Search Members

[rebellman]

Quote

Is it not better to have an honest conversation and be open to change?

I have seen no evidence that anyone here is in the slightest way open to change. It's more like, “I know what I know, so don't confuse me with the facts or logic.”

Actually, I was speaking to everyone.

I may be incorrect about everything I believe, but for your all's sake, I hope I'm not wrong about there being no place of eternal torment.

This site should renamed, “Teachers by the dozen”

[rebellman]

God knows.

[rebellman]

Quote

HEY !!! Iam not addressing your moniker.Iam speaking to your demeanor overall ….. and the longer this type of dialogue exists between us the more obvious it becomes to me that there is absolutely nothing to be learned from you…

jt

Well, at least we have that in common!

[rebellman]

Screw you! Is that concise enough?!?

[rebellman]

Quote

Don't you think it would be better for you to explain your doctrinal beliefs

Ed J

I'm pretty sure that you've read most of my posts, which ones don't you think explain my doctrinal beliefs? I'm not expounding on someone else's doctrinal beliefs.

Do any of you people understand English?!? Every responce I've gotten, except from seekingtruth, have misquoted, misinterpreted, twisted my words or otherwise make no sense whatsoever. Have you just decided you don't like what I have to say and you're trying to irritate me to the point I go away. You don't have to do that, you know. If I'm not welcome here just say so and I'm gone.

I'm impressed that you can call whatever Pierre does a shortcoming. I can tell that he knows very little English, but that is the only thing I can call a shortcoming. Otherwise, he knows exactly what he's saying. It is clear that he considers his opinions the only correct interpretations of the Bible. I have read many categories that I haven't responded to and not once have I read a post by Pierre where he says something on the order of, “Okay, now I see what you mean.” He has nothing but contempt for anyone else's point of view and clearly thinks everyone else is either a liar or stupid.

If his totally assinine interpretations are merely a result of his not understanding English, then he should read a Bible translated into a language he does understand.

However, he seems to be in good company, as most of the rest of you have no qualms about twisting anothers words in an attempt to make him look like a fool, either.

[rebellman]

Quote

Will you also correct the word of God?

I do not seek to correct the Word of God, however many translations of that Word need much correcting, especially the one almost everyone defers to, the AKJV. Without a doubt the AKJV is the least accurate translation out there. However, I do suspect that those who insist that it is the only version to use feel this way because it backs up their cockamamie theories, because it was translated by a particular group and was translated in such a way as to validate their absurd beliefs. But I will happily correct those that misquote, mistranslate or twist the word to their own purpose.

Quote

Perhaps you can explain what appears to be inconsistency in your doctrine?

Can one learn from a computer program? If so, I don't think I've met a computer that has a personality, yet. So, I don't see your point. The Holy Spirit is essentially like a conduit between God and men through which pass understanding, inspiration, power, etc. from God in much the same way as God speaks through angels, or do you think that it was actually God in the burning bush or on the Plain of Mamre? Every passage that refers to the Holy Spirit, in the Greek mss, use the neuter ending, or where there is a pronoun used it is always auto (not the vehicle). However, almost all Christian translators totally ignore that and translate “auto” as “he” which pretty clearly shows their bias, unless they just don't understand Greek, in which case they shouldn't be translating anything.

By-the-way, it is not my doctrine it is the doctrine of the apostles.

[rebellman]

Ed J would be a good start.

[rebellman]

I'm not at all sensitive about my moniker, that was simply a general FYI as many have questioned the moniker rebellman and have often made a big deal that rebell is spelled wrong or ask what I'm rebelling against, but I can't see any reason to begin your post with “Hello Rebel” when that's not the moniker.

Quote

Find yourself a warm comfortable place and fear not for the time being…. For no man knows the hour or the day…. We are in the end times,however,there are several events that have to take place before the tribulation period is upon us…..

The tone of your posts were at the least condesending. I was very clear that this was just a piece that might be interesting and it's no more outlandish than you opinion, in fact it actually hit one date on the head, while what you believe is vague at best and extremely inaccurate. The above quote is an odd way to sart a dialogue. I also notice that you didn't even mention the last paragraph.

It is true that I have zero tolerence for professing Christians who think they have it all neatly tied down and don't even come close to what the Bible says.

[rebellman]

By the way, if anyone cares, my name is Richard.

