Eternal Security

[gadar perets]

Routinely using Greek and Hebrew words when not needed does not make you sound more intellectual and spiritual.

When is a Greek or Hebrew word "not needed"? What Greek word in Colossians 1:15 is "not needed"? The only word "not needed" in that verse is "over" since it is NOT found in the Greek and whose addition changes the meaning of the text. If that is how you choose to study Scripture and build doctrines, I want no part of it.

 

[GodsGrace]

The Holy Spirit has always existed as the power and influence of the Father. It NEVER became a third person of a trinity. The logos did indeed become a person, but before that it was the Father's spoken words, thoughts, plans, etc. Even after the logos was made flesh, that flesh was not the second person of a fictitious trinity. He is the Son of the only true God.

In the O.T. the Spirit was spoken of as the Spirit of God. When Jesus said it was good for Him to go away so that the comforter could come,,,what did He mean?
Why would He have said that if the Spirit of God existed even in the Old Testament? Perhaps Jesus meant it in a new way, a more "real" way. Why can't God do whatever He wants to do if He was even able to create the entire universe?
Maybe God wanted to be a more personal God...Maybe the "persons" of the Trinity are not how we understand it since we can only speak in human terms...

You yourself stated above that the Word of God became Jesus -- this is what I've been saying all along, only with words that are difficult for us humans to understand. This is why there was so much debate about the Trinity.

Jesus was understood to be God from soon after the Ascension,,but how could He be God if there is only ONE God? So human terms had to be made...thus the word begotten, which only means unique and not "made" or "born of".
Thus the idea of the Trinity, understand it how you may.
The Word became Jesus.
The Breath became the Holy Spirit...God's spirit.

He can authorize them to do so. He did not authorize Catholic priests to do so.

I'm apparently not explaining myself correctly and I'm not really too interested in this. The question would then become...why would the Apostles be authorized to forgive sin and not those that came after them??? (since those that came after them are human just as they were) Different discussion.

You just took a giant leap from Yeshua forgiving sin because he was authorized to do so, to him forgiving sin because he is God. No. He forgave sin because he was GIVEN that authority by God.

So Jesus also gave the authority to forgive sin to the Apostles...
Since only God can give this authority, doesn't this speak to Jesus being God?

 

[gadar perets]

In the O.T. the Spirit was spoken of as the Spirit of God. When Jesus said it was good for Him to go away so that the comforter could come,,,what did He mean?
Why would He have said that if the Spirit of God existed even in the Old Testament? Perhaps Jesus meant it in a new way, a more "real" way. Why can't God do whatever He wants to do if He was even able to create the entire universe?

The Spirit was also called the "holy spirit" in the OT (Psalms 51:11; Isaiah 63:10; Isaiah 63:11). The comforter would be the same holy spirit of YHWH.

You yourself stated above that the Word of God became Jesus -- this is what I've been saying all along, only with words that are difficult for us humans to understand. This is why there was so much debate about the Trinity.

I said no such thing. I said, "The logos did indeed become a person." The logos was not "the Word of God" as though that is the name of a person. The logos was always a "thing" throughout the OT, not a person.

Jesus was understood to be God from soon after the Ascension,,but how could He be God if there is only ONE God? So human terms had to be made...thus the word begotten, which only means unique and not "made" or "born of".
Thus the idea of the Trinity, understand it how you may.
The Word became Jesus.
The Breath became the Holy Spirit...God's spirit.

As I said in the past, the apostles did NOT speak English. Therefore, they did not say "God" and could NOT have understood Yeshua to be "God". They said either "elohim" or "theos" in reference to Yeshua. Both of those words are used of men. I firmly believe that Yeshua is an "elohim", but he is NOT the "only true Elohim" who he himself declared was his Father (John 17:3). Our English word "God" can ONLY refer to the one true God, but the words "elohim" and "theos" can refer to beings other than the one true God.

So Jesus also gave the authority to forgive sin to the Apostles...
Since only God can give this authority, doesn't this speak to Jesus being God?

