Incarnation

  • 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!

BARNEY BRIGHT

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2017
4,032
1,119
113
67
Thomaston Georgia
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
(1 Cor. 15:45-47) "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.....The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven."

It is Scripture you disagree with. Not me. Adam was the first Adam and first man. Jesus Christ is the Last Adam and the second Man. And no amount of b.s you try to throw on it, will change it.

Stranger

Actually I believe you are unreasonable. People say Jesus Christ is a God man, even though it's nowhere written down in the Bible, but when someone says Jesus Christ is the second Adam they're wrong cause it's not written down that way. If you are a person who truly believes that you should go by how something is literally written down then you have to acknowledge that all those people who say Jesus Christ is a God man, they're wrong cause it's not written down in scripture that Jesus Christ is a God man. I understand that people interpret certain scriptures or reason from certain scriptures that Jesus Christ is a God man and they certainly have the right to do so. That however doesn't mean we can't disagree with their interpretation or how they're reasoning on these scriptures.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Harvest 1874

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I use the, " New World Translation" it isn't translated that way. I understand you use your Bible, just as I use mine. Just as you will continue using yours, I will continue using mine.

Then why are you asking me about Jesus as The God Man, when all you are going to say you have your Bible and I have mine.

Stranger
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Actually I believe you are unreasonable. People say Jesus Christ is a God man, even though it's nowhere written down in the Bible, but when someone says Jesus Christ is the second Adam they're wrong cause it's not written down that way. If you are a person who truly believes that you should go by how something is literally written down then you have to acknowledge that all those people who say Jesus Christ is a God man, they're wrong cause it's not written down in scripture that Jesus Christ is a God man. I understand that people interpret certain scriptures or reason from certain scriptures that Jesus Christ is a God man and they certainly have the right to do so. That however doesn't mean we can't disagree with their interpretation or how they're reasoning on these scriptures.

Again, (Acts 20:28).

Stranger
 

BARNEY BRIGHT

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2017
4,032
1,119
113
67
Thomaston Georgia
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Then why are you asking me about Jesus as The God Man, when all you are going to say you have your Bible and I have mine.

Stranger
I simply asked where in any Bible is it written down in black in white that Jesus Christ is a God man. You're the one who wants to be so literal when it comes to the scriptures, when someones says Jesus is the second Adam, you say it's not written down that way, but it's not written down in scripture that Jesus Christ is a God Man yet you believe it's ok to say Jesus is a God Man. You're saying you don't have to be literal when there is no scripture written saying Jesus Christ is a God Man yet someone says Jesus Christ is the second Adam and they're doing some horrible thing cause it's not literally written down that way. Kind of hypocritical don't you think.
 
Last edited:

BARNEY BRIGHT

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2017
4,032
1,119
113
67
Thomaston Georgia
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Again, (Acts 20:28).

Stranger

The International Version of the scriptures in it's it's notes on Acts 20:28 say, Many manuscripts say, of the Lord not God, or with the blood of his own Son.

Complete Jewish Bible on Acts 20:28 says: Watch out for yourselves, and for all the flock in which the Ruach HaKodesh has placed you as leaders, to shepherd God's Messianic community, which he won for himself at the cost of his own Son's blood.



Early Manuscripts: regarding manuscripts supporting the rendering "church of Christ", there are in fact existing ones. The English translation of the verse in Syriac Manuscripts such as MS Syriac 4 (12th century), MS Syriac 325 (12th Century), MS Syriac 27 (16th century), and the Novum Testamentum Syriace (17th century) read "Church of Christ."

Ezra Abbot, a New Testament Textual Criticism scholar, listed some of the earlier manuscripts containing the reading "church of Christ".

Church_of_Christ_MSS.preview.jpg


Admittedly, there are more manuscripts supporting other variant readings and that those manuscripts are even written in Greek. However, no rule of reasoning compels us to conclude with certainty that one particular reading is correct based on its quantity alone. We must remember that the greek manuscripts we have are not the originals but are just copies which can also contain transcription errors.

Ancient Versions
Also, there are evidence that the Syriac texts we currently have, whether they are transcriptions or translations, are better than some Greek texts, so we should not in any way disregard the value of the Syriac texts. Syriac is an Aramaic dialect into which most of the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament were first translated. Consulting Syriac manuscripts can help settle controversies in the Greek manuscripts.

Aside from Syriac manuscripts, the phrase "Church of Christ" can also be found in Acts 20:28 in Peshitta Aramaic Text which when translated into English, reads: "Take heed therefore to yourselves, and to the whole flock over which the Spirit of Holiness hath constituted you the bishops; to pasture the church of Christ which he hath purchased with his blood."

peshitta_acts2028.PNG

Peshitta Acts 20:28

Early "church fathers"
In addition to the ancient versions, we also have witnesses in the quotations of the early "church fathers". Among these are those of Athanasius, Theodoret, Pseudo-Athanasius, and Pseudo-Fulgentius.

