- This topic has 25,905 replies, 115 voices, and was last updated 1 day, 21 hours ago by
.
- Posts
- Gene wrote:
[/quote]
Quote Wakeup……….All thing in the earth were brought forth by the Spirit of GOD, does that make them DIVINE or the word of God themselves also.
GENE,
NOT QUITE AS YOU PUT IT!
READ:
Genesis 1:11 And he said:
LET THE EARTH BRING FOURTH
SO IT IS WELL SPECIFIED THAT IT IS NOT THE SPIRIT OF GOD WHICH BROUGHT FORTH THE GREEN HERB AND THE REST, BUT THE EARTH SO GOD CREATED THOSE ELEMENTS!
the green herb, and such as may seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind, which may have seed in itself upon the earth. And it was so done.
12AND THE EARTH BROUGHT FORTH the green herb, and such as yieldeth seed according to its kind, and the tree that beareth fruit having seed each one according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
NOW THE FACT THAT ALL CAME THROUGH THE EARTH, IT ALSO INDICATES THAT SINCE FROM GENESIS 1:2 THERE WAS DARKNESS OVER THE DEEP, WHICH MEANS THAT SATANA WAS IN CONTROL OF THE CENTRE OF THE EARTH, HELL, AS HIS KINGDOM, AND ALSO THE SEA! IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT SATANA WAS IN A WAY INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS OF CREATION!
SO THERE'S NO DOUBT THAT BROUGHT FORTH RELATED TO CREATION IS DEFINITELY NOT IN THE SAME PARAMETERS AS WHEN THEY ARE RELATED TO GOD'S PERSONAL DIVINE THINGS!
NOW LET'S READ WHAT JESUS SAID:
DRB, KJV,
John 8:42 Jesus therefore said to them: If God were your Father, you would indeed love me.
IN THIS FIRST STATEMENT JESUS SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT IF THE JEWS WERE GOD'S CHILDREN, THEY WOULD HAVE LOVED HIM, OBVIOUS BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE HAD THE SAME SPIRIT WITHIN THEM! SO JESUS MEANT THAT HE WAS IN GOD'S BOSOM , HE WAS A SPIRIT WITHIN A SPIRIT!
For from GOD I PROCEEDED, AND CAME;
THEN HE DECLARED THAT HE PROCEEDED, AND CAME; FROM GOD! DIRECTLY !
NOT THROUGH A STATEMENT FROM GOD LIKE THERE IS IN GENESIS: LET THERE BE SO AND SO!
for I came not of myself, BUT HE SENT ME:
THEN HE CONCLUDED AND MADE IT CLEAR THAT HE WAS SENT SO HE EXISTED WITHIN THE FATHER, IN HIS BOSOM, A SPIRIT WITHIN A SPIRIT
SIMILAR TO US,
WE HAVE THE SOUL, WITHIN OUR BODY, AND A SPIRIT WITHIN THE SOUL!
SO AGAIN,DEFINITELY THE WORDS BROUGHT FORTH RELATED TO CREATION,HAS NOTHING IN COMPARISON TO WHAT JESUS SAID AND MEANT REGARDING HIMSELF!
NOW READ THIS STATEMENT FROM JESUS:
John 14:30 I will not now speak many things with you. For the prince of this world cometh, and IN ME HE HAS NOT ANY THING
WE ALL KNOW THAT SATANA'S ABODE IS THE WORLD, IT IS HIS KINGDOM!
SO JESUS MADE IT CLEAR THAT HE HAS NOTHING OF THE WORLD, HE WAS TOTALLY GOD'S! DIVINE!
SO THERE'S NO DOUBT THAT JESUS MEANT THAT HE WAS A DIVINE BEING!
Peace and love in Jesus
Charles
mikeboll64,Mar. wrote:[/quote]
Quote Satan was originally created with “JESUS”, but God will soon destroy him. Mike,
SATANA WITHIN HIM HAS THE WORD THE ETERNAL LIFE, OTHERWISE HE WON'T EXIST!
WHEN GOD ACHIEVES HIS KINGDOM ON THE LAST DAY, AND THE FATHER WOULD BE ALL IN ALL,
SATANA WON'T BE SATANA ANY MORE BUT A HOLY CREATURE LIKE ALL THE ENTIRE CREATURES!
