Search Members

[meerkat]

Quote (Paladin @ July 24 2009,03:06)

Quote (meerkat @ July 23 2009,22:56) Paladin/Jodi Reading your posts to each other on the sons of God that took daughters of men to wife and had children with them and I tend to agree with Jodi. If they were angels it would have said angels (malak)  – it was sons of God – When you read the geneology of Jesus, Adam is the son of God, Paladin, Tartarus is of pagan greek origin – the place does not actually exist This is what the concordant website has to say and it makes sense to me -> the apostle Peter, as his own figure of likeness, coins the verbal form tartarosas, which he adapts from the pagan Greek noun, Tartaros, which was the name of the Greek unseen world. It appears in works such as Plato’s Phaedo and Homer’s Iliad. It is the name given to the murky abyss deep beneath Hades in which the sins of insurgent and defeated immortals (such as Kronos, or the Titans) are punished. indent.gif (54 bytes)When Peter says that “God spares not sinning messengers,” but “[subjects them] to-CAVERNS OF-GLOOM TARTARUSing” (CONCORDANT GREEK TEXT sublinear, p.667), “tartarusing” is a coined verbal form used as a figure of speech. In employing this expression, Peter is by no means giving legitimacy to the Greeks’ fantastic notions about their unseen world, called Tartarus. Instead, he is simply adapting this word for his own purpose. Since there is a certain likeness between that to which God actually subjects sinning messengers and that to which the Greeks imagined their gods to be subjected in punishment, Peter employs this name for the Greek underworld accordingly. indent.gif (54 bytes)Sinning messengers are decidedly not in “Tartarus.” Except in the deluded minds of Greeks idolators, Tartarus does not exist. Indeed, according to the Scriptures, the sinning messengers are not even said to be undergoing chastening judging at present. Instead, in an estate which may somewhat be likened to the taverns of gloom in the Greeks’ fanciful Tartarus, they are said to be “being kept for chastening judging” (2 Peter 2:4). Jude adds that “messengers who keep not their own sovereignty, but leave their own habitation, [Yahweh, cp Jude 5] has kept in imperceptible bonds under gloom for the judging of the great day” (Jude 6). Since “chastening” kolasis speaks of discipline (i.e., “training”; literally, “hitting”) with a view to amendment, we may rejoice that for this they are being kept (cp Heb.12:7-11).     http://www.concordant.org/expohtm….re.html John the Baptist was a messenger {angel} Mat 11:10  For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. You quote Psalm 78:49 as evidence of heavenly angels but the context says the messengers of his anger and wrath is pestilence and plagues Psa 78:43  How he had wrought his signs in Egypt, and his wonders in the field of Zoan: Psa 78:44  And had turned their rivers into blood; and their floods, that they could not drink. Psa 78:45  He sent divers sorts of flies among them, which devoured them; and frogs, which destroyed them. Psa 78:46  He gave also their increase unto the caterpiller, and their labour unto the locust. Psa 78:47  He destroyed their vines with hail, and their sycomore trees with frost. Psa 78:48  He gave up their cattle also to the hail, and their flocks to hot thunderbolts. Psa 78:49  He cast upon them the fierceness of his anger, wrath, and indignation, and trouble, by sending evil angels among them. Psa 78:50  He made a way to his anger; he spared not their soul from death, but gave their life over to the pestilence; Psa 78:51  And smote all the firstborn in Egypt; the chief of their strength in the tabernacles of Ham: Thank you for your input. You did not deal with the defining issue in my OP. The defining issue of my OP is the proper application of “oikeeteerion.” Men do not have it. Men die to attain it. Angels have it. Angels abandon it to live among men and to die like men. All the dots are connected in the OP so I will not readdress them here.

It seems to me you are relying on the 2 uses of the greek word oikeeteerion must mean the same thing, when we see other words used that do not have the same meaning in all of the uses ->G32 for example

going by your logic John the baptist must be an angel and not a man

[meerkat]

Paladin/Jodi

Reading your posts to each other on the sons of God that took daughters of men to wife and had children with them and I tend to agree with Jodi.

