It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Word was with God, and the Word was A god

page: 8
6
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2017 @ 01:36 AM
link   
I am tired so I will just say it.

"My lord and my God!"

Was shouted by "doubting" Thomas, his brother who knew damn well he was not God but was ressurected by Him, a justifiably shocked Judah/Thomas who was by no means bowing at the feet of Jesus calling him his God spoke an excited utterance that can not be said to be meant that Jesus was God, lord maybe, because that is a human title and Jesus was a human and a leader and a Baal or Lord/Prince of the line of David.




posted on Jan, 1 2017 @ 01:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Seede

Conception or to concieve is a particular method of creating, and anything concieved through pregnancy is created.

To concieve IS to create, so Jesus IS a creation. In the beginning GOD created...

EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS INCLUDING JESUS.



posted on Jan, 1 2017 @ 02:01 AM
link   
[Akragon]
Yeah... except he didn't say "As I Am, so can you Be"

so...
[Reply to Akragon from someone else]]

'GOD condescended to impute unto men, because of the hardness of their hearts, this Love that will melt a heart of stone. I put before you a Love that is beyond utterance and this Love is a sample and example for men and women in all walks of life that you may be even as I AM

[My reply]

Or just "even as I am" which is not in either case a claim to being God but an expression of desire that people be as he is, RIGHTEOUS.

Can we become Messiah's or God?

We can not. Perhaps it is you not him who should reread the passage as you clearly took it out of its true context and capitalised the I AM so you have a reason to invoke the Jesus is God myth of the New Testament that says no such thing.

But he wasn't saying I AM God I AM, just I am.

Be like I am.

[Others comment]


laying no mortal claims on any material thing; relaxing your conscious mentality and recognizing all things are given unto you; allowing the CHRIST within you to realize HIS at-one-ment as being you, as being the inheritor of all that you have, and hence, you being an inheritor of all that is in the world.

[My reply]

Atonement is repentance and forgiveness, the at-one-ment is just preacher mumbo jumbo like "Be-Attitudes" because puns are the apex of their ability to be clever and really don't know what they are talking about other than a quote or two followed by their words for an hour with maybe a few more out of context quotes and everyone is handing over cash because he's so "inspiring."



Problem is if they do know the NT makes no claim to Jesus being God in a Trinity or God period, they are liars.

If they don't know it, they don't know much at all unless it's apologetics, i.e. religious sophistry and debate, defend Christianity and demean anyone who doesn't think Jesus is God because they know the Bible too well or are Jewish or Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist or...Anything besides their religion.

If a religion is not flawed, why apologize?
edit on 1-1-2017 by TerriblePhoenix because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-1-2017 by TerriblePhoenix because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-1-2017 by TerriblePhoenix because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2017 @ 02:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: SethTsaddik
Christ is God incarnated into man, therefore He is Hupostatic.

Besides the fact that the bible never teaches any of that, here's an analogy with cards to visualize the line of Trinitarian argumentation regarding this human teaching/doctrine and theosophy (theological philosophy/idea) of what is referred to as a "hypostatic union". Made by a Unitarian I think (he also seems to recognize some "Gnostic" philosophy in it seeing his title, but I'm not sure how he means that, he might be just referring to human traditions and philosophy with the word "Gnostic", not specifically the group called Gnostics many centuries ago; he doesn't go into that cause it's not the main point of the video or my reason for sharing it, just wanted to mention it cause Seth brought up the "Gnostic" term):

Oh, btw, cause I keep on seeing the same bible verses popping up in the commentary such as Matthew 1:23 or John 20:28 (what Thomas said). These verses and many more are all discussed on the page below (Seth also mentioned he wanted to look into John 20:28, just search the page for the verse you want to look into):
Jesus Christ: Reasoning
Here's another useful page if the verse you're looking for is missing on the page above:
Jesus Christ: Insight, Volume 2
edit on 1-1-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2017 @ 02:26 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Nothing can overcome the fact that Jesus denied being equal to God.

Back a page, my first or second message.



posted on Jan, 1 2017 @ 05:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: imwilliam
a reply to: SethTsaddik

In the second occurrence of the word "God" I see "Theos" without the "ho" which comes before "logos" in that phrase rather than God.

Excellent spotting of a Don Quijote Windmill Giant that I mentioned before, you get to go to the next level.


Also note that whenever the bible uses the phrase "the god", it doesn't necessarily have to refer to Jehovah. That's not the point, that would be a red herring (and depending on how it's used also a straw man argument) that's also in use by Trinitarians responding to this subject. As Seth alluded to, the bible also uses the phrase "the god of this system of things" to refer to Satan. You can also investigate whether or not capitalization in translation is justified (and where, and whether or not or when translators are being honest in this and when not, as shown in previous quotations). The most important thing to understand in all this is the broader definition or meaning for the Hebrew and Greek words translated to "God", "gods", "a god", "the god", "divine", "divinity", etc. given in the 2nd video below (the rest of the videos related to this subject can be found if you follow the link to the 1st thread at the end of my first comment in this thread):



Once you have a better understanding of the above, it's easier to understand this comment from the earlier mentioned blog about the Coptic (which also relates to these minsunderstandings regarding "a" vs "the" because of the straw man arguments in use concerning that concept; or Don Quijote Windmill Giants for those who focus on that alone as their argument and explain it in a wrong way, as if that's the big identifier here):

Does Coptic John 1:18 contradict Coptic John 1:1?
It is clear that Sahidic Coptic John 1:1 says that "the Word was a god." But it has been remarked that Coptic John 1:18 contradicts this, because this verse uses the Coptic definite article before the common noun, noute: p.noute, with reference to the Son.

