- This topic has 4,515 replies, 99 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
I agree with Woutlaw – name = name, authority, character
Other translations have the following:
Isa 9:6 For a Child hath been born to us, A son hath been given to us, And the princely power is on his sholder, And He doth call his name Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, The Prince of Peace. (Youngs)
Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name is called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace. (Darby)
Mighty God – can be rendered Mighty god-like one
Father of Eternity – Through Yahshua we are offered eternal life in the age to come.Jesus is a God. He is not “the” God. Therefore “God” your “God” Has annointed you with oil of gladness Heb. 1:9
He is God's first born Son and therefore God.
2 JOHN 7
“For many deceivers have gone forth into the world, persons not confessing Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.”Just a scripture that I feel belongs in this thread.
Quote (david @ Feb. 09 2006,02:49) 2 JOHN 7
“For many deceivers have gone forth into the world, persons not confessing Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.”Just a scripture that I feel belongs in this thread.
Yes Jesus the Messiah came in the flesh. I would think everyone in this fourm believes that. Don't you?Kenrch, Jesus “became flesh,” human. (John 1:14) It seems I've had or heard discussions on here where people are discussing the nature of Jesus while on earth. He “became flesh.” I just added this scripture because I don't remember using it or seeing it in those discussions.
david
Quote (david @ Feb. 09 2006,04:20) Kenrch, Jesus “became flesh,” human. (John 1:14) It seems I've had or heard discussions on here where people are discussing the nature of Jesus while on earth. He “became flesh.” I just added this scripture because I don't remember using it or seeing it in those discussions. david
Oh ok! Nick and I couldn't agree, It sounded to me like He was saying that Jesus was flesh before He was begotten.
I told him just what you said. Jesus the Messiah had come in the flesh or whoever says that Jesus the Messiah had not been begotten (come in the flesh) is of the antichristQuote (Is 1:18 @ Feb. 08 2006,13:35) I asked you to show me a post I wrote (or a portion thereof) where I have: 1. taught “a creed”
2. taught “Greek philosophy”, as opposed to something biblical.
Hi Is 1:18,You said God is triune. Yet the bible says that he is one, not 3. Your triune understanding doesn't come from the bible. It came from creeds and Greek thinking.
You didn't come up with the idea that God is triune from reading scripture because scripture is very clear. God is ONE.
You may not have mentioned a creed by name, but you teach the/or some of the creeds. That is what I said. You teach creeds of men. Or are you denying that you teach the same as the Trinity doctrine or the creeds?
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Feb. 08 2006,19:20) Hi t8,
A question for you:Does John 10:34 teach that men are divine? Yes or No.
I also have some follow up questions depending on your answer.
Be well
John 10:34
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'?Hi Is 1:18,
I wouldn't say that this verse is saying that men are divine. That would be reading too much into it. I am not sure why Jesus called us gods. It could be that it is because we are destined to inherit divine nature, or that we are gods in authority as God gave man dominion over the earth and the animals. It could also be a reference to the fact that we are God's children, therefore we could be gods, if we are the offspring of God.
But whatever the understanding, scripture is clear that we will inherit divine nature.
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 15 2006,07:31) Your triune understanding doesn't come from the bible. It came from creeds and Greek thinking.
Incorrect.From Pg 134, Post #7
Quote The creeds were not the starting point for my conclusion that YHWH is a triune God. I don't think i'd even read any until you started quoting them. Similarly, I don't think I have derived any of my christology from a church preacher or layman while at a church. I came to my conclusions via my own Bible study and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I believe “plurality within unity” is a logical deduction and tri-unity model (for lack of a better word) best accounts for all the biblical data we have on Jesus, The Father and the Holy Spirit. Would you please get your facts straight t8. Go look up Exodus 20 v16.
To Is 1:18,
So you came to the conclusion that God is triune, even though Jesus never taught it, nor did paul, nor the other apostles and prophets.
Even the development of the supposed triune nature of God took a long time. The first creed(s) taught a binity. The triune God didn't appear till hundreds of years later.
Yet you single handedly come up with the same conclusion with no bias or taint from the Trinity doctrine or the Nicene and other creeds.
Yeah right!
Q: How do you get vinegar from a sponge?
A: You must first soak the sponge in vinegar and then you can extract vinegar from a sponge.Can I suggest that you were influenced by the Trinity doctrine first, then you saw the Trinity doctrine in scripture later.
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 15 2006,08:59) To Is 1:18, So you came to the conclusion that God is triune, even though Jesus never taught it, nor did paul, nor the other apostles and prophets.