OTHERWISE GOD WOULD FAIL, IF HE WON'T ACHIEVE THE REDEMPTION OF ALL WHATEVER IS CREATED BY THE WORD
SINCE JESUS ASSERTED THAT WHATEVER THE FATHER HAS GIVEN HIM HE WOULD RAISE IT UP ON THE LAST THEY, WHICH IS A REFERENCE TO ALL WHAT GOD CREATED THROUGH HIM
Peace and love in Jesus
Charles
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 16 2014,06:26) Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 14 2014,19:30) Quote In Christian tradition the Trinityis a mystery of faith revealed in scripture, historically being deemed unknowable by unaided human reason and not capable of logical demonstration once revealed, being above reason without being incompatible with the principles of rational thought.
Nick and Wakeup,Please copy and save the bolded part of that statement Kerwin posted. That way you can just paste it to your post as a “fancy way” of telling us that your doctrines are nonsensical BECAUSE the “spiritual truth” shouldn't make sense to human beings.
Here are some more quotes you can copy and save:
The Encyclopedia Americana notes that the doctrine of the Trinity is considered to be “beyond the grasp of human reason.”
Monsignor Eugene Clark says: “God is one, and God is three. Since there is nothing like this in creation, we cannot understand it, but only accept it.”
Cardinal John O’Connor states: “We know that it is a very profound mystery, which we don’t begin to understand.”
And Pope John Paul II speaks of “the inscrutable mystery of God the Trinity.”
Now all you guys have to do is to substitute “The Trinity Doctrine” with whatever nonsensical doctrine you are currently preaching, and use the rest of the words on us.
That way, you guys can sound “learned” when telling us that, although your doctrine is ludicrous, it doesn't “have to make sense to us humans”.
Quote Monsignor Eugene Clark says: “God is one, and God is three.Since there is nothing like this in creation, we cannot understand it, but only accept it.” Mike,
WHAT ARE FIRE, HEATH, AND LIGHT?
Matthew 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into
***everlasting fire, prepared for *the devil* and his
angels***:wakeup.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 16 2014,06:12) Quote (jammin @ Mar. 14 2014,08:24) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 14 2014,08:04)
1. There exists only one Most High God, jammin. Do you agree with that? YES or NO?2. In the beginning, the Word was with that one Most High God. Do you agree with that? YES or NO?
1. if you are talking about the God the father then YES.2.YES………
1. Which other God would I be talking about? Of course I'm talking about the Father. I accept your answer of “YES”.2. So if the Word was WITH the Most High God, and there exists only ONE Most High God, then it is clear that the Word wasn't that Most High God he was WITH.
You can't just say “YES”, and then offer your imagination and wishes that “Jesus was also God”. Your wishes and imaginations don't amount to anything but wishes and imaginations.
You imagine that John 1:1 says that the Word was with “ONE PERSON OF THE GODHEAD” (why you guys say “one person” ,and don't also include “the Holy Spirit person of the Godhead” is beyond me), and the Word was “ONE OF THE OTHER PERSONS OF THE GODHEAD”.
But that is just your wishful thinking, and cannot be discerned from the words John actually wrote.
Quote (jammin @ Mar. 14 2014,08:24) let me post what barclay said about NWT. Barclay: Dr. William Barclay, a leading Greek scholar of the University of Glasgow, Scotland: “The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New testament translations. John 1:1 is translated: '…the Word was a god, ' a translation which is grammatically impossible…It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest.”
poor mike. you have no idea about the greek grammar.
Let's look at what some other people say, jammin:1. Your own source, Daniel Wallace, a Trinitarian, says that John wrote 1:1 in such a way as to keep anyone from identifying “the Word” with “the person of God”. Who is “the person of God”, jammin? Doesn't your doctrine say there are THREE “persons of God”? So why did Wallace only say “the person of God”?
2. The 25 scholars from NETNotes, also Trinitarians, say: Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (qeos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite.
This tells us that “a god” IS INDEED one of the possibilities. They go on to say: 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”)……….
Again, they mention this mysterious “person of God”. And again, that confuses me because Trinitarians believe there are THREE “persons of God”. So what do they mean when they say the Word is not “the person of God”?
