Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The KJV was based on the the revised Bishop's Bible.Thayer's Definition:
1) himself, herself, themselves, itself
2) he, she, it
LSJ Definition:
reflexive Pron., self:—in oblique cases used for the personal Pron., him, her, it:
Wycliffe translated from the Latin Vulgate, not the Greek. The KJV and the Douay Rheims are younger than the versions I listed and the Douay Rheims was translated from the Latin Vulgate as well.
What does that matter? Revisions can be towards truth or error.The KJV was based on the the revised Bishop's Bible.
REVISED.
A revision towards error done to promote the trinity doctrine.This was NOT a perfect translation. The KJV, on the other hand is touted by MOST Protestant scholars to be the closest thing to a perfect translation. I would disagree - but that is irrelevant. Part of the revision that took place in the KJV was in John 1, regarding the word αὐτὸ.
YOUR
The NT is founded upon the OT. The "logos" in the OT was not a person, but YHWH's spoken words, thought, reason, etc. Show me two witnesses from the OT where the logos is a person without reading a person into the text. BTW, I am not interested in the philosophical arguments of deceived men. Show me from Scripture.problem is that you disagree with anybody who doesn't see it YOUR way, regardless of the scholarship and history.
Now - since the consensus of Greek scholarship renders this word as "Him" - the onus is on YOU to tell us why "it" is the more correct definition.
What does that matter? Revisions can be towards truth or error.
A revision towards error done to promote the trinity doctrine.
This is a silly request - and a transparently trick question.The NT is founded upon the OT. The "logos" in the OT was not a person, but YHWH's spoken words, thought, reason, etc. Show me two witnesses from the OT where the logos is a person without reading a person into the text. BTW, I am not interested in the philosophical arguments of deceived men. Show me from Scripture.
What motive would the "Reformers" have for promoting a "Catholic" doctrine?? ESPECIALLY since YOU say that these earlier Protestant translations rendered John 1:1 as NON-Trinitarian??
Protestants jettisoned all sorts of Catholic doctrines during this period in an effort to further divorce themselves from the Catholic Church - so tell me:
Why didn't even ONE Protestant Father agree with YOUR assessment of John 1:1 after the KJV??
Keep in mind that NOT all Protestants at the time were "KJV Only" adherents.
I did not ask you to show me the trinity in the OT. I asked you to show me the "logos" as a living being. Such a concept was foreign to the Apostles.This is a silly request - and a transparently trick question.
The Trinity was not revealed until CHRIST taught it.
Fear. They were so brainwashed by statements like, "If you reject the trinity you will be lost forever." Or, "You can't be a Christian unless you believe in the deity of Christ." Or, "If you deny the Son is God, you deny the Father as well." They also saw how men like Arian were treated and did not want the same for themselves.
And I told you that this was a silly request because He hadn't been revealed as a living being yet - UNLESS you understand the concept of Christophany - or appearances of the Logos prior to the NT.I did not ask you to show me the trinity in the OT. I asked you to show me the "logos" as a living being. Such a concept was foreign to the Apostles.
I didn't say they were afraid of "the Church". They were afraid of losing their salvation because they were so indoctrinated with that belief.STUPID answer.
They weren't "afraid" of the Church - and that's why they left and began inventing doctrines like Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Limited Atonement, Double Predestination, Irresistible Grace and other heresies. What makes you think that they were "afraid" of inventing another heresy??
There are NO "Christophanies" in the OT (Theophanies and Christophanies).And I told you that this was a silly request because He hadn't been revealed as a living being yet - UNLESS you understand the concept of Christophany - or appearances of the Logos prior to the NT.
For example - in 1 Cor. 10:4, Paul tells us that Christ was the Rock which followed the Hebrews in the desert and from which water flowed.
In Gen. 16:13, Hagar addresses the "Angel" of the Lord, ‘You are the God who sees me,’ as she observed, ‘I have now seen the One who sees me’.”
In fact - of the over 200 references to the Hebrew word for "Angel" of the Lord in the OT - the consensus is that about a third of them refer to Christophanies.
And I told you that the Protestant Fathers wouldn't have cared. They were piling up one heretical teaching on top of another and it didn't faze them - so your argument goes OUT the window . . .I didn't say they were afraid of "the Church". They were afraid of losing their salvation because they were so indoctrinated with that belief.
I just gave you TWO examples.There are NO "Christophanies" in the OT (Theophanies and Christophanies).
The very fact that the Laodicean council forbad the observance of the Sabbath is proof positive that Christians, for the first 400 years until that council, at the very least, still observed the true 7th day Sabbath. And that was just in that area where the council felt it had jurisdiction. What about the Celtic churches and the Assyrian, Ethiopian, and Indian churches that chose to keep the commandments of God rather than those of men?
For evidence of Christian Sabbitarians in the 2nd century.
