Search Members

[truebelief4u]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 21 2005,03:43)

Hi, I think this matter deserves a forum of it's own. We are told in Gen 6 that ” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came into the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown” The sons of God also are shown in Job 1,2,38 and Satan is among them. I believe Michael and Gabriel and the other princes as shown in Daniel may have been among them and perhaps too the prince of peace, the Son of God? David slew Goliath and there are a few other references to the descendants of the Nephilim. My feeling is that their great strength and large stature gave them huge physical advantages but they do not seem to necessarily have matched intellects. War seemed to be the role where their special talents were admired most. I see no reason to disbelieve that their genes are still able to be traced among mankind. Today those of large stature are admired for their sporting prowess. Sport plays a huge role in the interests of men and generally a big strong man will be able to defeat a smaller strong man. Perhaps love of sport is idolatry of man to some, and even thence the idolatry of angelic influence? Could it be that some influence of the Nephilim is still here?

Do you equate the Nephilim with Genesis 3:15? (Satan's seed line.) It is interesting to note that the descendants of the Nephilim had no “resurrection” in their future, whereas the descendants of Israel did….see Is. 26:14 and 19. (Read 14/19 in the original Hebrew…the English translation was really screwed up.) This also raises the question as to what Jesus meant in Matthew 15:24 when he stated he came only to the “lost sheep of Israel.” (The scattered sheep, scattered all over Asia Minor and Europe.)

There is the possibility (please note I said “possibility”) that mankind has completely misinterpreted “who” is to be “saved” if they accept Christ…..just might not be “everyone included” as is assumed.

[truebelief4u]

Nick…you said above: “But scripture also says in 1 Jn.4.9
“By this we know the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through him”

I understand your take on this, and many believe that Yashuah existed before birth to Mary. I have a question, though…since “begotten” means (literally) “born of,” he can't BE “begotten” until he is BORN….how do you get around that?
If you have a son, your only son, born of your wife, and you send him into the world, you are sending “your only begotten son into the world.” That does not mean he existed BEFORE being conceived.

[truebelief4u]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 05 2006,18:47)

Hi Is 1.18, Is God greater than you in any and all senses? Is God greater than the Son of God Jesus Christ. Jesus said he was. That excludes them sharing the same being, God as surely God could not have unequal parts? So where is the equality?

The”equality” exists only in the imaginations of the “trinitarians.”

[truebelief4u]

Quote (Ramblinrose @ April 13 2006,19:32)

Maybe it would be best to refer people to the following article in answer to this topic. Virgin Birth – True or False – Fact or Fiction YHWH Bless

Good link…..very interesting!

[truebelief4u]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 27 2006,03:25)

Quote (truebelief4u @ April 26 2006,19:14) Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 26 2006,15:45) Hi tbfu, Then what does “only begotten” mean to you? Pre-existence is a silly term. Surely a being exists or it does not. When you say “pre-existed” you really mean “existed in a form prior to visible physical existence?” We know God did and the angels do. Why is it so hard to grasp what we cannot see with our own eyes? Yet faith is to do with things that are not seen.[Heb 11.1] The Word did..was that THE Son of God? “You are the Christ THE Son of the Living God” “Only begotten,” to me means just that….Yashuah was the ONLY “begotten” Son of God…the ONLY one ever conceived via the holy spirit directly. “Pre-existence” may be a semantic argument…I lean toward the view that Yashuah did not exist until his conception, but there are other views…that's just my personal leaning. John 1:1, et.  seq. has been misinterpreted, and has nothing to do with “Jesus” existing way back in Genesis. See: http://www.jetlink.com.ph/~religion/relig029.htm and; http://www.geocities.com/athens/olympus/5257/colossians.htm I think Ramblinrose has supplied some links, as well, that would apply. Hi tbfu, Clearly you have not looked at the greek. “only begotten” is one word 'monogenes'. He is also the only and beloved “only begotten son”, who was sent into the world.