But is this reference definitizing, equating the Son with God, or is it merely anaphoric, referencing "the" god of John 1:1c?

First, an important difference between John 1:1 and John 1:18 (in Coptic and in Greek) must be noted. John 1:1 reads the same in all extant ancient Greek and Coptic textual witnesses. But John 1:18 does not. John 1:18 does not possess the textual clarity of John 1:1c. John 1:18 is a text that has three significant variants in the Greek: monogenhs theos ("an only-[begotten] god"); ho monogenhs theos ("the only-[begotten] god"); and ho monogenhs huios ("the only-[begotten] son").

As a basically Alexandrian text, "the only-[begotten] god" would be expected in the Coptic version. That is, in fact, the reading of the Coptic Bohairic version: pimonogenes nnouti, which Horner renders as "the only-begotten God" in the main text and as "the divine only-begotten" in his footnotes. However, there was obviously some support among the Sahidic Coptic translators for the "only-[begotten] son" reading also, because they combined, or conflated, the two variant readings in the Sahidic Coptic version, giving us pnoute pShre nouwt , literally, "the god, the only son." (According to Jesus as Theos: A Textual Examination, by Brian James Wright, a similarly conflated Greek variant of John 1:18, ho monogenhs huios theos, was known to Ambrose, Irenaeus, and Origen.)

By putting the definite article here, the Sahidic Coptic translators mirror the Greek's ho monogenhs theos. But does this say the Word is God? No, for the Greek here can be translated simply, "the only-begotten god."

George Horner's English translation of the Sahidic Coptic renders pnoute pShre nouwt as "God, the only Son." But this is not what the Coptic says, this is merely Reverend Horner's English version of the Coptic, perhaps revealing his own theological presuppositions. The Coptic of this verse, John 1:18, can also be translated as "the god, the only son." The use of the Coptic definite article here does not demand the translation, "God." Particularly not when such a reading fails to correspond with the context and with what has already been stated at Coptic John 1:1 in both the Sahidic and the Bohairic versions: "the Word was a god."

Horner himself shows that not every instance of p.noute means "God," but may also mean "god," in context.

For example, at Acts 7:43, the Sahidic Coptic text has the definite article bound to the word for god, p.noute. Does Horner arbitrarily translate it as "God"? Not at all. He renders p.noute at Acts 7:43 as "the god," giving us "And ye took the tabernacle of Molokh and the star of the god [Coptic, p.noute] Rephan, the forms which ye made to worship them."

Likewise, at Coptic John 1:18 we have "the god, the only son," i.e., the god previously mentioned at John 1:1c, who is the Son of God.


This is so because both John 1:1 and John 1:18 describe a contrast between God and his Son. In John 1:1, the Son or Word is "with" or "in the presence" of God. At John 1:18, God is the One Whom no one has ever seen, whereas the Son is the one who represented or revealed Him on earth. Identity of the Son with God is not the theme of either John 1:1 or John 1:18, whereas contrast is emphasized.

Sahidic Coptic John 1:18, therefore, cannot be used to contradict John 1:1, because the translation, "God the only Son" is not the only possible or contextually accurate translation of this Coptic verse in English. John 1:18 is not identifying the divine Son as being the same as God Almighty, but is actually highlighting the distinction between them.

edit on 1-1-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2017 @ 06:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
According to BeDuhn, the traditional, Latin Vulgate-inspired reading formalized by the King James Version, "and the Word was God," is the least accurate rendering of the Greek text, a reading that violates the grammar and syntax.

And then there's the completely twisted version of history and bible translations that tries to disconnect the King James Version from Jerome's Latin Vulgate and Catholicism while putting the Alexandrian manuscripts on the side of Catholicism as if it's corrupted and not authentic. Beef up the King James Version (with lies and misrepresentations, conveniently leaving out that Erasmus who produced the Textus Receptus was a Roman Catholic Priest who heavily borrowed from the Latin Vulgate, translated into Greek and then pretended it was authentic Greek, as in found in reliable Greek manuscripts rather than the Latin Vulgate, this deception and dishonesty regarding Erasmus runs really deep, don't really want to get into that) and discredit the Alexandrian manuscripts (and others). I also responded to Chesterjohn in that thread regarding the picture about bible manuscripts and translations that he shared there (see last page). More clues why the King James Only movement does that:

...
How competent were the ancient Coptic Egyptian translators to convey the sense of the Greek text of John? Egypt was conquered by Alexander the Great in 332 BCE and the country was subsequently Hellenized. Greek had been a legacy of Egypt for some 500 years by the time those translators began their work, and it was still a living language. According to Coptic grammarian Bentley Layton, the Sahidic Coptic translation is “a very early indirect attestation of the Greek text and a direct indication of an Egyptian (perhaps Alexandrian) understanding of what it meant.” 8 Likely made well before Nicea (325 CE), the Coptic text tells us how early exegetes interpreted John 1:1, apart from the influence of later dogma and church tradition.

