- This topic has 19,164 replies, 120 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Nick …> question are we right now son's of God even as Jesus is, if not why does he call us Brothers, and why are we heirs and joint heirs with him, why do you want to seperate Jesus from you own real likeness. Listen I will always respect Jesus but I will never Make him coequal with our Heavenly Father. I will give him respect to the glory of the Father , because could have done nothing if it wern't for the Father and i am not disrespecting him by saying the , it is also what he said. it say's we can come to the full measure of Christ Jesus not a parcial measure. thanks…gene
Hi Gene,
We can now be reborn into Christ as sons of God now and his Spirit can be reborn into us as we allow, and the fullness of our adoption will be found when he returns and our bodies too are alike to his.Nick…..wrong it say's ” thou art my son (this day) i have begotten you it can be proven that the text was altered by antiadoptionest and all thre places including where is stated in the old testement should agree with this day I have begotten you, check it out….gene
Good Work Gene, way to hang in there! You are right, I don't see how, if you call Jesus the word, that you can get around not saying or believing he is God.
Nick you are unfairly restricting the word With. Just because something is with, does not mean it is along side them. If I were to say ‘your love was with me’, does that mean it’s riding along side me in the passenger seat, no, absolutely not, your love is With me, means it is inside me. It is something I feel, it is something that is a part of me.
The word was in the beginning, it is what God used to create- God said let there be light and there was light. The word was with God, it was inside him, and it came forth out of Him to create earth. The word was Him, meaning that the word was much more then just being inside Him, it was also only existing from Him. Jesus received the word from God, God received the word from no one. Jesus was foreordained in the beginning to be manifested at a certain time to give us God’s word.
It is quite simple.
Maybe it is not what you believe Nick, but you could at least acknowledge that it makes sense…………and is scripturally accurate!
Hi Jodi,
The literal meaning of the Greek word 'with' in John 1:1 is towards; face to face, active.
The book: The Moffatt NT Comentary, The Gospel of John says: “The Logos was with God: 'towards God,' 'not absorbed in Him, but standing over against Him as a distinct person.' The word with (in the Greek), while emphasizing the communion of the Logos with God, yet safely guards the idea of his individual personality: it expresses nearness combined with the since of movement towards God, and so indicates an active relationshop.” (Macgragor, 1928, p. 4)
One expressive English translations by R. Frederick Harrison captures the understanding of 'with' in John 1:1. It reads: “At first, there was the Word, and the Word grew closer and closer to God until it reflected all of his qualities.”
What do you think?
Bibilophil……You are not reconizing all the other scriptures that shows Jesus was not the word, like when he said” the words I am telling you are not mine but the words of Him who Sent Me. well if they wern't his words then he obveously is not himself the word. It doesn't take a brain sientist to know you and your words are one and the same person, because your words express you and you are how you think, Just as God words express Him and How he thinks. this whole thing is simple, Jesus was speak God's words not his.
It say's God was in Christ reconciling the whole world to Himself, it dosn't Say God who was the word was Jesus. If John wanted to say the word was Jesus< He certianly would would have simple said it that way, not beat around the bush and say God was the word as it say's..There are many reasons Jesus could not himself be the word these are just a few. ……gene
Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 23 2007,17:31) Hi Jodi,
With means with.
Hi Nick,
You are right with does mean withMy friend and I are going to the movies. She is with me.
with-physically along side meMy Grandpa is close to my heart. He will always be with me.
with-spiritually part of meThanks
Quote (Bibliophile @ July 23 2007,18:11) Hi Jodi, The literal meaning of the Greek word 'with' in John 1:1 is towards; face to face, active.
The book: The Moffatt NT Comentary, The Gospel of John says: “The Logos was with God: 'towards God,' 'not absorbed in Him, but standing over against Him as a distinct person.' The word with (in the Greek), while emphasizing the communion of the Logos with God, yet safely guards the idea of his individual personality: it expresses nearness combined with the since of movement towards God, and so indicates an active relationshop.” (Macgragor, 1928, p. 4)
One expressive English translations by R. Frederick Harrison captures the understanding of 'with' in John 1:1. It reads: “At first, there was the Word, and the Word grew closer and closer to God until it reflected all of his qualities.”
What do you think?
Ah Ha!God's word is ACTIVE
God's word is a special force within Him, and you better watch out, cause if He speaks and says flood the earth, it will be done simply by the act of Him speaking.
