- This topic has 25,959 replies, 116 voices, and was last updated 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 21 2012,08:50) You guys simply pretend not to see because you know that seeing will spoil your man-made doctrine. If the spirit will take FROM what belongs to Jesus, then the spirit is NOT Jesus himself. If the spirit will bring glory TO Jesus, then the spirit is NOT Jesus himself.
Hi MB,
NOW the Lord IS the SpiritQuote (kerwin @ May 02 2012,17:36) Colter, Quote However, many liberal biblical scholars argue that 2 Timothy was not written by Paul but by an anonymous follower, after Paul's death in the First Century.[1] The word “liberal” damages the creditability of the Scholar as it declares her biased. In addition when you have a disagreement among experts it is a fallacious logical argument to call on their authority.
The Law and the Prophets do declare they are God breathed. David is a prophet and so his words are considered to be from God and so are Solomon’s who was given Wisdom of God. God breathed may take a different slant in the rest of the Writings in being the words of honest men. Whatever the case, I know for a fact that they are all useful for “for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” as the proof is in the pudding.
I look for that which teaches me how to love as God loves and those lessons make it clear that God is teaching me; no matter what tool he chooses to use. The experts look to destroy faith with their meaningless suppositions.
HI Kerwin,Jesus was Liberal, closed minded religious men sought to stop his liberal message by killing him. They were moral cowards, they knew the scripture was not written by God but still relied upon it to withstand the liberal teachings of Jesus.
Yes, a Liberal scholar could have untrue, unscientific motives to discredit faith or they could have good motives in the quest fore truth, which, in the end only discredits superstition not living truth.
When the elite priest class edited the OT books, they left clues of their editing and multiple authors. Naturally you don't want to hear that because you still cling to the religion of authority. So you will try to discredit the messenger.
Your reliance on the writings of men, accredited to God, would have put you in the same unenviable position of rejecting Jesus.
We now know from the most recent revelation to our world what the true story of David was.
Hebrew History
(1071.6) 97:9.1 There never were twelve tribes of the Israelites — only three or four tribes settled in Palestine. The Hebrew nation came into being as the result of the union of the so-called Israelites and the Canaanites. “And the children of Israel dwelt among the Canaanites. And they took their daughters to be their wives and gave their daughters to the sons of the Canaanites.” The Hebrews never drove the Canaanites out of Palestine, notwithstanding that the priests’ record of these things unhesitatingly declared that they did.
(1071.7) 97:9.2 The Israelitish consciousness took origin in the hill country of Ephraim; the later Jewish consciousness originated in the southern clan of Judah. The Jews (Judahites) always sought to defame and blacken the record of the northern Israelites (Ephraimites).
(1072.1) 97:9.3 Pretentious Hebrew history begins with Saul’s rallying the northern clans to withstand an attack by the Ammonites upon their fellow tribesmen — the Gileadites — east of the Jordan. With an army of a little more than three thousand he defeated the enemy, and it was this exploit that led the hill tribes to make him king. When the exiled priests rewrote this story, they raised Saul’s army to 330,000 and added “Judah” to the list of tribes participating in the battle.
(1072.2) 97:9.4 Immediately following the defeat of the Ammonites, Saul was made king by popular election by his troops. No priest or prophet participated in this affair. But the priests later on put it in the record that Saul was crowned king by the prophet Samuel in accordance with divine directions. This they did in order to establish a “divine line of descent” for David’s Judahite kingship.
(1072.3) 97:9.5 The greatest of all distortions of Jewish history had to do with David. After Saul’s victory over the Ammonites (which he ascribed to Yahweh) the Philistines became alarmed and began attacks on the northern clans. David and Saul never could agree. David with six hundred men entered into a Philistine alliance and marched up the coast to Esdraelon. At Gath the Philistines ordered David off the field; they feared he might go over to Saul. David retired; the Philistines attacked and defeated Saul. They could not have done this had David been loyal to Israel. David’s army was a polyglot assortment of malcontents, being for the most part made up of social misfits and fugitives from justice.