Although the third century may be the latest date for the Sahidic Coptic translation, can a date for its beginning be more clearly ascertained? Christianity may have come early to Egypt. The Bible book Acts of the Apostles lists Egyptian Jews and proselytes as being present at Pentecost, when 3,000 became Christian believers. (Acts 2:5-11) The eloquent Christian speaker Apollos was an Alexandrian and his travels may have taken him back to Egypt. (Acts 18:24-28; Titus 3:13) Coptic translator George Horner notes: “Clement of Alexandria, born about 150 [CE], speaks of the Christians spreading all over the land….The internal character of the Sahidic [version] supplies confirmation of a date earlier than the third century.” Horner favors a date closer to 188 CE as the inception of the Sahidic Coptic version 9

The value of the Sahidic Coptic text lies not only in its indication of how early scribes understood the Greek of John 1:1, but also in its value for determining the correct text of that gospel. New Testament scholar Bruce Metzger wrote: “[The] Alexandrian text [is] the best text and most faithful in preserving the original….The Sahidic and Bohairic versions frequently contain typically Alexandrian readings.” 10 Additionally, one can note readings in the Coptic text that are found in the earliest existing manuscripts of John, the p66 (Papyrus Bodmer II, middle second century CE) and p75 (Papyrus Bodmer XIV, late second century CE). 11

There is also the matter of precision in rendering John 1:1c. The Koine Greek language has only the definite article, with indefiniteness being indicated by the lack of the article (called the “anarthrous” construction). Of the other early translations from the Greek, Latin has no articles, definite or indefinite, and Syriac has only the definite determinator in its grammatical structure. The Sahidic Coptic language, however – like English – has both the definite article and the indefinite article as part of its syntactical system.

This means that when the Sahidic Coptic translators wrote ou noute, “a god,” at John 1:1c, referring to the entity that is the Word, they were being specific, not ambiguous. They could have used the definite article and written p.noute at this verse if they had meant “God,” just as they did at John 1:1b: auw p.shaje ne.f.shoop n.nahrm p.noute, “and the Word was with [literally, “in the presence of] God.”

Therefore, the Sahidic Coptic version, the earliest translation of the Greek originals into a language that contained the indefinite article, used that indefinite article at John 1:1c: “the Word was a god.”

Is “the Word was a god” the only English translation of this verse that is possible within the parameters of the Coptic indefinite article? It should be stressed that this is the literal translation. However, this semantic domain may allow, in context, English translations such as “the Word was divine” or a divine being, or “the Word was godlike.” But a translation such as the traditional “the Word was God” would require the Coptic definite article, thus falling outside of the non-specific semantic domain signaled by the Coptic indefinite article. 12

It is sometimes charged, incorrectly, that the translation of John 1:1c as “the Word was a god” is an incorrect, sectarian translation found primarily in the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. Yet, in rendering John 1:1c from Greek into their own native language, the Coptic scribes came to the same understanding of that Greek text some 1,700 years ago.

Translating John 1:1c literally to say “the Word was a god” is, therefore, not any innovation. Rather, it appears to be an ancient way of understanding the meaning of this text, before the ascension and formal installation of philosophical Trinitarianism.

8. Layton, p. 1
9. Horner, Volume 2, pp. 398-9
10. Metzger, p. 5
11. This is the writer’s personal observation in researching the Coptic text.
12. Layton, p. 34; Shisha-Halevy, p. 268

Source: John 1:1 and the Coptic Versions: Translating "the Word was a god," 1700 Years Ago

Additional optional research (including positive comments about the New World Translation from non-Witness scholars who aren't playing the usual slander routine):
Is the New World Translation Accurate?
Note that if you go to the parallel translation of a bunch of popular bible translations on the biblehub website, you won't see a single one being honest in their translation of John 1:1, not even the ones that are listed on the right side of the picture ChesterJohn used. They're all on the same side of dishonesty and as Newton called it:

the more learned and quick-sighted men, as Luther, Erasmus, Bullinger, Grotius, and some others, would not dissemble their knowledge

Source: An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture - Wikipedia
Obscuring, deceiving others and themselves,not being honest with others or themselves, leaving out inconvenient details
edit on 1-1-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2017 @ 08:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: imwilliam
a reply to: SethTsaddik

In the second occurrence of the word "God" I see "Theos" without the "ho" which comes before "logos" in that phrase rather than God.

Excellent spotting of a Don Quijote Windmill Giant that I mentioned before, you get to go to the next level.