Nick….I'm not even sure the translation is correct (see the following)…..

http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_joh1_18.html
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicon….ion=kjv

And see: …his only begotten Son…http://www.christiancourier.com/feature/march2002.htm
“Only begotten” renders the Greek monogenes, found nine times in the New Testament (five of these of Christ – John 1:14,18; 3:16,18; 1 John 4:9). The term derives from two roots, monos (only, alone) and genos (race, stock).

In the contexts in which it applies to Jesus, it undoubtedly denotes that he is “unique in kind” (F.W. Danker, et al., Greek-English Lexicon, University of Chicago, 2000, p. 658). It is used “to mark out Jesus uniquely above all earthly and heavenly beings” (Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Colin Brown, ed., Zondervan, Vol. II, p. 725). “In its significance monogenes relates to the several areas: (1) being or nature (uniquely God’s Son), (2) the revelation of God to man (John 1:18), (3) salvation through the Son (John 3:16; 1 John 4:9)” (Everett F. Harrison, Wycliffe Dictionary of Theology, Hendrickson, 1999, p. 386).

[Note: there is nothing in the term monogenes to indicate that Christ was “the eternal Son of God,” as some have suggested. For a refutation of that notion, see Adam Clarke’s Commentary on Luke 1:35. Before his incarnation, Jesus was the eternal Word (logos) Jn. 1:1,14.]

And in particular: http://www.zianet.com/maxey/reflx26.htm

[truebelief4u]

Quote (kenrch @ April 27 2006,02:31)

Hello everyone, Question:  If the Word (Jesus, Michael or the word) did not exist before He was begotten then what is this scripture saying Joh 17:5  And now, Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee “before the world was”.

See: http://www.wrestedscriptures.com/b08trinity/john17v5.html

John 17:5

“And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.”

Problem:

If Christ had glory with God before the world was, then obviously it is argued he must have existed before his birth on earth.

Solution:
Stress is often placed on Jesus' statement that he had glory with the Father. The J.W.'s in their New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures translate this verse as follows: “So now you, Father, glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was.”1 But the Greek preposition “para” translated “with” in the A.V. and “alongside” in the N.W.T. also occurs in John 1:6: “There was a man sent from {Greek: para} God, whose name was John.” If the preposition in John 17:5 requires the literal pre-existence of Christ, then likewise it requires the literal pre-existence of John the Baptist.2 It is interesting that the N.W.T. inconsistently translates John 1:6 as follows: “There arose a man that was sent forth as a representative of God: his name was John.” There is no hint of pre-existence here.

How could Jesus have glory with his Father “before the world was” if he did not literally pre-exist? An illustration is helpful: An architect sees and knows the beautiful details of his proposed construction before the site is prepared, or the foundation-stone laid. But God is the great Architect and in His divine plan, Christ was “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13:8) – the chief cornerstone “foreordained before the foundation of the world”. (1 Peter 1:20). The building will duly be fitly framed together (Eph. 2:21) to constitute its part in the “kingdom prepared . . . from the foundation of the world.” (Matt. 25:34). Christ was “foreordained”, but not formed until born of the virgin Mary in the days of Herod the king. Likewise, the glory he had with his Father was in the divine plan of the great Architect. It was the subject of prophetic testimony “when it {the Spirit of Christ} testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow.” (1 Peter 1:11 cf. John 12:41).

Scripture speaks as if others pre-existed, as well as Christ. Consider the following:
Of believers, Paul wrote:
“Whom he did foreknow.” (Rom. 8:29).
“He had afore prepared {note the past tense} unto glory.” (Rom. 9:23 cf. 2 Tim. 1:9).
“He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world.” (Eph. 1:4).
Of Jeremiah, the LORD said: “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.” (Jer. 1:5).

But who would contend for the pre-existence of Jeremiah and other believers because the language employed states that God knew them before they were born? Similarly, the language of John 17:5 must be understood in terms of this background. Unless the principle is recognized that God “calleth those things which be not as though they were” (Rom. 4:17), confusion will result in Biblical interpretation, as it does with the wrested pre-existence interpretation given to this passage in John's gospel.

