- This topic has 18,300 replies, 268 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (sandra @ April 06 2006,01:19) Please ye scholars of old, study not in the American Standard Version, I hear a warning regarding the wording, apochrypha, I do not know why I say this but, I feel a dire warning against this volume, inscription, cryptic, ancient scrolls run amiss, potentate, belgium, March, 1961, scriptural reference, Ebeneezer, Care Bears, KGB, Peace Keeping Era, Baroque, lunar eclipse, war over America,
Whaaaa?
? Personally, I wouldn't consider the ASV to be any more authoritative than any other “modern” version (modern meaning in the last 400 years, or so). Whenever possible I try to go back to the wording of the Syriac, or Old Latin, both from the mid-2nd century, or the Peshitta (4th century Syriac). Running around on the Internet to get these though is a real pain if you're trying to find “free” versions……most want to charge an arm and a leg for them.Hi tb4u,
My words are continually scattered in a million directions as are yours. They do not comprise a single entity that are WITH us do they?
You have yet to address the SENDING of the SON INTO THE WORLD. The choice of words for Jn 1.18 is not relevant here.I believe Hebrews 1. 5-6 puts Psalm 2 with the begetting of the Son as the beginning of the sequence. It shows the begetting of the Son before the SENDING of the Son.
First
“You are My Son, today I have begotten You”
before
“And when He again BRINGS THE FIRSTBORN INTO THE WORLD”God is not a midwife so that it means God delivered him physically surely. He brings, or sends the Son, already existing, into the world. Neither do the two scriptures mean they same thing but repeated for they point to a sequence.
I believe we can know these things from what scripture shows. It is not a huge puzzle to be revealed later.
You have given some possible textual criticism of Jn 1.18 that might be construed as weak evidence. Is that all there is to go on because textual evidence proves nothing and certainly is no basis for conspiracy theories?
Hi tb4u,
“Those who accept Christ as their personal Saviour are spiritually born of God and called His sons”Accepting Christ as your personal Saviour as a means of salvation has no scriptural basis. It is a very popular false teaching. Where is it taught in scripture or demonstrated in practice in Acts that we are saved by inviting Jesus as Saviour into our hearts?
Intellectual acceptance of a concept saves nobody. It may be the beginning of faith, but faith in action is what matters before God. It is the action of repentance and being born again that has eternal value.
We must all pass through the gate and then ask for and receive the Spirit as a gift intended for the reborn sons of God..
Quote (malcolm ferris @ April 06 2006,07:43) Heres a question to ponder.
With so much obviously amiss with the Trinity doctrine and its obvious links to false religion why is it so popular.
It is probably the most popularly held concept of God in Christendom today and has been since its inception. Why? When it is so obviously errant?
Some might say its popularity proves its correctness.
Many might actually.
But is there another force behind it? I believe there is, it has very influential backers I would say.
The God of this world supports it thoroughly, the union of church and state, mandatory religion of the state and control of economic and political systems by ecclesiastic and other means has always been a staple of the world churches.
And it is all working towards one clearly stated purpose.
Don't you think?…
To malcolm ferris,I believe it stems from fear of questioning this doctrine.
This fear is perhaps rooted in the fact that it was once ex-communication for anyone who didn't hold this doctrine. The power to weild such a threat was due to the ignorance of the people. They were not allowed to read scripture for themselves, so they believed what they were taught and the Trinity doctrine was central to what one must believe in order to belong to the so-called true church. Priests who had access to scripture and who were the teachers of scripture, had to believe in the Trinity doctrine or the creeds in order to belong to that so-called church. There was a reason it was called the Dark Ages.It probably goes all the way back to Emperor Constantine who wanted to assimilate Christianity for his empire's unity. In order to do that, he first had to take control and then dictate a unified set of beliefs and principles. He took to this task when a row had broken out among many Christians of Alexandria in Egypt. The row was mainly between Athanasius who is considered the father of the Trinity doctrine and Arius who opposed him.
Constantine decreed that Athanasius doctrine was the correct one and citizens were told to burn the writings of Arius or face the law which could include death.
Of course what I have written is a simplification of historical events, for Athanasius did fall out of favour at times and Arius became the flavour of the month at one point.
However history shows that Athanasius doctrine prevailed and became Trinity doctrine as we know it today. To oppose that was to oppose the so-called Church and even Rome itself.
Even today, people are too scared to question this doctrine and those who are confused by it, reason that it is beyond their understanding, for how can they go against the majority and claim that the majority are wrong?
Some think to question this doctrine is to doubt the validity of denominations and their leaders. Most are too scared to take on such a task and would rather live with doubt regarding the Trinity doctrine as it seems easier to accept.
However for those who want the truth enough, it will be shown to them.
t8
True, true
Interestingly whenever you publically challenge Trinity you are automatically labelled a heretic. Trust me I know.
I think we are in the same boat as Paul:
But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: (ACTS 24:14)God, the Father, had Jesus born without sin, the only begotten. He continued in non sin even thou tempted as we, received the baptism of the holy ghost, the second begotten (not the same meaning as the previous begotten). He was without sin under the law, then receiving the Holy Ghost, he began the works which the Father had sent him to do, to suffer the suffering we deserved, and to give salvation to all who believe on his name.
received the baptism of the holy ghost, the second begotten (not the same meaning as the previous begotten). ??