Also note that whenever the bible uses the phrase "the god", it doesn't necessarily have to refer to Jehovah. That's not the point, that would be a red herring (and depending on how it's used also a straw man argument) that's also in use by Trinitarians responding to this subject. As Seth alluded to, the bible also uses the phrase "the god of this system of things" to refer to Satan. You can also investigate whether or not capitalization in translation is justified (and where, and whether or not or when translators are being honest in this and when not, as shown in previous quotations). The most important thing to understand in all this is the broader definition or meaning for the Hebrew and Greek words translated to "God", "gods", "a god", "the god", "divine", "divinity", etc. given in the 2nd video below (the rest of the videos related to this subject can be found if you follow the link to the 1st thread at the end of my first comment in this thread):



Once you have a better understanding of the above, it's easier to understand this comment from the earlier mentioned blog about the Coptic (which also relates to these minsunderstandings regarding "a" vs "the" because of the straw man arguments in use concerning that concept; or Don Quijote Windmill Giants for those who focus on that alone as their argument and explain it in a wrong way, as if that's the big identifier here):

Does Coptic John 1:18 contradict Coptic John 1:1?
It is clear that Sahidic Coptic John 1:1 says that "the Word was a god." But it has been remarked that Coptic John 1:18 contradicts this, because this verse uses the Coptic definite article before the common noun, noute: p.noute, with reference to the Son.

But is this reference definitizing, equating the Son with God, or is it merely anaphoric, referencing "the" god of John 1:1c?

First, an important difference between John 1:1 and John 1:18 (in Coptic and in Greek) must be noted. John 1:1 reads the same in all extant ancient Greek and Coptic textual witnesses. But John 1:18 does not. John 1:18 does not possess the textual clarity of John 1:1c. John 1:18 is a text that has three significant variants in the Greek: monogenhs theos ("an only-[begotten] god"); ho monogenhs theos ("the only-[begotten] god"); and ho monogenhs huios ("the only-[begotten] son").

As a basically Alexandrian text, "the only-[begotten] god" would be expected in the Coptic version. That is, in fact, the reading of the Coptic Bohairic version: pimonogenes nnouti, which Horner renders as "the only-begotten God" in the main text and as "the divine only-begotten" in his footnotes. However, there was obviously some support among the Sahidic Coptic translators for the "only-[begotten] son" reading also, because they combined, or conflated, the two variant readings in the Sahidic Coptic version, giving us pnoute pShre nouwt , literally, "the god, the only son." (According to Jesus as Theos: A Textual Examination, by Brian James Wright, a similarly conflated Greek variant of John 1:18, ho monogenhs huios theos, was known to Ambrose, Irenaeus, and Origen.)

By putting the definite article here, the Sahidic Coptic translators mirror the Greek's ho monogenhs theos. But does this say the Word is God? No, for the Greek here can be translated simply, "the only-begotten god."

George Horner's English translation of the Sahidic Coptic renders pnoute pShre nouwt as "God, the only Son." But this is not what the Coptic says, this is merely Reverend Horner's English version of the Coptic, perhaps revealing his own theological presuppositions. The Coptic of this verse, John 1:18, can also be translated as "the god, the only son." The use of the Coptic definite article here does not demand the translation, "God." Particularly not when such a reading fails to correspond with the context and with what has already been stated at Coptic John 1:1 in both the Sahidic and the Bohairic versions: "the Word was a god."

Horner himself shows that not every instance of p.noute means "God," but may also mean "god," in context.

For example, at Acts 7:43, the Sahidic Coptic text has the definite article bound to the word for god, p.noute. Does Horner arbitrarily translate it as "God"? Not at all. He renders p.noute at Acts 7:43 as "the god," giving us "And ye took the tabernacle of Molokh and the star of the god [Coptic, p.noute] Rephan, the forms which ye made to worship them."

Likewise, at Coptic John 1:18 we have "the god, the only son," i.e., the god previously mentioned at John 1:1c, who is the Son of God.


This is so because both John 1:1 and John 1:18 describe a contrast between God and his Son. In John 1:1, the Son or Word is "with" or "in the presence" of God. At John 1:18, God is the One Whom no one has ever seen, whereas the Son is the one who represented or revealed Him on earth. Identity of the Son with God is not the theme of either John 1:1 or John 1:18, whereas contrast is emphasized.

Sahidic Coptic John 1:18, therefore, cannot be used to contradict John 1:1, because the translation, "God the only Son" is not the only possible or contextually accurate translation of this Coptic verse in English. John 1:18 is not identifying the divine Son as being the same as God Almighty, but is actually highlighting the distinction between them.



I think you are complicating a simple matter.

God is the Father, THE God.

Logos is his "begotten" son Jesus, and a god or divine.

NOT The God. A god or divine. Either is appropriate.

Certainly nobody is suggesting that the JW's have a good Bible, they just translate that one passage right when everyone else doesn't, other than that they are terrible.

The scholars you speak of can hate everything about it but they can't honestly deny that John 1:1 was translated true to the spirit and letter of the Greek text.