The context is sufficiently clear that Christ is not “Very God”. His power and authority are derived, not innate: “As thou hast given him {Christ} power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.” (John 17:2).

The Greek preposition “para” in John 17:5 takes the dative case and means “beside and at, with or near a person; with, i.e., in the estimation or power of.” But in John 1:6 “para” takes the genitive case and means “from beside, beside and proceeding from.” See Ethelbert W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance, (London: Samuel Bagster and Sons Ltd., 1957), p. 888. Return

[truebelief4u]

Quote (malcolm ferris @ April 23 2006,07:30)

Quote (Woutlaw @ April 17 2006,18:24) A name represents a person, the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is Jesus Christ according to Acts 2:38? Malcolm, If you're trying to make a connection between Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:38 I have a serious disagreement with you. Oneness people do this to try to prove that Jesus is The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost. Matthew 28:19 is another example of tampering of scripture, along with 1 John 5:7. There is a lot of documentation on the web that address this issue. But I don't need to use that documentation to prove that Matthew 28:19 has been altered. In Matthew 28:18, Jesus said, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth . I believe that all authority has indeed been given to the Son. If the Son has all authority, then why in the world would we baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? If the Son has all authority, then to baptize in his name would suffice. What is in a name? If my father's name was Malcolm Ferris which is also my name, then It would be my Father's name as well as mine. Now if my father were the president of the USA then the name of my father and his son (me) and the president of the USA would be Malcolm Ferris… That would not make me my Father, nor would it make my father me! If my father was to authorize me to go and speak to a bunch of people on his behalf then I would be going in the name of my father to do so. So yes you are speaking of authority, representation and expression. A name designates an individual, it can show their lineage, surname, it identifies a particular person of that genealogical line. A name has a meaning normally also. The name Jesus means Jehovah is Savior. The name Christ means Anointed. Also regarding Matt 28:19 and Acts 2:38 – I don't care if the Oneness people try to use these to prove their error, it does not disqualify the verses. Trinitarians use many scriptures also, but we do not need to argue that the scriptures do not belong there. A correct understanding of how those scriptures apply and what they actually means gives harmony to the entire Word of God. He is well able to protect His Word from human corruption, even as He preserved the scrolls that survived the history of Israel to become the Word of God in common use when Jesus the Messiah arrived on the scene. Jesus did not need to argue the validity of verses, no he merely gave them the correct interpretation. Heavens and earth shall pass away but the Word of the Lord endures forever. So I would prefer to address the scriptures that exist and look at their correct interpretation. In Matthew 28:19 we are told to baptize in the NAME (not names) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Now for a start the Father and the Holy Spirit are the same Spirit – namely God the Father. Father however is not a name – it is a title. Or office Holy Spirit is not a name – it is a title or office. Son is not a name – it is a title or office. We also know for a fact that the Father and the Son are not the same person, even if they both have the same name! So in Acts 2:38 when Peter, (the one to whom Jesus gave the keys of the Kingdom) stood up and addressed the people, he did not disobey the words of Jesus in Matt 28:19 – he told them what that ONE NAME is, and this is the same name of which the entire family of God in Heaven and on earth are named.

Malcom……as Woutlaw has pointed out, you are using verses that have no place in authentic Scripture:  Matthew 28:19 is known to be a deliberate alteration of the original text (and admitted as such by the Pope no less):
See: http://english.sdaglobal.org/research/mt2819.htm
And: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1461121/posts
http://www.godglorified.com/kosmala.htm
http://72.14.203.104/search?….nk&cd=1

[truebelief4u]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 26 2006,15:45)

Hi tbfu, Then what does “only begotten” mean to you? Pre-existence is a silly term. Surely a being exists or it does not. When you say “pre-existed” you really mean “existed in a form prior to visible physical existence?” We know God did and the angels do. Why is it so hard to grasp what we cannot see with our own eyes? Yet faith is to do with things that are not seen.[Heb 11.1] The Word did..was that THE Son of God? “You are the Christ THE Son of the Living God”

“Only begotten,” to me means just that….Yashuah was the ONLY “begotten” Son of God…the ONLY one ever conceived via the holy spirit directly.

