Search Members

[typrsn]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 19 2006,20:18)

Hi typsrn Jn 10.35 “34Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in (A)your (B)Law, '©I SAID, YOU ARE GODS'? 35″If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36do you say of Him, whom the Father (D)sanctified and (E)sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, '(F)I am the Son of God'? “ Surely Jesus here is pointing our that those judges being referred to [to whom the Word came] were called “gods” by God, and this caused them no offense, but now he who is greater yet has been sanctified and sent by God, calls himself not a “god” but “the Son of God' and yet they take offense?

Nick,

What is your point? I know that Psalms 82 refers to the judges.

[typrsn]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 19 2006,19:47)

Hi typsrn this is you opinion and it is a very popular one. “Rather the Word was the thought, plan, or mind of God. The Word was with God in the beginning and actually was God Himself (John 1:1).” But a Word is expressed while a though or plan is not. A plan cannot be with God but would be in God. The Word was with God, Who is spirit.

Nick,

You must understand that John is dealing with God's plan as it relates to His Son. Your view of the Word as another God with God is in complete violation what God said about Himself in the Old Testament. I have gone over some of the passages with you already.

You say this is a very popular opinion. Say what? Since when did this become a popular opinion? Most believe as you do. The only difference between where you stand and where those that hold the trinity doctrine (concerning the “Word”)stand is, they believe the Word “person” to be unbegotten. While you believe the Word “person” to be begotten in eternity.

You say that “a Word is expressed while a thought or plan is not.” I strongly suggest that you do more research on the term “logos”. A Greek philosopher named Heraclitus first used the term Logos around 600 B.C. to designate the divine reason or plan which coordinates a changing universe. This word was well suited to John's purpose in John 1.

You have gone from being a trinitarian to being a binitarian (one who believes that the Father and Son are distinct divine personalities). You have gone from one heresy to another.

[typrsn]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 15 2006,22:08)

Hi kenrch, We do know as the Word he is the image of God, uniquely derived solely from God so he was a spirit being, the beginning of the creation of God which God made through him. Before the Word was spoken there was God.

Nick,

You say He was a spirit being? What kind of being then was the Father? The fact of the matter is, God didn't have a Son until He became one. I am not referring to angels, Adam and Israel. I'm referring to the Son of God.

Many are thrown by John's usage of Logos. John does not say “In the beginning was the Son and the Son was with the Father and the Son was the Father. John 1 beautifully teaches the concept of God manifest in flesh. In the beginning was the Word (Logos). The Word was not a separate person or a separate god any more than a man's word is a separate person from him. Rather the Word was the thought, plan, or mind of God. The Word was with God in the beginning and actually was God Himself (John 1:1). The Incarnation existed in the mind of God before the world began. Indeed, in the mind of God the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world (I Peter 1:19-20; Revelation 13:8).

In Greek usage, logos can mean the expression or plan as it exists in the mind of the proclaimer – as a play in the mind of a playwright – or it can mean the thought as uttered or otherwise physically expressed – as a play that is enacted on stage. John 1 says the Logos existed in the mind of God from the beginning of time. When the fulness of time was come, God put that plan in action. He put flesh on that plan in the form of the man Jesus Christ. The Logos is God expressed. The Logos is “God uttering Himself.” In fact, TAB translates the last phrase of John 1:1 as, “The Word was God Himself.” Flanders and Cresson say, “The Word was God's means of self disclosure.” This thought is further brought out by verse 14, which says the incarnated Word had the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, and by verse 18, which says that the Son has declared the Father.

In Greek philosophy, the Logos came to mean reason or wisdom as the controlling principle of the universe. In John's day, some Greek philosophers and Jewish theologians influenced by Greek thought (especially the Jewish thinker, Philo of Alexandria) regarded the Logos as an inferior, secondary deity or as an emanation from God in time. Some Christian heresies, including an emerging form of Gnosticism, were already incorporating these theories into their doctrines, and therefore relegating Jesus to an inferior role. John deliberately used their own terminology to refute these doctrines and to declare the truth. The Word was not inferior to God; it was God (John 1:1). The Word did not emanate from God over a period of time; it was with God in the beginning (John 1:1-2). Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was none other than the Word, or God, revealed in flesh. Note also that the Greek word pros, translated “with” in verse 1, is the same word translated “pertaining to” in Hebrews 2:17 and 5:1. John 1:1 could include in its meanings, therefore, the following: “The Word pertained to God and the Word was God,” or, “The Word belonged to God and was God.”

