-
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!
Quite true.StanJ said:If I was I wouldn't have asked nor used please, but it is common forum ettiquette to not use red and to follow the format setup, I CAN ask the admin to get involved if that would help motivate you?
Stan, do you need a hug? I'm making this one blue just for you
.
It's not MY Bible, it's THE Bible, and it IS the arbiter of the church. The Pope or the RCC never has been. What IS written down is all we need,
as John 20:31 confirms.
That's all you need. That's why Episcopal church teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation. And the Baptists teach it's just symbolic. And some baptize babies and others do not. And communion is symbolic in some places and Christ is actually present in others. And 1 Timothy 3:15 means something other than what it appears to mean. Right, no absolute truth, anywhere, is needed.
1 Timothy 1:3Amplified Bible (AMP)
3 As I urged you when I was on my way to Macedonia, stay on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain individuals not to teach any different doctrines,
We firstly have to use some scriptural common sense / lateral thought. Scripture says that God is love 1 John 4:8. Scripture says that the greatest act of love is lay your life down John 15:13. NOT getting some random unlucky fella for the task ^_^.brakelite said:
If Jesus was not God, Himself John 3:16 would not read ''For God so loved the world''. It would read ''For God found someone to love the world''.
There is a forgiveable confusion as Jesus was stripped of power. It is beyond the human mind to grasp how God of the universe can limit His omnipotence / make Himself as a lamb to the slaughter.
I believe all non trinity teaching is hence of the devil. God limiting His omnipotence on the cross and omniscience to allow for free will is evidence of God being as good as He is great. This, the devil does not want us to grasp! Because it would provoke us all to serve Him. As He is such a good God. But this is the truth that God wants us all to grasp Eph 3:18.
As I asked, please use the proper format in posting. It is NOT hard to learn or do and keeps things in order so posts can be followed.Veni_Creator_Spiritus said:
We'll as the Bible does nit, that's their problem. BTW, so does the RCC, and so did Jean Cauvin.
Yes as Paul was inspired and was writing scriptures, we use the doctrines written down by him and his NT contemporaries, NOT the RCC.
Jun2u
Well-Known Member
Jesus is both truly and metaphorically the Son of God! In fact, He is the very essence of God as we read in Galatians 2:9.
For God to save a people for Himself had to become a man, suffer the wrath of God, die and rise again on behalf of mankind because it needed a God to endure/fulfill all these things (see Mt 1:23).
For a testament to be enforced the testator must first die and to prove for the testament to be in effect, (in this case, redeem a people for Himself), He had to rise again.
A metaphor/parable is an earthly story with a heavenly/spiritual meaning.
To God Be The Glory
For God to save a people for Himself had to become a man, suffer the wrath of God, die and rise again on behalf of mankind because it needed a God to endure/fulfill all these things (see Mt 1:23).
For a testament to be enforced the testator must first die and to prove for the testament to be in effect, (in this case, redeem a people for Himself), He had to rise again.
A metaphor/parable is an earthly story with a heavenly/spiritual meaning.
To God Be The Glory
Spiritus, you aren't the only one who posts like that. I've seen a couple of others do it, too. If there's a rule about it, I'm not aware of it, either.Veni_Creator_Spiritus said:If I was I wouldn't have asked nor used please, but it is common forum ettiquette to not use red and to follow the format setup, I CAN ask the admin to get involved if that would help motivate you?
Stan, do you need a hug? I'm making this one blue just for you
.
It's not MY Bible, it's THE Bible, and it IS the arbiter of the church. The Pope or the RCC never has been. What IS written down is all we need,
as John 20:31 confirms.
That's all you need. That's why Episcopal church teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation. And the Baptists teach it's just symbolic. And some baptize babies and others do not. And communion is symbolic in some places and Christ is actually present in others. And 1 Timothy 3:15 means something other than what it appears to mean. Right, no absolute truth, anywhere, is needed.