People with doctorates in church history can't find any evidence of Sabbatarianism in the 2nd century, and neither can you. What was forbidden in the 4th century was adhering to Mosaic Laws, it doesn't prove Sabbath worship. You make lame assertions, but still have no proof. You twist and distort the council of Laodicea to support Ellen White's agenda, just as you reject the Council of Nicae. In fact, there is no council you accept, just your own twisted version of it. It's called a straw man fallacy. You also think that every letter of every official document is permanently binding on Catholics, because you have NO CONCEPT OF DEVELOPMENT. That's why your cult makes references to outdated meaningless documents.The very fact that the Laodicean council forbad the observance of the Sabbath is proof positive that Christians, for the first 400 years until that council, at the very least, still observed the true 7th day Sabbath. And that was just in that area where the council felt it had jurisdiction. What about the Celtic churches and the Assyrian, Ethiopian, and Indian churches that chose to keep the commandments of God rather than those of men?
You mention straw men. Then you mention that there is nothing to prove Sabbath worship. Thing is bro, no-one is talking about Sabbath worship. There is nothing in the 4th commandments that stipulates worship...whatever you may mean by that term. What God requires, is that on Sabbath we rest...as per the meaning of the word...as per the commandment...just as God also rested.People with doctorates in church history can't find any evidence of Sabbatarianism in the 2nd century, and neither can you. What was forbidden in the 4th century was adhering to Mosaic Laws, it doesn't prove Sabbath worship. You make lame assertions, but still have no proof.
Not only did they care to not lose their salvation back then, but the same holds true today. Their fear of losing their salvation prevents them from obeying the leading of the Holy Spirit as it teaches us to obey YHWH's laws under the New Covenant (Ezekiel 36:26-27).And I told you that the Protestant Fathers wouldn't have cared. They were piling up one heretical teaching on top of another and it didn't faze them - so your argument goes OUT the window . . .
You replied within 17 minutes which tells me you did not even bother to read my link and if you did, you read to refute instead of to understand.I just gave you TWO examples.
As I keep saying - denial is NOT a valid argument. Unless you can explain those verses - you have LOST this debate.
Why didn't you quote the full verse?In Gen. 16:13, Hagar addresses the "Angel" of the Lord, ‘You are the God who sees me,’ as she observed, ‘I have now seen the One who sees me’.”
Canon 16 says they were keeping the Sabbath. The paragraph you quoted beginning with "Before the arrangement" is merely some deceived commentators notes as are everything else in red at that link.Canon 16
The Gospels are to be read on the Sabbath [i.e. Saturday], with the other Scriptures.(even with large font your blindness forbids you to see this)
Before the arrangement of the Ecclesiastical Psalmody was settled, neither the Gospel nor the other Scriptures were accustomed to be read on the Sabbath. But out of regard to the canons which forbade fasting or kneeling on the Sabbath, there were no services, so that there might be as much feasting as possible. This the fathers prohibit, and decree that on the Sabbath the whole ecclesiastical office shall be said.The canons of the synod of Laodicea are available for all to see, without the extreme editorializing from made-in-America cults: CHURCH FATHERS: Synod of Laodicea (4th Century)
You can rave on ALL day long about how "scared" the Protestant Rebels were regarding the invention of new theology - but the truth speaks for itself.Not only did they care to not lose their salvation back then, but the same holds true today. Their fear of losing their salvation prevents them from obeying the leading of the Holy Spirit as it teaches us to obey YHWH's laws under the New Covenant (Ezekiel 36:26-27).
I don't read links.You replied within 17 minutes which tells me you did not even bother to read my link and if you did, you read to refute instead of to understand.
1 Corinthians 10:4 must be understood with Exodus 17:6 in mind; "Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel." 1 Corinthians 10:4 is figuratively making reference to Exodus 17:6 which is a shadow of Messiah. To "smite the rock" is to kill the Messiah. The rock could not yield water until it was smitten. Similarly, the Messiah Yeshua could not give forth "rivers of living water" until he was put to death and then resurrected unto eternal life (glorified). John 7:39 shows this "living water" to be the Holy Spirit. Yeshua was not physically present with them in the wilderness. Spiritually speaking he was. That is why the verse says "spiritual drink" and "spiritual Rock." Even if one were to believe Yeshua physically followed Israel, that would not prove he was YHWH since YHWH was not personally leading or following Israel in the wilderness. Scriptures reveal that the Angel of YHWH, YHWH's representative, followed them (Exodus 14:19).
NO - the text says that GOD was speaking TO her - not through the Angel.Why didn't you quote the full verse?
Gen 16:13 And she called the name of YHWH that spake unto her, Thou God sees me: for she said, Have I also here looked after him that sees me?YHWH was speaking to her THROUGH the angel (vs.11). She certainly was not speaking to the Son unless you read the Son into the text as you soooo love to do.
You mention straw men. Then you mention that there is nothing to prove Sabbath worship. Thing is bro, no-one is talking about Sabbath worship. There is nothing in the 4th commandments that stipulates worship...whatever you may mean by that term. What God requires, is that on Sabbath we rest...as per the meaning of the word...as per the commandment...just as God also rested.
Canon 29, taken from the Laodicean synod that you quoted so conveniently above, says the following...
Canon 29
Christians must not Judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.
