- This topic has 25,959 replies, 116 voices, and was last updated 6 days, 9 hours ago by
.
- Posts
- Wakeup,Mar. wrote:
[/quote]
Quote The ones born of the spirit. They are born by the will of God. Wakeup,
100% RIGHT!
THEY ARE BORN BY THE WILL OF GOD!
BUT AS YOU SAID IT COULD BE CONFUSING, AND MISLEADING
SO
WHAT IS THE WILL OF GOD?
WHEN THIS WILL OF GOD FUNCTIONED FOR THE FIRST EVER TIME?
9 THAT WAS THE TRUE LIGHT, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world.
SO ALSO REFLECT ON THE ABOVE VERSE, NOT JUST THOSE TWO,
THE WHOLE PARAGRAPH IS ABOUT THE LIGHT
THE ONLY TRUE LIGHT
THE ONLY TRUE GOD, SINCE HE, ONLY HE MANIFESTED GOD'S WORK! ON EARTH!
Peace and love in Jesus
Charles
Wakeup,
There is only one passage in Scripture that literally speaks of baptism with the holy spirit that is nowhere in the book of Acts. That means you are claiming that a person who exhibits the gift of the Spirit has been immersed in the spirit. I know of no evidence that supports that claim and plenty of evidence that opposes that claim. The 70 elders and King Saul exhibited the gift and yet they were under the old covenant and not the new. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is a gift of the new covenant and not the old.
Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 30 2014,01:21) Wakeup, There is only one passage in Scripture that literally speaks of baptism with the holy spirit that is nowhere in the book of Acts. That means you are claiming that a person who exhibits the gift of the Spirit has been immersed in the spirit. I know of no evidence that supports that claim and plenty of evidence that opposes that claim. The 70 elders and King Saul exhibited the gift and yet they were under the old covenant and not the new. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is a gift of the new covenant and not the old.
Kerwin.You are speaking of the baptism of the HS.
All must go through Christ.
The jews of old dont have that chance.
They also must go through Christ.That will happen in the kingdom.If one has the HS he can understand the written word.
Because their eyes are opened.Some partly,some more,some all.Depending on the hunger in them.
Water can not do that.wakeup.
Quote (journey42 @ Mar. 27 2014,20:40) I say he knew exactly what he was doing.
keeping the understanding hidden from wolves in sheep's clothing……….
So those who know that God, who never changes, did NOT become His own servant, are “wolves in sheep's clothing”?journey, our one and only God was never WITH our one and only God.
Nor did something that used to BE God Himself become a different living, breathing being who serves the God he used to be.
Quote (journey42 @ Mar. 27 2014,20:46) It's revealing who Christ is, and revealing in the background who the Word originally was for those weaned off the milk.
But your understanding is that the Christ OF God used to actually BE the very God he is now the Christ OF.How can “God” become “NOT-God”, and begin to serve the God he used to BE?
journey,
This post is quite long, and explains much. I hope you read it all – for none of it is my “opinion”. Instead, it is all just FACTS that you need to know.
Quote (journey42 @ Mar. 27 2014,20:52) Quote (mikeboll @ 64) One of the very first languages into which the Greek NT was translated was the Coptic language. Somewhere around 200-300 A.D., I believe. The Coptic language was the very first language into which the NT was translated that uses an indefinite article like English does. And the Coptic people translated John 1:1 as, “and the Word was A god“. You see Mike, it always comes down to this.
You telling us not to trust what God first gave us. The truth in his Word.
God “gave us” the Coptic translation hundreds of years BEFORE He “gave us” the KJV, journey. Are you missing this fact?Quote (journey42 @ Mar. 27 2014,20:52) Quote (mikeboll @ 64) That means that at the VERY FIRST opportunity someone had to translate 1:1 as “a god” – they did it. Long, long, long BEFORE your KJV translated it as “God”.
This came after the holy bible was introduced to the gentiles, and completely contrary to the 95% of copies found, and started a new Religion and preached a different gospel…….
You are mistaken, journey. The Greek language does not use an indefinite article. That means if John wanted to tell us that the Word was a god who was with THE god, he would have written it exactly the way he DID write it.If, on the other hand, John wanted to tell us that the Word was THE god he was with, he would have written, “the word was with THE god, and the word was THE god“. See? John had the CHOICE of writing that the Word was with THE god……. and he DID. John also had the CHOICE of writing that the Word was THE god…….. but he DIDN'T.
And what we can take away from that is that John definitely DIDN'T want to tell us that the Word WAS the very God he was WITH. Nor was he telling us that the Word USED TO BE the very God he was now WITH.