1 Timothy 1:3Amplified Bible (AMP)
3 As I urged you when I was on my way to Macedonia, stay on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain individuals not to teach any different doctrines,
And you're new. Stan ought to cut you a bit of slack, while you learn the ropes.
I'm not sure how other people do it, but I use cut and paste...it works for me. If you like, I'll show you how...all you have to do, my friend, is ask...
I was cutting him slack, I ASKED nicely with PLEASE. If people don't know I have always helped IF they ask. That is done by PM. Reactive responses do not engender ANY slack.The Barrd said:
Hi. Okay, I repent. You are right, the church according to Paul is the pillar and foundation of truth. Can't argue with scripture can we? Although it does add a caveat...it is the church of the living God. Which naturally begs the question...which church is that which can be described as belonging to the living God? Would it not be that church which keeps the commandments of God and has the testimony of Jesus, or Spirit of prophecy as per Revelation 12:17? As well as having the faith of Jesus as per Revelation 14:12?Veni_Creator_Spiritus said:
My exposure to Catholicism was a full one third of my life from birth to new birth in 1976. The Bible in those days to the Catholic was held with great suspicion and at least at arms length. It was never used in religious instruction at school, although the stories were...but the stories were not taken from the Bible but from rewritten Catholic sourced materials with the imprimatur firmly attached.
Remember, just 60 years before I was born the Bible was on the official Vatican list of forbidden books. So like I said previously, times have, in one sense, changed. But i another, I would suggest that you personally do not go to the scripture to discover Truth. You will have already accepted "truth" from the magisterium, and you then go to the Bible to meditate and become sanctified. I know that if you discover a Truth in scripture which contradicts that which you have been taught by the church, the church will be right, and your interpretation of scripture wrong. Every time. Regardless of the topic in question. And regardless of whether you are 'Spirit filled' and 'charismatic'. That is where 1 Tim.3:15 would differ from what you understand it as saying. As the foundation and pillar of truth, it does not intimate that the church has authority over the scripture, or over the individuals conscience. The church stands on the scripture as her foundation. She does not take her bias to the Bible, but allows the Bible to change her bias. Rome has completely overstepped her bounds...she has not only claimed authority over the interpretation of scripture, but has taken to herself the authority to even change scripture to suit her own ends. I cite the changes in the Ten Commandments from scripture as to the version of the same found in the catechism.
As to Protestantism. I agree with you on the fractionated state of the Protestant churches. Every one having their own bias and understanding, some agreeing on the essentials, most disagreeing on the peripherals, many disagreeing even on the essentials. This was not what God ntended. Nor waa it what the reformers intended. At least not Luther. He had no intention of starting a new church. He, like most other reformers, were precisely that. Reformers. They, for the most part, were Catholic priests. They loved their church. It was their love for their church that they wanted reform. They wanted the sin , the licentiousness, the depravity, the falsehoods and superstitions purged from the only church they knew, and have her return to the foundations of faith found in the scriptures as handed down from the apostles. The church however refused to repent, and went deeper into apostasy by persecuting and putting to death many of those who protested truth. The new churches started as of necessity. And then they began to persecute one another. They didn't totally come out of their Roman roots, cleaving to many false teachings, particularly in the area of religious liberty. That particular enlightened stance did not come until the new world with the formation of Rhode Is. I am sure you know the story. But Protestantism today is no longer true Protestantism. It has gone into apostasy along with the mother church. Returning to mother, they both now are forming Babylon the Great, a church of confusion and fast becoming that final apostate church of Revelation which is a combination of church and state lording it over the consciences of men and implementing the final death decree for those who refuse the mark.
History is an interesting beast. The version you believe in depends on whether you accept that version written by the victor to justify her excesses or that version that survived the burnings of the losers. The true history is to be found in that which best parallels Bible prophecy. Particularly those prophecies found in Daniel 2, 7 and 8, and Revelation 12, 13. If I had known the true history of Rome as a child I would have run away from that church as a child. Call me a hardliner if you like. However, allow me to make it clear, I have no axe to grind against any individual member of the Roman church. But the system, now that is another matter altogether.