Sorry I don't follow could you elaborate please?First begotten (Hebrews 1:6)
First begotten of the dead (Revelations 1:5)
Only begotten (Greek monogenes: one and only, unique) ( John 3:16)
Only begotten (Greek monogenes: one and only, unique) of the Father ( John 1:14)Sandra
Thanks
It seems to me whatever way you want to view it he is one of a kind.
First as in placement – the firstborn and hier.
First as in arrival – from the dead
unique as in birth – virgin born – Royal Seed
first as in ancestry – 2nd Adam…Quote (malcolm ferris @ April 07 2006,06:52) Sandra
Thanks
It seems to me whatever way you want to view it he is one of a kind.
First as in placement – the firstborn and hier.
First as in arrival – from the dead
unique as in birth – virgin born – Royal Seed
first as in ancestry – 2nd Adam…
Cool breakdown, you guys.LAMB OF GOD!
Quote Genesis 22:8
Abraham answered, “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.” And the two of them went on together.Quote John 1:29
[ Jesus the Lamb of God ] The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!Lamb of God – Jehovah Jireh – the Lord my Sacrifice
John 3:16 The first begotten or only begotten was the Lamb of God, it was the first born of the flock that Abel offered to God speaking of a better blood to come, that of the Lamb of GodGod said to Moses, “I am who I am . This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' “
Did Jesus have a pre-existence with his Father?
That's a hotly debated question…
Jesus had knowledge as a boy that astounded the teacher in Jerusalem, men who devoted their entire lives to the study of the scriptures….
They couldn't understand where he got the wisdom from, I believe that even as a child he had memory of his former time with God.
In John 17 he speaks of having had a former glory with his Father. This makes no sense as language if it does not mean he existed prior to this in a conscious state….
In Hebrews 1 God declares you are my son today I have begotten you, and I will be to him a father and he shall be to me a son – then when He brings this one into the world He says let all the angels of God worship him.
To me this shows 2 time frames – the first in which he declares in Heaven – you are my son.
and I am going to be known as your Father and you as my son – the secound in which this is made known.
We can find very little reference to the son in the old testament but there is mention of him.PROVERBS 30:4
Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?Is says what IS His son's name – not what will his son be named. To me the present tense says that the son was in existence when this question was posed.
Remember that at times one speaks of the man Christ Jesus and then whom he really is(God). But the two are not seperate but one. Both 100% man and 100% God. How this is possible is due to the Sovereingty of God. All things are within his control.
Again if man can be three(body, spirit, and soul) and still be one man, why can't God? I mean we see God revealing himself and we deny it. We say how can God be both three and one, HE IS GOD THATS HOW. Not three seperate Gods, but one.
I am sating, so in order to get a response one must pm me.p.s. for the reference of me leaving, i found it impossible to do so. Noone has taught me how to erase my entire account.
Quote (OneoftheLordsGenerals @ April 08 2006,19:56) Remember that at times one speaks of the man Christ Jesus and then whom he really is(God). But the two are not seperate but one. Both 100% man and 100% God. How this is possible is due to the Sovereingty of God. All things are within his control.
Again if man can be three(body, spirit, and soul) and still be one man, why can't God? I mean we see God revealing himself and we deny it. We say how can God be both three and one, HE IS GOD THATS HOW. Not three seperate Gods, but one.
I am sating, so in order to get a response one must pm me.p.s. for the reference of me leaving, i found it impossible to do so. Noone has taught me how to erase my entire account.
Hi ootlg,
Scripture say in 2 Cor 5.19
” God was IN Christ reconciling the world to Himself”How can this be if Christ is God according to you?
Is God, including Christ, also in Christ?
Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 09 2006,09:20) Quote (OneoftheLordsGenerals @ April 08 2006,19:56) Remember that at times one speaks of the man Christ Jesus and then whom he really is(God). But the two are not seperate but one. Both 100% man and 100% God. How this is possible is due to the Sovereingty of God. All things are within his control.
Again if man can be three(body, spirit, and soul) and still be one man, why can't God? I mean we see God revealing himself and we deny it. We say how can God be both three and one, HE IS GOD THATS HOW. Not three seperate Gods, but one.
I am sating, so in order to get a response one must pm me.p.s. for the reference of me leaving, i found it impossible to do so. Noone has taught me how to erase my entire account.
Hi ootlg,
Scripture say in 2 Cor 5.19
” God was IN Christ reconciling the world to Himself”How can this be if Christ is God according to you?
Is God, including Christ, also in Christ?
Right on Nick,2 Corinthians 5:19 says it all.
But let's also look a John 3:2
1There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: 2The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be WITH him.
If God was WITH Christ, how can Christ himself be God?
My friends God was WITH or IN Christ
This is why Christ is called Immanuel in Isaiah 7:14, Matthew 1:23. Immanuel meaing “God with us”.
If you have the Son of God, The Christ, who came fully in the flesh, who's Father(who is the only true God) dwelt within him, is he “God with us”? SHONUFF
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