If they were angels it would have said angels (malak)  – it was sons of God – When you read the geneology of Jesus, Adam is the son of God,

Paladin,

Tartarus is of pagan greek origin – the place does not actually exist

This is what the concordant website has to say and it makes sense to me ->

the apostle Peter, as his own figure of likeness, coins the verbal form tartarosas, which he adapts from the pagan Greek noun, Tartaros, which was the name of the Greek unseen world. It appears in works such as Plato’s Phaedo and Homer’s Iliad. It is the name given to the murky abyss deep beneath Hades in which the sins of insurgent and defeated immortals (such as Kronos, or the Titans) are punished.

indent.gif (54 bytes)When Peter says that “God spares not sinning messengers,” but “[subjects them] to-CAVERNS OF-GLOOM TARTARUSing” (CONCORDANT GREEK TEXT sublinear, p.667), “tartarusing” is a coined verbal form used as a figure of speech. In employing this expression, Peter is by no means giving legitimacy to the Greeks’ fantastic notions about their unseen world, called Tartarus. Instead, he is simply adapting this word for his own purpose. Since there is a certain likeness between that to which God actually subjects sinning messengers and that to which the Greeks imagined their gods to be subjected in punishment, Peter employs this name for the Greek underworld accordingly.

indent.gif (54 bytes)Sinning messengers are decidedly not in “Tartarus.” Except in the deluded minds of Greeks idolators, Tartarus does not exist. Indeed, according to the Scriptures, the sinning messengers are not even said to be undergoing chastening judging at present. Instead, in an estate which may somewhat be likened to the taverns of gloom in the Greeks’ fanciful Tartarus, they are said to be “being kept for chastening judging” (2 Peter 2:4). Jude adds that “messengers who keep not their own sovereignty, but leave their own habitation, [Yahweh, cp Jude 5] has kept in imperceptible bonds under gloom for the judging of the great day” (Jude 6). Since “chastening” kolasis speaks of discipline (i.e., “training”; literally, “hitting”) with a view to amendment, we may rejoice that for this they are being kept (cp Heb.12:7-11).
   

http://www.concordant.org/expohtm….re.html

John the Baptist was a messenger {angel}

Mat 11:10  For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

You quote Psalm 78:49 as evidence of heavenly angels but the context says the messengers of his anger and wrath is pestilence and plagues

Psa 78:43  How he had wrought his signs in Egypt, and his wonders in the field of Zoan:
Psa 78:44  And had turned their rivers into blood; and their floods, that they could not drink.
Psa 78:45  He sent divers sorts of flies among them, which devoured them; and frogs, which destroyed them.
Psa 78:46  He gave also their increase unto the caterpiller, and their labour unto the locust.
Psa 78:47  He destroyed their vines with hail, and their sycomore trees with frost.
Psa 78:48  He gave up their cattle also to the hail, and their flocks to hot thunderbolts.
Psa 78:49  He cast upon them the fierceness of his anger, wrath, and indignation, and trouble, by sending evil angels among them.
Psa 78:50  He made a way to his anger; he spared not their soul from death, but gave their life over to the pestilence;
Psa 78:51  And smote all the firstborn in Egypt; the chief of their strength in the tabernacles of Ham:

[meerkat]

I second Mandy's post ………… It is great of you 3 to show respect to each other.

[meerkat]

Thinker,

When it says that Christ will be subject to the Father so that God can be all in all – it is different from you saying that it really means the the distinction between Father and Son is lost. It does not say that.  It says that Christ will be G5293
ὑποτάσσω
hupotassō
hoop-ot-as'-so
From G5259 and G5021; to subordinate; reflexively to obey: – be under obedience (obedient), put under, subdue unto, (be, make) subject (to, unto), be (put) in subjection (to, under), submit self unto.

Also when I AM is used the phrase I don't believe that it means “I AM GOD”

If that is the case then when the beggar uses the same phrase by your reasoning he must be saying that he also is God.   John 9:9

I think that when Jesus says when the “Son of man”  is lifted up then they will know that I AM   it means that they will KNOW that he is the  “son of man”  it refers/relates to what is being talked about before the I AM he then goes on to say AND I only do what the FATHER tells me

If he was saying that he was God and one with God he would not then say that he only does what his Father tells him to do and is teaching him he would say that I am God and am doing what my Father and I have planned as we are both God.