[typrsn]

Quote (jbl @ Aug. 19 2006,11:22)

Psalm 82 (NIV) 1 God presides in the great assembly;       he gives judgment among the “gods”: 2 “How long will you [a] defend the unjust       and show partiality to the wicked?       Selah 3 Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless;       maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed. 4 Rescue the weak and needy;       deliver them from the hand of the wicked. 5 “They know nothing, they understand nothing.       They walk about in darkness;       all the foundations of the earth are shaken. 6 “I said, 'You are “gods”;       you are all sons of the Most High.' 7 But you will die like mere men;       you will fall like every other ruler.” 8 Rise up, O God, judge the earth,       for all the nations are your inheritance. To whom exactly is this chapter referring to?  Prophets?  Judges?  The Pharisees? From what I understand, in:      verse 1, it says God will bring judgement to the 'gods'      verse 2, God says the 'gods' defend the unjust      verse 3 + 4, I'm uncertain, is God commenting on what they SHOULD be doing?      verse 5, God says that the gods lack wisdom      verse 6, these 'gods' are called “sons of the Most High” … Christ is a son of the Most High, is God being sarcastic?      verse 7, these 'gods' are mortal      verse 8, Earth will be judged When accused of being blasphemous, Christ said that the pharisees are referred to as being gods (according to this scripture).  How can they truly be sons of the Most High, gods, partaking in the divine nature, if they have no wisdom, defend the unjust, and reject the messiah? Others thoughts please!

jbl,

According to the testimony of Jesus in Jn. 10:35, they were called “gods” unto to whom the word of God came. This passage does not only pertain to the “heavenly assembly”. It refers to the “assembly” here also. His will is to be done on earth as in heaven. There is no problem with His judgment in the heavenly court, the problem is His judgment in the earthly realm due to His representatives not judging properly.

This principle (although “gods” is not mentioned) is also seen in Matt. 18:15-20 where Jesus deals with discipline. Also in Acts 15 when the leaders assembled to discuss the question of the necessity of circumcision. We also find this principle in 1 Cor. 5,6 where there was a professing brother fornicating with his own father's wife and the situation was not being handled properly.

A proper understanding of the dialogue between Jesus and His audience in John 10 will help us understand who Jesus is and the point He was conveying.

[typrsn]

Quote (Oxy @ Aug. 18 2006,20:58)

Quote (typrsn @ Aug. 18 2006,20:23) Quote (Oxy @ Aug. 18 2006,06:59) I am interested in knowing how others see the three feasts, Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles.  In particular I am interested in the Feast of Tabernacles.  We know.. oops, that's a brave statement in this forum lol.  I see the Feast of Passover symbolising our repentance and consequently our Born Again experience, and Pentecost symbolising the Baptism in the Holy Spirit.  In this place I guess that could start a debate of its own, but how do you see the Feast of Tabernacles? Oxy, Hopefully, I will have a chance to respond regarding Tabernacles by tomorrow. However, we may want to start with Passover because you've stated that Passover symbolizes “our repentance and consequently our born again experience”. It appears that you believe that repentance is synonomous with the new birth. I can easily prove that to be wrong with the feasts. Are you sure you don't want to renege on that statement? Please think about it. Hi typ You don't really have to prove anything to me.  Everyone's experience is different and I don't want to get into meaningless mind games over the way I construct my sentences.  How about we stick to the topic?

Oxy,

Please don't expect to post statements that can't be supported by scripture. Everyone's experience is different, but we are not here to discuss our experiences. We are supposed to be discussing the Feasts of YHWH (primarily Tabernacles) and how they relate to Christ and the church. That is what I was attempting to do in the question I presented. How do you suppose that we can discuss this without the extrapolation of scripture? I have better things to do than get into “meaningless mind games” myself. I am so sorry that is what you thought I was attempting to do. As I've mentioned to someone else on this forum…I am married with five children, minister at least four times a week and still work a secular job. On top of that, I have the day to day dealings with the saints since I am the set man in our congregation. I would like to go ahead and end this now and save you and me some time.

