- This topic has 19,164 replies, 120 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Was this so-called thought WITH God, or in God?
WITH or IN?
If the Logos was WITH God, then that makes it hard to argue for it being a thought in God.
Also if the LOGOS is a thought, and that thought became flesh, then Yeshua must be flesh itself.
But he had a soul, just as we do.
We are body, soul, spirit.
Was Yeshua just flesh?
No. He became like us.
He wasn't less than us, just a flesh thing. No HE came in the flesh.
Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 21 2007,02:37) Jos 24:2 Joshua said to all the people, “Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, 'From ancient times your fathers lived beyond the River, namely, Terah, the father of Abraham and the father of Nahor, and they served other gods.
If Yeshua's origin was ancient times, then even if ancient times is hundreds of years ago, that still makes Yeshua preexist his coming in the flesh.But I would imagine ancient times, can have a wide meaning in terms of when. But I would also imagine that it couldn't refer to the future.
Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 21 2007,02:37) I don't know why Christians struggle so against the OT.
Thus it could also be said, “why do Unitarians struggle against the New Testament”? And it could also be said, “Who has bewitched them”?1 You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified.
2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?
3 Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?A lot of things can be said kejonn.
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 21 2007,05:06) Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 21 2007,02:37) Jos 24:2 Joshua said to all the people, “Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, 'From ancient times your fathers lived beyond the River, namely, Terah, the father of Abraham and the father of Nahor, and they served other gods.
If Yeshua's origin was ancient times, then even if ancient times is hundreds of years ago, that still makes Yeshua preexist his coming in the flesh.
Only as a prophecy, and only in his family descent from Ruth and Boaz, then Odeb, then Jesse, then King David. Even Strong's says that the word you keep clinging to, “origin”, in Mic 5:2 means “family descent”. Do you have ancestors? The Messiah has ancestors too.Quote But I would imagine ancient times, can have a wide meaning in terms of when. But I would also imagine that it couldn't refer to the future.
What? What does the future have to do with anything? Mic 5:2 speaks of the Messiah's family descent.Quote (t8 @ Oct. 21 2007,05:09) Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 21 2007,02:37) I don't know why Christians struggle so against the OT.
Thus it could also be said, “why do Unitarians struggle against the New Testament”? And it could also be said, “Who has bewitched them”?1 You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified.
2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?
3 Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?A lot of things can be said kejonn.
Unitarians ARE Christians. I don't know about universalists, but biblical unitarians are. Unless you too are now making qualifications? You don't like trinitarians saying you are lost for being a henotheist, so now you are hinting at much the same for others?And don't lump me into the typical Unitarian boat. Most of the Unitarians I know ignore the Tanach as much as the rest of Christianity.
Lastly, as far as you listing the verses in Galatians, I see you are tossing out “threat” verses. Welcome to the world of CultBuster! He would be proud of you.
Your post is shameful t8. I thought you were above such things.
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 21 2007,22:01) Was this so-called thought WITH God, or in God? WITH or IN?
If the Logos was WITH God, then that makes it hard to argue for it being a thought in God.
Also if the LOGOS is a thought, and that thought became flesh, then Yeshua must be flesh itself.
But he had a soul, just as we do.
We are body, soul, spirit.
Was Yeshua just flesh?
No. He became like us.
He wasn't less than us, just a flesh thing. No HE came in the flesh.
t8 your child started with a thought
IS if thought the definition of WORD doesn't fit then what does?
Isa1:18 and Knrch….> the problem is with the word (Became) it has the same meaning as (came to Be) and a word or throught we no is not physical , so what can it infer, there is only one conclusion .
the word which was God the Father was in Jesus, but that doesn't make Him God, no more than if the word of God is in you or me.
Jesus said “God is SPIRIT” and He also said the Words I am telling you are SPIRIT. So putting two and two togehter what Do you Get.The word (Intellegent utterance) of God was in the Flesh man Jesus.
What's so hard to understand about that.