Do you understand this? John had a clear way of writing those ideas – if that is what he wanted to teach us. But John chose NOT to write it that way, because that is NOT what he was trying to teach us.
The English translators who ADD the definite article into 1:1c are purposely ALTERING the teaching John wrote for us. Because the Greek language DOES use the definite article “the”, and therefore John COULD HAVE written that the Word was THE god if he wanted to.
Let me try to explain it this way: If we wanted to say Jehovah was THE god, and Satan was A god in English, we would say: “Jehovah is THE God, and Satan is A god.” Are you with me so far?
Now, since the Greek language does not use the indefinite article “a”, if JOHN wanted to tell us that Jehovah was THE god, and Satan was A god, he would have written: “Jehovah is THE god, and Satan is god.”
Can you see it yet? “Satan is god”. That is the only way John could have written that Satan is A god who is not THE god. He couldn't write “Satan is A god”, because his language didn't use “a”. So he would have distinguished Satan from Jehovah by saying Jehovah was THE god – and then NOT using the word “THE” for the Satan part. Get it? “Jehovah is THE god, Satan is god.”
And that's exactly what John did in 1:1. His language wouldn't allow him to write, “and the Word was a god”, so he did the only thing he could. He USED the definite article in the first part (“the word was with THE god”), and then he purposely CHOSE NOT to use that definite article in the last part (“the word was god”). His choice NOT to use the definite article in the last part was the only way in the Greek language he could distinguish the Word as a god who was with THE god.
Quote (journey42 @ Mar. 27 2014,20:52) The Coptic translation produced a NEW RELIGION. The Jehovah Witnesses. A different gospel with the guise of being the same. The Coptic translation condemns the fact that God made Jesus equal to himself, in the sense of having all knowlege and holiness, and power on this earth, given to him from God, and instead wants us to believe that Jesus is in fact equal to the angels, and claim Christ is an angel, so you see, it produced a “new doctrine”.
Again, you are completely wrong, and speaking against the facts, journey. You are not speaking against “my opinion”, but against the concrete FACTS of the matter.The FACT is that the only way the languages before Coptic COULD distinguish the difference between THE god, and A god who was with Him in the beginning, was to NOT call that second god “THE god”. So that's what they did. They called the first god “THE god”, and DIDN'T call the second god “THE god”.
Then came the translation into the Coptic language, which was the first language that had the chance to distinguish “THE god” from “A god”…….. because it was the first language that USED the indefinite article “a” – like English does.
And those people who had the first possible CHANCE to distinguish “THE god” from “A god” he was with, DID JUST THAT. Their version was not a “new religion”, journey. Instead, it was the first time that the ORIGINAL teaching could be written with an indefinite article.
So although the ORIGINAL teaching was ALWAYS that “THE god was with A god in the beginning”, it wasn't until the Coptic language that this ORIGINAL teaching could be written using the indefinite article “a”.
So like I said, the very FIRST chance anyone ever had at translating the Greek as, “and the Word was a god”, they did it. And this was in the 2nd or 3rd century A.D., journey. HUNDREDS of years BEFORE the KJV people ADDED the definite article “THE” into John's original writing. Remember, John COULD HAVE written “THE” into that last part…….. IF that is what John wanted to teach us. But John DIDN'T write “THE” for a reason. So who are the KJV people to come and ALTER John's teaching, by ADDING the definite article “THE” into that last part, when John specifically CHOSE NOT to put it in his original?
Also, you should know that the translation into the Coptic language took place WHILE the original koine Greek language (that the NT was written in) was still being widely spoken. This tells us that the Coptic translation didn't make a riff, or change the teaching of John 1:1. It merely used the indefinite article “a” to say what John was already saying in the original koine Greek language.
So the “NEW RELIGION” wasn't making use of the indefinite article that John couldn't possibly have used. The “NEW RELIGION” came about when men started adding the definite article “THE” into the last part of 1:1 – a word that John himself could have written IF that is what John wanted to teach us.
John chose NOT to use it in part c. So why would men later take it upon themselves to ADD it………. thereby ALTERING the teaching John wrote, and ending up with the completely NONSENSICAL statement that the Word actually WAS the very God he was WITH in the beginning.
This completely nonsensical and ALTERED translation of John's original words has stemmed many equally NONSENSICAL understandings.
The Trinitarians use this flawed translation to pretend that the “God person of Jesus” was with the “God person of the Father”. Curiously, they don't seem to have any idea where their “God person of the Holy Spirit” was at that time – or why he was not mentioned at all.
And you and Wakeup use that flawed translation to come to the conclusion that something that USED TO BE God Himself, ended up becoming a different being, who then served the God he used to BE.