[typrsn]

Quote (heiscomingintheclouds @ Aug. 18 2006,19:41)

Dear Ty, Please read this and tell me if you think it is interpreted correctly?

H,

We have discuseed this issue over and over and over. Now you still desiire to discuss it further? I do not. NO, I DO NOT THINK IT IS INTERPRETED CORRECTLY AND YOU KNOW THAT ALREADY. Please do not bring this issue up with me again.

[typrsn]

Quote (t8 @ Aug. 18 2006,08:10)

If Hades was seperated into 2 regions i.e., righteous and wicked, then Jesus could have preached to the righteous. I heard it once this way: “he proclaimed to them the victory over death”. Then at the time of the resurrection, many of the graves were opened. Matthew 27:52 52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, 53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. I would imagine that they would have been righteous people that were loosed from death/hades. Of course it is also possible that Christ preached to the wicked dead too. But what would he have said to them?

t8,

You are on target with the first part of your post, but Christ did not give the wicked a second chance.

[typrsn]

Quote (heiscomingintheclouds @ July 17 2006,20:01)

Dear kenrch, Jesus did not go into the lower parts to preach to the spirits until his death. He only went once and preached to all the spirits being held captive in death. None would be set free unless they were able to confess with their mouth that Jesus is the Son of God. These spirits where being held captive, but because of their rightious hearts, Jesus preached to them in the lower parts. Yet, they had to confess with their mouths. Scripture plainly says so. So the soul must have a mouth to speak and must have a conciousness to think or none of the rightious dead would be set free from death's embrace. Romans 10:9 that if you will confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Romans 10:10 For with the heart, one believes unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. I know you are struggling with this verse brother, but read the verse prior to it. 18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: It immediately says in the next verse that he went and preached to the spirits being held in prison. You are trying to make it out that verse 20 is referring to disobedient prior to Noah. This verse refers to all disobedient and then it refers to God's long suffering until the ark was completed. It was comparing the longsuffering of those trapped souls held in death til the time Jesus went and preached to them, compared to God's longsuffering in the days of Noah.

H,

“Preached unto the spirits in prison” does not mean that Jesus gave anyone a second chance. You say that the scriptures plainly say that those souls had to confess with their mouths. Where does the scripture state this? Please don't tell me that you are referencing Rom. 10.

[typrsn]

Quote (Oxy @ Aug. 18 2006,09:12)

K typ, simply put.. The Feast of Passover remembers the time Israel left Egypt. It is symbolic of repentance. The Feast of Pentecost is symbolic of the baptism in the Holy Spirit. The Feast of Tabernacles remembers the time spent in tents in the Wilderness.  It seperates the time spent in the Wilderness from the entering of the Promised Land.  The challenge was that they had to cross the Jordan (meaning Descender) which is, according to the New Bible Dictionary, the lowest depression on the face of the Earth.  This is symbolic of death. This death is not a physical death, but rather a death of ones identity, or soul.  After the death is a glorious resurrection into the Promised Land. For more info on this I have explained it more fully on the following pages. http://www.all4god.net/beyond_pentecost.htm http://www.all4god.net/journey.htm On the first page there is a 10 min PowerPoint presentation which explains further, tells of my testimony and shows how the 23rd Psalm puts it all together.  I was blown away when God showed me the Psalm!

Oxy,

Is not Passover death? What is the difference between the Passover death and the Tabernacles death?

[typrsn]

Quote (Oxy @ Aug. 18 2006,11:02)

I'm going to get in trouble here lol.  My personal thought, based on some Scripture that I've read, some things a prophetess once told me and sort of a feeling ( I've told you already I'm no theologian lol), is that those Christians who are prepared to go through the Feast of Tabernacles (death to self and consequential ressurection) will not have to face the tribulation.  Sorry I can't recall the Scriptures right now and to be honest it all gets a bit too deep for me.   But there are a lot of Scriptures that seem to have a similar message to this: Rev 20:6  Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. The second death has no authority over these, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and will reign with Him a thousand years.

