A Christian who deny Jesus is God in Flesh

[justbyfaith]

thanks for the reply, "for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost". not "conceived by her

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

Still, the child was conceived in her.

There are other verses.

Isa 7:14, Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Gen 3:15, And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

 

[justbyfaith]

The kjv is a copy of the bishops bible.

The original text are divine inspiration, not the translations.
If translators were inspired there would be no need to translate.

The only reason there is a need to translate is because the scriptures were not yet written in the language translated into.

But God is both Ommipotent and Sovereign and loving.

Therefore, because He is Omnipotent and Sovereign, He is able to preserve the unadulterated message of holy scripture in the kjv. And because He is loving, He was motivated to preserve the unadulterated message of the good news that brings salvation.

 

[justbyfaith]

Also, the common people received Jesus gladly; while the educated scribes and Pharisees rejected Him.

So, I am not going to rely on an educated Hebrew or Greek scholar of today to tell me what is the unadulterated message of the word of the Lord.

I believe that the Lord preserved His message for the common people in His chosen translation, the kjv.

For there are many modern translations that water down the message of holy scripture; but the kjv is faithful to declare the message perfectly every time. The gift of discernment of spirits testifies to this in my mind...I bear witness that this spiritual gift within me testifies to me that the kjv has the right spirit while many of the modern translations have the wrong spirit. They may be able to give the message of salvation so that a person can be born again; but they are not very useful for bringing a believer into maturity.

 

[jaybird]

The only reason there is a need to translate is because the scriptures were not yet written in the language translated into.

But God is both Ommipotent and Sovereign and loving.

Therefore, because He is Omnipotent and Sovereign, He is able to preserve the unadulterated message of holy scripture in the kjv. And because He is loving, He was motivated to preserve the unadulterated message of the good news that brings salvation.

translators make mistakes all the time.
there was no translation on the kjv, the bishops bible was already in english, all they did was copy, not all but the vast majority.
one of the big mistakes the bishop bible makes is using the MZ (masoretic text) for a source text, the MZ was a pharisee canon. Jesus and the 12 always quoted the LXX (septuagint) the pharisee made many changes to the new canon mostly changing passages that concerned Jesus.
you are correct that the Father is all powerful and loving. it is such a dishonor to His name to dedicate a bible to king james who destroyed so many lives in Ireland and indulged himself in so many homosexual affairs with young men.

 

[jaybird]

Also, the common people received Jesus gladly; while the educated scribes and Pharisees rejected Him.

Jesus teaching on the greatest commandment was a pharisee teaching by Hillel.

 

[Cooper]

Is not a Christian

Would it have been better to write:-

"Someone who SAYS they are a Christian, but denies the divinity of Jesus, i.e. that Jesus is NOT God with us, is not a Christian."
.

 

[justbyfaith]

Also, the common people received Jesus gladly; while the educated scribes and Pharisees rejected Him.

Jesus teaching on the greatest commandment was a pharisee teaching by Hillel.

That doesn't change the fact of what I posted.

 

[justbyfaith]

it is such a dishonor to His name to dedicate a bible to king james who destroyed so many lives in Ireland and indulged himself in so many homosexual affairs with young men.

King James was not the one who translated that Bible; so what does it matter if his name is on it?

What matters is that the kjv is the unadulterated word of God and contains the perfect message of the gospel for all who read it.

 

[jaybird]

King James was not the one who translated that Bible; so what does it matter if his name is on it?

because if it was the adolf hitler, canaanite or marquis de sade version of the bible you would be saying throw it in the fire, even if they didnt translate it.

What matters is that the kjv is the unadulterated word of God and contains the perfect message of the gospel for all who read it.

it uses the pharisee MZ text that Jesus and the 12 did not quote from. they quoted from the LXX. the pharisee council of Jemnia, the basis of the MZ text, was very anti Christian.
it does not line up with the dead sea scrolls either.

 

[justbyfaith]

because if it was the adolf hitler, canaanite or marquis de sade version of the bible you would be saying throw it in the fire, even if they didnt translate it.

Which is one reason why I think that your contention that King James was a homosexual is very likely untrue.

Because if it were true, would it not have been the consensus of most people to throw it in the fire?

But even if it is true, who cares if the name of King James is on it? What matters is that it is the unadulterated word of the Lord (which it is).

the basis of the MZ text, was very anti Christian.