“Pre-existence” may be a semantic argument…I lean toward the view that Yashuah did not exist until his conception, but there are other views…that's just my personal leaning.

John 1:1, et.  seq. has been misinterpreted, and has nothing to do with “Jesus” existing way back in Genesis.
See: http://www.jetlink.com.ph/~religion/relig029.htm
and; http://www.geocities.com/athens/olympus/5257/colossians.htm

I think Ramblinrose has supplied some links, as well, that would apply.

[truebelief4u]

Unless I am mistaken the only thing Jesus told us to celebrate was communion.

1.  “Christmas” is not even his birthday, anyway…and there was no command to celebrate his BIRTH. Not to mention the “Christmas tree” is purely a pagan symbol and a “no-no!”
http://www.gotquestions.org/Christmas-tree.html

2.  What makes you think “Sunday” was the day of the resurrection?  He was resurrected BEFORE daylight rolled around, making it still SATURDAY according to the Hebrew reckoning. (OK, OK, I know, picky, picky…it was our “Sunday.”)
Quote from: http://www.religioustolerance.org/resurrec1.htm
   Although essentially all Christian faith groups believe that Jesus was resurrected on Sunday morning, the Gospels are somewhat vague when identifying the day of the week and the time. His resurrection occurred sometime before the woman/women visited the tomb on Sunday morning. The writer of the Gospel of John says that Mary Magdelene visited the tomb before sunrise on Sunday; the authors of Mark and Matthew say that the visit at about dawn; Luke is vague. So the resurrection could have happened on Sunday morning, in the daytime just after sunrise. Alternatively, it could have happened during the night before Sunday sunrise, or even on Saturday. Mark 16:9 states specifically that Jesus rose early on Sunday morning; however verses 9 to 20 are generally regarded as a later forgery, added onto Marks' writing at a later date. [End quote.]

Hmmm…..wonder if it was actually Saturday, or Sunday, even according to the Hebrew reckoning, since there appears to be some discrepancy here…….comments?

[truebelief4u]

Well, dumbo me had to go and look up “conceive.” Arrrrggggghhhhh!!!!

The New Testament Greek Lexicon

Found 8 entries matching: conceive English Translation Original Word Transliterated Word
1080 conceived gennavw gennao
2192 conceived* e[cw echo
2602 conceive* katabolhv katabole
2845 conceived* koivth koite
4690 conceive* spevrma sperma
4815 conceive sullambavnw sullambano
4815 conceived sullambavnw sullambano
5087 conceived tivqhmi tithemi

Also: http://www.studylight.org/lex….rch.y=6

And, naturally, since Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, I had to go there as well:
The Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon

Found 8 entries matching: conceive English Translation Original Word Transliterated Word
02029 conceive hrh harah
02029 conceived hrh harah
02029 conceives hrh harah
02030 conceive hrh hareh
02032 conceive !wrh herown
02232 conceive [rz zara`
02664 well-conceived Xpx chaphas
03179 conceived ~xy yacham

WHICH definition it would be correct to use? Beats me…some texts have DIFFERENT Hebrew/Greek words!! So now what??? Anybody got any idea WHICH is actually the correct word? [Normally I would go to the Syriac and check, but that doesn't apply here as we're dealing specifically with the actual Greek or Hebrew word, whatever it was, not the Syriac translation.]