Oxy,

“Death to self and consequential resurrection”. Say what? Some will have to go through tribulation and others won't? The reckoning ourselves to be dead indeed to sin (consequently self) takes place at repentance and baptism according to Paul in Romans 6. Are you saying there needs to be a second death experience? You don't bury (baptize) a living man man do you?

What you're saying sounds like one of those “elite few” kind of doctrines. Like the JW 144,000 damnable heresy.

[typrsn]

Quote (heiscomingintheclouds @ Aug. 18 2006,19:41)

Dear Ty, Please read this and tell me if you think it is interpreted correctly?

H,

Please read what?

[typrsn]

Quote (Oxy @ Aug. 18 2006,06:59)

I am interested in knowing how others see the three feasts, Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles.  In particular I am interested in the Feast of Tabernacles.  We know.. oops, that's a brave statement in this forum lol.  I see the Feast of Passover symbolising our repentance and consequently our Born Again experience, and Pentecost symbolising the Baptism in the Holy Spirit.  In this place I guess that could start a debate of its own, but how do you see the Feast of Tabernacles?

Oxy,

Hopefully, I will have a chance to respond regarding Tabernacles by tomorrow. However, we may want to start with Passover because you've stated that Passover symbolizes “our repentance and consequently our born again experience”. It appears that you believe that repentance is synonomous with the new birth. I can easily prove that to be wrong with the feasts. Are you sure you don't want to renege on that statement? Please think about it.

[typrsn]

Quote (Oxy @ Aug. 18 2006,07:00)

K.. new topic started under Biblical Doctrine called the Feast of Tabernacles. Just a mo while I go prepare myself for the slaughter lol.

Oxy,

Please don't think anyone here is going to slaughter you. If your doctrine is damnable, it will be slaughtered. But you will not be.

[typrsn]

Quote (heiscomingintheclouds @ Aug. 18 2006,19:38)

Dear Ty, I believe that even though I believe that a man is saved by accepting Christ and then must be baptized by water and the Holy Spirit, I don't see that there is any difference in what you believe other then the fact that you don't believe the man is not completely saved until has be baptized by all the baptisms. I believe it is wrong to teach that a man is unsaved if he doesn't receive the baptisms because it is not scriptural, but you believe it is. We will disagree on this point and I will believe that you are in judgement. Yet, we do agree that all things must be done. That is what is important. This is not the only thing we disagree on though, for you misinterpret John 3:3 which is why I believed your stand suspect. And in the future, when you post scripture, please write it out. I do that making it easier for all to read and know what it straightforward and true. And give your explaination to your stand to that scripture brother. We got off on the wrong foot because you failed the litmus test. Which is John 3:3. Please go back and reread it. Out of all people, I was surprised that you did not see the truth in it.

H,

I have failed the John 3:3 litmus test in “your” estimation based upon “your” understanding of the recorded dilaogue that Jesus had with Niicodemus. I have already gone back and forth with you about John 3:3, so I will not rekindle that discussion. However, I will be sure to write out the full scriptural passage I refer to in my posts in the future.

[typrsn]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 18 2006,04:57)

Hi typrsn, Here is a thread on feasts.

Oxy,

Please explain to me what you believe the Feast of Tabernacles to mean in relation to Christ and the church. If you prefer to start at Passover that will be fine.

[typrsn]

Quote (Oxy @ Aug. 18 2006,02:36)