If we just back off and Listen to what Jesus said concernig the WORDS He spoke which he said (WEREN”T) HIS everything falls into place.This seams to be a problem here we tend to focuse on some things to hard rather than getting all the information reguarding the our subjects and putting then together and then draw a conclusion.
Jesus Plainly said By so many statements He wasn't God the Father, Saying things like (THOU ART THE ONLY TRUE GOD) and again (THY KINGDOM COME THY WILL BE DONE) and The words (THOU OR THY) doesen't mean (ME) , so why cant you include that in you understanding of
John1:1 and try to get the right context from all the other things Jesus Said with reguards of the Word of God, and you will find the words He spoke were not His, so how could He himself the word. It one thing to speak the words of God and quite another to actualy be it.thanks ….gene
T8….> with all respect Kejonn has given you very good reasons, by scripture to at lest admit the possibilities of Him being right, are there. You said you were open to scriptual proofs, concerning the origns of Jesus, but when given you don't except then I believe your reply to Him was out of character for you brother……gene
Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 21 2007,23:58) Quote (t8 @ Oct. 21 2007,05:09) Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 21 2007,02:37) I don't know why Christians struggle so against the OT.
Thus it could also be said, “why do Unitarians struggle against the New Testament”? And it could also be said, “Who has bewitched them”?1 You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified.
2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?
3 Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?A lot of things can be said kejonn.
Unitarians ARE Christians. I don't know about universalists, but biblical unitarians are. Unless you too are now making qualifications? You don't like trinitarians saying you are lost for being a henotheist, so now you are hinting at much the same for others?And don't lump me into the typical Unitarian boat. Most of the Unitarians I know ignore the Tanach as much as the rest of Christianity.
Lastly, as far as you listing the verses in Galatians, I see you are tossing out “threat” verses. Welcome to the world of CultBuster! He would be proud of you.
Your post is shameful t8. I thought you were above such things.
kejonn, you judge yourself.You say that Christians struggle against the Old Testament and I said that Unitarians struggle with the new.
So why is it OK, for you to say that, and not for me to say the same thing but in application to Unitarians.
In my experience that statement is true.
Unitarians struggle with the New Testament. They get offended when you esteem Christ higher than the Law and they cannot accept that the New Testament has a greater revelation regarding the Christ and his origins. They reject what the New Testament says about Christ, if it isn't also mentioned in the Old, then they cannot accept the new stuff. Which BTW, I have noticed you do as well. That is what has been demonstrated to me and if you look back through this discussion you will see it is so.
Since when is speaking the truth shameful kejonn?
If I am henotheist, then it is fair enough to call me one, but can you deny that Unitarians struggle with the things I have mentioned? If not, then I am only speaking the truth and in response to what you said about Christians.
Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 21 2007,23:52) Quote (t8 @ Oct. 21 2007,05:06) Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 21 2007,02:37) Jos 24:2 Joshua said to all the people, “Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, 'From ancient times your fathers lived beyond the River, namely, Terah, the father of Abraham and the father of Nahor, and they served other gods.
If Yeshua's origin was ancient times, then even if ancient times is hundreds of years ago, that still makes Yeshua preexist his coming in the flesh.
Only as a prophecy, and only in his family descent from Ruth and Boaz, then Odeb, then Jesse, then King David. Even Strong's says that the word you keep clinging to, “origin”, in Mic 5:2 means “family descent”. Do you have ancestors? The Messiah has ancestors too.Quote But I would imagine ancient times, can have a wide meaning in terms of when. But I would also imagine that it couldn't refer to the future.
What? What does the future have to do with anything? Mic 5:2 speaks of the Messiah's family descent.