(1072.4) 97:9.6 Saul’s tragic defeat at Gilboa by the Philistines brought Yahweh to a low point among the gods in the eyes of the surrounding Canaanites. Ordinarily, Saul’s defeat would have been ascribed to apostasy from Yahweh, but this time the Judahite editors attributed it to ritual errors. They required the tradition of Saul and Samuel as a background for the kingship of David.
(1072.5) 97:9.7 David with his small army made his headquarters at the non-Hebrew city of Hebron. Presently his compatriots proclaimed him king of the new kingdom of Judah. Judah was made up mostly of non-Hebrew elements — Kenites, Calebites, Jebusites, and other Canaanites. They were nomads — herders — and so were devoted to the Hebrew idea of land ownership. They held the ideologies of the desert clans.
(1072.6) 97:9.8 The difference between sacred and profane history is well illustrated by the two differing stories concerning making David king as they are found in the Old Testament. A part of the secular story of how his immediate followers (his army) made him king was inadvertently left in the record by the priests who subsequently prepared the lengthy and prosaic account of the sacred history wherein is depicted how the prophet Samuel, by divine direction, selected David from among his brethren and proceeded formally and by elaborate and solemn ceremonies to anoint him king over the Hebrews and then to proclaim him Saul’s successor.
(1072.7) 97:9.9 So many times did the priests, after preparing their fictitious narratives of God’s miraculous dealings with Israel, fail fully to delete the plain and matter-of-fact statements which already rested in the records.
(1072.8) 97:9.10 David sought to build himself up politically by first marrying Saul’s daughter, then the widow of Nabal the rich Edomite, and then the daughter of Talmai, the king of Geshur. He took six wives from the women of Jebus, not to mention Bathsheba, the wife of the Hittite.
(1073.1) 97:9.11 And it was by such methods and out of such people that David built up the fiction of a divine kingdom of Judah as the successor of the heritage and traditions of the vanishing northern kingdom of Ephraimite Israel. David’s cosmopolitan tribe of Judah was more gentile than Jewish; nevertheless the oppressed elders of Ephraim came down and “anointed him king of Israel.” After a military threat, David then made a compact with the Jebusites and established his capital of the united kingdom at Jebus (Jerusalem), which was a strong-walled city midway between Judah and Israel. The Philistines were aroused and soon attacked David. After a fierce battle they were defeated, and once more Yahweh was established as “The Lord God of Hosts.”
(1073.2) 97:9.12 But Yahweh must, perforce, share some of this glory with the Canaanite gods, for the bulk of David’s army was non-Hebrew. And so there appears in your record (overlooked by the Judahite editors) this telltale statement: “Yahweh has broken my enemies before me. The
refore he called the name of the place Baal-Perazim.” And they did this because eighty per cent of David’s soldiers were Baalites.(1073.3) 97:9.13 David explained Saul’s defeat at Gilboa by pointing out that Saul had attacked a Canaanite city, Gibeon, whose people had a peace treaty with the Ephraimites. Because of this, Yahweh forsook him. Even in Saul’s time David had defended the Canaanite city of Keilah against the Philistines, and then he located his capital in a Canaanite city. In keeping with the policy of compromise with the Canaanites, David turned seven of Saul’s descendants over to the Gibeonites to be hanged.
(1073.4) 97:9.14 After the defeat of the Philistines, David gained possession of the “ark of Yahweh,” brought it to Jerusalem, and made the worship of Yahweh official for his kingdom. He next laid heavy tribute on the neighboring tribes — the Edomites, Moabites, Ammonites, and Syrians.
(1073.5) 97:9.15 David’s corrupt political machine began to get personal possession of land in the north in violation of the Hebrew mores and presently gained control of the caravan tariffs formerly collected by the Philistines. And then came a series of atrocities climaxed by the murder of Uriah. All judicial appeals were adjudicated at Jerusalem; no longer could “the elders” mete out justice. No wonder rebellion broke out. Today, Absalom might be called a demagogue; his mother was a Canaanite. There were a half dozen contenders for the throne besides the son of Bathsheba — Solomon.