Even the development of the supposed triune nature of God took a long time. The first creed(s) taught a binity. The triune God didn't appear till hundreds of years later.
Yet you single handedly come up with the same conclusion with no bias or taint from the Trinity doctrine or the Nicene and other creeds.
Yeah right!
Q: How do you get vinegar from a sponge?
A: You must first soak the sponge in vinegar and then you can extract vinegar from a sponge.Can I suggest that you were influenced by the Trinity doctrine first, then you saw the Trinity doctrine in scripture later.
I have not lied. It is true that I objectively assessed the validity of all the models (unitarianism, trinitarianism, modalism….) and came to the conclusion that trinitarianism best fitted the biblical data (modalism was second and unitarianism was a distant third).You, t8, have not come up with one skeric of evidence that I have taught a creed or Greek philosophy. I'm amazed at the way you shamelessly bear false witness against your neighbour!
This is the last post I will make on this subject.
Is 1:18,
You said it yourself, you took predefined teachings and tried them out to see which one was the best contender, i.e., trinitarianism, modalism, and unitarianism and others.
So shame on you that you chose 3 or more man made teachings and chose the man made teaching that you thought came closest. As it is written “where is the scholar or wise man of this age, has not God made them foolish”.
If you were truly honest and 100% for the truth, you would have let scripture do the talking and learned from that. But no, you like many who are in deception, started with the flawed reasonings of men as the filter by which truth must pass. What did you really think the result would be?
You know what? If I did the same test as yourself, then I myself might even give the trinity doctrine first place too. (That is if unitarianism means that Jesus was just a man who was created 2000 years ago?) But that still doesn't make the trinity right does it?
That's like me saying “who taught the truth, Stalin, Joseph Smith, or Adolph Hitler. In that test maybe Joseph Smith comes the closest, maybe not, yet I still consider all of them as false teachers.
Is 1:18, I am not surprised at your lack of wisdom because over time you have demonstrated to me that you are a man who lives to follow man and you love to use words that make you look important, yet I have not seen to date any hunger in your soul for truth. I believe it is your pride that has blinded you.
You then call me a false witness because I said that you were tainted by the Trinity doctrine in order to come to the conclusion that scripture taught a triune God, instead of letting scripture teach and speak for itself. Yet you confirmed my very accusation in your last post by saying that you setup a test whereby trinitarianism, modalism, and unitarianism… were the contenders. So it appears that you are the false witness for saying my words were incorrect. By your own words you prove what I said to be true. However I would be extremely surprised to see you apologise to me. I wonder if you could bring yourself to it, or will your pride rule your actions once again?
If you were a scientist, you would be shot (not literally) for conducting a search for truth with 3 or more candidates. A good scientist looks at the possibility that none of the current theories are correct and lets the facts speak for themselves. Yet even in science we see scientists conclusions filtered through the false teaching of “evolution”, just as we see scholars teaching conclusions based on the Trinity doctrine. Being smart doesn't exempt one from deception. It is not the brain but the heart that causes a man to believe in lies.
Like I said before, “if you were honest and you loved truth, you would let scripture speak for itself”. Instead I find you filtering scripture through creeds and teachings of men. I cannot remember one time when you seem to let scripture speak for itself.
Shame on you, for your conduct has been less than honest.
Before I go for a while.
I will say, the Father, Son, and Spirit are ONE as in compound or composite unity, however, the Spirit in original texts are referred to as the Power , Active force, and personal extention of the the Father and the Son at work in the natural world, and in original texts the spirit is portrayed as an ” it ” that is portrayed as water, wind, and fire, which are all active forces in the natural world.
Eliyah C.
PS, T8, I would not be so quick too mention conduct of honesty toward IS 1:18, for yours have not been any better lately has it? in accusing me of writing and mentioning things in posts that i did not write or even mentioned.
t8,Feb. wrote:[/quote]
I was hoping I wouldn't have to write anything further on this topic. But since the integrity of what I write is being questioned, I had to have the right of reply.Quote You said it yourself, you took predefined teachings and tried them out to see which one was the best contender, i.e., trinitarianism, modalism, and unitarianism and others. So shame on you that you chose 3 or more man made teachings and chose the man made teaching that you thought came closest. As it is written “where is the scholar or wise man of this age, has not God made them foolish”.
Logically one of them must be correct. So whether they are, in your perception, “man made” or not is irrelevant to me.Quote If you were truly honest and 100% for the truth, you would have let scripture do the talking and learned from that. But no, you like many who are in deception, started with the flawed reasonings of men as the filter by which truth must pass. What did you really think the result would be?