Our words are just words, God's words are literal actions.
To say that they have to be a person that then carries out what God says is to undermined God and His power. It is to undermine who He is, and His incredibale uniqueness.
That rain that is coming down we know came from God, that rain is with God, it is a product of the power of His spoken words.
The action from His words are along side Him, we recognize they came from Him.
When I invision God, I see Him, and I see His power along side Him. I see His incredible ability to create and destroy through the use of using mere words.
Jesus was foreordained to be born and given these powers, not to become the powers themselves, but to have the powers. Jesus spoke and healed, he spoke and calmed the waters. If Jesus was the literal word, then he would have had the power to do these things ALL BY himself, and it would have not been said that he did them through God.
If you say that God made His powerful word Jesus, then God's word would then be like ours, and He would have to go through Jesus in order to do that which he pleased.
What a doctrine of absurdity and confusion.
Jodi All that could be true, but what are you going to do with these scriptures that shows me that Jesus was created before the world began and not just the word of God THE Father.
Col 1:15 ” Who is the image of the invisible God, the FIRSTBORN OF EVERY CREATURE.”
Col 1:18 ” And He is the head of the body, the church; who is the beginning the firstborn from the dead that in all things he might have preeminence.”
PREEMINENCE MEANING FIRST IN EVERYTHING. So according to these scriptures Jesus existed before.
Rev. 3:14 “…these things saith the AMEN, THE FAITHFUL AND TRUE WITNESS, THE BEGINNING OF THE CREATION OF GOD.”
How do you get around these scriptures?
Peace Mrs.IM4TruthQuote (Jodi @ July 24 2007,02:32) Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 23 2007,17:31) Hi Jodi,
With means with.
Hi Nick,
You are right with does mean withMy friend and I are going to the movies. She is with me.
with-physically along side meMy Grandpa is close to my heart. He will always be with me.
with-spiritually part of meThanks
Hi Jodi,
Actually PROS as others have shown, often is read AGAINST or TOWARDS rather than WITH.MT 4
” And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against[PROS] a stone.”EPH 6
“11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against [PROS]the wiles of the devil.
12 For we wrestle not against [PROS]flesh and blood, but against [PROS]principalities, against[PROS] powers, against [PROS]the rulers of the darkness of this world, against [PROS]spiritual wickedness in high places . “So those who would make it mean AS or IN are on a rather weak foundation.
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ July 24 2007,01:08) Bibilophil……You are not reconizing all the other scriptures that shows Jesus was not the word, like when he said” the words I am telling you are not mine but the words of Him who Sent Me. well if they wern't his words then he obveously is not himself the word. It doesn't take a brain sientist to know you and your words are one and the same person, because your words express you and you are how you think, Just as God words express Him and How he thinks. this whole thing is simple, Jesus was speak God's words not his. It say's God was in Christ reconciling the whole world to Himself, it dosn't Say God who was the word was Jesus. If John wanted to say the word was Jesus< He certianly would would have simple said it that way, not beat around the bush and say God was the word as it say's..There are many reasons Jesus could not himself be the word these are just a few. ……gene
Hi Gene,
You need to acknowledge that WORD has several applications and not just restrict it to spoken WORDS.The WORD certainly spoke about the WORDS given him by God. They were not his WORDS but GOD'S WORDS
Hi GENE,
More on
“ANTIADOPTIONISM”This is from another site quoting Ron Cote, an avid David Koresh fan it seems.
“Dr. Bart D. Ehrman, Chairman of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, has contributed much towards the world's better understanding of NT texts. While not all of his conclusions are 'new,' and not by any means exclusively 'his,' they inadvertently punch many holes into traditional Christian doctrine. Essentially, what traditional Christians have relied upon for nearly 2000 years is often wrong. Conversely, the more that is revealed concerning the actual writings of the NT, the more the NT supports the beliefs which we've lived by for many years.
Case in point: I was talking to Kristin over lunch today regarding the debate in Christian circles over whether Christ was born the Son of God or was adopted at the point of baptism. The debate, as I knew it previously, used existing translations of texts to support one view over another. But, low and behold, Luke 3:23 was altered by early antiadoptionists in texts that originated in Alexandria. Instead of reading “You are my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased,” – which is presented in the context of God speaking to Christ at the point of baptism, the text should read “You are my Son, today I have begotten you.”