3. Scholar William Arnold III says, “You could only derive a Trinitarian interpretation from John 1:1 if you come to this passage with an already developed Trinitarian theology.”
4. Scholar and Greek professor Jason BeDuhn says, “Translators of the KJV, NRSV, NIV, NAB, New American Standard Bible, AB, Good News Bible and LB all approached the text at John 1:1 already believing certain things about the Word…and made sure that the translations came out in accordance with their beliefs….
Ironically, some of these same scholars are quick to charge the New World Translation (NWT) with “doctrinal bias” for translating the verse literally, free of KJV influence, following the sense of the Greek.
It may very well be that the NW translators came to the task of translating John 1:1 with as much bias as the other translators did. It just so happens that their bias corresponds in this case to a more accurate translation of the Greek.
“In fact the KIT [Appendix 2A, p.1139] (Kingdom Interlinear Translation) explanation is perfectly correct according to the best scholarship done on this subject..“
5. Trinitarian scholar Murray J. Harris wrote, “Accordingly, from the point of view of grammar alone, [QEOS HN hO LOGOS] could be rendered “the Word was a god,….”
6. Trinitarian scholar C. H. Dodd says, “……a possible translation of [QEOS EN hO LOGOS]; would be, “The Word was a god”. As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted.”
You see, jammin, the Trinitarian scholars USED TO slam the NWT, and claim that there is NO WAY IN HELL that “the Word was a god” was even possible. But even as they were saying these things, they knew full well that it WAS in fact one of the possible translations of those Greek words.
The later Trinitarian scholars also knew that “the Word was a god” was a completely viable translation of the Greek words. The difference is that these more recent Trinitarian scholars also know that regular people like you and me now have access to that information from the internet – where we DIDN'T have access to it before. So these later scholars can no longer just flat out LIE about it like the earlier ones did. They still throw their jabs at the NWT, saying that while it is possible, it is not the “correct” translation. But they only say that because they are like you, and nonsensically believe that the Son OF God can BE the very God he is the Son OF. They believe this absurdity, and want other knuckleheads to believe it too.
So they still slam the NWT translation, but they no longer can get away with saying that it is IMPOSSIBLE to translate it as “the Word was a god”. And why they all take aim ONLY at the NWT, is beyond me, since there are many other people and translations that have rendered 1:1 similarly:
1966, 2001 The Good News Bible reads: “…and he was the same as God.”
1970, 1989 The Revised English Bible reads: “…and what God was, the Word was.”
1956 The Wuest Expanded Translation reads: “In the beginning the Word was existing. And the Word was in fellowship with God the Father. And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity”
1808 “and the Word was a god” – Thomas Belsham The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Correc
ted Text , London.1864 “and a god was the Word” (left hand column interlinear reading) The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London.
1935 “and the Word was divine” – The Bible—An American Translation, by John M. P. Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago.
1955 “so the Word was divine” – The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen.
1978 “and godlike sort was the Logos” – Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin.
1822 “and the Word was a god.” – The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland, 1822.);
1863 “and the Word was a god.” – A Literal Translation Of The New Testament (Herman Heinfetter [Pseudonym of Frederick Parker], 1863);
1885 “and the Word was a god.” – Concise Commentary On The Holy Bible (R. Young, 1885);
1879 “and the Word was a god.” – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (J. Becker, 1979);
1911 “and the Word was a god.” – The Coptic Version of the N.T. (G. W. Horner, 1911);
1958 “and the Word was a god.” – The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed” (J. L. Tomanec, 1958);
1829 “and the Word was a god.” – The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829);
1975 “and the Word was a god.” – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (S. Schulz, 1975);
1975 “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word” Das Evangelium nach Johnnes, by Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany
I hope you have learned something from this research I did for you.