Kerwin

Your quote above was directed to “terraricca” or Pierre. While I frequently find myself in disagreement with your opinions, I usually do understand what you're trying to say. This is not the case with Pierre as his English usage is atrocious and when combined with his total lack of understanding I find it nearly impossible to follow his ramblings.

Nevertheless, it is always a good practice to use words in the way most people do, or else define the word in parentheses, so everyone will know for sure what you're saying. This is why I was so emphatic about the difference between “incarnation” and “manifestation.” While they are listed as synonyms, their common usage, especially in doctrinal discussions is quite different. And unless you are deliberately trying to mislead or confuse people, you should consider carefully how you use a particular word, especially if you know that the word is commonly used to mean something else.

If you notice, I am always very conscious of my choice of words, grammar, spelling and punctuation because it behooves me to do everything I can to convey to others my true meaning in order to be better understood. I also realize that cross-language and cross-culture discussions are especially difficult, I try to use words and terms that are concise and that (hopefully) are easily translated into another language, for clarification's sake. Because what good does it do anyone if I write a thousand words that only I understand the meaning of?

Peace – out
Richard

[rebellman]

Wm

I really appreciate your attitude, I only wish I reflected that attitude more, I tend to be very brusque, it's not that I don't care about people, but I find it extremely diffcult to tolerate false brethren, especially on this site, as everyone I've encoutered so far consider themselves authorities (with the possible exception of yourself, notice that I don't name myself here ).

So, I didn't pick any answer because you didn't have “none of the above” as a possible choice. This subject has some different levels to it. With those who are not brethren, but seeking, one should never, ever quarrel, the strongest rebuff must be to agree to disagree. With those brethren still on milk, we must be gentle, guiding them to a better understanding of the truth, but with firmness. But, with those of full age we should be firm and even stern when necessary, but if they prove to be an unrepentant heretic masquarading as a brother (or sister), we must lay down the law in no uncertain terms and if they still refuse to hear the truth, we should turn away and have no more to do with them, period. As you can see, I didn't have quarreling anywhere, this is because “quarreling” leads only to strife and this grieves the Spirit in both sides.

Something off point, but something I feel I should address and I don't know any other way to do it. I'm really glad you have moved away from the “eternal torment” lie. This is absolutely of Satan, because it is a scare tactic and it is Satan who rules by fear, not the Lord. Case in point, even unrepentant Lucifer is not destined for eternal torment, nor even eternal punishment. See Eze 28:12-19, the pertinent part being Eze 28:18-19 (KJV): “Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.” Of course reducing a spirit designed to last for eternity to ashes could take a while. It is further clear that the Father is not only just, but merciful and while justice demands punishment, at some point mercy must say “enough!” As a further proof here this is what Jesus had to say to the scribes and Pharisees: “But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in… therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.” Mt 23:13, 14b (KJV) It would be virtually impossible for these scribes and Pharisees to receive “the greater damnation,” if everyone not found in the Book of Life were in abject torment for eternity.

I find it very hard to fellowship with other professing Christians because sound doctrine has been so terribly corrupted and far too many people just go along with whatever they're told and if they question anything at all, they never take a stand. Also, I have been ultimately tossed out of every church I've attended since I was about 13, because I dared to stand up to our modern equivalent of scribes and Pharisees. The only church I got along in for a time was the Assemblies of God, even managing to be ordained by them, but I was tossed when they found me teaching against “Trinity” and the worst thing one can deny in any Pentacostal congregation, that the only acceptable sign of receiving the Holy Spirit is speaking in tongues, something I have never done in life (unless you count the gibberish I spouted as a baby ).

I wish there was a better way to communicate than these forums, because the turnaround time is too long and often the interplay with others becomes confusing for everyone.

Keep seeking!

Peace – out

[rebellman]

For clarification: If Christ was the first thing created, he would have had to have created himself. Col 1:16 (NIV) “For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.

[rebellman]

Pierre

You really need to stop. You have no idea of what you're talking about. I try so hard to not get into this, but you're constantly making false claims. Jesus is the “only begotten of the Father,” Adam, on the other hand was created from the dust of the earth, he did not issue out of (this is what to beget means) the Father. You are correct that Jesus didn't become the Father's Son a birth, it was at conception! But, still after God separated from himself, his Word. At the point of conception (Jn 1:14) the Word was transformed into the Son of God. Prior to this there was only the Father of which the Word was an intrigal part, not a separate entity, nor even a separate personality. The Word was merely an appendage!!!