Other changes to the original texts of the Gospel of Luke were made in Alexandria as well. Scribes conspired against adoptionist theory by omitting numerous references to Christ's “parents” – both Mary and Joseph. Luke 2:33 today reads “And Joseph and his mother marveled at those things which were spoken of him.” There is an obvious, and as it turns out deliberate, distinction made between Christ's “mother,” who was Mary, and Joseph – who according to Christian doctrine was not to be considered Christ's father. But, alas! The text should read “And his father and his mother marveled at these things . . .” Other references to Joseph as Christ's “father” in the Gospel of Luke were omitted altogether.
Interesting, perhaps sadly typical of Christian theology, but so what? At least that's what Kristin asked me over lunch today. Why was I gloating?
Christ stated, according to the Gospel of Luke 24:44, that all things must be fulfilled in scripture – specifically the psalms. Psalm 51:5 gives a bit of that prophesy: “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” That's certainly not speaking of Christ – immaculate conception or not. We know this speaks of Vernon Howell, who took the name David Koresh when he was adopted as God's son later in life.
We likewise understand the role of Christ and Koresh in the fulfillment of prophesy within the framework provided by the Daily Sacrifice. While Christians readily label Jesus Christ as “the Lamb” – after the daily sacrificial lamb offering that was a part of Jewish Law – they conveniently forget (or never learn) that two lambs were actually sacrificed each day: one in the morning and one in the evening (I'll elaborate, scripturally, on this in a later post). We accept that Christ was the first lamb offering, while David Koresh was the second – in the evening, in the latter days.”
Hi,
More from a mormon site on Mr Erhman
“Misquoting Jesus
Just finished Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (HarperCollins, 2005), a review of the current scholarship on the textual state of the New Testament. The author, Bart D. Ehrman, a professor of religious studies at UNC Chapel Hill, has written an eye-opening but amazingly readable presentation detailing just how much damage early scribes did to the text of the New Testament. Any Mormon who has an Evangelical every-word-of-the-Bible-is-true neighbor or work colleague who gives them a hard time about the Book of Mormon ought to consider this book as a Christmas gift. Their criticisms will likely become decidedly more restrained after they read it.In the Introduction, Ehrman recounts his personal journey from born again Christian to New Testament scholar:
In short, my study of the Greek New Testament, and my investigation into the manuscripts that contain it, led to a radical rethinking of my understanding of what the Bible is. This was a seismic change for me. Before this … my faith had been based completely on a certain view of the Bible as the fully inspired, inerrant word of God. Now I no longer saw the bible that way. The Bible began to appear to me as a very human book.
You have to commend Ehrman for being very open right up front about his personal perspective on the New Testament. The seven chapters of the book flesh out the details of what led him to modify his view of the New Testament. Chapter 1, “The Beginnings of Christian Scripture,” shows how quickly early Christians came to use written accounts and documents to advance the new faith, and how the Christian canon emerged. Ironically, most early Christians were illiterate. They “read” early Christian documents not by themselves but by hearing a public reading of, for example, a letter from Paul, probably at a Christian worship service. A literate Christian who could read in church on Sunday was as valuable to those early congregations as a talented pianist is to Mormon meetings today.
Chapter 2, “The Copyists of the Early Christian Writings,” goes through how the early manuscripts were prepared. Every Christian congregation naturally developed their own collection of writings (for public readings) and would try to obtain copies for writings they wanted but did not possess. Copying by hand was not cheap, so rather than hire professional scribes (the kind that didn't make mistakes), educated Christians did the job themselves. Think a “ward copyist” calling.
Because the early Christian texts were not being copied by professional scribes, at least in the first two or three centuries of the church, but simply by educated members of the Christian congregation who could do the job and were willing to do so, we can expect that in the earliest copies, especially, mistakes were commonly made in transcription. Indeed, we have solid evidence that this was the case ….
In Chapter 3, “Texts of the New Testament,” Ehrman reviews the various manuscripts of New Testament writings that have come down to us. The King James Version is based ultimately on the Textus Receptus, the first Greek New Testament published by Erasmus in the early 16th century. The problem is that Erasmus relied on a 12th-century manuscript that (we now know) was not a particularly good manuscript in terms of what we now see in the earliest or most reliable manuscripts. Modern translations don't just use updated English — they start with a much more reliable Greek text (or, more accurately, they have access to a much more extensive collection of Greek manuscripts, permitting the careful scholar to determine the best or most defensible reading of a disputed phrase or passage).