1. so you agree that it is the father. then it is very clear that we are not talking about the son as God.2. YES bec it is very clear that your question number 1 refers to the father and not the son. but it is also very clear that you do not want to accept Christ as God. albeit wallace said that he is God. hahahhhaha
it is no use mike to include wallace as your reference because HE BELIEVES THAT CHRIST IS GOD! he did not say a god but God! those 25 net scholars are no good in greek. hahhahaa
i told you to go to school and study greek language. wallace and barclays and MOST OF THE GREEK SCHOLARS WILL AGREE THAT CHRIST IS GOD and not a god. they are telling us that the son is NOT the father but he is God by nature. as God by nature, He is ALMIGHTY!
if you are MAN by nature, you are NOT ALMIGHTY bec that is human nature. if you are GOd, you almighty.
john will never say the Word was God if Christ is not really god. the correct translation should be God and not a god. why did i say that? bec if you will read john 1.18, john said no sees the father but the son who is also GOD!
thomas also said Christ is God john 20.28. no version that says in john 20.28 O GOD AND O LORD! hahaha that is just your imagination. also, no version says in john 20.28 that thomas said you are a god and Lord. hahahha
also, your reference told that they have the same nature.
1956 The Wuest Expanded Translation reads: “In the beginning the Word was existing. And the Word was in fellowship with God the Father. And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity”
that means, they are BOTH God! the son is almighty just like his father bec they have the same nature. hahaha
make your own bible. hahah
kerwin,
divine nature is not the ONLY nature of God. do you understand? if you say you have the nature of God, then you should be almighty, eternal, you are everywhere, all knowing, etc.
go back to school boy
to all,
there is no verse that says HUMAN has the nature of God. if you say nature of God, you are almighty, all knowin, eternal, unique, you are everywhere etc.
HUMAN was created by the image and likeness of God. what is the meaning of 1pet 4.1? we are partakers of the divine nature but this is not referring to God's essence.
GILL'S EXPOSITION OF THE ENTIRE BIBLE
that by these you might be partakers of the divine nature; not essentially, or of the essence of God, so as to be deified, this is impossible, for the nature, perfections, and glory of God, are incommunicable to creatures; nor, hypostatically and personally, so as the human nature of Christ, in union with the Son of God, is a partaker of the divine nature in him; but by way of resemblance and likeness, the new man or principle of grace, being formed in the heart in regeneration, after the image of God, and bearing a likeness to the image of his Son, and this is styled, Christ formed in the heart, into which image and likeness the saints are more and more changed, from glory to glory, through the application of the Gospel, and the promises of it, by which they have such sights of Christ as do transform them, and assimilate them to him; and which resemblance will be perfected hereafter, when they shall be entirely like him, and see him as he is:
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
the divine nature—not God's essence, but His holiness, including His “glory” and “virtue,” 2Pe 1:3; the opposite to “corruption through lust.” Sanctification is the imparting to us of God Himself by the Holy Spirit in the soul. We by faith partake also of the material nature of Jesus (Eph 5:30). The “divine power” enables us to be partakers of “the divine nature.”NICK,
john did not say that the Word is the spirit of Christ. where can you read that in john 1.1? you are also part of the sniffing mosquito coil group
kerwin and mike,
if you accept that you have the nature of God, then you will become almighty, all powerful, all knowing, unique, omnipresence etc someday. hahahhaha
what a funny doctrine you have
Quote (jammin @ Mar. 16 2014,05:01) kerwin, divine nature is not the ONLY nature of God. do you understand? if you say you have the nature of God, then you should be almighty, eternal, you are everywhere, all knowing, etc.
go back to school boy
Jammin,Thank you for answering my question.
Do your think “image of God” and “form of God” mean the same thing?
Hi,
There is no evidence that the Word was a separate divine being before being made flesh.
But it is a popular ideaQuote (carmel @ Mar. 16 2014,07:40) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Mar. 16 2014,02:06) Quote Wakeup……….All thing in the earth were brought forth by the Spirit of GOD, does that make them DIVINE or the word of God themselves also.
GENE,
NOT QUITE AS YOU PUT IT!
READ:
Genesis 1:11 And he said:
LET THE EARTH BRING FOURTH
SO IT IS WELL SPECIFIED THAT IT IS NOT THE SPIRIT OF GOD WHICH BROUGHT FORTH THE GREEN HERB AND THE REST, BUT THE EARTH SO GOD CREATED THOSE ELEMENTS!
the green herb, and such as may seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind, which may have seed in itself upon the earth. And it was so done.