(1073.6) 97:9.16 After David’s death Solomon purged the political machine of all northern influences but continued all of the tyranny and taxation of his father’s regime. Solomon bankrupted the nation by his lavish court and by his elaborate building program: There was the house of Lebanon, the palace of Pharaoh’s daughter, the temple of Yahweh, the king’s palace, and the restoration of the walls of many cities. Solomon created a vast Hebrew navy, operated by Syrian sailors and trading with all the world. His harem numbered almost one thousand.
(1073.7) 97:9.17 By this time Yahweh’s temple at Shiloh was discredited, and all the worship of the nation was centered at Jebus in the gorgeous royal chapel. The northern kingdom returned more to the worship of Elohim. They enjoyed the favor of the Pharaohs, who later enslaved Judah, putting the southern kingdom under tribute.
(1073.8) 97:9.18 There were ups and downs — wars between Israel and Judah. After four years of civil war and three dynasties, Israel fell under the rule of city despots who began to trade in land. Even King Omri attempted to buy Shemer’s estate. But the end drew on apace when Shalmaneser III decided to control the Mediterranean coast. King Ahab of Ephraim gathered ten other groups and resisted at Karkar; the battle was a draw. The Assyrian was stopped but the allies were decimated. This great fight is not even mentioned in the Old Testament.
(1074.1) 97:9.19 New trouble started when King Ahab tried to buy land from Naboth. His Phoenician wife forged Ahab’s name to papers directing that Naboth’s land be confiscated on the charge that he had blasphemed the names of “Elohim and the king.” He and his sons were promptly executed. The vigorous Elijah appeared on the scene denouncing Ahab for the murder of the Naboths. Thus Elijah, one of the greatest of the prophets, began his teaching as a defender of the old land mores as against the land-selling attitude of the Baalim, against the attempt of the cities to dominate the country. But the reform did not succeed until the country landlord Jehu joined forces with the gypsy chieftain Jehonadab to destroy the prophets (real estate agents) of Baal at Samaria.
(1074.2) 97:9.20 New life appeared as Jehoash and his son Jeroboam delivered Israel from its enemies. But by this time there ruled in Samaria a gangster-nobility whose depredations rivaled those of the Davidic dynasty of olden days. State and church went along hand in hand. The attempt to suppress freedom of speech led Elijah, Amos, and Hosea to begin their secret writing, and this was the real beginning of the Jewish and Christian Bibles.
(1074.3) 97:9.21 But the northern kingdom did not vanish from history until the king of Israel conspired with the king of Egypt and refused to pay further tribute to Assyria. Then began the three years’ siege followed by the total dispersion of the northern kingdom. Ephraim (Israel) thus vanished. Judah — the Jews, the “remnant of Israel” — had begun the concentration of land in the hands of the few, as Isaiah said, “Adding house to house and field to field.” Presently there was in Jerusalem a temple of Baal alongside the temple of Yahweh. This reign of terror was ended by a monotheistic revolt led by the boy king Joash, who crusaded for Yahweh for thirty-five years.
(1074.4) 97:9.22 The next king, Amaziah, had trouble with the revolting tax-paying Edomites and their neighbors. After a signal victory he turned to attack his northern neighbors and was just as signally defeated. Then the rural folk revolted; they assassinated the king and put his sixteen-year-old son on the throne. This was Azariah, called Uzziah by Isaiah. After Uzziah, things went from bad to worse, and Judah existed for a hundred years by paying tribute to the kings of Assyria. Isaiah the first told them that Jerusalem, being the city of Yahweh, would never fall. But Jeremiah did not hesitate to proclaim its downfall.