[truebelief4u]

Quote (Woutlaw @ April 23 2006,23:49)

Hi guys, As some of you may know, I'm a very open person. I don't like to be fake or hide behind a mask. I have no problem being open about my struggles. My biggest struggle is lust. I live in America, and men here are constantly being bombarded with sex 24/7. You can't turn on a tv, or read the newspaper, or go out in public without seeing some half dressed chick. Many women here don't know what modesty is. I was wondering do any of you guys share in this struggle? What kinda things have you done to overcome it?

Whew……lots of luck there!! Whether they admit it or not, I think most men have this problem! [That's the way we're hard-wired between our ears, I think.] Probably the best policy is when you find yourself drifting off in that direction do the old holler “GET THEE BEHIND ME, SATAN!!!!”

[truebelief4u]

Quote (kenrch @ April 25 2006,10:41)

It seems to me it's like faith without works.  I don't know anyone who met Jesus our Lord and didn't want to share Jesus with everyone. When we accept Jesus we want to be baptised.  I don't think the theif had any choice Jesus forgave his sins right there without water.  It's the heart that matters.

The thief was an exception….woulda been pretty difficult to do a water baptism while on the stake! [And also, this was BEFORE Christ's death, as someone pointed out above….]

Now, here's the thing….John the baptist clearly stated the one who would come after him would baptize “in Spirit.” There are two positions in mainstream Christianitry:
1.  Water baptism is NOT required, in view of John's statement, since believers would receive the “baptism of the Holy Spirit.”
2.  Water baptism IS required, due to the several N.T. examples of water baptism.

Does anyone know of any “absolute proof” WHICH is correct?

[truebelief4u]

Quote (Woutlaw @ April 24 2006,16:43)

absolutely Malcolm, I was baptized in a UPC church and they gave me one of those stupid birth certificates, I pitched it!!!! It's pointless

What…you trashed your baptismal certificate? Shame, shame!

Just curious, but HOW were you baptized? Using the formula in Matthew 28:19, or as it states in Acts, “in the name of Jesus?”

[truebelief4u]

Quote (Ramblinrose @ April 26 2006,05:12)

The following are articles that support the 'sign of Jonah' being three days and three nights and a Wednesday crucifixion. Leaving Babylon – The Sign of Jonah Good Friday is a Myth – Part 1 Good Friday is a Myth – Part 2

Ramblin….you're right on top of this, aren't you! Glad to see I'm not the only one paying attention to what the Bible actually says, rather than man-made tradition!

[truebelief4u]

Quoting from David's post on the first page:
The book The Non-Christian Cross, by J. D. Parsons (London, 1896), says: “There is not a single sentence in any of the numerous writings forming the New Testament, which, in the original Greek, bears even indirect evidence to the effect that the stauros used in the case of Jesus was other than an ordinary stauros; much less to the effect that it consisted, not of one piece of timber, but of two pieces nailed together in the form of a cross. . . . It is not a little misleading upon the part of our teachers to translate the word stauros as ‘cross’ when rendering the Greek documents of the Church into our native tongue, and to support that action by putting ‘cross’ in our lexicons as the meaning of stauros without carefully explaining that that was at any rate not the primary meaning of the word in the days of the Apostles, did not become its primary signification till long afterwards, and became so then, if at all, only because, despite the absence of corroborative evidence, it was for some reason or other assumed that the particular stauros upon which Jesus was executed had that particular shape.”—Pp. 23, 24; see also The Companion Bible (London, 1885), Appendix No. 162.

———————————

That pretty much sums it up! As a “technical point,” it appears Jesus was crucified on a “pole/upright stake,” rather than a “cross.” As a matter of faith, I doubt it makes a difference, as the point is he died as the final blood sacrifice, regardless of the exact form of the so-called “cross.”

[truebelief4u]

Quote (liljon @ Mar. 28 2006,04:06)

wednesday will not work and simple looking at the gospels will show this .Jesus repeatedley said he would rise THE THIRD DAY. http://www.bible.ca/d-3-days-and-3-nights.htm Esther 4-5 will show that three days and three nights doesn't nescarily have to be 3 full twenty four hour days.

