money to redeem a devout soul, a friend of God; while yet that devout and beloved soul is not allowed to be redeemed without payment, for love's sake, and just because of its need of redemption.
85. Again: Why are the penitential canon laws, which in fact, if not in practice, have long been obsolete and dead in themselves,-why are they, to-day, still used in imposing fines in money, through the granting of indulgences, as if all the penitential canons were fully operative?
86. Again: since the Pope's income to-day is larger than that of the wealthiest of wealthy men, why does he not build this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of indigent believers?
87. Again: What does the Pope remit or dispense to people who, by their perfect penitence, have a right to plenary remission or dispensation?88. Again: Surely a greater good could be done to the church if the Pope were to bestow these remissions and dispensations, not once, as now, but a hundred times a day, for the benefit of any believer whatever.
89. What the Pope seeks by indulgences is not money, but rather the salvation of souls; why then does he not suspend the letters and indulgences formerly conceded, and still as efficacious as ever?
90. These questions are serious matters of conscience to the laity. To suppress them by force alone, and not to refute them by giving reasons, is to expose the church and the Pope to the ridicule of their enemies, and to make Christian people unhappy.
91. If therefore, indulgences were preached in accordance with the spirit and mind of the Pope, all these difficulties would be easily overcome, and indeed, cease to exist.
92. Away, then, with those prophets who say to Christ's people, “Peace, peace,” where in there is no peace.
93. Hail, hail to all those prophets who say to Christ's people, “The cross, the cross,” where there is no cross.94. Christians should be exhorted to be zealous to follow Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and hells;
95. And let them thus be more confident of entering heaven through many tribulations rather than through a false assurance of peace.
October 31, 1517
Source: Dillenberger, John. Martin Luther: A Selection From His Writings. Garden City: Doubleday, 1961.
[/U]The above “95 Thesis” of Luther speaks for itself. Only now we need a reformed reformed thesis huh?
I guess bro I am needing some guidance. Who are you? That I don't know and likewise do not know how old you are, where you're from, how many “credentials” you have…blah, blah, blah. I really do not need to know these trivial things, I guess my questions are merely rethorical. What I do know sir is when I was reading what you said back in 2002 I was smiling. FINALLY someone who feels the way I do!!!Here is a little e-mail I sent to my wife yesterday after she talked to a Catholic Priest friend of ours:
Casey Smith wrote:
Maybe it is obssessive compulsive? I switch beliefs so quickly it is almost scary. I just don't know what to think anymore. I think this system I have gotten down will help immensly though. I need to STUDY and SEARCH (look up every verse given the defense of that position) to help me decide where I stand on the Godhead and who Jesus really is to me. Is He God? Is He One of God? Or is he merely a Son who was created in eternity past eions ago? Yes, I am wishy washy but I am passionate also.
Maybe this will help you understand. I believe almost assuredly the following premisses:Man is NOT created with and immortal Spirit but is given one when he or she is born of the Spirit. Adam and Eve lost that Spirit (they died) when they disobeyed. We cannot lose the Spirit since we have been sealed until the day of redemption. The wicked will be resurrected unto condemnation. They will weep and gnash their teeth at judgment day for their sins and for being in the presence of a Holy God they will not be able to withstand. They will be tossed into the Lake of Fire and destroyed forever. Not having an immortal Spirit they will not continue in eternity in suffering but will be annihilated forever…gone from existance.
Having said that, I do not believe we can talk or commune with the dead since the dead cannot hear. I believe that when we die we will be with Jesus not at the moment but at the resurrection. Like sleeping at night or surgery, it will be so fast it will seem as if we went straight into His presence.
I believe in the five points of Calvin, and believe in predestination.
I believe that Baptism should be done in Jesus Name for that is how the Apostles baptized and the early Church baptized for the first couple of centuries until the “Trinity” and titles of the Father Son and Holy Spirit were being emphazied.
I believe in Scripture that Christ shares the glory of God the Father and is seen to be worshipped…in some way though I do not understand this all.
I believe that the power of the Holy Spirit can enable one to do things that are not natural to humans such as healings and speaking in different languages and that in that power one is not able to stand do to the holiness that has minutely engulfed their flesh.