You also completely misunderstand God's omnipotence. Because of God's own rules (laws) he cannot do anything contrary (against) his nature, hence he cannot change what he is, he cannot lie and among other things, he most certainly cannot die!!! But die, Jesus most certainly did!!! Jesus was not any kind of “halfbreed.” His mother was there merely to bring him into the world. Jesus was a new creation and did not partake of his mothers flesh, which in real effect means that he was not even related to her, this is how he can say to her at the time he changed water to wine, “Woman, what have I to do with you,” and not break the commandment to honor parents (father and mother).

Consulting Strong's, Brown's or any other dictionary is not and cannot be leaning on man's understanding, because it would be virtually impossible to communicate without being able to agree as to the meaning of words. Remember, all translations of the Bible rely on the understanding and interpretation of men! This is because, since we no longer have the original, God inspired, texts, we must come to an agreement of what the words in the mss we do have mean. Nevertheless, having said that, one still must be careful how he applies these definitions and make sure the definition falls within the context of the scripture.

Christ being said to be the first of God's creation does not mean that he was the first thing ever created by God, rather it means that he has the preeminence over all that is created, he is first in authority over all creation. Again “begotten” means to issue out of not to be created by.

You are totally devoid of understanding, in any language. You have made up your mind that your interpretation is correct above all others. But your interpretation is not based on the truth, it is merely your fantasy that you have some special relationship with God that the rest of us do not have. Please, seek professional help, you are delusional and beside yourself.

[rebellman]

Hi everyone!

The last post here was quite a while ago, so I hope I'm not just whistling in the dark.

Follows is a quote from my post in “Preexistence (part 2):

Quote

So, how is God going to do this. Since the penalty was death, a death is required to satisfy justice. But, God can't die! (God's omnipotence notwithstanding, as by his own rules, God cannot do anything that is contrary to his nature – he can't lie, he can't change what he is and he can't die.) So, what is he to do? See the story of Abraham and Isacc. God will personally make the sacrifice to atone for Adam's transgression (that's how much he loves us), but he cannot do this personally, because even if it were possible for God to die, if he did die, at that precise instant everything would cease to exist. So, enter the Son. God chose to sacrafice a like thing to Adam; Adam is a created son, Jesus issues from God's being (the only begotten of the Father). It is necessary for Jesus to issue from God's being for two principle reasons: 1) the sacrifice must be both perfect and holy; and 2) it must be a thing that God personally gives up (sacrifices). So, God takes the thing most dear to him, his Word, physically separates it from himself and causes it to become a human being. Now enter Mary, Jesus' mother. Because Jesus must be human, one man standing in the place of another man, he can't just wander in out of the desert, he has to be connected directly so that mankind will know that this is that sacrifice that God has made. The virgin birth is essentially a by product of this, because Jesus is a new creation and cannot, by definition, actually partake of his mother's flesh, lest it impart man's fallen nature. Now, regardless of where the man Jesus came from or what stuff he was made of, he absolutely must be a separate entity from his Father for a large number of reasons, but primarily so that he can be something that God actually gives up; if he is in any way still God and God can't die, then the death of Jesus is a sham and Jesus must die in order to satisfy the penalty (It may or may not be worthy of note that in any religion where God is said to have incarnated, when he leaves he just goes away, he does not die). Now, in order for it to be proven that Jesus is his Father's son, he must be enabled to do those things that the Father can do, so Jesus is anonted (made Christ) by receiving God's Spirit which empowers him.

Because both sides (trinitarians & non-trintarians) make some complelling points the above is offered from a purely logical stand point. Nevertheless, trinitarians should take into consideration the origins of “Trinity.” Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, know commonly as Tertullian, was a prolific Christian apologist. He is the first to expound upon “Trinity” at length and some credit him with its invention. However, Tertullian did not derive his deffinitions for the Bible, but rather from Roman law and Greek philosophy and then superimposed these upon God, his Son and the Holy Spirit. This in itself is not enough to condemn his writings, but in his later life he was a member of a false sect called “The New Prophecy,” and later know by the name of its founder Montanus and called Montanists. This sect had two female prophetesses, Prisca and Maximillia, who claimed to be the Paraclete or Mouth Piece of God. The sect claimed that after them there would be no prophecy. However, none of the prophetesses' prophecies came to pass. The sect was also condemned by the first century Church as a heresy. Tertullian was the Montanist's most staunch apologist, meaning that he actively and vocally supported them and their philosophies. So, we have the person most likely to have invented “Trinity” who is not only a member of a false sect, but is their primary defender. Therefore, the thing to consider is this, how likely is it that God would allow a clear heretic to define the “Godhead” and not use a single reference from the Bible for his doctrine?