Chapter 4, “The Quest for Origins,” reviews the work of several scholars who, over the centuries, developed the tools of textual analysis that permit modern scholars to use existing manuscripts to (in some cases) work backwards to what is likely the original text. There are gaps and disputes: the process requires inferences and results in probablilities, not certainties, for many passages. Chapter 5, “Originals That Matter,” continues in this vein, showing how external evidence (comparing various manuscripts and determining which are the most reliable for a given passage) and internal evidence (what the author, such as Paul, would likely have said or not said on the topic, and what a copying scribe would likely have been motivated to change) can be brought to bear on the textual choices that must be made in order to settle on a Greek text and translate it into a modern language.
Chapter 6, “Theologically Motivated Alterations of the Text,” gets to the heart of the matter. This is Great Apostasy stuff. Ehrman reviews three particular theological issues that motivated changes in scriptural texts:
Antiadoptionist changes — Adoptionists argued that Jesus was a man that was, at some point, “adopted” by God to become the Son of God. Antiadoptionists saw this as an attack on the full divinity of Christ, and bolstered their position by changing passages such as 1 Timothy 3:16, Mark 1:11, and John 1:18 that were relied upon by adoptionists.
Antidocetic changes — If adoptionists were seen to view Jesus as too human, docetists were seen to view Jesus as not human enough. The term is from the Greek term dokeo, to seem or to appear, and docetists argued that Jesus only appeared to have human attributes such as feeling hunger, thirst, or pain. Ehrman argues (with reference to manuscripts) that Luke 22:43-44 — where Jesus was praying, in deep anguish, and “his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground” — is an antidocetic addition to the text. In other words, he argues that scribes added this passage to show in unmistakable terms that Christ really did suffer pain and anguish and that docetists were therefore wrong in their belief to the contrary.
Antiseparationist changes — Separationists believed that Jesus and Christ were two separate beings, and that Christ the spirit dwelt in Jesus the man during his life, then conveniently left his body just before the crucifiction. Some Gnostics held these separationist beliefs. Texts of interest here are Hebrews 2:9 and Mark 15:34 (“My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”).Chapter 7, “The Social Worlds of the Text,” covers more cases where what are essentially doctrinal concerns motivate scribes to change the texts they copy and transmit. Here, what motivates the change are less strictly theological disputes than social concerns: the role of women in the early church; how Jews were portrayed in the early texts; and how pagans related to the texts. Did Paul really forbid women from speaking in church in 1 Cor. 14, or did a later scribe make that addition? Did the crowd of Jews really exclaim, “His blood be on us, and on our children” (Matt. 27:25) or did a later scribe add it to the account?
In the Conclusion, Ehrman mellows his criticism of scribes a bit by noting that texts really do not speak for themselves. Every reading of scripture involves an act of interpretation, and the interpretation that readers do every day when reading the Bible is not that different from what scribes did when making changes or additions to the text they were copying: they were interpreting the passages according to their own best understanding. Christians reading the Bible today understand hundreds of passages in diverse and different ways. We're all scribes today, Mr. President.
I'll close with a paragraph from Ehrman's Conclusion:
[W]e need to face up to the facts. The King James was not given by God but was a translation by a group of scholars in the early seventeenth century who based their rendition on a faulty Greek text. Later translators based their translations on Greek texts that were better, but not perfect. Even the translation you hold in your hands is affected by these textual problems we have been discussing, wh
ether you are a reader of the New International Version, the Revised Standard Version, the New Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Version, the New King James, the Jerusalem Bible, the Good News Bible, or something else. They are all based on texts that have been changed in places.”Quote (Gene Balthrop @ July 23 2007,17:08) Nick…..wrong it say's ” thou art my son (this day) i have begotten you it can be proven that the text was altered by antiadoptionest and all thre places including where is stated in the old testement should agree with this day I have begotten you, check it out….gene
Hi Gene,
So can you prove this statement?Quote (IM4Truth @ July 24 2007,05:14) Jodi All that could be true, but what are you going to do with these scriptures that shows me that Jesus was created before the world began and not just the word of God THE Father. Col 1:15 ” Who is the image of the invisible God, the FIRSTBORN OF EVERY CREATURE.”