I have already explained to you a number of times that I did not START with creeds or any statements of faith. Like I said I “objectively assessed the validity of all the models”. How could I do this without letting scripture speak for itself? Or do you not know what objectivity is?Quote You know what? If I did the same test as yourself, then I myself might even give the trinity doctrine first place too. (That is if unitarianism means that Jesus was just a man who was created 2000 years ago?) But that still doesn't make the trinity right does it?
It wasn't an exhaustive list t8, that is why I used the “….”. Like I said previously, either God is one person or more than one person. The models I looked at did encompassed the possible scenarios.Quote Is 1:18, I am not surprised at your lack of wisdom because over time you have demonstrated to me that you are a man who lives to follow man
Tell me t8, which particular man or men am I following? Other than Jesus Christ.Quote and you love to use words that make you look important
I do sometimes use big words (as you do yourself, and others), but my motivation in doing this has already been made clear and it’s not to make myself look smart.Quote yet I have not seen to date any hunger in your soul for truth
You don't “see hunger in my soul for truth” simply because I don't concur with much of what you teach. I bet that you would quickly change you mind about my hunger for the truth if I started agreeing with you on your christological teachings.
Quote I believe it is your pride that has blinded you.
It’s a good thing you know you well enough to make a sound assessment of my character.Quote You then call me a false witness because I said that you were tainted by the Trinity doctrine in order to come to the conclusion that scripture taught a triune God
If you accuse me of teaching “creeds” and “Greek philosophy” when I have already explained to you that I care far less about them than you (I'm not even creedally-orthodox!!) AND you don't front up with ANY evidence to support your accusation, THEN yes you have unequivocally given false witness against me, your neighbour. It's just wrong to do this. And for a moderator of a Christian web board to do it is unbelievable!Quote instead of letting scripture teach and speak for itself.
I do let scripture speak for itself. Another false accusation.Quote Yet you confirmed my very accusation in your last post by saying that you setup a test whereby trinitarianism, modalism, and unitarianism… were the contenders.
I did not give you an exhausting list, as denoted by the “…” I typed. I did look at all the possible scenarios, including yours – polytheism.Quote So it appears that you are the false witness for saying my words were incorrect. By your own words you prove what I said to be true. However I would be extremely surprised to see you apologise to me. I wonder if you could bring yourself to it, or will your pride rule your actions once again?
I don't hesitate to apologise here if I have genuinely wronged someone, and probably hold the Heaven.Net record for apologies issued. But I can't see what I have to apologise for, given that YOU are slandering ME here. It is simply untrue to write that I have taught creeds or Greek philosophy. If I were teaching a creed you would think I would have named one or quoted some of the text, right? But I haven’t, not once. And lets not forget that you also happan to agree with some of what the creeds annotate (eternal generation of Christ). But you don’t see me calling you a teacher of creeds. It's like calling someone an evolutionist because they see merit in the concept of natural selection! Patently ridiculous.Quote If you were a scientist, you would be shot (not literally) for conducting a search for truth with 3 or more candidates. A good scientist looks at the possibility that none of the current theories are correct and lets the facts speak for themselves.
As a matter of fact I am a scientist. And thanks for the heads up on sound experimental protocol. I'll again reiterate that I did not give you an exhaustive list and I did consider all possibilities. So I guess I won't be being shot by anyone too soon…
Quote Yet even in science we see scientists conclusions filtered through the false teaching of “evolution”, just as we see scholars teaching conclusions based on the Trinity doctrine. Being smart doesn't exempt one from deception. It is not the brain but the heart that causes a man to believe in lies.
I agree with all of this, except the intimation that my pride-filled heart had led me to deception. You are certainly not qualified to prudently judge my heart.Quote Like I said before, “if you were honest and you loved truth, you would let scripture speak for itself”. Instead I find you filtering scripture through creeds and teachings of men. I cannot remember one time when you seem to let scripture speak for itself.
Assertion, assertion, assertion……but where is the proof?Quote Shame on you, for your conduct has been less than honest.
He he. Sorry Dad.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Feb. 17 2006,03:12) I have already explained to you a number of times that I did not START with creeds or any statements of faith. Like I said I “objectively assessed the validity of all the models”. How could I do this without letting scripture speak for itself? Or do you not know what objectivity is?
The models (trinitarianism, modalism, etc) are the creeds and the philosophies.I am still awaiting an apology
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Feb. 17 2006,03:12) assessed the validity of all the models…… The models I looked at did encompassed the possible scenarios.