It's time to face the truth, journey. Jesus is often called a god in scripture. But in those verses, he is ALWAYS distinguished from THE God, Jehovah.
For example, in Isaiah 9:6, Jesus is foretold to be called a mighty god, but verse 7 tells us that is the zeal of THE God, Jehovah, who will do this.
And in Hebrews 1:8, Jesus is called a god whose throne will last forever, but verse 9 tells us that this is because THE God Jehovah has set Jesus above his companions.
See what I mean? Jesus is definitely “A god” according to scripture. But he is always distinguished from “THE god” who is his own God.
And all of this aligns EXACTLY with the fact that Jesus was A god who was with THE god in the beginning – as taught by John in 1:1.
Quote (terraricca @ Mar. 27 2014,21:14) and yes Jesus was an angel ;because the translation of that name means MESSENGER , but it also is used to point to heavenly spirit beings ,things it seems you do not want to see ,
That is correct, Pierre.The English word “angel” is used to translate the Hebrew word “ma'lak” – which means “messenger”……. and the Greek word “aggelos” – which also means “messenger”.
When the “messenger” in question is thought by the English translators to be a SPIRIT BEING messenger – we use the English word “angel”.
So basically, an “angel” is a spirit messenger. Revelation 1:1 makes it clear that Jesus, now as a spirit being, is still a messenger of his and our God, Jehovah. And if Jesus is a “spirit messenger of God”, then by definition, Jesus is an “angel of God”.
The word generally refers to any spirit being who is NOT God Almighty Himself. That fits Michael, Gabriel, Satan, and also Jesus.
Quote (journey42 @ Mar. 27 2014,21:30) Quote (mikeboll @ 64) Yeah, but of WHAT were they created? Did there exist other things at that time that God made them OUT OF? Mike this is what you do, only put in half of my answer.
This is what I said.God spoke and they were created.
With his wisdom he designed them,
and with his WORD he commanded them into existence,
just like he made everything else that exists.The angels were created spirit. Heavenly creatures.
Okay…….. I left your entire statement in there this time. But I'm STILL waiting for you to tell me WHAT those other spirit sons of God were made OF.If there was NOTHING ELSE in existence, then they too must have been made out of “God-stuff” – just like God's firstborn Son, Jesus Christ.
Can you REFUTE that claim? If so, then do so.
Quote (journey42 @ Mar. 27 2014,21:30) So before creation, there was just God and His Word beside him ready to start creating everything together.
Okay. So since God and His Word were the only things in existence, the other spirit sons of God were either made out of “God” – or they were made out of the Word, who was himself made out of God, meaning that the other spirit sons were ultimately also made out of “God” – just like the Word.Quote (journey42 @ Mar. 27 2014,21:30) No. This is where your mind has crossed a wire.
The “FIRSTBORN SPIRIT SON” was the “FIRSTBORN OF THE DEAD”. First to be resurrected from flesh to spirit.
Died flesh, rose to Spirit. FIRSTBORN OF THE DEAD.
Not FIRSTBORN IN HEAVEN.
The WORD was never born, or created, but was always there, whether inside God or out beside him.
I haven't crossed a wire, journey. It's more a matter of you ignoring certain clear scriptures. Proverbs 8:22 speaks of Jesus as “wisdom”, and says God created him as the first of His works.Colossians 1:15 says Jesus was the firstborn of every creature – which logically means that Jesus was the first creature ever created/born.
And in Revelation 3:14, Jesus calls himself the beginning of the creation by God – which also logically means that Jesus was the first thing God ever created.
Also, the word “Son”, in and of itself, refers to someone who was GIVEN EXISTENCE by another who is called “father”.
No “son” has existed for as long as the father who begot him, journey. Sons BEGIN to exist when their fathers beget them. (Psalm 2:7)
Quote (journey42 @ Mar. 27 2014,21:48) Quote (mikeboll @ 64) Was he inside of God as a living, breathing BEING before God brought him out?
The Word was God Mike, before God brought him out.
There was just God with his Word INSIDE HIM.
THERE WAS ONE.
Does that mean, “NO Mike – the Word WASN'T a living, breathing being before God brought him out.” ?I need a CLEAR answer, journey.
Quote (journey42 @ Mar. 27 2014,21:48) I hope you understand this much clearer now, that this question is based on what you perceived wrongly “the Firstborn” as really meaning. Now you know it means, “Firstborn of the DEAD”. – FIRST RESURRECTED.
I know the DIFFERENCE between “firstborn from the dead” and “firstborn of every creature”, journey. I know they mean completely different things.Do YOU think they mean the same exact thing?