I believe that holidays we celebrate are not condemned by God so Christimas is ok depending on the motive. I like haunted houses because I like the adrenaline rush I get from being scared like jumping out of a plane but do not glorify monsters as such.
I believe God intends for man to enjoy a day of rest but do not see any problem in distiguishing what day be it Saturday or Monday even.
Now here is the main problem…When any of these tenets is presented in a given denomination or group I investigate as to why they do not adhere to other things I believe in and wonder if they are right and I am wrong and therefore question what my beliefs are and how I got to that belief. For instance the JW do not believe in hell nor to 7th Day Adventist or the Worlwide Church of God.
The Trinity is a HUGE problem and therefore is a main concern. Reitterating that the Godhead is SO important it determines much of where I will worship. It seems that most nerely none of the groups I seem to
find not adhere to much of what I believe and some of what I believe can be compromised (such as what day of worship, predestination…etc,etc) others I cannot and should no longer compromise such as the immortal spirit of man being wrong. However, there are evangelicals that teach this but where they teach I do not know.My biggest issue though is the Trinity and what Bible I should be using. That is a big deal to me. Don't ask me why but it is. It is just that when I look for God in His Word I want to be confident that what I am reading IS His Word and not question what I am reading is wrong. I am pretty sure that the manuscripts of the KJV are most likely not the best to choose from and therefore the KJV would not be my choice of a Bible. There is a plethora of Bible Translators and theologians who have credentials and degrees in this field that have concluded such and who am I to question them?
Then lastly my experience at Criswell really has caused me to question much of modern day Baptists. I know I shouldn't throw the baby out with the dirtly bath water, it just seems that my unpleasant experiences there cause me to want to not be appart of them at all.
And I believe that Rome is SO wrong on much of their teachings that I question why many denominations (her daughters) have held to her other tenets such as Baptism in the titles, The Trinity, and the immortal soul…etc,etc.
Maybe I am obssessive compulsive…I like to think I am passionate for the truth.
“Smith, Donna M.”
I spoke with Father Michael for about 15 minutes this morning. I am going to go ahead and finish the annulment because it is going to be really easy. It will only take a few months (2-5) or shorter because we weren't baptized. They pretty much just need to call Nathan and send him a form to fill out and that is about it. He recommended that even if I wasn't going to do RCIA to continue with it for closure. We had a long conversation about your “search” for the true church and correct doctrine. He said that he figured we bailed since we haven't been there. He asked if you were obsessive compulsive? Apparently he could since something visiting with you and the roller coaster that you have been on. Did you talk to him at all about your disorder? He wasn't being mean and I know emails appear to be what they aren't so don't take offense to it. I just thought it was ironic since I asked you that the other night.
Well T8, here it is man. Can you help me bro?
Hi casey,
You say
“Man is NOT created with and immortal Spirit but is given one when he or she is born of the Spirit. Adam and Eve lost that Spirit (they died) when they disobeyed. We cannot lose the Spirit since we have been sealed until the day of redemption”
Adam and Eve were not born of the Spirit of God but the breath of God and they died and that spirit returned to God. No man receives that Spirit of God from man but from Jesus, from above and it is the Spirit of lfe unto eternity.You say
“Now here is the main problem…When any of these tenets is presented in a given denomination or group I investigate as to why they do not adhere to other things I believe in and wonder if they are right and I am wrong and therefore question what my beliefs are and how I got to that belief. For instance the JW do not believe in hell nor to 7th Day Adventist or the Worlwide Church of God”Check out their salvation page. If they do not teach rebirth by water and the Spirit then all the rest they teach are irrelevant as they are pointlessly teaching the lost.
No point in building unless the proper foundation is laid.
Matt 6.33
” 33But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.”
Hope this helpsHi,
This is a thread about the confusion some men have got themselves into by imagining the bible says Jesus is Michael. It says no such thing.Check out their salvation page. If they do not teach rebirth by water and the Spirit then all the rest they teach are irrelevant as they are pointlessly teaching the lost.
No point in building unless the proper foundation is laid.