Internal Evidence
Most importantly, we can turn to internal scripture evidence to see whether the rendition "church of Christ" is correct or not. Apostle Paul says, "These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual" (I Cor. 2:13, King James Version).

Spiritual things will not contradict with other spiritual things when they are compared with one another. In no way will they manifest disagreement, but only harmony and unity. They go together perfectly well-at all times. With this apostolic method of teaching, nothing is added to or taken away from the Word. Consequently, when one Bible verse seems to clash in meaning with another verse, the former or the latter is either mistranslated or misinterpreted.

Based on scriptural evidence, we can conclude that "church of Christ" is the more accurate rendition because the latter part of the verse states, "which he purchased with his own blood". The rendering "church of God" would mean that it is God who died and shed blood on the cross. This would contradict other bible verses that teach God is immortal (1 Timothy 1:17) and that God is a spirit (John 4:24), has no flesh and bones (Lk. 24:36-39), and therefore has no blood. It is the Lord Jesus Christ's blood, which washed the members of the Church of their sins (I Pt. 1:18-19; Rev. 1:5).
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I simply asked where in any Bible is it written down in black in white that Jesus Christ is a God man. You're the one who wants to be so literal when it comes to the scriptures, when someones says Jesus is the second Adam, you say it's not written down that way, but it's not written down in scripture that Jesus Christ is a God Man yet you believe it's ok to say Jesus is a God Man. You're saying you don't have to be literal when there is no scripture written saying Jesus Christ is a God Man yet someone says Jesus Christ is the second Adam and they're doing some horrible thing cause it's not literally written down that way. Kind of hypocritical don't you think.

Yes it is written down. I showed you.

Stranger
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The International Version of the scriptures in it's it's notes on Acts 20:28 say, Many manuscripts say, of the Lord not God, or with the blood of his own Son.

Complete Jewish Bible on Acts 20:28 says: Watch out for yourselves, and for all the flock in which the Ruach HaKodesh has placed you as leaders, to shepherd God's Messianic community, which he won for himself at the cost of his own Son's blood.



Early Manuscripts: regarding manuscripts supporting the rendering "church of Christ", there are in fact existing ones. The English translation of the verse in Syriac Manuscripts such as MS Syriac 4 (12th century), MS Syriac 325 (12th Century), MS Syriac 27 (16th century), and the Novum Testamentum Syriace (17th century) read "Church of Christ."

Ezra Abbot, a New Testament Textual Criticism scholar, listed some of the earlier manuscripts containing the reading "church of Christ".

Church_of_Christ_MSS.preview.jpg


Admittedly, there are more manuscripts supporting other variant readings and that those manuscripts are even written in Greek. However, no rule of reasoning compels us to conclude with certainty that one particular reading is correct based on its quantity alone. We must remember that the greek manuscripts we have are not the originals but are just copies which can also contain transcription errors.

Ancient Versions
Also, there are evidence that the Syriac texts we currently have, whether they are transcriptions or translations, are better than some Greek texts, so we should not in any way disregard the value of the Syriac texts. Syriac is an Aramaic dialect into which most of the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament were first translated. Consulting Syriac manuscripts can help settle controversies in the Greek manuscripts.

Aside from Syriac manuscripts, the phrase "Church of Christ" can also be found in Acts 20:28 in Peshitta Aramaic Text which when translated into English, reads: "Take heed therefore to yourselves, and to the whole flock over which the Spirit of Holiness hath constituted you the bishops; to pasture the church of Christ which he hath purchased with his blood."

peshitta_acts2028.PNG

Peshitta Acts 20:28

Early "church fathers"
In addition to the ancient versions, we also have witnesses in the quotations of the early "church fathers". Among these are those of Athanasius, Theodoret, Pseudo-Athanasius, and Pseudo-Fulgentius.

Internal Evidence
Most importantly, we can turn to internal scripture evidence to see whether the rendition "church of Christ" is correct or not. Apostle Paul says, "These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual" (I Cor. 2:13, King James Version).

Spiritual things will not contradict with other spiritual things when they are compared with one another. In no way will they manifest disagreement, but only harmony and unity. They go together perfectly well-at all times. With this apostolic method of teaching, nothing is added to or taken away from the Word. Consequently, when one Bible verse seems to clash in meaning with another verse, the former or the latter is either mistranslated or misinterpreted.

Based on scriptural evidence, we can conclude that "church of Christ" is the more accurate rendition because the latter part of the verse states, "which he purchased with his own blood". The rendering "church of God" would mean that it is God who died and shed blood on the cross. This would contradict other bible verses that teach God is immortal (1 Timothy 1:17) and that God is a spirit (John 4:24), has no flesh and bones (Lk. 24:36-39), and therefore has no blood. It is the Lord Jesus Christ's blood, which washed the members of the Church of their sins (I Pt. 1:18-19; Rev. 1:5).

I have already told you. Just find the Bible that agrees with you.

Stranger
 

BARNEY BRIGHT

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2017
4,032
1,119
113
67
Thomaston Georgia
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Yes it is written down. I showed you.