[rebellman]

Kerwin

I thought I understood English (I've spoken it all my life and I got straight A's in English classes in school), but if you are speaking English, I guess I'm wrong. Because I can't seem to decipher your posts, I may be way off base here, but the one thing that keeps popping up in your posts seems to be that whatever it is you're saying is said to support your belief that Jesus is at this time God. But, because I don't understand your posts, I don't know what you base this belief on. Nevertheless, such a belief must be in error, because of what God needed to accomplish through the death of Jesus. Follows is from my post in “Preexitence (part 2)”:

Quote

So, how is God going to do this. Since the penalty was death, a death is required to satisfy justice. But, God can't die! (God's omnipotence notwithstanding, as by his own rules, God cannot do anything that is contrary to his nature – he can't lie, he can't change what he is and he can't die.) So, what is he to do? See the story of Abraham and Isacc. God will personally make the sacrifice to atone for Adam's transgression (that's how much he loves us), but he cannot do this personally, because even if it were possible for God to die, if he did die, at that precise instant everything would cease to exist. So, enter the Son. God chose to sacrafice a like thing to Adam; Adam is a created son, Jesus issues from God's being (the only begotten of the Father). It is necessary for Jesus to issue from God's being for two principle reasons: 1) the sacrifice must be both perfect and holy; and 2) it must be a thing that God personally gives up (sacrifices). So, God takes the thing most dear to him, his Word, physically separates it from himself and causes it to become a human being. Now enter Mary, Jesus' mother. Because Jesus must be human, one man standing in the place of another man, he can't just wander in out of the desert, he has to be connected directly so that mankind will know that this is that sacrifice that God has made. The virgin birth is essentially a by product of this, because Jesus is a new creation and cannot, by definition, actually partake of his mother's flesh, lest it impart man's fallen nature. Now, regardless of where the man Jesus came from or what stuff he was made of, he absolutely must be a separate entity from his Father for a large number of reasons, but primarily so that he can be something that God actually gives up; if he is in any way still God and God can't die, then the death of Jesus is a sham and Jesus must die in order to satisfy the penalty (It may or may not be worthy of note that in any religion where God is said to have incarnated, when he leaves he just goes away, he does not die). Now, in order for it to be proven that Jesus is his Father's son, he must be enabled to do those things that the Father can do, so Jesus is anonted (made Christ) by receiving God's Spirit which empowers him.

Any passage that can be presented to prove anything else must be taken out of context and therefore cannot be proof. The entire act of God saving mankind hinges on the Father and the Son being separate entities (individuals), because the Son must die and this is something the Father cannot do.

If this isn't your ultimate point, then I apologise and I will shut up, because if this isn't your point, I don't have an inkling of a clue as to what your point actually is.

[rebellman]

Quote

Hebrew was the first language used to bring God’s word to the world.

Ed J

It would be beneficial to everyone, but especially to you, if you would at least get your facts straight before spewing out garbage.

The first language used to bring God’s word to the world was not Hebrew, unless that's what Adam spoke and there is no indication anywhere what Adam's language was. But even discounting that, Abram (later Abraham) certainly did not speak Hebrew as he was Chaldean and would of a certainty have spoken that language. Now, I don't see that Abraham spoke or wrote the Word of God to anyone, so let's skip down to Moses. Moses was certainly a Hebrew, but was raised as Pharoh's son and so definitely spoke Egyptian, oh but, you say, Moses had to speak to the Hebrews, so he must have known Hebrew. Two things wrong with that assumption: the Hebrews were in captivity in Egypt for generations and so it is highly unlikely that they continued speaking whatever language Joseph spoke prior to going to Egypt and adopted Egyptian as their language, second, even if, in the unlikilihood, they did retain their previous language, no Egyptian prince would ever stoop to speaking the language of a slave! Finally, there is no indication whatsoever what language God speaks (probably every language), but there is also no indication in what language Moses wrote the law; Ex 34:27-28 (NIV) “Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.” Moses was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant — the Ten Commandments.” Since Hebrew is a derivative of earlier languages, to assume that he wrote in Hebrew (which very likely didn't exist yet) is offering an opinion of something not in evidence. Therefore, given these facts and considering how languages evolve, it is extremely unlikely that Hebrew was the first language used to convey the Word of God.