And I guarantee they are NOT unbiased scholars but Christian scholars if they DO deny it. They have no truly logical explanation for the English mistranslation of JN. 1:1 other than theologically, Jesus is God in Christianity.

Just not in the Bible. Later theology dictated later translation of the ancient text as much as the text itself.



posted on Jan, 1 2017 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: TerriblePhoenix



Text - a reply to: Seede - Conception or to concieve is a particular method of creating, and anything concieved through pregnancy is created. To concieve IS to create, so Jesus IS a creation. In the beginning GOD created... EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS INCLUDING JESUS.

Not so. Conceive is not to create but to procreate. [That is as we can understand]. The original pattern [in this theological discussion] is to create from non existence to existence which is to create from celestial substance to terrestrial substance. Just as terrestrial substance was created from celestial substance so was celestial substance created from substance that we know nothing about. That is why we call it created from nothing that we can understand.

Jesus was conceived [not created] from celestial substance to terrestrial substance and had preexisted as the Word of God in the celestial substance. One cannot be created twice nor can one be reincarnated from the procreated substance. Adam was the last creature formed from the existing created terrestrial substance. Eve was then formed from the created pattern of Adam. Neither Adam or Eve were procreated. Procreation came into play as they then produced and procreated the creation.

You say "In the beginning GOD created... EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS INCLUDING JESUS."
The Apostle John teaches that the celestial "Word" created and that The Most High made alive that which His Begotten Son created. This same Begotten Son (Word) was placed into a terrestrial woman and became known to us as Jesus. Jesus was not created but was begotten. [John 1:1-5] --



posted on Jan, 1 2017 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: SethTsaddik
Christ is God incarnated into man, therefore He is Hupostatic.

Besides the fact that the bible never teaches any of that, here's an analogy with cards to visualize the line of Trinitarian argumentation regarding this human teaching/doctrine and theosophy (theological philosophy/idea) of what is referred to as a "hypostatic union". Made by a Unitarian I think (he also seems to recognize some "Gnostic" philosophy in it seeing his title, but I'm not sure how he means that, he might be just referring to human traditions and philosophy with the word "Gnostic", not specifically the group called Gnostics many centuries ago; he doesn't go into that cause it's not the main point of the video or my reason for sharing it, just wanted to mention it cause Seth brought up the "Gnostic" term):

Oh, btw, cause I keep on seeing the same bible verses popping up in the commentary such as Matthew 1:23 or John 20:28 (what Thomas said). These verses and many more are all discussed on the page below (Seth also mentioned he wanted to look into John 20:28, just search the page for the verse you want to look into):

I think the card trick more illustrated what went wrong with Christianity than it did illuminate anything about the Trinity. As far as Christianity, they tossed the red card and created a very counterfeit Jesus that wasn't at all human. Not understanding the nature of being 'Born of the Spirit' they created the immaculate conception virgin birth thing. But when Jesus said that which is born of flesh is flesh or whatever and spirit is spirit, they should have understood. Besides, he really had to be the literal son of Joseph. He's right saying God wasn't there on that cross entirely. That was the man Jesus feeling forsaken. But as for us, I do believe we are all eternal. These NDE's I've read seem to scientifically affirm that belief and naturally reincarnation. The red card is very important though. That's where you will be judged. You want the red card in the deck. Trust me on this one. It's the cornerstone.



posted on Jan, 1 2017 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede

Again procreation or to procreate, or to concieve is a specific kind of creation, to create offspring.

You just said "conception is not creation but procreation" after I said conception was a method of creation.

But you proved my point conception is a method of creation, PROcreation, while arguing that conception is not creation you used a word proving it is and didn't realize it.

So I guess you will need a new argument because you can't maintain that procreation is not a method of creation as I said it was using the term conception.



posted on Jan, 1 2017 @ 10:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: TerriblePhoenix



Text - a reply to: Seede - Conception or to concieve is a particular method of creating, and anything concieved through pregnancy is created. To concieve IS to create, so Jesus IS a creation. In the beginning GOD created... EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS INCLUDING JESUS.

Not so. Conceive is not to create but to procreate. [That is as we can understand]. The original pattern [in this theological discussion]


"Concieve is not to create but to procreate."

What I said was Conception or to concieve is a PARTICULAR METHOD of creation.

That method is, as you yourself said, called PROcreation.

And I think it is beyond argument that the creation in procreation is enough to prove that it is a "Particular method of creation" as I said.

Maybe there is another explanation for your apparent oversight or misunderstanding of methods of creation and not understanding that procreation is a specific method of creation. Even trying to use it to say conception (procreation) is not a specific method of creation must be explained as it lacks sense and logic of the smallest amount even, to assert such a frivolous claim under the heading "Not so!" as if you had a logical counter argument. How unbelievable.



is to create from non existence to existence which is to create from celestial substance to terrestrial substance. Just as terrestrial substance was created from celestial substance so was celestial substance created from substance that we know nothing about. That is why we call it created from nothing that we can understand.