12AND THE EARTH BROUGHT FORTH the green herb, and such as yieldeth seed according to its kind, and the tree that beareth fruit having seed each one according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
NOW THE FACT THAT ALL CAME THROUGH THE EARTH, IT ALSO INDICATES THAT SINCE FROM GENESIS 1:2 THERE WAS DARKNESS OVER THE DEEP, WHICH MEANS THAT SATANA WAS IN CONTROL OF THE CENTRE OF THE EARTH, HELL, AS HIS KINGDOM, AND ALSO THE SEA! IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT SATANA WAS IN A WAY INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS OF CREATION!
SO THERE'S NO DOUBT THAT BROUGHT FORTH RELATED TO CREATION IS DEFINITELY NOT IN THE SAME PARAMETERS AS WHEN THEY ARE RELATED TO GOD'S PERSONAL DIVINE THINGS!
NOW LET'S READ WHAT JESUS SAID:
DRB, KJV,
John 8:42 Jesus therefore said to them: If God were your Father, you would indeed love me.
IN THIS FIRST STATEMENT JESUS SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT IF THE JEWS WERE GOD'S CHILDREN, THEY WOULD HAVE LOVED HIM, OBVIOUS BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE HAD THE SAME SPIRIT WITHIN THEM! SO JESUS MEANT THAT HE WAS IN GOD'S BOSOM , HE WAS A SPIRIT WITHIN A SPIRIT!
For from GOD I PROCEEDED, AND CAME;
THEN HE DECLARED THAT HE PROCEEDED, AND CAME; FROM GOD! DIRECTLY !
NOT THROUGH A STATEMENT FROM GOD LIKE THERE IS IN GENESIS: LET THERE BE SO AND SO!
for I came not of myself, BUT HE SENT ME:
THEN HE CONCLUDED AND MADE IT CLEAR THAT HE WAS SENT SO HE EXISTED WITHIN THE FATHER, IN HIS BOSOM, A SPIRIT WITHIN A SPIRIT
SIMILAR TO US,
WE HAVE THE SOUL, WITHIN OUR BODY, AND A SPIRIT WITHIN THE SOUL!
SO AGAIN,DEFINITELY THE WORDS BROUGHT FORTH RELATED TO CREATION,HAS NOTHING IN COMPARISON TO WHAT JESUS SAID AND MEANT REGARDING HIMSELF!
NOW READ THIS STATEMENT FROM JESUS:
John 14:30 I will not now speak many things with you. For the prince of this world cometh, and IN ME HE HAS NOT ANY THING
WE ALL KNOW THAT SATANA'S ABODE IS THE WORLD, IT IS HIS KINGDOM!
SO JESUS MADE IT CLEAR THAT HE HAS NOTHING OF THE WORLD, HE WAS TOTALLY GOD'S! DIVINE!
SO THERE'S NO DOUBT THAT JESUS MEANT THAT HE WAS A DIVINE BEING!
Peace and love in Jesus
Charles
Carmel……..Could Adam and Eve also say they proceeded and came forth from GOD? Did that make them DEVINE?Please answer this question as yes or NO , now how about Satan could he also say that he come forth and proceed from GOD?, is he DEVINE also?
Again ALL LIVING things “AT FIRST,” had there “beginning” from God , both in heaven and in the earth also, they may after getting a start from God brought forth from themselves as DNA can be passed on, even mankind did that. But trying to Move Jesus as the “only” one who was brought forth from God, and a DEVINE Being, is just part of the doctrine of SEPARATION preached by all Trinitarians and preexistene's it is of the synagogues of satan himself. IMO
Peace and love to you and yours…………………….gene
Hi,
When Jesus said I WILL NOT LEAVE YOU ORPHANED. I WILL COME BACK TO YOU[jn 14.18] what did he mean?THE WORLD WILL NOT SEE ME BUT YOU SEE ME
He meant they would know him in the Spirit
Now the Lord is the Spirit
John 14:18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
John 14:19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.
John 14:20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.
After three days in the tomb; his followers did see him again.
But not the others.wakeup.
Hi WU,
All could see him till he was taken up and then after pentecost those in him knew him in themQuote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 16 2014,17:37) Hi WU,
All could see him till he was taken up and then after pentecost those in him knew him in them
Nick.Not all could see Him.
Jesus only appeared to His brethren/sist. and a few men.
The 500 that saw Him ascend to heaven are believers.1 Corinthians 15:6 After that, he was seen of above **five hundred brethren** at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
wakeup.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