Next, to suggest that the AKJV, which is undisputablely one of the worst Bible translations in existence, is somehow the book upon which God would base his code, is utterly absurd.

Finally, the minute one attempts to prove the existence of God, one can be absolutely assured that this is simply a cunning device of man's to mislead those unskilled in the Word, because the whole point of faith is that one need not have concrete evidence in order to believe! In fact, without faith one cannot please God at all: Heb 11:6 (KJV) But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” Faith cannot be based on proof: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Heb 11:1 (KJV)

As you can see, false teachers really irritate me!

[rebellman]

FYI: Neither my name nor moniker is Rebel as I am not rebelling against anything – rebellman is merely a moniker with little relavant meaning to anything here and rebell is an acronym of my name… r(ichard)e(edward)bell(my last name). So don't be flippant, it's disresectful.

Hi ya theodorej,

Don't really care what you theorize as to the end times, as I didn't put this out there for criticism, I just thought that it might be interesting to someone.

But since you felt compelled to correct me: The “tribulation period” is already upon us and has been since the destruction of the second temple (and I see absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there will ever be a third). Mt 24:15, Mt 24:21 (KJV) “When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)” and “For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.” However, it is probable that Mt 24:27-30 is speaking of a later time and a tribulation period within the tribulation period. Mt 24:27-30 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together. Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.”

The Gentiles (Gentiles are anyone not a Jew and as far as the Jews are concerned, this includes Christians) had already occupied Jerusalem for nearly 2000 years until June 10, 1967 (don't you ever watch the news?!?)

As for the “falling away,” that happened in A.D. 325 when the Roman Catholic Church (the Great Whore) was established and the anti-Christ (the Pope) was set upon the throne of the Church.

And as for “the creator not [letting] some obscure tribe of baby killing, sun worshiping canabals call an end to his creation….” this is not at all what I was suggesting. I was merely pointing out, as has been the case many times, the heathen have known things that the People of God didn't (Balaam being only one example).

So, it becomes painfully clear that you are not getting your information from or through the Holy Spirit, and since not, you have no authority to judge me in any manner whatsoever. 1 Co 2:14-15 (KJV) “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.” Let those led by the Holy Spirit say, “Amen!”

[rebellman]

Wm

WOW! I'd be willing to bet that wherever and whenever you posted that, you got slammed from a dozen directions, not because it's incorrect, but because nobody understood it! Don't get me wrong, as I do understand what you are saying, though I do disagree on a couple of points. However, this is the attitude that I spoke of elsewhere, that if two disagree, they should work together from an attitude that it is more likely that both are incorrect than that either has perfect understanding.

Have you ever heard of The Urantia Book? I ask because your explanation sounds a bit like some of the things I've read there. If you haven't, I'm not going to go into any explanation of that.

You definitely grasp what I have been saying about the inadequacy of human understanding and the limitations of language to express spiritual concepts. But, I personally try not to get too technical about things I can't possibly comprehend. But, most people, if they're interested in understanding the deeper things of God at all, tend to not be able to see the forest for the trees. As with this present discussion, it does not matter one whit whether Jesus preexisted or not (other than the questions that it raises regarding “Trinity”), because this is not what the Bible was created to teach. The Bible was never meant to be a comprehensive guide to how and why everything that is, is. It isn't a comprehensive history of our universe (that's why the dinosaurs aren't mentioned – they're irrelavant). The Bible has one purpose and one purpose only and that is to inform mankind that there has been a separation between God and man, but that we shouldn't lose hope because God has a plan for bringing us back to him. And the less we get involved with the intricacies of how God works, the better. This is why Paul declares, “I am determined to know nothing, save Christ and him crucified.” But, I tend to be one of those people like Daniel, don't open a door just a crack and then tell me, “Go thy way, Richard: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.” When I die and find myself before the judgement seat of Christ, it's going to be a good thing that we will have eternity, because I have about a billion questions I'm going to ask.