whose goings forth = mowtsa'ah- origin
- places of going out to or from
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
“But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity.”GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
You, Bethlehem Ephrathah, are too small to be included among Judah's cities. Yet, from you Israel's future ruler will come for me. His origins go back to the distant past, to days long ago.King James Bible
But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.American Standard Version
But thou, Beth-lehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting.Douay-Rheims Bible
AND THOU, BETHLEHEM Ephrata, art a little one among the thousands of Juda: out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel: and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity.Darby Bible Translation
(And thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall he come forth unto me who is to be Ruler in Israel: whose goings forth are from of old, from the days of eternity.)English Revised Version
But thou, Beth-lehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting.Jewish Publication Society Tanakh
But thou, Beth-lehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from ancient days.Bible in Basic English
And you, Beth-lehem Ephrathah, the least among the families of Judah, out of you one will come to me who is to be ruler in Israel; whose going out has been purposed from time past, from the eternal days.Webster's Bible Translation
But thou, Beth-lehem Ephratah, though thou art little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth to me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.World English Bible
But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, being small among the clans of Judah, out of you one will come forth to me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting.Young's Literal Translation
And thou, Beth-Lehem Ephratah, Little to be among the chiefs of Judah! From thee to Me he cometh forth — to be ruler in Israel, And his comings forth are of old, From the days of antiquity.Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Oct. 22 2007,05:23) T8….> with all respect Kejonn has given you very good reasons, by scripture to at lest admit the possibilities of Him being right, are there. You said you were open to scriptual proofs, concerning the origns of Jesus, but when given you don't except then I believe your reply to Him was out of character for you brother……gene
Of course there is always the possibility. That is why I am here.But the evidence hasn't been forth coming yet. Just reasons to not believe what some scriptures say, because it didn't also happen to be mentioned in the Tanak. I disagree with that method.
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 21 2007,17:23) Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 21 2007,23:58) Quote (t8 @ Oct. 21 2007,05:09) Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 21 2007,02:37) I don't know why Christians struggle so against the OT.
Thus it could also be said, “why do Unitarians struggle against the New Testament”? And it could also be said, “Who has bewitched them”?1 You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified.
2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?
3 Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?A lot of things can be said kejonn.
Unitarians ARE Christians. I don't know about universalists, but biblical unitarians are. Unless you too are now making qualifications? You don't like trinitarians saying you are lost for being a henotheist, so now you are hinting at much the same for others?And don't lump me into the typical Unitarian boat. Most of the Unitarians I know ignore the Tanach as much as the rest of Christianity.
Lastly, as far as you listing the verses in Galatians, I see you are tossing out “threat” verses. Welcome to the world of CultBuster! He would be proud of you.
Your post is shameful t8. I thought you were above such things.
kejonn, you judge yourself.You say that Christians struggle against the Old Testament and I said that Unitarians struggle with the new.
So why is it OK, for you to say that, and not for me to say the same thing but in application to Unitarians.
You can't even see what you are supporting. By separating Unitarians from Christians, you are saying that they are not Christians, and by implication, lost.You say you don't like to be labeled but if you choose to label others, can you not see your own hypocrisy? T8, this may hurt, but you are giving yet another example of why people are fleeing Christianity in droves: hypocrisy.
Quote In my experience that statement is true.
In my experience, Arians are considered heretics right next to Unitarians. Welcome to the club. Too bad you think that your arian ways are superior and more deserving of the appellation of “Christian” than those who do not believe as you.Quote Unitarians struggle with the New Testament. They get offended when you esteem Christ higher than the Law and they cannot accept that the New Testament has a greater revelation regarding the Christ and his origins. They reject what the New Testament says about Christ, if it isn't also mentioned in the Old, then they cannot accept the new stuff. Which BTW, I have noticed you do as well. That is what has been demonstrated to me and if you look back through this discussion you will see it is so. Since when is speaking the truth shameful kejonn?
Your “truth” is highly subjective and personal. I have been around many boards on the Net and the bulk of Unitarians do not match your suppositions. You are reading an opinion of me into the typical Unitarian. I would ask that you not do that. I am not a Unitarian. I am something totally different as you may see one day.Quote If I am henotheist, then it is fair enough to call me one, but can you deny that Unitarians struggle with the things I have mentioned? If not, then I am only speaking the truth and in response to what you said about Christians.
You are speaking your version of the truth. Others will say it is a lie. Who is right, t8? You? Me? Only God. The rest of us are merely trying to find the way. But with your attitude the way might be obscured.Quote (kenrch @ Oct. 22 2007,01:36) Quote (t8 @ Oct. 21 2007,22:01) Was this so-called thought WITH God, or in God? WITH or IN?