All that I can agree to. I have no argument, as I have repeatedly said, with the established fact that Jesus, because He is the only begotten Son of the Living God, is Himself therefore God.KingJ said:
My current doubt over the trinity does not remove in one jot or tittle my faith in the reality of the deity of Christ. Nor does it mean God isn't good...on the contrary, it glorifies the Father to an even greater extent for His most gracious and precious gift...His only begotten Son.KingJ said:
What folks do not realize is that because the deity of Christ was conferred upon Him by His Father, if Christ had sinned in even the slightest, Jesus would never have risen from the tomb. His divinity, His humanity, would have perished. And the human race would have also been lost forever. The Father would have remained in control of the remaining unfallen worlds, and mourned the passing of His Son for eternity. The risk that Jesus took was infinite. The love that they both revealed at Calvary was infinite...and they both agreed before the foundation of the world that man was worth that risk. Thanks and praise be to God for His love! What love!!!
Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, And you perish in the way, When His wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him. Psalm 2:12
Who has ascended into heaven, or descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has bound the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name, and what is His Son’s name, If you know? Proverbs 30:4
Who has ascended into heaven, or descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has bound the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name, and what is His Son’s name, If you know? Proverbs 30:4
You make a statement but provides no evidence, saying that "the majority of Greek scholars translate it the way the NIV does, and trying to show what it literally translates as, without proper equivalence, is to say the least dishonest". Do they ? Is it being dishonest to provide a literal rendition for all to see or is it being dishonest to rewrite the Bible in order to fit it into one's belief, like forcing a square peg in a round hole ?StanJ said:
By supplying the literal reading into English provides insight into what was originally written, rather than guessing at what was wrote down. This could not be any plainer, but as has been mentioned before, some will continue to argue instead of using reason, logic and clear evidence, such as grasping that the apostle John wrote that "no man has seen God at any time".(1 John 4:12)
So how could Jesus be God and yet this one sentence be accurate, because multitudes saw and heard Jesus. How could Jesus be God and yet be "in the bosom of the Father" ? Since when does God need to be in his own bosom ? And also, how could Jesus be God and yet be called "the only-begotten god" ? To beget someone means to fathered by someone. Hence, how could Jesus be God and yet have a Father ? (see John 20:17; 1 Cor 1:3; 2 Cor 1:3) But how many reason on this ? Very few.
The evidence was provided to show that the earliest Greek manuscripts, the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus of the 4th century C.E., does not read as the NIV reads of John 1:18. However, by the 5th century, alterations to Bible texts were now being done, which includes the Codex Alexandrinus. The Trinity has such a stranglehold on individuals that they have stooped to dishonesty in rendering certain passages to read so as to support it.
It's called tampering, adding or changing words to fit their theological view, not Bible truth. In fact, the Trinity has had such overwhelming power that almost 500 years ago, anyone who dared challenged the Trinity was often burned on the stake, such as Spaniard Michael Servetus (1511-1553 C.E.), a respected doctor.
Let's just see how some Bibles render John 1:18. The King James Bible reads: "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.". The American Standard Version reads: "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."
Young's Literal Translation reads: "God no one hath ever seen; the only begotten Son, who is on the bosom of the Father - he did declare." Darby's Bible reads: "No one has seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, *he* hath declared him."
Weymouth's New Testament reads: "No human eye has ever seen God: the only Son, who is in the Father's bosom - He has made Him known." Webster's Bible reads: "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him]."
International Standard Version reads: "No one has ever seen God. The unique God, who is close to the Father's side, has revealed him." Douay-Rheims Bible reads: "No man hath seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him". English Revised Version reads: "No man hath seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him".