Anyway, because I don't (and can't) understand all the nuances of reality, I have pieced together some theories based on what I have read in the Bible. The Bible is in a way like a tapestry or better, a mosaic, if one stands too close all he sees are the threads, or tiles and while these are very interesting in themselves, that's not really their purpose, the purpose is to reveal a picture. However, if one takes a step back and looks at the picture as a whole, the purpose becomes clear. The OT is that mosaic, its purpose was to graphically show us what God is doing, that's why it is the shadow of things to come. Take the story of Moses. Moses represents mankind and God' dealling with us, through us. But this goes only so far, as is seen with Moses, even though he was given great authority, understanding and power, yet he was unable to simply obey (smiting the rock, rather than speaking to it) and so was unworthy to bring the Children of Israel into the promised land. So, this task fell to Joshua (the archetype of his namesake “Jesus” [this is why I don't like using the name Jesus, as it clouds who he really is – as has been pointed out by Pierre, names in the Bible mean something]).

However, no matter what the relationship of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, God does, as you suggest, use agents when dealling with us inside our universe. I suspect this is because God is perfect and our universe is not, therefore the two cannot be in the same place at the same time, or else the imperfect would be destroyed. These agents we call angels and God uses them exclusively within our universe. It was not God, but his angel in the burning bush. It was not God, but his angel upon the mountain that Moses spoke with in the passage about covering Moses' eyes and showing him God's hinder parts. (Now some will take exception to this because it says that God was speaking to Moses, but Jesus declares, “God is a spirit and no man has seen God at any time, save the son of man” and we open a whole new can of worms if we say that Jesus was being less than truthful here), it was not God, but his angel who spoke with Abraham upon the Plain of Mamre. So, no matter what the reason, God does not physically enter this universe.

Back to the picture, the whole thing with the garden of Eden was a setup from the beginning, designed to illustrate a point, that we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. I don't know the reality of what is going on in God's universe, or how it's even possible for an angel to defy God, but this Lucifer certainly did (I have a theory about that too, but that's for another time). However, Lucifer tried to turn this disobedience around and pin it on God (this story can be gleened from Isa 14:12-15 and Eze 28:12-17), saying in effect, it's your fault God, because you made me this way. Being the just God that he is, God created this universe and put imperfect man here to show that if the transgression was his fault, he would make a way to rectify it. Now many are going to say, “Come on Richard, aren't you reading a lot more into this than is written?” But just look at the scenario, here is imperfect Adam, made of a lump of clay. He looks around and sees that every other animal in the world has a mate of its own kind and he realizes that he does not and so asks God to give him one. This God does, but not like with the other animals, God takes a rib from Adam and makes Eve, virtually a clone of Adam, except female. Now on some level Adam understands this as he declares, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” Ge 2:23-24 (KJV) And Adam loved Eve with all his heart. So, now enter the garden, God has placed in the garden every kind of good tree and in the middle of the garden the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and has forbidden them to eat of this fruit. But, enter Lucifer (Satan) and he convinces Eve that God is just being selfish by withholding this fruit, because God doesn't want them to be truely like him, knowing both good and evil, so she falls for it and eats. Now she knows what she has done and that it was wrong, prior to this that realizaton was imposible because she didn't have the knowledge, it being contained in the fruit, to base her decision on. So, she was fooled into committing this sin, therefore it was not entirely her fault, but God also was responsible by virtue of withholding the one thing she needed in order to make an informed decision. (It might be interesting to note that while Cain's killing of Able is considered to be the first murder, it wasn't, because after eating the fruit, Eve knew good and evil and knew of a certainty that the penalty for eating was death, yet she still not only offered the fruit to Adam, but attempted to convince him that it was okay). But this isn't the transgression that God holds man accountable for. Enter Adam, he sees that Eve has eaten the fruit and knows only that she is going to die and be taken away from him. His great love for Eve (but really for himself, as she is him; a clone) drives him to eat the fruit as well, because he feels it is better to be with her in death, than to be without her in life. Now, I can hear them saying, “how can you pos
sibly infer this from the story in Genesis?” How? Because I have been in love with my Eve and lost her to death and it came very close to my doing exactly as Adam did. But the point here is that the transgression being disobedience, goes beyond that, because Adam turned from his love of God to his love of self (remember, Eve's a clone – “bone of my bones”) and this transgresses the greatest commandment; when asked what is the greatest commandment, Jesus replied, “Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one and ye shall love him with all your heart, mind, body, soul and strength!” Regardless of the fact that God opened the way for this to happen, Adam is still accountable for his decisions and the penalty for eating is death (cessation of being). But, because this was also God's fault, even if only slightly, God, being just, has made a way for redemption that isn't contingent upon man doing anything!