If the Logos was WITH God, then that makes it hard to argue for it being a thought in God.
Also if the LOGOS is a thought, and that thought became flesh, then Yeshua must be flesh itself.
But he had a soul, just as we do.
We are body, soul, spirit.
Was Yeshua just flesh?
No. He became like us.
He wasn't less than us, just a flesh thing. No HE came in the flesh.
t8 your child started with a thought IS if thought the definition of WORD doesn't fit then what does?
Ken there are many things we do not know.E.g., could you disprove that mens souls are the thoughts of God?
The point is that we may derive from God, but we have been given a will that we can call our own. It is truly the only thing that we own or that defines us as being different to God, and not some attribute or extension of him.
Jesus also has a will. The question is when did he have his own will? When he was WITH God or when he was born as a man?
Or was it at some other time?
Does a man's soul exist outside of God's thought? Can we think of anything that God hasn't thought of? But our will defines us not as God or an attribute of God, but as me, you, etc.
We can only choose what is already of God and accumulate this in a unique way. This is our character. It is what we choose to reflect of God. Of course we can also choose that which is not of God, but that is beside the point.
Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 22 2007,10:50) You can't even see what you are supporting. By separating Unitarians from Christians, you are saying that they are not Christians, and by implication, lost.
That is where you are wrong kejonn.I do not say they are not Christian anymore than I do not say that Trinitarians are not Christian. You got the wrong end of the stick. I have never said that. You can check all my posts if you wish, and I can tell you now that you will not see such words coming from me.
I am not the one who calls them Unitarian or Trinitarian either. They give that name to themselves. And in these names do they have their own identity.
I am simply responding to this.
I would prefer that men didn't divide into their own names for such is the curse of Babel. God divides mens language so they cannot unify in their iniquity. Likewise we have many languages of Christianity called denominations.
I would prefer that all believers didn't do things in their own name or labels, but in the name of Yeshua. But that is not the reality.
I don't give myself a name for what I believe. The name for what I believe and the authority that I want to move in is in the name of Yeshua. I care naught for any other name.
But these groups come here espousing their doctrines trying to win converts to their name or label. So I respond to them from scripture. It's no more complicated than that.
Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 22 2007,10:50) In my experience, Arians are considered heretics right next to Unitarians. Welcome to the club. Too bad you think that your arian ways are superior and more deserving of the appellation of “Christian” than those who do not believe as you.
OK, so now I am an Arian. But in truth I do not know all what Arius taught, so I don't take my cue from him. In other words I do not follow Arius, even if some of his conclusions are similar to what I hold.I think Arius believed that Yeshua was just a man only. If that is true, then I at least disagree with him on that point for a start.
Besides being led by the Spirit, my cue is scripture.
It stands to reason that the truth lines up with some groups out there, including Trinitarians, but that doesn't make me part of those groups.
These groups are defined by their own name. A name that I will not do anything under. They have creeds, but my creed is scripture, even if I do not fully understand what is written. This means that I can change when truth is presented to me.
I am not restrained by any groups motto or creed.
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 21 2007,18:03) Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 22 2007,10:50) You can't even see what you are supporting. By separating Unitarians from Christians, you are saying that they are not Christians, and by implication, lost.
That is where you are wrong kejonn.I do not say they are not Christian anymore than I do not say that Trinitarians are not Christian. You got the wrong end of the stick. I have never said that. You can check all my posts if you wish, and I can tell you now that you will not see such words coming from me.
No, you did not come outright and say it, but here is what has transpired.Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 21 2007,02:37) I don't know why Christians struggle so against the OT. And your responded
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 21 2007,05:09)
Thus it could also be said, “why do Unitarians struggle against the New Testament”? And it could also be said, “Who has bewitched them”?
Now, stop and read this. I said Christian, you then said Unitarian. Therefore, you separated the two, intentionally or unintentionally.Quote I am not the one who calls them Unitarian or Trinitarian either. They give that name to themselves. And in these names do they have their own identity.