No twisting or turning on my part at all. The council forbad the observing of the 4th commandment as God required, made the church above the laws of God by changing His commandment in preference to a man-made day (the so-ill-named "Lord's Day...the 1st day of the week) transferring the obligation to rest from the Sabbath to Sunday. Clear and simple. This was called Judaising. What it really was was obedience...which your church made into a curse by persecuting all such as chose to obey God rather than men.
Thus is your proof...that at least to the 4th century, there were Christians who still observed Sabbath by resting on that day, as per the commandment. Your attendance at mass at 5.30 is not an observance of Sabbath. You may call it worship, but it is not Sabbath keeping, and it is not in any sense a fulfilment of your obligation to rest on God's holy sacred day...the 7th day of the week...Sabbath.
Canon 16 says they were keeping the Sabbath. The paragraph you quoted beginning with "Before the arrangement" is merely some deceived commentators notes as are everything else in red at that link.
Canon 49It seems to me they were keeping both days at that time, but Canon 29 forbids them to do it according to Scripture.
During Lent the Bread must not be offered except on the Sabbath Day and on the Lord's Day only.
Canon 51
The nativities of Martyrs are not to be celebrated in Lent, but commemorations of the holy Martyrs are to be made on the Sabbaths and Lord's days.
Canon 29Notice the scare tactic at the end? Typical of deceived men to try and scare people into obedience. They do the same with the trinity.
Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.
You can't read. Whatever Christians were adhering to keeping a Saturday Sabbath, they were Judaizing and doing so illegally. It was the Judaizing that was the problem, not Saturday assemblies to hear the Gospel. Scriptures were read on Saturday, but there was no Mass. The Church had a problem with Judaizers, that problem no longer exists. Laodicea was for the 4th century, not the 21st. At this point in history, there was no Bible as we know it. Again, you disregard historical context, and have no concept of development.The commandment says to "remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy". How do we do that? By ceasing from our common labour on that day...by not mixing the profane from the sacred.
The Catholic Church however says "we have the authority to suspend, abrogate, and annul altogether God's laws, so we have decided to make anathema all who would choose to observe Sabbath, for we say they must observe Sunday, what we designate "The Lord's Day".
( It is irrelevant in the minds of Catholics that Lord Jesus called the Sabbath "His day".)
No, the Church does not say that. That phrase does not exist anywhere in the Council of Laodicea or in any church document. It is a FABRICATION."The Catholic Church however says "we have the authority to suspend, abrogate, and annul altogether God's laws, so we have decided to make anathema all who would choose to observe Sabbath, for we say they must observe Sunday, what we designate "The Lord's Day".
The article at that link was written by me. I also posted my position on 1 Corinthians 10:4, but you ignored it.I don't read links.
If you can't present your position in your post - don't waste my time with a link written by somebody else.
- the text says that GOD was speaking TO her - not through the Angel.
The "Angel" of the Lord WAS God.
All the way back from verse 7, it says that the “Angel of the Lord” was talking to her.
Then, in verse 13, it says the following:
New International Version
She gave this name to the LORD who spoke to her: "YOU are the God who sees me," for she said, "I have now seen the One who sees me."
They were keeping the Sabbath Day. They were hearing the Gospel and even partaking of what you call the Eucharist on Sabbath. How ignorant can men possibly be to say it is "Judaizing" to not work on the Sabbath in obedience to YHWH's command? That is exactly what Satan desires; to cause men to disobey YHWH. May YHWH have mercy on your profound ignorance and disobedience.You can't read. Whatever Christians were adhering to keeping a Saturday Sabbath, they were Judaizing and doing so illegally. It was the Judaizing that was the problem, not Saturday assemblies to hear the Gospel. Scriptures were read on Saturday, but there was no Mass. The Church had a problem with Judaizers, that problem no longer exists. Laodicea was for the 4th century, not the 21st. At this point in history, there was no Bible as we know it. Again, you disregard historical context, and have no concept of development.
If you can't whittle down your thought to post in a concise manner on this forum - don't bother sending me a link.The article at that link was written by me. I also posted my position on 1 Corinthians 10:4, but you ignored it.
She spoke to the "Angel" of the Lord and said "YOU are the God who sees me."The ANGEL (Messenger) of YHWH started talking to Hagar in verse 8. He is YHWH's "MESSENGER", not YHWH Himself. Did Hagar really see YHWH / God? Of course not (Exodus 33:20; John 1:18; 1 Timothy 6:16). As YHWH's representative, the messenger speaks as though he is YHWH. The prophets do the same thing.
I did whittle it down for your simple mind, but you still ignored it. As for my link, it deals with the overall false teaching of Christophanies, not just one verse you are interested in. It is positions like yours that keep Christians dumbed down.If you can't whittle down your thought to post in a concise manner on this forum - don't bother sending me a link.
I don't follow links to long essays and I don't watch videos. The truth should be pain and simple enough to present here.
If she really saw God, then explain the three verses I cited (Exodus 33:20; John 1:18; 1 Timothy 6:16).She spoke to the "Angel" of the Lord and said "YOU are the God who sees me."
She didn't say "HE is the God that sees me" which she WOULD have if this "Angel" was not God.