So, how is God going to do this. Since the penalty was death, a death is required to satisfy justice. But, God can't die! (God's omnipotence notwithstanding, as by his own rules, God cannot do anything that is contrary to his nature – he can't lie, he can't change what he is and he can't die.) So, what is he to do? See the story of Abraham and Isacc. God will personally make the sacrifice to atone for Adam's transgression (that's how much he loves us), but he cannot do this personally, because even if it were possible for God to die, if he did die, at that precise instant everything would cease to exist. So, enter the Son. God chose to sacrafice a like thing to Adam; Adam is a created son, Jesus issues from God's being (the only begotten of the Father). It is necessary for Jesus to issue from God's being for two principle reasons: 1) the sacrifice must be both perfect and holy; and 2) it must be a thing that God personally gives up (sacrifices). So, God takes the thing most dear to him, his Word, physically separates it from himself and causes it to become a human being. Now enter Mary, Jesus' mother. Because Jesus must be human, one man standing in the place of another man, he can't just wander in out of the desert, he has to be connected directly so that mankind will know that this is that sacrifice that God has made. The virgin birth is essentially a by product of this, because Jesus is a new creation and cannot, by definition, actually partake of his mother's flesh, lest it impart man's fallen nature.

Now, regardless of where the man Jesus came from or what stuff he was made of, he absolutely must be a separate entity from his Father for a large number of reasons, but primarily so that he can be something that God actually gives up; if he is in any way still God and God can't die, then the death of Jesus is a sham and Jesus must die in order to satisfy the penalty (It may or may not be worthy of note that in any religion where God is said to have incarnated, when he leaves he just goes away, he does not die). Now, in order for it to be proven that Jesus is his Father's son, he must be enabled to do those things that the Father can do, so Jesus is anonted (made Christ) by receiving God's Spirit which empowers him.

There are many, many, many passages that back all of this up, but to even list the chapter and verses would take pages, so you'll just have to read the book for yourself if you want those references.

Now, I said all of that to show what I believe and why I disagree with some of what you stated above. Jesus is not a manifestation of God, he is his own person, God's only begotten Son. If he has in himself any divinity it is only by virtue of being created from something divine, the Word. Absolutely all of Jesus' power prior to the ressurection is derived solely from the indwelling Spirit of God.

[rebellman]

Pierre

What language do you actually speak, that is what is your first language, because it certainly is not English as it is painfully clear that you do not understand English even a little bit or else you would say such completely assinine things.

Quote

Ps 103:21 Praise the LORD, all his heavenly hosts, you his servants who do his will. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

How is doing, dwelling?!?

Please take the sage's advice and shut up, for it is better to be quite and seem a fool, than to speak and prove it!

[rebellman]

Pierre

If, as you assert, Jesus preexisted then Col. 1:16 is just such proof that he did something by his own power: “For by him were all things created… all things were created by him, and for him… by him all things consist.” These passages explicitly (explicit being defined as: stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.) say that these things were done by him, which means by his own volition (power). There is absolutely nothing in the entire chapter that qualifies this to mean “by him, but with the power of God.” Now, I'm finished with you, because you have no desire of being taught anything as you obviously know everything already.