Quote (jammin @ Mar. 28 2014,07:49) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 28 2014,10:23) Quote (jammin @ Mar. 26 2014,06:20) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 26 2014,13:39)
I only need to accept the words YOU said, jammin.If he has limitations, then he is not God.
Jesus has limitations. That should clear it up once and for all, right?
that is the HUMAN nature of JESUS.do you understand?
So Jesus exists right now with both human and God natures?If that was the case, then I would be right in saying Jesus has limitations, right? And you told me that if one has limitations, that one is not “God”.
But let me ask you this, jammin: Which of Jesus' two natures will destroy his enemies – the last of which will be death?
1. as i have said, if you are talking about the human nature then my answer is YES. as HUMAN, we have limitations. as GOD, no limitations.2. for your second question, create a thread for that one
1. So then we both agree that Jesus was NOT God on earth. Good.2. You don't have to answer, jammin. But we both know that it is Jesus in his EXALTED SPIRIT NATURE that will subdue Satan, Satan's angels, and death itself.
And since Jesus – even in his EXALTED SPIRIT NATURE – still needs his own God Jehovah to place those enemies at his feet before he can destroy them, we know that Jesus STILL has limitations. And according to your own words, a person who has limitations is NOT God.
Case closed.
Quote (carmel @ Mar. 28 2014,15:23) Quote No Charles, God is able to create children for Abraham out of stones of the field. He doesn't NEED anything, or anyone.
Never has, never will.
YES MIKE I KNOW ALL ABOUT THAT,
BUT DID HE NEED HIS SON?
OR RATHER HE IS HIMSELF IN HIS SON'S BODY!
OR EVEN RATHER HE EMANATED HIS OWN SPIRIT SUBSTANCE INTO FLESH SUBSTANCE, AND ABIDED IN HIMSELF AS JESUS!
IN THAT WAY HE WAS FOR SURE IN NO NEED OF HIS SON!
WON'T HE?
Peace and love in Jesus
Charles
Charles,You are missing the point. The fact that God CHOOSES to do certain things certain ways does not mean that God NEEDS anyone, or anything.
You are correct that God never NEEDED to create Jesus as His firstborn Son…….. but God CHOSE to do that.
God didn't NEED to atone for our sins by the sacrifice of that firstborn Son…….. but God CHOSE to do it that way.
Don't confuse “CHOICE” with “NEED”.
Gene wrote:[/quote]
Quote To all………..Baptism is required, but it does not guarantee receiving the Holy Spirit of God. Many have been baptized and have not the Spirit. And some received the Spirit before they were baptized. Gene,
THE BAPTISM WAS ONLY ESSENTIAL FOR THE SAME AMOUNT OF YEARS! FROM ABRAHAM, TO JESUS! APPROXIMATELY 1700 YEARS!
TODAY, BAPTISM IS NON EFFECTIVE AS YOU WELL SAID HEREUNDER,
Quote Many have been baptized and have not the Spirit.
And some received the Spirit before they were baptised.WATER BAPTISM WAS NEVER ESSENTIAL AS SUCH.
THAT WAS TEMPORARY TILL JESUS ACCOMPLISHED HIS REDEMPTION!
JOHN HIMSELF DECLARED THIS
JOHN1:31 ……….., BUT THAT HE MAY BE MADE MANIFEST IN ISRAEL , THEREFORE AM I COME BAPTIZING WITH WATER.
SO BAPTISM WAS ONLY TEMPORARY BY JOHN TO MANIFEST JESUS IN ISRAEL!
ISRAEL SYMBOLICALLY WAS LUCIFER/SATANA!
TODAY ALL BIRTHS ARE AUTOMATICALLY BEING BORN OF GOD, THE PROPERTY OF GOD! THROUGH THE WORD WHO WAS SLAIN FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD! REV:13 :8 WHOM THE FATHER SEALED! JOHN 6:27
REFLECT:
John 1:9 That was the true light, which enlighteneth EVERY MAN THAT COMES INTO THE WORLD
SO FROM THE CROSS, JESUS, THE SON, OFFICIALLY AS THE WORD BECAME THE ABSOLUTE OWNER OF THE ENTIRE PROCESS THROUGH NATURE FOR PRODUCING SOULS, AND THEIR BIRTHS IN HUMAN FLESH BODIES FROM CONCEPTION!
SO GOD IS IN FULL CONTROL OF THE ENTIRE REDEPTION PROCESS!
SO ONCE A PERSON BEELIEVES IN JESUS NAME, HE BECOMES HIS! HE WILL RECEIVES THE HOLY SPIRIT!
NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT HE NEITHER IS BAPTIZED,NOR FORM PART OF AN ORGANISED CHURCH!
JOHN DECLARED THIS:
33 HE IT IS THAT BAPTIZETH WITH THE HOLY GHOST.
SO AS CLEAR AS CRYSTAL JESUS’SPIRIT, THE WORD BAPTISES WITH THE HOLY GHOST!
OBVIOUSLY, SINCE HE FIRST WAS USED AS A MEDIATOR SPIRIT IN CREATION, THE WORD AND THAN AS THE MEDIATOR BETWEEN GOD AND MAN THROUGH REDEMPTION! THE WORD MADE FLESH
Peace and love in Jesus
Charles
mikeboll64,Mar. wrote:[/quote]
Quote Don't confuse “CHOICE” with “NEED” Mike,
GOD NEEDED A MEDIATOR! THE WORD
NOT CHOOSES TO HAVE A MEDIATOR!
GOD WAS IN NEED OF A SPIRIT WHICH COULD BE BETWEEN EVIL CREATURES AND HIM IN ORDER FOR GOD TO MAINTAIN ETERNAL LIFE! IN THEM TILL THEY ARE BACK TO THE FATHER!
SO YES
GOD WAS IN NEED OF A MEDIATOR BOTH AS A SPIRIT USED IN CREATION AND AS MAN TO REDEEM CREATION
BUT AS I SAID A MEDIATOR IS NOT OF ONE BUT GOD IS ONE THAT SAME MEDIATOR,
HIS SON'S SPIRIT, THE WORD, IN CREATION, AND JESUS CHRIST, THE WORD MADE FLESH IN REDEMPTION!
SO THAT'S THE ONLY REASON THAT GOD NEVER NEED ANY BODY! BECAUSE HE IS
OMNIPOTENCE, OMNIPRESENCE, OMNISCIENCE, AND OMNIBENEVOLENCE!
SO HE CAN BE IN HIMSELF! IN A SPIRIT OF HIS OWN SELF!
THE WORD
Peace and love in Jesus
Charles
Wakeup,Mar. wrote:[/quote]
Quote The will of God is that all in him should be one, Wakeup,
BUT YOU SAID:
They are born by the will of God.
WHERE IN SCRIPTURE IT SAYS THAT THEY ARE BORN BY THE WILL OF GOD?
Peace and loive in Jesus
Charles
Quote (carmel @ Mar. 30 2014,08:13) Wakeup,Mar. wrote:[/quote]
Quote The will of God is that all in him should be one, Wakeup,
BUT YOU SAID:
They are born by the will of God.
WHERE IN SCRIPTURE IT SAYS THAT THEY ARE BORN BY THE WILL OF GOD?
Peace and loive in Jesus
Charles
Carmel.Speaking of the resurrection.
They are born of God's woman,she is spirit.
Her children will also be spirit children.
The resurrection is of God.Born again by the will of God.
wakeup.
Quote (carmel @ Mar. 29 2014,14:55) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 30 2014,06:35) Don't confuse “CHOICE” with “NEED” Mike,
GOD NEEDED A MEDIATOR! THE WORD
NOT CHOOSES TO HAVE A MEDIATOR!
No Charles,God is capable of speaking directly to his human creations. He did just that with Moses, Aaron, and the Israelites who were gathered around Mount Horeb.
Quote (Wakeup @ Mar. 29 2014,22:59) Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 30 2014,01:21) Wakeup, There is only one passage in Scripture that literally speaks of baptism with the holy spirit that is nowhere in the book of Acts. That means you are claiming that a person who exhibits the gift of the Spirit has been immersed in the spirit. I know of no evidence that supports that claim and plenty of evidence that opposes that claim. The 70 elders and King Saul exhibited the gift and yet they were under the old covenant and not the new. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is a gift of the new covenant and not the old.
Kerwin.You are speaking of the baptism of the HS.
All must go through Christ.
The jews of old dont have that chance.
They also must go through Christ.That will happen in the kingdom.If one has the HS he can understand the written word.
Because their eyes are opened.Some partly,some more,some all.Depending on the hunger in them.
Water can not do that.wakeup.
WU,Scripture states:
Hebrews 11:40
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.
It sounds like the believers of this age are their proxies.
But my point is that the people of the old covenant received the gifts of tongues and prophecy and yet could not have been baptized in the Holy Spirit because Jesus was not yet baptizing anyone in the Holy Spirit. In short the gifts are a sign of God's approval but not a sign that a person has been immersed in the Holy Spirit. What Jesus tells us is we will know them by their fruits, and it is written those who live by the Spirit bear its fruits.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