Matt 6.33
” 33But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.”
Hope this helps …Ok, Nick, I am getting a feel of your beliefs. Your use of the KJV Only and your belief of the Water and Spirit being the method of Salvation (assuming you are taking the stance of baptism for water) I am going to assume you are Oneness Pentecostal.
Hi casey,
We do not follow men and their denominations.
We are not meant to do that but to come out of her and to follow Jesus and abide in the Word.
We are not Oneness and do not fit in any of the boxes made by men but we are known of God.
That foolish doctrine, along with trinity doctrine, denies that Jesus is the Son of God.
Both human doctrinal fabrications are not based on scriptural teaching and deny God had a true Son and so we abhor both.Scripture says eternal life is in the Son and through the Son and such faith is essential. To deny Jesus is the Son of God is to also insult God and call Him a liar by saying He is not the Father Jesus spoke of.
I do not use KJV only but find it an imperfect but useful bible version.
We follow Jesus, not man.
He was reborn of water and the Spirit.That Jesus is the Son of God is a vital foundation of faith.
Jesus is the only foundation stone that can be laid and the rock of scripture is the only recommended base to build on so we try to follow the instructions laid down by the Master Builder.
Hi,
Michael is not the mediator between God and man
Michael is not an everlasting priest.
Michael is not the only begotten Son of God.Neither is any angel including the angel of the Lord IMHO
Well I am not sure who your last reply was meant for but I do not hold to Micahel was anything in relation to Christ.
You said we are to come out of her, meaning Babylon. To which I say touche', however we come out of her and go where? Not an intenty within ourself. We are not our own denomination. We HAVE to belong to a group of believers. We are commanded to according to Hebrews to not forsake the gathering of ourselves. You have to go somewhere. Where do YOU go?Quote (Casey S Smith 29 @ Oct. 02 2006,22:05) Well I am not sure who your last reply was meant for but I do not hold to Micahel was anything in relation to Christ.
You said we are to come out of her, meaning Babylon. To which I say touche', however we come out of her and go where? Not an intenty within ourself. We are not our own denomination. We HAVE to belong to a group of believers. We are commanded to according to Hebrews to not forsake the gathering of ourselves. You have to go somewhere. Where do YOU go?
Hi casey,
You must be established in Jesus on the Rock and blessed by the Spirit. Then ask him who you should walk with and he, your Lord, will guide you.Do not be so insecure to think you need a rebellious denomination to guide and teach you, as he will open the pages of the bible to you unto eternal life.
the last post was to redirect this thread to it's origins.
Quote To which I say touche', however we come out of her and go where? Not an intenty within ourself. We are not our own denomination. We HAVE to belong to a group of believers.
Yes, Casey, this is one of the commn beliefs of this forum and of Nick and T8. There's the non-trinitarianism. And there's the non-denominational denomination. It's called Heaven Net. It's anti-group. Once you get organized, they say, you are in the wrong. It's fine to meet together with fellow believers they say (in fact, believers who believe quite differently than themselves) as long as it doesn't become organized.
There's a ton of scriptures that speak of true Christians meeting together, encouraging one another. The first century congregation was organized, as was Israel. As are God's people today.
Nick is the only one I've ever met that believes exactly as Nick does. Even the other administrator on here disagrees with him on a few things. Nick, for example believes that God torments people in fire for all time because of the sins of a few years. He has not come to know God's love. Yet, the other adminstrator, the super administrator disagrees with this. So what we have is everyone believing what they want to.
True Christians would hold to true beliefs. When two disagree, one must be wrong. Nick is wrong when it comes to non-denominationalism. Yes, the Bible condemns divisions and sects and false religion, but being organized in itself is not wrong.david
Hi david,
When are you going to follow the Spirit and come out of the JW's because their false teachings, such as Jesus being just an angel, are offensive to God?Nick, you claiming that Jehovah, a God of love would torture people with fire alive for all time is the most offensive thing I can possibly imagine.
It paints God as a cruel vindictive monster. It slanders God and all he stands for: Justice, Love, etc.
When are you going to realize this most fundamental truth: God is love?
david
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