(1074.5) 97:9.23 The real undoing of Judah was effected by a corrupt and rich ring of politicians operating under the rule of a boy king, Manasseh. The changing economy favored the return of the worship of Baal, whose private land dealings were against the ideology of Yahweh. The fall of Assyria and the ascendancy of Egypt brought deliverance to Judah for a time, and the country folk took over. Under Josiah they destroyed the Jerusalem ring of corrupt politicians. *
(1074.6) 97:9.24 But this era came to a tragic end when Josiah presumed to go out to intercept Necho’s mighty army as it moved up the coast from Egypt for the aid of Assyria against Babylon. He was wiped out, and Judah went under tribute to Egypt. The Baal political party returned to power in Jerusalem, and thus began the real Egyptian bondage. Then ensued a period in which the Baalim politicians controlled both the courts and the priesthood. Baal worship was an economic and social system dealing with property rights as well as having to do with soil fertility.
(1075.1) 97:9.25 With the overthrow of Necho by Nebuchadnezzar, Judah fell under the rule of Babylon and was given ten years of grace, but soon rebelled. When Nebuchadnezzar came against them, the Judahites started social reforms, such as releasing slaves, to influence Yahweh. When the Babylonian army temporarily withdrew, the Hebrews rejoiced that their magic of reform had delivered them. It was during this period that Jeremiah told them of the impending doom, and presently Nebuchadnezzar returned.
(1075.2) 97:9.26 And so the end of Judah came suddenly. The city was destroyed, and the people were carried away into Babylon. The Yahweh-Baal struggle ended with the captivity. And the captivity shocked the remnant of Israel into monotheism.
(1075.3) 97:9.27 In Babylon the Jews arrived at the conclusion that they could not exist as a small group in Palestine, having their own peculiar social and economic customs, and that, if their ideologies were to prevail, they must convert the gentiles. Thus originated their new concept of destiny — the idea that the Jews must become the chosen servants of Yahweh. The Jewish religion of the Old Testament really evolved in Babylon during the captivity.
(1075.4) 97:9.28 The doctrine of immortality also took form at Babylon. The Jews had thought that the idea of the future life detracted from the emphasis of their gospel of social justice. Now for the first time theology displaced sociology and economics. Religion was taking shape as a system of human thought an
d conduct more and more to be separated from politics, sociology, and economics.(1075.5) 97:9.29 And so does the truth about the Jewish people disclose that much which has been regarded as sacred history turns out to be little more than the chronicle of ordinary profane history. Judaism was the soil out of which Christianity grew, but the Jews were not a miraculous people.
Colter
This is a tough text. There is disagreement among scholars. I like the translation “…the Word was Divine”.
I believe “the Word” is referring to the Son of God who was uniquely begotten (not created) before all of creation. Any comments?
Hi Colter,
God was with the Israelites but not IN THEM.
That is the difference with the Sons of God.God has always been within any man or women of a sound mind, the distinction becomes ones willingness to surrender to and be lead by the will of God.
Colter
Colter,
Quote Jesus was Liberal, closed minded religious men sought to stop his liberal message by killing him. The social libertarians of Jesus’ time said “eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die”. That sums up their attitude, even today. Jesus, himself, was neither a liberal nor a conservative; as he is the Servant of God. He battled the religious authorities for pointing out the sins of others while embracing a powerful delusion of justification of their own. He accurately interpreted Scriptures according to the law of love which at times came in conflict with the traditions of the Pharisees and others. That interpretation is written into the Law and even the so called Jews of today acknowledge that fact.
He chose to sacrifice himself at the hands of the religious and secular authorities of his day. He made that choice so each person could choose by faith to have God dwell in them through his Spirit of Love.
Contrary to your words, it has instead not been natural for God to live in man through the Spirit of true Love since we fell from grace; that is why without both God and Jesus we fall short of the glory of loving as God loves.
Quote (charity @ May 02 2012,14:20) Quote (jammin @ May 02 2012,16:42) are there still misunderstanding here?
the illusion boys are still insisting that the word in john 1.1 is the HS.i suggest they should make their own bible LOL
are you sitting On the right hand or Jesus? On Johns Knee…your forbidding people to attack the battle before its won? or perhaps
your trying to see if its been won?
never the less, the days should be used in checking wither ones own way that seemeth right, will be fitting for the Lord!
Charity,If I understood you correctly; your words here are very good.