Col 1:18 ” And He is the head of the body, the church; who is the beginning the firstborn from the dead that in all things he might have preeminence.”
PREEMINENCE MEANING FIRST IN EVERYTHING. So according to these scriptures Jesus existed before.
Rev. 3:14 “…these things saith the AMEN, THE FAITHFUL AND TRUE WITNESS, THE BEGINNING OF THE CREATION OF GOD.”
How do you get around these scriptures?
Peace Mrs.IM4Truth
I don’t get around these scriptures, I merely believe that I interpret them correctly.Romans 8:29 – because whom He did foreknow, He also did fore-appoint, conformed to the image of His Son, that he might be first-born among many brethren;
1 Peter 1:20 foreknown, indeed, before the foundation of the world, and manifested in the last times because of you,
God foreknew that when He brought Jesus into the world he would be the first born of the New Earth. When Jesus was resurrected he became the first human born into eternal life, and was the first human to dwell in God’s glorious peace. Jesus was not the first born of the corrupted earth. He was predestined to be the first born of God’s Kingdom.
Col 1:15 ” Who is the image of the invisible God, the FIRSTBORN OF EVERY CREATURE.”
Jesus is the firstborn of every creature of God’s Righteous Earth that will be. He is not the firstborn of the sinful world, that we know was Adam.
Revelation 1:5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the first-born out of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth; to him who did love us, and did bathe us from our sins in his blood,
Col 1:18 ” And He is the head of the body, the church; who is the beginning the firstborn from the dead that in all things he might have preeminence .”
I believe that fact that it says he is first-born out of the dead is KEY
He is the first born of the dead, meaning he is the first to be resurrected from the dead and therefore is the firstborn of eternal life. Once again, he is NOT the first born of the sinful world.
Im 4 Truth you said preeminence meaning first in everything-this is not correct-read it to yourself in that light
—And He is the head of the body, the church; who is the beginning the firstborn from the dead that in all things he might have first in everything.
Preeminence meaning supremacy over everything granted to Him by God.
—And He is the head of the body, the church; who is the beginning the firstborn from the dead that in all things he might have supremacy over everything.
Rev. 3:14 “…these things saith the AMEN, THE FAITHFUL AND TRUE WITNESS, THE BEGINNING OF THE CREATION OF GOD.”
Surely this scripture is not applying Amen in regards to the first creation that fell into sin, but is talking about the second sinless Creation, of which Christ is the firstborn of. Christ is the beginning of God’s TRUE creation, the one that was intended/foreknown from the beginning.
I am 4 Truth, in all fairness, how do you get around these scriptures-
2 Samuel 7:12 When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me.
Luke 1:32 he shall be great, and Son of the Highest he shall be called, and the Lord God shall give him the throne of David his father,
Hebrew 1:5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you”? Or again, “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son”?
Romans 8:29 – because whom He did foreknow, He also did fore-appoint, conformed to the image of His Son, that he might be first-born among many brethren;
1 Peter 1:20 foreknown, indeed, before the foundation of the world, and manifested in the last times because of you,
Indeed these scriptures do not say that Jesus existed as a person before, but that he existed only in God's plan that was established in the beginning.
Hi Jodi,
You say
“Rev. 3:14 “…these things saith the AMEN, THE FAITHFUL AND TRUE WITNESS, THE BEGINNING OF THE CREATION OF GOD.”Surely this scripture is not applying Amen in regards to the first creation that fell into sin, but is talking about the second sinless Creation, of which Christ is the firstborn of. Christ is the beginning of God’s TRUE creation, the one that was intended/foreknown from the beginning.”
Of course creation began before Adam and the sons of God rejoiced to see it[Jb 38].
Hi Jodi,
You say
“God foreknew that when He brought Jesus into the world he would be the first born of the New Earth.”
We will not see the new earth till much later[Rev21.1]Hi Jodi,
You say
“When Jesus was resurrected he became the first human born into eternal life, and was the first human to dwell in God’s glorious peace. Jesus was not the first born of the corrupted earth. He was predestined to be the first born of God’s Kingdom.”Certainly Christ is the firstborn from the dead. He is to be first in everything in the kingdom of God. But he was born from above at the Jordan when he was anointed and filled with the Spirit of God.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