How, then, is the Bible Christian; since it is based on the Masoretic text?

Are you saying that the kjv is anti-Christian?

The kjv has been the standard for Christian doctrine for at least 400 years!

How many Christians would be surprised to learn that they were believing a Bible that is anti-Christian all these centuries!

Furthermore, I suppose that for 400 years of church history, we have had a Bible and a Christianity that is in all reality anti-Christian!

 

[101G]

Still, the child was conceived in her.

There are other verses.

Isa 7:14, Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Gen 3:15, And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

GINOLJC, to all

AND?

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

 

[101G]

Because the same Spirit exists in eternity and also exists in time indwelling human flesh.

this is the crust of the matter which no one want to address. JBF thinks that just because the Spirit came in flesh that's make any distinction. NOT IN SPIRIT. for it's the same one Spirit.

but the question is, "what kind of Spirit that is EQUAL?

because JBF said, "the same Spirit exists in eternity and also exists in time indwelling human flesh". good then , because I have two question for you.
#1. if it's the same one Spirit, how then can you say it's BOTH... "Father", and "Son?"........ well

#2. if it's the Same one Spirit, as I been asking and no one is willing to answer, "How did the One Spirit G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') himself and still upheld the universe?"

I believe these are question that need to be answered. TAKE YOUR PICK, ANYONE CAN FEEL FREE TO ANSWER EITHER ONE OF THEM.

and I will not move untill these question are answered.

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

 

[ChristisGod]

no my friend jimmy, who claims he has the spirit, also said those things are wrong.

you think jim jones told those folks he had the spirit before he made them drink the koolaid?

That’s why ones claims must match the biblical model. Only those without the spirit could be deceived by a jim jones

 

[justbyfaith]

#2. if it's the Same one Spirit, as I been asking and no one is willing to answer, "How did the One Spirit G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') himself and still upheld the universe?"

This has already been answered.

God the Father, who is an eternal Spirit dwelling in eternity, in descending out of eternity to become a Man, did not vacate eternity. For it is the nature of eternity that if anyone dwells in it as an eternal being, they are there eternally.

 

[jaybird]

That’s why ones claims must match the biblical model. Only those without the spirit could be deceived by a jim jones

but most these claims do not match the bible at all, quite the opposite in fact, when they are shown thats when you guys go off on your "i have the spirit" rants and these "problem" bible passages must be re defined to fit the doctrine, passages like the Most High is not a man, the Father not the spirit is the Father of Jesus, and all the rest. and the sad thing is without the doctrine we know that nobody would be re defining these things.

 

[101G]

This has already been answered.

God the Father, who is an eternal Spirit dwelling in eternity, in descending out of eternity to become a Man, did not vacate eternity. For it is the nature of eternity that if anyone dwells in it as an eternal being, they are there eternally.

and your answer is still incorrect, and not according to the bible. because I asked how did the eternal ONE Spirit decend while in eternity and G2758 κενόω kenoo while in that flesh. so you need to give bible scripture that ....... if you have any.... YIKES!

and here's the bad part JBF, I know the bible do have a scripture for that, lol... my oh my, but see if you can draw a rabbit out of your hat here..

so the scripture where the eternal spirit G2758 κενόω kenoo himself and upheld the universe, and everything, well?

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

PS see post #672..

 

[ChristisGod]

but most these claims do not match the bible at all, quite the opposite in fact, when they are shown thats when you guys go off on your "i have the spirit" rants and these "problem" bible passages must be re defined to fit the doctrine, passages like the Most High is not a man, the Father not the spirit is the Father of Jesus, and all the rest. and the sad thing is without the doctrine we know that nobody would be re defining these things.

except the Son is called God in both Testaments numerous times.

 

[justbyfaith]

and your answer is still incorrect,

It is not incorrect.

 

[101G]

It is not incorrect.

GINOLJC, to all,
if so why don't you directly answer Post #672 then?

don't give me that excuse, Oh I have answered it before. if so point me to the post where you did, or if it's not any trouble, just post it here again... thanks in advance, I would apperacate it.

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

 

[justbyfaith]

GINOLJC, to all,
if so why don't you directly answer Post #672 then?

don't give me that excuse, Oh I have answered it before. if so point me to the post where you did, or if it's not any trouble, just post it here again... thanks in advance, I would apperacate it.

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

I answered post #672; but you don't accept the answer.