Where does it say, "only God can give this authority"? Since YHWH gave Yeshua "all authority", Yeshua has the authority to forgive sins, to resurrect the dead, to judge, ... and to delegate authority to others. The apostles were given the authority to do all those things.

 

[GodsGrace]

The Spirit was also called the "holy spirit" in the OT (Psalms 51:11; Isaiah 63:10; Isaiah 63:11). The comforter would be the same holy spirit of YHWH.


I said no such thing. I said, "The logos did indeed become a person." The logos was not "the Word of God" as though that is the name of a person. The logos was always a "thing" throughout the OT, not a person.


As I said in the past, the apostles did NOT speak English. Therefore, they did not say "God" and could NOT have understood Yeshua to be "God". They said either "elohim" or "theos" in reference to Yeshua. Both of those words are used of men. I firmly believe that Yeshua is an "elohim", but he is NOT the "only true Elohim" who he himself declared was his Father (John 17:3). Our English word "God" can ONLY refer to the one true God, but the words "elohim" and "theos" can refer to beings other than the one true God.


Where does it say, "only God can give this authority"? Since YHWH gave Yeshua "all authority", Yeshua has the authority to forgive sins, to resurrect the dead, to judge, ... and to delegate authority to others. The apostles were given the authority to do all those things.

Just two points and then that's it.

1. It doesn't matter that the Apostles spoke Greek...I understand this concept very well being able to speak two languages fluently and another one slightly and one dialect, which I consider to be a different language.

They still had the CONCEPT of Jesus having to be God, Yahweh, in some form or other. Otherwise, they would not have had to come up with the concept of the Trinity...they would have just called Jesus Lord, or Elohim, or Theos, and left it at that. Instead they went ahead and declared him to be God, Yahweh, in some way they didn't understand, but understood more as time went on. (but within the late first century, I believe - would have to look this up and I really don't plan to discuss this forever).

When Jesus was on Earth, Yahweh, WAS His FATHER. I have no problem with this.

2. The authority given by Jesus to the Apostles ended with the Apostles?
I'm just wondering if this has any ramification for today...are miracles still possible, healings...

 

[gadar perets]

When Jesus was on Earth, Yahweh, WAS His FATHER. I have no problem with this.

What does this mean? That Yahweh is no longer Yeshua's Father?

 

[CoreIssue]

When is a Greek or Hebrew word "not needed"? What Greek word in Colossians 1:15 is "not needed"? The only word "not needed" in that verse is "over" since it is NOT found in the Greek and whose addition changes the meaning of the text. If that is how you choose to study Scripture and build doctrines, I want no part of it.

Not needed when plain English conveys the meaning in a way they can understand.

Nor needed when used inaccurately to convey your beliefs and not what the bible says.

Using your method there is a problem here linguistically. What is it?

25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. e~legon V-IAI-3P ou\n CONJ aujtw'/ P-DSM oiJ T-NPM a~lloi A-NPM maqhtaiv, N-NPM JEwravkamen V-RAI-1P-ATT to;n T-ASM kuvrion. N-ASM oJ T-NSM de; CONJ ei\pen V-2AAI-3S aujtoi'?, P-DPM #Ea;n COND mh; PRT i~dw V-2AAS-1S ejn PREP tai'? T-DPF cersi;n N-DPF aujtou' P-GSM to;n T-ASM tuvpon N-ASM tw'n T-GPM h&lwn N-GPM kai; CONJ bavlw V-2AAS-1S to;n T-ASM davktulovn N-ASM mou P-1GS eij? PREP to;n T-ASM tuvpon N-ASM tw'n T-GPM h&lwn N-GPM kai; CONJ bavlw V-2AAS-1S mou P-1GS th;n T-ASF cei'ra N-ASF eij? PREP th;n T-ASF pleura;n N-ASF aujtou', P-GSM ouj PRT mh; PRT pisteuvsw. V-FAI-1S

 

[gadar perets]

Not needed when plain English conveys the meaning in a way they can understand.

Nor needed when used inaccurately to convey your beliefs and not what the bible says.

Using your method there is a problem here linguistically. What is it?