Quote (jammin @ May 01 2012,23:42) are there still misunderstanding here?
the illusion boys are still insisting that the word in john 1.1 is the HS.i suggest they should make their own bible LOL
jammin,I came across this verse in my daily Bible reading today:
Acts 8:14
Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them.The Greek word used is “logos”, just as in John 1:1. But does it refer to “the Holy Spirit”, as Ed claims it does in 1:1?
Acts 8:15
These two went down and prayed for them so that they would receive the Holy Spirit.Verse 15 proves that “the word of God” in verse 14 does not refer to the Holy Spirit.
This also shoots down Paladin's and Kerwin's insistence that “logos” always means one thing while “rhema” always means something else.
The truth is that they are both Greek words that mean “word” – and usually refer to any spoken or written word by ANYONE.
But since we know that Jesus has the title “the Word of God” in Rev 19:13, and since we know that Jesus was made into the likeness of a human being from Phil 2, and since we know that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God from many scriptures………………….. it shouldn't really take a rocket scientist to figure out that the one who was called “the Word” and became flesh, and had the glory of God's only begotten Son in John 1 is Jesus.
These other guys that are posting in this thread have no SCRIPTURAL reason to deny that John 1:1 and 1:14 speak of Jesus. It's just that they don't WANT it to be speaking of Jesus because they WANT Jesus to have been exactly like them. That way, they can feel more empowered to accomplish the things their Master accomplised. Why in the world any of them think they could ever fill the sandals of Jesus is beyond my comprehension.
Quote (kerwin @ May 03 2012,07:31) Colter, Quote Jesus was Liberal, closed minded religious men sought to stop his liberal message by killing him. The social libertarians of Jesus’ time said “eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die”. That sums up their attitude, even today. Jesus, himself, was neither a liberal nor a conservative; as he is the Servant of God. He battled the religious authorities for pointing out the sins of others while embracing a powerful delusion of justification of their own. He accurately interpreted Scriptures according to the law of love which at times came in conflict with the traditions of the Pharisees and others. That interpretation is written into the Law and even the so called Jews of today acknowledge that fact.
He chose to sacrifice himself at the hands of the religious and secular authorities of his day. He made that choice so each person could choose by faith to have God dwell in them through his Spirit of Love.
Contrary to your words it has not been natural for God to live in man through the Spirit of true Love since we fell from grace; that is why without both God and Jesus we fall short of the glory of loving as God loves.
Not the Rush Limbaugh kind of Liberal or Conservative silly man. Your concepts are confused with the popular political divisions in American political discourse.Jesus liberated man from the grueling bondage of institutional religion and set him free to have a faith based relationship with a personal God. The law was man made.
God has always been available for those who seek him, as Jesus rightly said, not everyone was in need of a physician.
Colter
Revelation 19:13
He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.Who is this about? We ALL (except of course for Ed) agree that this verse speaks of JESUS.
John 1:1a
In the beginning was the Word [of God]………..Who is this about? It seems that only a few here can grasp the connection between Rev 19:13 and John 1:1, but nevertheless, this verse is also about JESUS.
Hebrews 2:14
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;Who likewise partook of flesh since the children were also flesh? We all agree this speaks of JESUS, right?
John 1:14a
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us……Although we can all agree that Jesus partook of flesh, most of us here can't grasp that John 1:14 is saying the same exact thing as Hebrews 2:14 says – that the Word partook of flesh. Nevertheless, the fact still remains that the one who became flesh is JESUS.
John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.Who is God's only begotten Son? Is it not JESUS?
John 1:14
……..we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.The Word who “became flesh” is the same one who dwelled on earth with the glory of God's only begotten. And we all know who God's only begotten is – yet most of us here can't grasp this connection.
John 1:15
John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’”John the Baptist said these words about the one who was identified as “the Word [of God]” in verse 14.
John 1:30
This is the one I meant when I said, ‘A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’A few verses later, John the Baptist says the very same words about one who is identified as “Jesus”.
I have no doubt at all in my mind that you non-preexisters CAN see these similarities. And since I know that you CAN see them, I likewise suspect that you PRETEND that you can't see them because you don't WANT to see them. And the only reason you don't WANT to see them is because they mess up your comfortable little “Jesus was just like ME!” dream.