Stranger
I have read the scripture you showed me and it's not saying that no matter how much you say so. I have done research and studied the scriptures including this one and there is no scripture that calls Jesus Christ a God Man no matter how much others such as yourself say so.
I have already told you. Just find the Bible that agrees with you.

Stranger

I'm not going to go along with a Bible such as the KJVB that has taken liberties and translated a scripture according to their theology. Don't get me wrong they certainly have the right to translate it the way they feel it should be but that doesn't mean I can't disagree. There's plenty of those that disagree with how some Bibles including the KJVB has translated certain scriptures. I will never agree with taking away or adding to the scriptures simply for it to go along with someones theology no matter who it is. You don't want to believe people have added or taken away from scripture that's your right, that doesn't mean I can't disagree with you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Harvest 1874

BARNEY BRIGHT

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2017
4,032
1,119
113
67
Thomaston Georgia
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I think NEW ADAM and NEW EVE is scripturally and theologically sound. It fulfills the prophecy of Genesis 3:15 as the beginning of developmented covenants. A family, a tribe, a nation, prophetic realities shifting to earthly realities (Ark) to human realities (Jesus and His mother) to heavenly realities (Rev.11:19 12:1, 12:17) This is a very incomplete summary.
+++...
In most editions of the Douay-Rheims Bible, Genesis 3:15, in which God is addressing the serpent, reads like this:

"I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel."

In the New American Bible, as in all other modern Bibles, it reads like this:

"I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel."

The essential difference between these two renderings -- or at least the one people always ask about -- concerning who will crush the serpent's head and who the serpent is trying to strike. The Douay-Rheims uses feminine pronouns -- she and her -- implying that the woman is the person being spoken of in this part of the verse. All modern translations use masculine pronouns -- he and his -- implying that the seed of the woman is the of that part of the verse.

The reason for the difference in the renderings is a manuscript difference. Modern translations follow what the original Hebrew of the passage says. The Douay-Rheims, however, is following a manuscript variant found in many early Fathers and some editions of the Vulgate (but not the original; Jerome followed the Hebrew text in his edition of the Vulgate). The variant probably originated as a copyist error when a scribe failed to take note that the subject of the verse had shifted from the woman to the seed of the woman.

People notice this variant today because the expression found in the Douay-Rheims has been the basis of some popular Catholic art, showing a serene Mary standing over a crushed serpent.

images

This is because Christians have recognized (all the way back to the first century) that the woman and her seed mentioned in Genesis 3:15 do not simply stand for Eve and one of her righteous sons (either Abel or Seth). They prophetically foreshadow Mary and Jesus. Thus, just as the first half of the verse, speaking of the enmity between the serpent and the woman, has been applied to Mary, the second half, speaking of the head crushing and heel striking, has also been applied to Mary due to the manuscript variant, though it properly applies to Jesus, given the original Hebrew.

This does not mean that the idea cannot be validly applied to Mary as well. Through her cooperation in the incarnation of Christ, so that the Son of God (who, from the cross, directly crushed the head of the serpent) became her seed, Mary did crush the head of the serpent. In the same way, the serpent struck at Christ on the cross, and indirectly struck at Mary's heart as well, who had to witness the death of her own Son (cf. John 19:25-27). As the holy priest Simeon had told her years before:

"Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is spoken against -- and a sword will pierce through your own soul also -- that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed" (Luke 2:34b-35).
(who are the "many"?)

Thus Jesus crushed the serpent directly and was directly struck by the serpent; Mary, through her cooperation in the incarnation and her witnessing the sufferings and death of her Son, indirectly crushed the serpent and was indirectly struck by the serpent.

This has long been recognized by Catholics. The footnotes provided a couple of hundred years ago by Bishop Challoner in his revision of the Douay state, "The sense [of these two readings] is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent's head."

IQB: Genesis 3:15 and Mary

I'm still waiting for anyone to offer a verse that condemns Scripture in art form.

I believe in Genesis 3:15 the serpent is Satan and his seed which are his servants, demons and humans. The woman I believe to be Jehovah God heavenly organization and it's seed that it produced, mainly God only Begotten Son and the joint heirs bought from mankind to be Kings, judges, priests in that Messianic kingdom Jehovah God has made his only Begotten Son king of.
 
Last edited:

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I have read the scripture you showed me and it's not saying that no matter how much you say so. I have done research and studied the scriptures including this one and there is no scripture that calls Jesus Christ a God Man no matter how much others such as yourself say so.


I'm not going to go along with a Bible such as the KJVB that has taken liberties and translated a scripture according to their theology. Don't get me wrong they certainly have the right to translate it the way they feel it should be but that doesn't mean I can't disagree. There's plenty of those that disagree with how some Bibles including the KJVB has translated certain scriptures. I will never agree with taking away or adding to the scriptures simply for it to go along with someones theology no matter who it is. You don't want to believe people have added or taken away from scripture that's your right, that doesn't mean I can't disagree with you.


Ok. Tell me the Hebrew Text used for translating the Old Testament in the New World Translation. Tell me the Greek Text used for translating the New Testament in the New World Translation.

Stranger