Jason David BeDuhn, professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University, who is a renowned Greek scholar, said that "no two languages are identical in structure (grammar) or vocabulary. This is equally true between New Testament Greek and modern English. Therefore, every translation must make some accommodation to the differences between two languages. In the case of the New Testament, the translation is biased if those accommodations are used to promote a particular doctrinal viewpoint. For example, the Greek used in the original New Testament did not use lower case letters, whereas English uses both upper and lower case letters. The original manuscripts (autographs) therefore did not make a distinction between "God" and "god" or between "Spirit" and "spirit". A translation may introduce a theological bias in its use of capitalized English words since the use (or absence) of a capital letter may be the difference between an inanimate object and person. Bias can also be introduced when difficult Greek sentences are interpreted for the English reader or when English words are added which are not found in the Greek text".
The oldest Greek manuscripts read "only-begotten god", not "only-begotten Son". Hence, Jesus Christ as "the Word was with God, and the Word was a god" and not "God himself ".(John 1:1)
That is JW heresy. Are you JW? Mounce, his son, Moo, Wallace and the VAST MAJORITY of recognized Greek scholars confirm the rendering as the NIV shows it.Guestman said:
The Koine Greek, IS properly rendered in many modern English translations. I challenge you to SHOW/CITE which Greek manuscript renders it as 'a god' or 'only begotten god'.
Yashua (Joshua) son of Nun: translates at Yah our savior (or salvation) son of perpetuity (eternity)
Actually yehôshûa means 'God is salvation', not what you assert above. This is not the same as yeshua, which is Jesus. The fact is Jesus comes from the Greek word Iησοῦς (eeaysoos) so it has no Hebrew equivalent. We know for sure that JESUS WAS Immanuel, which means "God with us".Michael V Pardo said:
What many fail to keep in mind, is that Jesus ushered in the NEW Covenant, which was a NEW way to bring about salvation, not in keeping with the OLD Covenant way of doing things, which Jesus made obsolete. Heb 8:13
Yehoshua is one variant of the name Joshua and I'll admit that I have no idea why there should be more than one version of the same name (though I suspect that they aren't the same name and have subtle implications built into the variation), but this I know, the Messiah predicted in the Old Testament was predicted to have the name Joshua and if you accept the fact that Jesus really is the Messiah then either His given name was Joshua, or God made a mistake. So my question to you is, does God make mistakes?StanJ said:
OzSpen
Well-Known Member
- Mar 30, 2015
- 3,728
- 795
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Australia
Guestman,Guestman said:
I read and teach NT Greek and that is not my understanding of the Greek text of John 1:1.
A T Robertson's, Word Pictures in the New Testament explains the grammar accurately:
Therefore, the translation, 'The Word was a god', is an incorrect translation, based on the Greek grammar.
Oz
Works consulted
Robertson, A T 1932. Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol 5, The Fourth Gospel and Epistle to the Hebrews. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press.
Robertson, A T 1934. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press.
I've already explained this Michael. Your POV is flawed. Read over my responses. There are subtle differences, but nevertheless, different!Michael V Pardo said:
God has never made a mistake, so obviously the error is in your perception.
Stan, if you say so, then it certainly must be true. My understanding comes from the Holy Spirit, as I've never trusted what comes from today's version of "biblical scholarship", but perhaps it's God's intent to set me up for a fall. Sure, I believe that (not.)StanJ said:
I've actually taken the time to read over your responses, but they remain non-arguments, vague at best, insulting at worst. I've noticed that you've had run ins with a number of genuinely bright scholars on these forums, and that from those times their posts have dwindled or disappeared completely, but when they understand that it's your opposition that validates their ministry, they'll probably come back. Praise God for His faithfulness to bring adversarial relationships to the church to demonstrate whom He has approved.
Well, listening to voices in your head without testing them by the filter of God's written word is a big problem for many. If the word of God refutes your 'voice', then that's the end of it and you should submit to it. How EXACTLY are you texting this spirit that tells you things?Michael V Pardo said:
All you are doing here is making self serving, self righteous brags, that do nothing but undermine your credibility.
I suggest you read Isaiah 55:11 and contemplate on it.
Similar threads