25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. e~legon V-IAI-3P ou\n CONJ aujtw'/ P-DSM oiJ T-NPM a~lloi A-NPM maqhtaiv, N-NPM JEwravkamen V-RAI-1P-ATT to;n T-ASM kuvrion. N-ASM oJ T-NSM de; CONJ ei\pen V-2AAI-3S aujtoi'?, P-DPM #Ea;n COND mh; PRT i~dw V-2AAS-1S ejn PREP tai'? T-DPF cersi;n N-DPF aujtou' P-GSM to;n T-ASM tuvpon N-ASM tw'n T-GPM h&lwn N-GPM kai; CONJ bavlw V-2AAS-1S to;n T-ASM davktulovn N-ASM mou P-1GS eij? PREP to;n T-ASM tuvpon N-ASM tw'n T-GPM h&lwn N-GPM kai; CONJ bavlw V-2AAS-1S mou P-1GS th;n T-ASF cei'ra N-ASF eij? PREP th;n T-ASF pleura;n N-ASF aujtou', P-GSM ouj PRT mh; PRT pisteuvsw. V-FAI-1S

The words that are not underlined are not in the Greek. Although, what ever you posted after the English is very confusing with all those additional markings that are not found in a normal transliterated Greek text. What is your source?

The addition of the non-underlined words in your example do not change the meaning of the text. Neither do the non-underlined words below.

Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Colossians 1:15 οςG3739 R-NSM εστινG1510 V-PAI-3S εικωνG1504 N-NSF τουG3588 T-GSM θεουG2316 N-GSM τουG3588 T-GSM αορατουG517 A-GSM πρωτοτοκοςG4416 A-NSM-S πασηςG3956 A-GSF κτισεωςG2937 N-GSF

The two uses of "of" do belong in the text as that is how to translate the genitive case of those words. "Over" does not belong in this text. It is amazing how you can continue arguing for the inclusion of a man made addition to the text.

 

[CoreIssue]

The words that are not underlined are not in the Greek. Although, what ever you posted after the English is very confusing with all those additional markings that are not found in a normal transliterated Greek text. What is your source?

The addition of the non-underlined words in your example do not change the meaning of the text. Neither do the non-underlined words below.

Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Colossians 1:15 οςG3739 R-NSM εστινG1510 V-PAI-3S εικωνG1504 N-NSF τουG3588 T-GSM θεουG2316 N-GSM τουG3588 T-GSM αορατουG517 A-GSM πρωτοτοκοςG4416 A-NSM-S πασηςG3956 A-GSF κτισεωςG2937 N-GSF

The two uses of "of" do belong in the text as that is how to translate the genitive case of those words. "Over" does not belong in this text. It is amazing how you can continue arguing for the inclusion of a .

Those underlined words are links to Strong's definitions.

So so you also have a problem with Strong in this website:
Interlinear Bible - Greek and Hebrew with Concordance

This is funny, in a way, since all bibles, including the KJV, have "man made addition to the text." A pure word for word translation would be unreadable.

 

[GodsGrace]

What does this mean? That Yahweh is no longer Yeshua's Father?

NO!
I meant that WHILE Jesus was on Earth, and Yahweh was in heaven,
Yahweh was STILL the Father...thus Jesus' Father.

Many point to how Jesus referred to Yahweh as Father to show that He was only the Son and not Yahweh. I don't think this works because when Jesus was here, He was, after all, also human. He clearly said that He didn't know all things - His knowledge was limited.

 

[gadar perets]

Those underlined words are links to Strong's definitions.

So so you also have a problem with Strong in this website:
Interlinear Bible - Greek and Hebrew with Concordance

I just checked John 20:25 in the above link and the Greek looks nothing like what you posted. Evidently, it does not copy and paste in the same format. I have no problem with that website.

This is funny, in a way, since all bibles, including the KJV, have "man made addition to the text." A pure word for word translation would be unreadable.

A pure word for word translation of Colossians 1:15 is perfectly readable. I reject all man made additions to the text that alters the meaning no matter which version makes the addition.

 

[gadar perets]

NO!
I meant that WHILE Jesus was on Earth, and Yahweh was in heaven,
Yahweh was STILL the Father...thus Jesus' Father.

