Col 1 By Jesus all things were created.
A man CANNOT be "MADE" the infinite God of the Bible.
Shall we discuss this?
- Thread starter Truther
- Start date
-
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!
A man CANNOT be "MADE" the infinite God of the Bible.
Yet, you have done nothing to show that "from or "since" is the same meaning as "before", even in English. You have only proved that language is diverse, and it is not difficult to find the same meaning using alternative cognates in English. From (not before) 1611 to 1768, there have been a minimum of 20,000 spelling and punctuation changes, and over 400 wording changes made to correct the 1611 King James Bible. King James advocates see this as insignificant and minor, which in most cases they are. Yet, they exaggerate the "differences" between the 1611 and more modern versions as if it were an argument, though in most instances, they are just as insignificant. Yet, we do not weigh truth in translations based upon the King James as the standard, but how each translation is true to the compiled text-type it is translated from.
FROM.... the Greek word "apo" which NEVER means BEFORE!
If you do not even understand English, it is highly unlikely that you will understand the significance of the original Greek text and its meaning.
Apo, from.... You are here
--------> From, since, apo.Before, proton, proteron... <----------
<--You are here. Before, proteron.This is as close as I can can get to explaining it with comic books and crayon.
Because Scripture says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1. The "Word was God."
Verse 14, "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us" is irrefutably speaking of Jesus.
This is not Modalism as some propose, because verse 1 says, "and the Word was with God." That is why it is not poorly paraphrased as "Jesus and Jesus."
Last edited:
Barney, I am speaking in your stead. I "forced" you to say that Michael the angel incarnated(or morphed into) into Jesus the man.
You need to learn to articulate this openly.
....by him and THROUGH HIM.....don't forget that verse.
Be nice or I will post verses that say the FATHER made everything.
The KJV is wrong and the Greek redefinitionist you quote is right?FROM.... the Greek word "apo" which NEVER means BEFORE!
If you do not even understand English, it is highly unlikely that you will understand the significance of the original Greek text and its meaning.
Apo, from.... You are here
Before, proton, proteron... <----------
This is as close as I can can get to explaining it with comic books and crayon.
Why doesn't he make a modern Bible translation to fix their blunder?
Oh that's right, he did.
He used a thousand year old Greek/English dictionary to debunk the KJV....I see.
Who is "he"?
One fact that is irrefutable, the "dictionary" does not exist, but the manuscripts used in the Modern translations are nearly a Thousand Years older than the late and limited one's used for the King James! The text matches the Scripture quotes of the Alexandrian text if the Early Church Fathers, and not the Byzantine text that has no proof of existing for the first 500 years of Christianity that the King James is based on!
"He" is the fella that debunked the KJV in your post 830.
Right, there is no ancient dictionary to translating is subjective.
You were duped by your source..."he".
Nevertheless the son has the same nature as his father. If someone believes that the Son is the Son of the Creator but at the same time claims that the Son and the Father are not the same in nature, he contradicts himself. The son of a man is also a man.
Many do not take the word Son of the Creator biologically in relation to the Messiah, but see it only as an "honorary title" although the Creator himself said: "To which of the angels have I ever said, 'You are my Son, today I have begotten you?'"
Many do not take the word Son of the Creator biologically in relation to the Messiah, but see it only as an "honorary title" although the Creator himself said: "To which of the angels have I ever said, 'You are my Son, today I have begotten you?'"
Good post.
Actually, the son of the Creator was created by a sperm cell the Creator made to fertilize the woman's egg.
If the egg self fertilized and no sperm cell was created to fertilize it, the son would not be begotten of God, but of only man, with God "presiding over it".
If the son was just passin' through the woman as a microscopic cell without the aid of the woman's egg, then the son would not be "the son of man".
Something to do with this
Joh 8:54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:
Joh 8:55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.
Be like a man putting His own crown on His own head.
BARNEY BRIGHT
Well-Known Member
I didn't want to say Michael incarnated into Jesus. You see many believe Jesus is God incarnate, I don't. JW don't believe Jesus to be God incarnate.
When the Word “became flesh” he was no longer a spirit creature. Indeed, he had to be a man in the real sense to fulfill this scripture: “We behold Jesus, who has been made a little lower than angels, crowned with glory and honor.” If Jesus had been a God-Man, he could not have been really “lower than angels.” Nor is it reasonable to think that the great Sovereign of the universe, of whom it is written that “at no time has anyone beheld God,” would take up human form and be “lower than angels.” HEB.2:9; 1John 4:12
There were times when angels appeared as men, as when two angels appeared to Lot. Genesis 19:1 Such would be a case of true incarnation. It is noteworthy that the angels visiting Lot materialized as full-grown men, not as babies. If Jesus had been a mere incarnation, then it would not have been necessary for God to transfer his life to an embryo in the virgin’s womb and to have Jesus born as a helpless infant, subject to human parents; he could still have remained a spirit person and materialized a fully developed fleshly body just as the sons of God did in Noah’s day and as the angel Gabriel did before Mary.
One of the cardinal teachings of the Bible is the ransom. Sin and death came upon mankind when a perfect man, Adam, transgressed Jehovah’s law. For obedient mankind to be released from the condemnation of sin and death, a ransom must be paid. It must be the exact equivalent of the perfect man Adam, for God’s law requires exactness: “You must give soul for soul, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.” So for Jesus to provide the ransom he must be a perfect man, no more, no less. Further, if Jesus had been a spirit garbed in flesh he could not really have died at man’s hands; and if he did not really die, again we see that the ransom could not have been provided. But the Bible is clear that Jesus did provide the ransom and that he was a man, not God clothed in flesh: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all.” Ex.21:23, 24; 1Timothy 2:5, 6
But now what of 1Timothy 3:16 which says in the King James Version that “God was manifest in the flesh”? This is not an accurate text. In fact, nearly all the ancient manuscripts and all the versions, including the Latin Vulgate, have in their text “He who” instead of “God.” Most modern translations choose “He.” Thus the New World Translation renders it properly: “He was made manifest in flesh,” meaning the Word, who became the man Christ Jesus.
So what have I learned? This has become overwhelmingly clear: (1) The Council of Chalcedon, instead of rejecting the bad, mixed the error that Jesus was God with the truth that he was man, thus winding up with “distilled nonsense”; (2) Jesus in his prehuman existence was not God but God’s Son, “the beginning of the creation by God”; (3) Jesus had to be a real man, not a God-Man, to be “lower than angels”; (4) if Jesus had been a spirit masquerading in human flesh, there would have been no need for him to be born a baby, and (5) to provide the ransom sacrifice Jesus had to die a perfect man, nothing more, nothing less.
The inevitable conclusion is that God’s Word does not teach that Jesus was a God-Man. It teaches that on earth he was a perfect man, a perfect human organism. Those who teach that he was a God-Man teach false religion. They violate the rule set down by the apostle of Christ: “Do not go beyond the things that are written.” 1Corinthians 4:6
BARNEY BRIGHT
Well-Known Member
Well that might be how you see it, but not me. I don't think arguing and debating are the same. I also believe that those who do believe they are the same will never win hearts for the The True God Jehovah. I understand being a champion for the truth about Jehovah God who he is and his Word and way that Jehovah God will undo everything Satan has done
Which he is using his Only Begotten Son to undo what Satan has done. I think a debate is a discussion and arguing isn't.
Similar threads
- Poll