Is 1:18,This is where you have erred. You are reading scripture through models. Try reading it with a hunger for truth and with the leading of God's Spirit. Models will force you to fit scripture inside them and ignore all that doesn't fit and this I have to say is what I have seen from you.
God cannot be explained by models, rather by revelation alone.
It is within man's sinful nature to think that he can work God out using models. Models are actually idols, they are both created by man. Idols are created by men's hands and models are created by the mind. In the end, there is nothing you can build or think of, that will explain the Almighty. We only have revelation, i.e., that which is revealed by his Spirit to us.
This is why you will never see models or theories mentioned in scripture as the delivery of truth. Scripture is revealed by God himself. It is not speculation.
You say you are a scientist. Well may I remind you that you cannot put God under a microscope and work him out. He is beyond our limited thinking and even beyond our dimension(s). No model is going to fit God for he even exists outside his own creation and we are of that creation. There is nothing you can build to contain him, nor even explain him. E.g., what model could an ant come up with to describe you?
Stick to revelation and try to understand that. Anything else is of the flesh, even the evil one. Such a man seriously underestimates God's power and being.
1 Corinthians 2:11
For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.Possibly off the subject but always a good reminder
Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.
We will be known by our love for one another.
I know as I've sought for truth I've had to struggle with accepting some revelations that in some cases I felt were heresy. It didn't happen overnight for me nor for most I believe. For my part I believe we need to point to the truth, be able to answer for it, but the person accepts or rejects it at their own peril.
I also always keep an open mind that I could be the one wrong and look to see which interpretation gives the most harmony to all of scripture.
I know I've stated the obvious but sometimes it's worth repeating.
Thank you
One more thought; Sometimes I believe we do more damage with our zeal in trying to correct a bad teaching then the teaching itself.
Quote (seekingtruth @ Feb. 17 2006,01:02) Possibly off the subject but always a good reminder Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.
We will be known by our love for one another.
I know as I've sought for truth I've had to struggle with accepting some revelations that in some cases I felt were heresy. It didn't happen overnight for me nor for most I believe. For my part I believe we need to point to the truth, be able to answer for it, but the person accepts or rejects it at their own peril.
I also always keep an open mind that I could be the one wrong and look to see which interpretation gives the most harmony to all of scripture.
I know I've stated the obvious but sometimes it's worth repeating.
Thank you
One more thought; Sometimes I believe we do more damage with our zeal in trying to correct a bad teaching then the teaching itself.
Amen! seekingtruthWe must remember how Jesus talked to the Pharisees. He was very patient with them in the beginning and he was very hard with them later, as the Pharisees consistently opposed God's messiah. He himself (Jesus) even put people off with his message. Once 5000 people left him in 1 day. What happened here was not harmony with all points of view, but align yourself with truth or bye bye.
I too would like to think that I am patient with people, but when they continually and plainly resist scriptures, I have no problem telling them what I think. Otherwise you could go onto eternity being nice and not get anywhere. And what good is that going to do, it only paints a false picture to your hearers. I think the truth is worth saying, no matter how offensive it is to others because the truth is more important than our own feelings and pride.
When Christ rebuked, it was because someone(s) needed to hear a rebuke. Even God his Father has a limit with men. He gives us time to change, but after a while if he doesn't see change, then our chances run out.
John 15:2
He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful.Luke 13:6-9
6 Then he told this parable: “A man had a fig tree, planted in his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it, but did not find any.
7 So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, 'For three years now I've been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven't found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?'
8″ 'Sir,' the man replied, 'leave it alone for one more year, and I'll dig around it and fertilize it.
9 If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down.'”What happened here was not harmony with all points of view, but align yourself with truth or bye bye.
T8
I apologize as I seem to of offended you. However I would like to point out that I did not say we should align with all points of view, but with all scripture.I in no way meant we should (in anyway) compromise the word of God. My only point was to try and encourage all parties to not forget that if we are truly seeking truth we are brothers.
When the 5000 left the Lord it was because the teaching was “too hard”. I believe that Jesus blasted those who where perverting, or refusing to accept, truth, for selfish gain.
I do believe that we are to rebuke others and not end up being “nicer than God” but I also believe that we are called to judge fruits, not motives. As I read through the above I felt there was questioning of motives.
You do show great wisdom and patience. I only wanted to encourage both sides to not get into the flesh. Possibly because it has taken me 25 years to find and accept what truths I have, I know God is long suffering.
May the Lord bless you.
[B]
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