Many point to how Jesus referred to Yahweh as Father to show that He was only the Son and not Yahweh. I don't think this works because when Jesus was here, He was, after all, also human. He clearly said that He didn't know all things - His knowledge was limited.

So now that Yeshua is resurrected and in heaven, are you saying he went back to being Yahweh again?

 

[gadar perets]

Interlinear Bible - Greek and Hebrew with Concordance

BTW, that site is really not an Interlinear (between the lines). It is more like an English/Greek parallel Bible. Here is a link to a true interlinear Bible.

 

[CoreIssue]

I just checked John 20:25 in the above link and the Greek looks nothing like what you posted. Evidently, it does not copy and paste in the same format. I have no problem with that website.


A pure word for word translation of Colossians 1:15 is perfectly readable. I reject all man made additions to the text that alters the meaning no matter which version makes the addition.

Different websites use different computer languages (PHP, HTM and HTML in example). Anyone who does much posting should be aware of that.

Parsing out one verse as a proof fails. In example, how do you deal with verses on Christ being nailed to the cross, specifically his hand.

 

[gadar perets]

Parsing out one verse as a proof fails. In example, how do you deal with verses on Christ being nailed to the cross, specifically his hand.

How is this relevant? The Greek translates as hands. We can assume that includes the wrist, but we are not told the nails were in his wrists. I accept hands as the proper translation.

 

[CoreIssue]

BTW, that site is really not an Interlinear (between the lines). It is more like an English/Greek parallel Bible. Here is a link to a true interlinear Bible.

Different layout but same function. Far less user friendly.

You still have to use it in tandem with a Bible.

 

[CoreIssue]

How is this relevant? The Greek translates as hands. We can assume that includes the wrist, but we are not told the nails were in his wrists. I accept hands as the proper translation.

You just made a huge assumption and error. Hand in English does not include the wrist.

As history shows most do not know that.

Look at a crucifix. Through the palm of the hand. As is said in many commentaries.

My point is your conveying a false message when you support this. You can not do a literal translation and be accurate.

 

[amadeus]

Either this is true and we are eternally secure or the bible is worthless because it lies.

The bible is a book on the shelf which unopened says nothing: no lies and no truth. When it is opened by a person led by God then the person will only speak the truth. When he is led only by lying spirits, he will only lie. When he is led by a mixture, then that is what he will speak. When we hear someone speak or read what someone has written here, we need help to sort out what is truth from what is a lie. God will provide any necessary help when asked.

 

[gadar perets]

You just made a huge assumption and error. Hand in English does not include the wrist.

As history shows most do not know that.

Look at a crucifix. Through the palm of the hand. As is said in many commentaries.

My point is your conveying a false message when you support this. You can not do a literal translation and be accurate.

I did not say I believe hand includes wrist. I was speaking of others who assume that. I clearly said I believe it is correct to use "hand". What false message am I conveying?

 

[CoreIssue]

I did not say I believe hand includes wrist. I was speaking of others who assume that. I clearly said I believe it is correct to use "hand". What false message am I conveying?

How is this relevant? The Greek translates as hands. We can assume that includes the wrist, but we are not told the nails were in his wrists. I accept hands as the proper translation.

So, word for word out weighs accuracy?.

You asked how it is relevant? Because some use it as a point to attack the accuracy of the bible. Plus, it is important that those studying the bible get the facts correct.

The point is its denies your word for word demand. No translation is word for word because it can't be.

How about in the old testament where the KJV talks about female prostitutes when in fact they were male.

It also says God created the earth void and without form when in fact it says it became void and without form.

 

[justbyfaith]

No, they don't nullify Isaiah 43:11. They help us to understand that "and besides me there is no saviour" does NOT mean YHWH is the ONLY saviour in existence. When Isaiah wrote that there were already saviours that YHWH raised up to save Israel. There would also be saviours He will raise up after Isaiah wrote that. One of those saviours is Yeshua. YHWH, the ultimate Saviour, raised up another saviour to carry out His will of saving the world.

There is no saviour besides YHWH. What about that do you not understand? Your statements are in direct contradiction to Isaiah 43:11.