You're not checking the links. Wednesday is correct. When the Hebrew idion “nights/days” is used, it NEVER means part of a day…it ALWAYS means one full 24 hour period.

SEE: http://www.bibarch.com/Perspectives/CP/CP–The-Crucifixion.htm (This is an excellent article and may help you see the timeline much better.)

The non-metaphorical literal language in Matthew's gospel states unequivocally that Jesus would be in the heart of the earth (his tomb) for “three days and three nights,” that is for not less than 72 hours, as Jonah, who remained dead for the same period, was in the belly of the sea creature (Matthew 12:40 cf. Jonah 1:17). Indisputable confirmation of this non-metaphorical literal language occurs four times in the Gospels, where the Greek says “after three days”, at Mark 8:31, 9:31 , 10:34, and Matthew 27:63, where the context of each requires the Resurrection to have occurred after three full days (three 24-hour periods, from sunset to sunset). There simply cannot be “three days and three nights” in in a period which at the very most could not be than thirty-six hours and no more than two nights. Is anyone justified, then, to conclude that this expression is a figure of speech and an approximation? Of course not, but some do so anyway.

[truebelief4u]

Meanwhile, back to John 1:1…..do not assume that this verse speaks of Jesus' pre-existence as is traditionally taught….mankind has a number of “traditions,” and they are not necessarily correct.

http://users.aristotle.net/~bhuie/created.htm
http://www.propheticrevelation.net/logos4.htm
http://www.bibletexts.com/versecom/joh01v01.htm
http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/showthread.php?id=171
http://72.14.203.104/search?….k&cd=14

[truebelief4u]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 19 2006,03:07)

Hi tbfu, Please can you make up a list of the figures of speech that are found in the bible. If there are things that appear to be true but are not because they are just an idiom of the language then we need to be able to recognise these things clearly. Otherwise there is ahe danger that we might believe them.

Nick….you gotta be kidding me?  A list of idioms and figures of speech? You got a few days and a couple volumes of space here? No way we can do that here in the forum…you'd have to hit the library (you know, real books…the printed stuff!   ).  You can find articles on the Internet as well, but I'd recommend the local library.

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_idioms.html
http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=2794
http://www.godstruthfortoday.org/Library….ch.html
http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/otidioms.htm

Onward…..Nick, the question of Jesus' “pre-existence” is one of those “darned if ya do, darned if ya don't” issues…..there are verses/contexts that support both views, and I have no idea which is ultimately correct, even though I, myself, tend to go with the “no pre-existence” theory

Nick, you asked: “So if being THE Son of God only meant Jesus was a man or was a Jew then why was Jesus so excited when Peter stated;

“You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God”?”

I think because Peter recognized he was the Messiah (Saviour), as opposed to simply being (in the Jewish tradition) a “son of God.”

[truebelief4u]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 18 2006,03:21)

Hi tb4u, Yes because the Son of Man was resurrected and became the “firstborn from the dead” we too can follow him into his death and become his brothers and sons of God too.

Right! Nick…there is an argument for Jesus NOT being “God” that I think pretty well covers it…not sure if you have ever heard it, so I'll throw it in here:

“If Jesus WAS God, then the death/resurrection means nothing.
If Jesus WAS NOT God, then the death/resurrection means EVERYTHING!”

Can't remember where I read this, but it made a lot of sense to me. This argument is, of course, predicated on the fact that God cannot die…He is immortal, and knowing that, if Jesus was in fact God, then this throws the whole “sacrifice” out of whack. (Not to mention that if Jesus WAS God, there would have been NO resurrection, period, as there would have been no one around to resurrect him…if GOD DIED, there could have been no resurrection!)

[truebelief4u]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 18 2006,03:19)

Hi tb4u, If so, and he only existed from the moment of his human conception then why does scripture record the Son was sent into the world? 1Jn 4.9 “…God sent His only begotten Son into the world..”

I would say (my opinion) is that is simply a figure of speech.

[Author]

Posts