Quote (typrsn @ Aug. 18 2006,01:56) Quote (Oxy @ Aug. 18 2006,01:24) Here's my $2 worth.  You can be saved, but not filled with the Holy Spirit.  It's a bit like having a car with no petrol.  You can't grow as a Christian without the baptism in the Holy Spirit, nor benefit yourself or others with the fruit or gifts thereof. There are many good Christians who have not received the advent of Pentecost, just as there are many Pentecostal Christians who have not entered into Tabenacles.  Will it one day be said that only those who have entered into Tabernacles will be saved?  God forbid, yet those who have have gained much. Oxy, You are correct, that is your two cents worth. A man is not saved without the Holy Ghost. I've noticed that you emphasize the three major feasts of YHWH. Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles were all fulfilled by Christ. We (the church) will identify with Tabernacles when this mortal puts on immortality and this corruptible puts on incorruption as Paul said in 1 Cor. 15:51-58, when we are changed (not spiritually, but actually) . I have read your presentation and was not impressed by it as it reminds me of the esoteric Jewish kabbalistic teachings. I understand compeletely what you are trying to say in it. It is not sound doctrine. Ty, you disappoint me brother.  I have proof of my salvation through my testimony.  I have the same proof for my Tabernacles experience.  Just because you don't understand or agree with something doesn't mean it isn't so.  All of man's knowledge put together doesn't match up to one fragment of God's knowledge, and I admit to being no theologian, but I do know what God has taught me through the Scriptures and the fruit of what He taught me was the awesome experience I had and still enjoy as a result. God bless you bro.

Oxy,

I never said you weren't saved did I? What proof do you have of your tabernacles experience? I assume you're referring to a personal proof (which I will not question). I never said I didn't understand where you were coming from with this, nor does my disagreement with your revelation mean that it isn't so. Please start a new thread so that we can discuss these feasts. It is obvious that there could be no Pentecost, without Passover and that there could be no Tabernacles without Pentecost.

[typrsn]

Quote (heiscomingintheclouds @ Aug. 18 2006,02:32)

Why I mentioned the laying on of hands is because it is how most received and receive the baptism. And the reason I asked if salvation comes by the laying on of hands is because of you saying that a man is not saved unless he has received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. So if a man accepts Christ, but later is baptized in the Holy Spirit by the laying of hands, is he then saved by the laying on of hands or was he saved when he accepted Christ?

H,

I'm done with you on this matter. I will not keep going back and forth with this.

[typrsn]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 18 2006,01:52)

Hi typsrn, I have yet to see the changes in the sun and moon. Have you seen them?They come before the promise about the Spirit being poured out on everyone surely?

Nick,

I would strongly that you open another thread for this. This will take us way off topic.

[typrsn]

Quote (heiscomingintheclouds @ Aug. 18 2006,01:28)

Ty, please don't get angry brother. I love you and believe your stand in the faith is far better then most. I know I have rattled your cage. The point I am trying to get across is that salvation comes by believing. And then if one has not received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which most don't, it is given with the laying on of hands. Salvation does not come by the laying on of hands. Now, if one does not get the baptisms, will they lose their salvation, who has the right, but God to decide in that matter? Should we encourage all to partake in the baptisms. Cerainly and with all urgency. Why? Because it fulfills all rightiousness.

H,

I am the least bit angry. You have not “rattled my cage” either. I am perfectly fine.

Why do keep saying “the Holy Ghost is given by the laying on of hands” as if that is exclusively how it is given? Can not God give the Holy Ghost without man's intervention? No one said salvation came by the laying on of heads. That's you that keeps mentioning this. No ever said that salvation didn't come by believing. Again, you are omitting other important scriptural passages in your analysis of the subject. If one does not have the Holy Ghost, they do not have a salvation to lose.

[typrsn]

Quote (Oxy @ Aug. 18 2006,01:24)

Here's my $2 worth.  You can be saved, but not filled with the Holy Spirit.  It's a bit like having a car with no petrol.  You can't grow as a Christian without the baptism in the Holy Spirit, nor benefit yourself or others with the fruit or gifts thereof. There are many good Christians who have not received the advent of Pentecost, just as there are many Pentecostal Christians who have not entered into Tabenacles.  Will it one day be said that only those who have entered into Tabernacles will be saved?  God forbid, yet those who have have gained much.

Oxy,

You are correct, that is your two cents worth. A man is not saved without the Holy Ghost.

I've noticed that you emphasize the three major feasts of YHWH. Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles were all fulfilled by Christ. We (the church) will identify with Tabernacles when this mortal puts on immortality and this corruptible puts on incorruption as Paul said in 1 Cor. 15:51-58, when we are changed (not spiritually, but actually) . I have read your presentation and was not impressed by it as it reminds me of the esoteric Jewish kabbalistic teachings. I understand compeletely what you are trying to say in it. It is not sound doctrine.

[Author]

Posts