[meerkat]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 10 2009,11:28)

Quote (meerkat @ June 09 2009,16:25) Thinker and WJ I have noticed that the wording in the KJV is different from what was quoted in the starter post before Saviour Jesus Christ is the word “our”   are there any other examples of the rule that have this – does this additional word separate the 2 persons of “the great God”   and our “Saviour Jesus Christ”  ?? Hi Meerkat The Grandville Sharp rule is based on the litteral text. “megalou qeou kai swthrov hmwn Ihsou Xristou”, “Great God and Saviour our Jesus Christ”. Blessings WJ

To me it makes no sense for Paul in the lead up to this to be referring to God  and Jesus as separate persons using the terms God “Theos” for God and Jesus “Iēsous”  “Christos” for Jesus and then in Titus 2:13 to refer to Jesus as “the Great God”.  and then to switch back in Titus 3 to God  “theos” bringing salvation to men through “Jesus Christ”  

The context is in Titus 2:10   God is referred to as our saviour  and in Titus 1  Jesus is referred to as our Saviour when we get to 2:13 we are looking for the blessed hope and glory of the appearance/brightness of “the Great God”  and our Saviour Jesus Christ.

If we look at the literal text for Titus 1:4  how does that compare?? we have God the Father and Jesus Christ our Saviour

If we also look at Titus 3:4-6   Titus 3:4-6 (King James Version)

4But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,

5Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

6Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;

2 separate persons “God our Saviour” and “Jesus Christ our Saviour”

It seems to me that what is being said in Titus 2 is that the appearance of God is through Jesus Christ

[meerkat]

Thinker and WJ

I have noticed that the wording in the KJV is different from what was quoted in the starter post

before Saviour Jesus Christ is the word “our”

are there any other examples of the rule that have this – does this additional word separate the 2 persons of “the great God” and our “Saviour Jesus Christ” ??

[meerkat]

Quote (thethinker @ June 10 2009,05:54)

Meerkat said: Quote It seems to me that in Titus 1:4  that there is reference to God the Father distinct from  Jesus our Saviour   in other places we are told that God is our Saviour   that does not mean that they are the same person or that one and not the other is our saviour – to me it seems that God is our Saviour and he is saving us THROUGH his son Jesus Christ. Meerkat, You are correct that 1:4 distinguishes between God the Father and the Savior Jesus Christ. I have made two observations: 1. The Father is not mentioned in 2:13. It simply says, “the great God and our savior Jesus Christ. 2. Verse 1:4 says that Jesus Christ is the Savior which you deny. How is it that you can say that the Father is our Savior when it clearly says that Jesus Christ is our Savior? Show me from the Bible where the Father was spit upon and tortured and hanged on a torture stake for your sins. Thinker

Thinker,

I do not deny that Jesus is our Saviour – Because Jesus is our Saviour does not mean that God is not the Saviour of mankind. He is saving mankind through his mediator – the man Jesus whom he has raised to his right hand.

See 1 Tim 2:3-5

God is our Saviour, he has raised up Jesus from the dead for that purpose, to save us.

[meerkat]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 09 2009,22:14)

Hi TT, God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. God saves through Jesus.

I agree, Nick

[meerkat]

It seems to me that in Titus 1:4  that there is reference to God the Father distinct from  Jesus our Saviour   in other places we are told that God is our Saviour   that does not mean that they are the same person or that one and not the other is our saviour – to me it seems that God is our Saviour and he is saving us THROUGH his son Jesus Christ.

Titus 1:4 To Titus, [mine] own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, [and] peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.

2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

There are a lot of passages that say that the way to God the Father is through Jesus Christ our Lord

[meerkat]

Quote (942767 @ June 09 2009,14:18)

Quote (meerkat @ June 09 2009,12:06) Quote (942767 @ June 09 2009,13:47) Hi Jodi: You say: that “we were born chilren of wrath”.  Where can I find that scripture? Thanks, Love in Christ, Marty Ephesians 2:3 Ephesians 2:1 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others. Walking according to the course of the world is walking according to the ruler of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience. What is this spirit?? We are directly told what it is, it is the spirit in man of his carnal nature, the ignorant fool following after his instincts giving into the lust of the flesh. By NATURE we are children of wrath, not by some invisible rebel spirits. That scripture does not say that “we were born the children of wrath”.  It states that we by “nature are the chidren of wrath”.   My understanding is that we developed this nature as sinners in the world not that we were born with that nature. Love in Christ, Marty

Marty

What by nature means is G5449
φύσις
phusis
foo'-sis
From G5453; growth (by germination or expansion), that is, (by implication) natural production (lineal descent); by extension a genus or sort; figuratively native disposition, constitution or usage: – ([man-]) kind, nature ([-al]).