t8
Jn 1:1 is a very simple sentence, so I don't get why so many people can't understand it. Most trinitarians use it to attempt to show that “Jesus” is at this time God and the JW's use it to attempt to show that he is a lessor god. However, this can be done only if one completely ignores the rules of grammar. I have studied both Greek grammar and English grammar and while the syntax of Greek is more like the Romance languages (French, Spanish, Italian) this sentence is so simple anyone with even a rudimentory understanding of English should be able to understand it. Unfortunately, most people have some agenda that is more important to them than the rules of grammar or even the basic meaning of the words. But look at the sentence: In the beginning was the Word… this clearly and unequivocally shows that the Word was there at the beginning of eternity; lets not get hung up about eternity having no beginning or end, the point is that as long as there was anything, the Word was there. …and the Word was with God… so now we see that the Word was at least holy or it couldn't have been with the holy God. …and the Word was God, this does show that the Word was the same thing as God. Now, the reason I italicised the Word is because it is critical to understand that this is an attribute of God, nowhere is there any indication that the Word has conciousness, personality, or volition. It is not a person of a Godhead, it is simply an attribute, period. There are plenty of OT passages that talk about God's creating through and/or by his Word and if we think of God speaking things into existence, then the Word is like his voice and like our voice, it has no special properties or power in itself, it's a means, like a tool. Therefore, it is a long stretch to say that “Jesus” or Christ preexisted, simply because Jesus was formed from the Word. A vase is made from a lump of clay, but until it was a vase, it was a lump of clay, nothing more, and after it is the vase, it is no longer the lump of clay, so does the vase preexist simply by virtue of once being a lump of clay? We have a similar situation with the Word and Jesus. Prior to God forming Jesus from the Word (as in Jn 1:14) the Word was in a sense like the lump of clay, it was an intrigal part of God (like your foot, hand or voice). But, God took this Word of his, physically separated it from himself and used it to create a living soul, exactly in the way God took a lump of clay and used it to create a living soul; Adam. Paul make reference to the first Adam was made a living soul and the last Adam a quickening spirit. (If any one wants the chapter & verse for these references, get out your concordance and look them up.)

As to your reference to Php 2:6,7 (KJV) Php 2:6-7 Php 2:6-7 “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men…” I think we should also look at the NIV version: “Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.” I believe that the KJV “Who, being in the form of God…” is misleading as it sounds like it is talking about the time when the Word was God and so if he “made himself” something, then it would mean that the Word did have consciousness, personality and volition. But if we consider the NIV version (which whether you want to accept it of not, is almost always a more acurate translation), “Who, being in very nature God…” this is very different. Jesus was “in nature, God.” There is a vast difference between “form” and “nature.” After the incarnation of the Word, Jesus still retained the “nature” of God and so divesting himself of the nature was post incarnation and therefore is no evidence of preexistence.

Now, let us consider Col 1:15-17 (in both the KJV and NIV): “Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.” (KJV)

“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” (NIV)

This becomes a more difficult to reckon. “He is the image of the invisible God,” this is oft used to support “Trinity,” but just as Adam being made in the image of God, didn't make Adam God, neither does Jesus being the image of God, make him God. “For by him all things were created… all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” If this does prove preexistence, then as I stated before we have clear evidence that Jesus is God and trinitarians are correct, but if we consider that this passage does apply the the Word – preincarnation – then again this is no evidence of preexistence, because as the Word in effect Jesus did do these things since nothing that was done by or through the Word are negated simply because the Word was transformed into the fleshly person of Jesus, so by extrapolation, even though the Word no longer exists as such and Jesus wasn't in existence at the time, these things were done by Jesus. Now, I realize that this is somewhat convoluted, by without such an explanation we are left with the imposible situation that Jesus is at this time God.

There are two other things that should be considered here: 1) Paul's purpose in writing this passage was not to prove the preexistence of Jesus, but rather his fitness to be Christ; and 2) That Jesus preexisted or might in some manner be God would have never even flashed through his mind and we can know this because there are exactly zero passages that specifically address the preexistence of Jesus or that argue that he was in any way God. Both “Trinity” and the preexistence theory are being inferred based on someone's preconceived notion and then passages that have nothing to do with either are being taken out of context to prove something they were never intended to prove. It may be only my opinion, but I believe that had Paul had any idea that his words would be taken out of context to support unscriptural doctrines, he would have said these same things, but in a way that would not have lent themselves to abuse. Paul was aware that such people existed as he says in 2 Co 11:12-15: “But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we. For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose
end shall be according to their works.” He also warns Timothy, 2 Ti 2:23-26 (KJV): But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.” and again that there would be those “having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 2 Tim 3:5-7 (KJV) As Peter warns as well: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.” 2 Pe 1:20-2:2 (KJV)

In any case, you are free to believe anything you choose, I care not whether you believe me or don't, I believe the things that I do because of 40+ years of diligent searching of the scriptures, with prayer and fasting so that I could be convinced in my own mind, not so that I could lead anyone anywhere. But, I didn't bring with me preconceived notions taught to me by corrupt men, because I left these behind and sought the Holy Spirit to teach me as ought to be done.

Peace – out.

[rebellman]

Since you already know it all, why do you ask questions that you already know the answers to?!?

Good shot, I lost my entire family to the J-dubs, so you did guess the most offensive thing you could call me.

Derision and name calling are the last resort of the ignorant!!!

[Author]

Posts