Wrong. The only one who labeled me (or Gene or perhaps Ken) was WJ (although he did not mention our names). We did not give ourselves that label. But you picked it up and supposed we did.Quote I am simply responding to this. I would prefer that men didn't divide into their own names for such is the curse of Babel. God divides mens language so they cannot unify in their iniquity. Likewise we have many languages of Christianity called denominations.
Then look over your last few posts and see where you have used such labels!Quote I would prefer that all believers didn't do things in their own name or labels, but in the name of Yeshua. But that is not the reality. I don't give myself a name for what I believe. The name for what I believe and the authority that I want to move in is in the name of Yeshua. I care naught for any other name.
Then stop using labels of others, unless you are willing for others to categorize you.Quote But these groups come here espousing their doctrines trying to win converts to their name or label. So I respond to them from scripture. It's no more complicated than that.
Good. I hope to see you stop calling people out by Unitarian or Trinitarian then.T8….> do you ever take in concederation that the new testement has been translated by translators who were biased in there theology and leaned toward the Trinitarian ideology which includes a preexistenct posture.
While you said you leaned on Scripture to get you view points, but if those scriptures have been altered by translators early on when they were being first translated and carried through for almost 1800 years, you could be trusting in somthing thats not correct.
I believe the old Testement Has a less chance of error then the new, because of the way the Jew's maticulously translated their texts. And remember we get the translation from Hebrew directly in to English, but the new testement comes from Arameric to Greek or Latin to English, all the language changes and along with the Trinitarian and preexistence influences can present a big mistranslation problem. There are Scholars that found literally 1000's of errors in the New Testement translations. Thats why i try not to take any one text to get my opinion on a subject, I try to balance both old and New and simple common logic and Hopefully with God's Spirit come up with what makes sence.
My hope is that one day we all will come the the exact truth of everything, but untill then it's good we strive to continue to seek truth……Peace to you and yours…..gene.Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Oct. 22 2007,15:52) T8….> do you ever take in concederation that the new testement has been translated by translators who were biased in there theology and leaned toward the Trinitarian ideology which includes a preexistenct posture. While you said you leaned on Scripture to get you view points, but if those scriptures have been altered by translators early on when they were being first translated and carried through for almost 1800 years, you could be trusting in somthing thats not correct.
I believe the old Testement Has a less chance of error then the new, because of the way the Jew's maticulously translated their texts. And remember we get the translation from Hebrew directly in to English, but the new testement comes from Arameric to Greek or Latin to English, all the language changes and along with the Trinitarian and preexistence influences can present a big mistranslation problem. There are Scholars that found literally 1000's of errors in the New Testement translations. Thats why i try not to take any one text to get my opinion on a subject, I try to balance both old and New and simple common logic and Hopefully with God's Spirit come up with what makes sence.
My hope is that one day we all will come the the exact truth of everything, but untill then it's good we strive to continue to seek truth……Peace to you and yours…..gene.
Actually the new testament supports the teaching of the septuagint and the dead sea scrolls.Which scholars mostly agree for more likely reflects the original text or oldest readings before the jews made alterations from 100 AD after the fall of Jerusalem.
There were two distinct traditions with the Jews. Jesus quotes the septuagint himself. Guess which tradition he favored.
They made alot of alterations. Trying to get rid of alot of the angelology and messianic passages.
The christians used the septuagint up until Jerome changed the church's official canon to match that of the Jews.
Paul used the septuagint. And Paul wrote to timothy saying in II Timothy 3:16
16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work
Yes he was talking about the Septuagint to Timothy.
Morningstar,Oct. wrote:Quote There were two distinct traditions with the Jews. Jesus quotes the septuagint himself. Guess which tradition he favored.
You mean the angel/god man forgot how to read Hebrew?
Which parts of the Septuagint did he quote from? Because the only version of the Septuagint around in the first part of the 1st century was the Torah. The rest of the Septuagint came much later. Most scholars feel the other books past the Torah was translated by Christians because the Jews didn't want anything more to do with it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