It is not something that we surprisingly develop   – it is what we are   – human which includes a carnal nature

[meerkat]

Quote (942767 @ June 09 2009,13:47)

Hi Jodi: You say: that “we were born chilren of wrath”.  Where can I find that scripture? Thanks, Love in Christ, Marty

Ephesians 2:3

Ephesians 2:1 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

Walking according to the course of the world is walking according to the ruler of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience. What is this spirit?? We are directly told what it is, it is the spirit in man of his carnal nature, the ignorant fool following after his instincts giving into the lust of the flesh.

By NATURE we are children of wrath, not by some invisible rebel spirits.

[meerkat]

Excellent post, Jodi

[meerkat]

Quote (bodhitharta @ June 02 2009,08:39)

Quote (Paladin @ June 02 2009,03:09) Jesus did not die on Friday, he died on Thursday. Actually there are two Sabbaths” under consideration, and they are referenced by Mathew's account. Matthew 28:1 In the end of the sabbatwn [sabbaths(pl)], as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. Since Jesus was raised on the first day of the week, after TWO Sabbaths, one Saturday, and one Friday, it was Thursday on which he died. According to the Law of Moses, the day following Passover (which is also the first day of the feast of unleavened bread) is also, always a Sabbath day of rest to be observed like the 7th day weekly Sabbath no matter what day of the week it falls on. So there are two Sabbaths referenced by the New Testament writers. 14th day = First one Lev 23:4 These are the feasts of the LORD, even holy convocations, which ye shall proclaim in their seasons. 5 In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD'S passover. The day FOLLOWING Passover [the first day of the feast of unleavened bread, is also a Sabbath of rest and feasting. It is to be observed as any other sabbath of the Lord. 15th day = second one Lev 23:6 And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread. 7 In the first day ye shall have an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein. 8 But ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD seven days: in the seventh day is an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein. 14th & 15th together Num 28:16 And in the fourteenth day of the first month is the passover of the LORD. 17 And in the fifteenth day of this month is the feast: seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten. 18 In the first day shall be an holy convocation; ye shall do no manner of servile work therein: It was not the fact of “Sabbath” that was important, but rather the fact it was “Passover” that attracted Jesus to this time and this place. And the day following Passover is always a Sabbath of rest. There was no 3 days and 3 nights nor was that the sign of Jonah that Jesus was referring to. Mark 15 39And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God. 40There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome; 41(Who also, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered unto him;) and many other women which came up with him unto Jerusalem. 42And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, 43Joseph of Arimathaea, an honourable counsellor, which also waited for the kingdom of God, came, and went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus. 44And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead: and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether he had been any while dead. 45And when he knew it of the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph. 46And he bought fine linen, and took him down, and wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulchre. 47And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses beheld where he was laid. Mark 16 1And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. 2And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun. 3And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? 4And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great. 5And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. 6And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. If you read carefully you will see that it was the preperation day for the sabbath and then after the sabbath they went to the tomb early on the first day of the week and he was already risen. The truth is he was only in the tomb during the sabbath. The sigh of Jonah was not 3 days and 3 nights, I will tell you if you want.

Jesus says in Matt 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

and John 2:19 seems to be clear that Jesus means that his body will not be raised before 3 days after his death

2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

2:20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?

2:21 But he spake of the temple of his body.

[meerkat]

Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 17 2009,07:48)

Meerkat said: Quote You seem to rely on Jesus never having the ability to sin is why he never did sin when it was Gods foreknowledge and Spirit which kept his son from sinning. I agree with Martian that to be tempted there is a choice and awareness involved – if there was never the awareness and ability to choose sin, then he was not tempted, and he overcame nothing. Meerkat, You say that it was God's foreknowledge and Spirit that kept Jesus from sinning. Then in the next breath you turn around and say that Jesus had the “choice” not to sin. But what “choice” did Jesus have if God's foreknowledge and Spirit prevented him from sinning? Yet the anti-trinitarians have the audicity to say that the trinitarians contradict themselves. Geez!! thinker

Thinker,

In what way was Jesus tempted if he did not have the ability to sin?