To be honest, non scriptural metaphysical mumbo jumbo doesn't mean anything, this is tha and you talking speculatively without any material to back you up. I don't even need to counter it because it is not anything at all of substance.



Jesus was conceived [not created]


Again:

Conception=procreation (you said so yourself) and a specific kind of creation as the word creation in procreation should have told you but I guess you think it's just a coincidence that procreation creates babies AND contains the word creation in it when spoken or written.

So conception is, as I said, a specific method of creation and therefore Jesus is a CREATION of God's and not God or His equal.

No matter what method of creation, procreation or divine magic, he was a creation as anything concieve or concieved of and made to exist when it previously only existed in your mind.



from celestial substance to terrestrial substance and had preexisted as the Word of God in the celestial substance. One cannot be created twice nor can one be reincarnated from the procreated substance. Adam was the last creature formed from the existing created terrestrial substance. Eve was then formed from the created pattern of Adam. Neither Adam or Eve were procreated. Procreation came into play as they then produced and procreated the creation.

You say "In the beginning GOD created... EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS INCLUDING JESUS."
The Apostle John teaches that the celestial "Word" created and that The Most High made alive that which His Begotten Son created. This same Begotten Son (Word) was placed into a terrestrial woman and became known to us as Jesus. Jesus was not created but was begotten. [John 1:1-5] --




It's simply not worth further debate Mr seed, as I have clearly showed the fallacie of your assumption that conception is not creation so Jesus, concieved by God (which you think is not creating even though you believe Jesus exists so he was conceived and exists thus created), is not a creation.

Because God concieved him.

In the womb of Mariam maybe, but that is a an act of creation too.

Otherwise, even theologically, the Word is God's, His Word, literally. Jesus was the first thing God created.

Light. And that was before even the sun and stars were created so not that kind of light but Light. Wisdom. Logos.



posted on Jan, 2 2017 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: TerriblePhoenix


TextOtherwise, even theologically, the Word is God's, His Word, literally. Jesus was the first thing God created.

The Most High [being totally invisible to our understanding] first brought Himself into a visible form to relate to that which He would create. This form or image was given to create that which would be called the celestial realm. This image was not created but was brought forth into the visibility of which it would then create. The Image [Word] is known to us as The Word Of The Most High and is of the substance of The Most High and is The Most High. The Most High did not create Himself but brought Himself into an Image only for the celestial creation that He would then create.

The Image [Word] then created the celestial realm which we are taught is the third to ninth realms of heaven. Then The Most High [by His Word] decided to create this terrestrial universe and did create this terrestrial universe and all that is in this universe. Out of this creation the Word then formed all that has the spirit of life both animate and inanimate. Some being everlasting and others not everlasting.

The last act of forming from creation was that of man. Moses teaches us that God made man in His Image which is taught that man was formed by The Word and a portion of Spirit was given to that which the Image formed. The Image being The Word and the likeness being the Holy Spirit of The Most High. Man was formed from the terrestrial substance and was given a portion of life from the Holy Spirit. Thus man has two portions of existence and the Word has two portions of existence.

Then God ceased His work and all that He created and that which He formed was good. Note that the scriptures do not say that God created or formed after the Sabbath. Then God decided to reveal His coming kingdom to the terrestrial world and by His Holy Spirit [Word] entered into His own terrestrial creation to become terrestrial flesh only. This He did as He then entered the flesh of a woman without terrestrial procreation. But as He did this conception, He retained His celestial Spirit. Now by this is meant to say that the Holy Most High did not enter the woman by flesh but by spirit only. Naturally it should be understood that the flesh of Jesus did not enter the celestial realm at all.

He [The Word] was not given another Spirit of life but retained His celestial Spirit of which is in the celestial substance. Just as your spirit is celestial and is judged in post mortem and is either rewarded or punished in the same spirit, it does not change its life support in either the terrestrial or celestial realms. In other words the celestial spirit is an everlasting source of energy regardless of which substance houses that spirit. So let us understand that the flesh of man is procreated but the spirit of man is given as the life source and not created as a life source. Once it is given by The Most High it is not retrieved but is everlasting even in the second death. The only creation (production) of man was the formation of Adam from the created terrestrial substance. Our minds are taught that each individual is created but that is not true. Each individual’s flesh is procreated from the created substance of this terrestrial creation. The spirit of man/woman is not created but is given to each procreated man/woman by the Holy Spirit of The Most High. The only portion of man/woman that is procreated is that of the terrestrial substance.

This differs in that a human when conceived is not created but is procreated by another human and then a portion of the spirit of life is given [not created]. If each human was created then the scriptures are not correct because the Word did not create after the Sabbath and the Word did not create Himself. By your thoughts you suggest that the preexisting Word [God] created Himself and by this imagination you are suggesting that Jesus was not a preexisting celestial entity. If Jesus was created as a terrestrial entity then He was created twice by your reasoning. Could Jesus be created once as a celestial entity and again as a terrestrial entity? How could this be? Can He then resurrect and return to the celestial ream and be recreated the third time? And all three times be of the same mind? According to the apostle John, in John 1:1-5, my understanding is that the Word and Jesus are the same spirit but not the same substance. Are you suggesting that Jesus was created three times or perhaps you reject His preexistence and resurrection as one entity?