Quote (kerwin @ May 01 2012,23:53) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 02 2012,04:17) Quote (Colter @ May 01 2012,13:06) Kerwin< 2 Timothy 3:16 (“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” ) was not yet “scripture” when it was written.
But the entire Old Testament, including the great flood of Noah's day, was a part of the “All scripture” that Paul said was God-breathed, right?
Mike,I believe that that particular Scripture means the whole old testament which is divided into the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. The books of the new testament came later.
It seems as if you, I, and Colter are in agreement on that point.When Paul wrote that letter, the letter he was writing (and what we now call the New Testament) was not yet considered “scripture”.
I agree that Paul referred to the Law and the Prophets.
Hi Colter,
You say
“God has always been within any man or women of a sound mind, the distinction becomes ones willingness to surrender to and be lead by the will of God”So salvation was never necessary and Jesus did not have to die?
God is in all men already- it is just a matter of submission?
I guess you choose who has a sound mind etc.This is another false gospel
Quote (hoofsofbronze @ May 02 2012,06:42) This is a tough text. There is disagreement among scholars. I like the translation “…the Word was Divine”.
I believe “the Word” is referring to the Son of God who was uniquely begotten (not created) before all of creation. Any comments?
Hello – and welcome to Heaven Net.
“The Word was Divine” is apparently not an option because the word “theos” in 1:1c was not written in the adjectival form – and “divine” is an adjective.
The grammatically correct choices remain:
1. THE God (meaning that the Word was the very God he was WITH).
2. A god (meaning that the Word was a powerful spirit being, but not the one John called “THE god” in 1:1b)
Even the 25 Trinitarian scholars who composed NETNotes agree that the Word could not be the God he was with. They write:
The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”)
Colter,
Jesus correctly interpreted Scripture because he inherited the name of the Word of God. He interpreted it in accordance to God’s loving spirit; while those that you call conservatives and liberals interpret it with a spirit that falls short of God’s; with the exception of the remnant that are saints; if there is such a remnant.
Jesus did not come to free us from a religious establishment; he came to free us from being hateful; which is to say free us from our sins.
The Word/Jesus is a lesser god according to the scriptures, Nick.
We are sure that he is called a god in scripture, right? Yet he is not the Most High God who brought him into existence, and who is his own God, right?
So yes, he is a lesser god. But you already know this………..so why do you ask what you already know the answer to?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 03 2012,09:42) Quote (jammin @ May 01 2012,23:42) are there still misunderstanding here?
the illusion boys are still insisting that the word in john 1.1 is the HS.i suggest they should make their own bible LOL
jammin,I came across this verse in my daily Bible reading today:
Acts 8:14
Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them.The Greek word used is “logos”, just as in John 1:1. But does it refer to “the Holy Spirit”, as Ed claims it does in 1:1?
Acts 8:15
These two went down and prayed for them so that they would receive the Holy Spirit.Verse 15 proves that “the word of God” in verse 14 does not refer to the Holy Spirit.
This also shoots down Paladin's and Kerwin's insistence that “logos” always means one thing while “rhema” always means something else.
The truth is that they are both Greek words that mean “word” – and usually refer to any spoken or written word by ANYONE.
But since we know that Jesus has the title “the Word of God” in Rev 19:13, and since we know that Jesus was made into the likeness of a human being from Phil 2, and since we know that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God from many scriptures………………….. it shouldn't really take a rocket scientist to figure out that the one who was called “the Word” and became flesh, and had the glory of God's only begotten Son in John 1 is Jesus.
These other guys that are posting in this thread have no SCRIPTURAL reason to deny that John 1:1 and 1:14 speak of Jesus. It's just that they don't WANT it to be speaking of Jesus because they WANT Jesus to have been exactly like them. That way, they can feel more empowered to accomplish the things their Master accomplised. Why in the world any of them think they could ever fill the sandals of Jesus is beyond my comprehension.
truly mike. these people are just dreaming LOL
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