How is Jesus our example if he is different from us in that you say he did not have the ability to sin and so did not have a carnal nature that we have. What did he “overcome”?

[meerkat]

Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 17 2009,06:38)

Martian said: Quote Certainly if Christ had sinned it would have interfered with God’s foreknowledge because God would have seen something different then we now know he saw. Had that happened Gods promises would have been written differently. In other words, Christ's ability to interfere implies that God's promise could really fail. This in turn infers that God's character could really change. Therefore, Malachi 3:6 is not really true. It is unfortunate that Christians do not study the art of correct thinking otherwise called “logic”. Martian hangs his hat on his “expert” sources while abandoning consistency. thinker

Thinker

There is no way that Christ could fail because God foreknew that he would do his Fathers will – that is why he was who he was – he was tempted, so he did have the capacity to sin, however he did not.

So while he really did have a carnal nature because he was really human – he overcame and is our example.

You seem to rely on Jesus never having the ability to sin is why he never did sin when it was Gods foreknowledge and Spirit which kept his son from sinning. I agree with Martian that to be tempted there is a choice and awareness involved – if there was never the awareness and ability to choose sin, then he was not tempted, and he overcame nothing.

[meerkat]

Thinker,

The Moses and the snake example is still referring directly to the situation that is being talked about and the snake was/existed/exists/became in the present time of the future event that was being talked about.

What you are trying to prove is that hayah can mean that God will become something at a future time that is not related to the event that is directly being talked about and that is not what the word means.

[meerkat]

Nick

This thread is Jesus promises YOU will stop sinning – have you stopped?

Has any christian stopped sinning while in a physical, carnal human body?

[meerkat]

Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 13 2009,10:20)

Meerkat said: Quote Martian, You seem to be judging this board only by the vocal people who are replying negatively to your posts and challenging you Meerkat, I agree with you and and I thank you for saying this. If you challenge Martian or his sources you're just speaking “opinion”. Yet I have provided two sources, one on the Trinity thread and the other on this thread. My sources were either explained away or just dismissed altogether. The difference is that I'm not whining about it (hugs and kisses Martian). thinker

Thinker,

It seems to me that all “sources” are not good sources or accurate sources – just like any/all doctrines can/is supported by scriptures taken from the bible.

It seems we need separate true from false.

[meerkat]

Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 13 2009,11:23)

Meerkat said: Quote But if I look at 1961 {hayah} and the other places in scripture that it is used , it does not always have a future sense to it and when it has a future sense to it is because the context of the passage is future itself. I agree that it doesn't always have a future sense. I was commenting only on its use in Exodus 3:14 thinker

Thinker, it seems that you interpret it in that case it must mean God will become what he will become – but there is no indication from the context that there was a future application to it – when the context indicates a future application that seems to be when it is taken in the future sense.

The context is Moses wants to know at that time (his present) who he will say has sent him, and God says I AM who I AM – the context is all about the present tense.

It is like when God created the light God said let there be light and there was light – it is the present and comes to pass then – if the context relates to a future event it seems to mean coming to pass at the same time as the future event –

[meerkat]

It seems to me that there are overlaps between the threads in that faith alone vs faith plus works depends on what you mean by faith and what you mean by works – Some could be referring to faith as a mental belief in Jesus and a fear of hell causing them to abide by works of rituals of purification and obedience ie baptism then churchgoing and no change in their heart – to me faith encompasses relying on Jesus words and Gods Holy Spirit and obedience from the heart and being led by the Spirit and not following an outward letter of the law but obedience to the spirit of the law – love God and love your neighbour as yourself – as it is a faithfulness and comes from the heart, and the fruit/works come from the faith and is not a separate work of compliance to the letter of the law.

Martian as you say – if Jesus pre existed and had the help of a divine nature it negates his saying that those who overcome will sit on his throne with him just as he overcame and sits on his Father throne. {Rev 3:21} If he had divine pre existance that is no help in helping us to overcome when it is said that we have a high priest who was made exactly like us to help us. {Heb 2:17}

[Author]

Posts