If Jesus was created as a terrestrial entity then was His spirit created at that time also? If so then what happened to His preexistence as the Word? As Jesus physically died was he then created back to the celestial realm as The Word? If that is what you propose then the Word and Jesus are three entirely different creations of both terrestrial and celestial substance. That would be once as the terrestrial Jesus and twice as the Word. If so then we are not even in the ballpark of the theology of Christianity.

So, to end my thought is to say that when I say Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and not created is to say that His spirit is all that was instilled into the woman and not His flesh. He had no flesh in the celestial realm as no flesh can be allowed in the kingdom of heaven. His flesh was procreated by the mother in a natural fashion but the life force was given by transferring the spirit from celestial to terrestrial substance.
edit on 2-1-2017 by Seede because: Additional information.



posted on Jan, 2 2017 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: TerriblePhoenix

both words are similar in biblical understanding but why then inspire two words to mean the same thing. Dig deeper seek it out and you shall see why coneptions and conceiving are spoken of in the bible upon differently, look closely at Genesis 3 & 4 and how the words are used. OT Verses

Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Ruth 4:13 So Boaz took Ruth, and she was his wife: and when he went in unto her, the LORD gave her conception, and she bare a son.
Hosea 9:11 As for Ephraim, their glory shall fly away like a bird, from the birth, and from the womb, and from the conception.
Genesis 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
Genesis 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.
Genesis 16:4 And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes.
Genesis 16:5 And Sarai said unto Abram, My wrong be upon thee: I have given my maid into thy bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: the LORD judge between me and thee.
Genesis 21:2 For Sarah conceived, and bare Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him.
Genesis 25:21 And Isaac intreated the LORD for his wife, because she was barren: and the LORD was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived.
Genesis 29:32 And Leah conceived, and bare a son, and she called his name Reuben: for she said, Surely the LORD hath looked upon my affliction; now therefore my husband will love me.
Genesis 29:33 And she conceived again, and bare a son; and said, Because the LORD hath heard that I was hated, he hath therefore given me this son also: and she called his name Simeon.
Genesis 29:34 And she conceived again, and bare a son; and said, Now this time will my husband be joined unto me, because I have born him three sons: therefore was his name called Levi.
Genesis 29:35 And she conceived again, and bare a son: and she said, Now will I praise the LORD: therefore she called his name Judah; and left bearing.
Genesis 30:5 And Bilhah conceived, and bare Jacob a son.
Genesis 30:7 And Bilhah Rachel's maid conceived again, and bare Jacob a second son.
Genesis 30:17 And God hearkened unto Leah, and she conceived, and bare Jacob the fifth son.
Genesis 30:19 And Leah conceived again, and bare Jacob the sixth son.
Genesis 30:23 And she conceived, and bare a son; and said, God hath taken away my reproach:
Genesis 30:38 And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink.
Genesis 30:39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.
Genesis 30:41 And it came to pass, whensoever the stronger cattle did conceive, that Jacob laid the rods before the eyes of the cattle in the gutters, that they might conceive among the rods.
Genesis 31:10 And it came to pass at the time that the cattle conceived, that I lifted up mine eyes, and saw in a dream, and, behold, the rams which leaped upon the cattle were ringstraked, speckled, and grisled.
Genesis 38:3 And she conceived, and bare a son; and he called his name Er.
Genesis 38:4 And she conceived again, and bare a son; and she called his name Onan.
Genesis 38:5 And she yet again conceived, and bare a son; and called his name Shelah: and he was at Chezib, when she bare him.
Genesis 38:18 And he said, What pledge shall I give thee? And she said, Thy signet, and thy bracelets, and thy staff that is in thine hand. And he gave it her, and came in unto her, and she conceived by him.
Exodus 2:2 And the woman conceived, and bare a son: and when she saw him that he was a goodly child, she hid him three months.
Leviticus 12:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.
Numbers 5:28 And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.
Numbers 11:12 Have I conceived all this people? have I begotten them, that thou shouldest say unto me, Carry them in thy bosom, as a nursing father beareth the sucking child, unto the land which thou swarest unto their fathers?
Job 3:3 Let the day perish wherein I was born, and the night in which it was said, There is a man child conceived.

New Testament verses

Matthew 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
Luke 1:24 And after those days his wife Elisabeth conceived, and hid herself five months, saying,
Luke 1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
Luke 1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
Luke 2:21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.
it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
Romans 9:10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
Hebrews 11:11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.
James 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
Very interesting?


edit on 2-1-2017 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2017 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: SethTsaddik
Christ is God incarnated into man, therefore He is Hupostatic.

Besides the fact that the bible never teaches any of that, here's an analogy with cards to visualize the line of Trinitarian argumentation regarding this human teaching/doctrine and theosophy (theological philosophy/idea) of what is referred to as a "hypostatic union". Made by a Unitarian I think (he also seems to recognize some "Gnostic" philosophy in it seeing his title, but I'm not sure how he means that, he might be just referring to human traditions and philosophy with the word "Gnostic", not specifically the group called Gnostics many centuries ago; he doesn't go into that cause it's not the main point of the video or my reason for sharing it, just wanted to mention it cause Seth brought up the "Gnostic" term):

Oh, btw, cause I keep on seeing the same bible verses popping up in the commentary such as Matthew 1:23 or John 20:28 (what Thomas said). These verses and many more are all discussed on the page below (Seth also mentioned he wanted to look into John 20:28, just search the page for the verse you want to look into):
Jesus Christ: Reasoning
Here's another useful page if the verse you're looking for is missing on the page above:
Jesus Christ: Insight, Volume 2


That was a very interesting video. Thank you for posting it. I believe it raised a lot of questions that most Trinitarians do not address or do not completely answer, but it does not change what I believe. I'll explain why.

1) Yes, Jesus had two natures in His incarnation, just as the video said. He had a Divine and human nature. I believe those two separate natures began integrating with each other as Jesus grew up learning and living on the Word of God. Why is most of His childhood left out of the Gospels? I believe because He was learning the Torah.

So Jesus lived on the Torah and applied those principles flawlessly throughout His ministry, and finally, when He was nailed to the cross, the Divinity of Jesus merged with His humanity so that His Omniscience could be restored. You need to be all knowing to acknowledge and pay for all sins. Therefore, His suffering for our sins on the cross was the flame that permanently fused the Divinity of Christ with His humanity. The end result became the Resurrected Christ.

You might think that this is dodging the issue, but in reality, Jesus wasn't just merging His own humanity with the Divine. He was actually opening a window for believers to do the same. In both Psalm 82:6 and John 10:34, it is said that man (believers) are Gods (Elohim). Our souls are created in God's image, therefore it is only natural for God to restore us to His own Divine nature. So, as the High Priest (the God-man), Jesus died for our sins, that our spirits could be reborn, that we may be led down the path of righteousness for the restoration of our souls, for God's own name sake (Psalm 23:3).

2) Both the humanity and Divinity of Jesus always operated on ONE WILL; that of the Father. On earth, Jesus did the will of the Father, and before creation of man, all three members of the Elohim-Trinity unanimously chose to create man's soul in their own Divine shadow image (Gen 1:26).

3) On the cross, Jesus died two deaths. The first death was a temporary separation of the human soul from fellowship with God. This separation is the same spiritual death that Adam and Eve experienced when they sinned. After all, it was the Blood of His soul (His knowledge per Isaiah 53:11) which paid for sins, not the blood of His body. So sins were imputed to His soul, not His body, nor to His Divine nature.

The second death was His physical death, after His work was finished. Nevertheless, like every other soul, Jesus' soul is immortal, and He was being judged for our sins, not His own (He never sinned), therefore, Jesus was resurrected.

The human Soul of Christ endured the Judgment and paid for our sins, the Divine omniscience of Christ experienced the reality of all sins. Once the humanity of Christ was resurrected, the fusion of Hupostatic Divinity and humanity was completed.

Jesus did all of this for 3 reasons:

1) So that whoever believes in Him can be saved.
2) So that those believers can have their souls washed in the Word of God (sanctification).
3) So that those sanctified believers can be resurrected and rule as God's under Christ (Psalm 82:6 & John 10:34).



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: TerriblePhoenix


TextOtherwise, even theologically, the Word is God's, His Word, literally. Jesus was the first thing God created.

The Most High [being totally invisible to our understanding] first brought Himself into a visible form to relate to that which He would create. This form or image was given to create that which would be called the celestial realm. This image was not created but was brought forth into the visibility of which it would then create. The Image [Word] is known to us as The Word Of The Most High and is of the substance of The Most High and is The Most High. The Most High did not create Himself but brought Himself into an Image only for the celestial creation that He would then create.

The Image [Word] then created the celestial realm which we are taught is the third to ninth realms of heaven. Then The Most High [by His Word] decided to create this terrestrial universe and did create this terrestrial universe and all that is in this universe. Out of this creation the Word then formed all that has the spirit of life both animate and inanimate. Some being everlasting and others not everlasting.

The last act of forming from creation was that of man. Moses teaches us that God made man in His Image which is taught that man was formed by The Word and a portion of Spirit was given to that which the Image formed. The Image being The Word and the likeness being the Holy Spirit of The Most High. Man was formed from the terrestrial substance and was given a portion of life from the Holy Spirit. Thus man has two portions of existence and the Word has two portions of existence.

Then God ceased His work and all that He created and that which He formed was good. Note that the scriptures do not say that God created or formed after the Sabbath. Then God decided to reveal His coming kingdom to the terrestrial world and by His Holy Spirit [Word] entered into His own terrestrial creation to become terrestrial flesh only. This He did as He then entered the flesh of a woman without terrestrial procreation. But as He did this conception, He retained His celestial Spirit. Now by this is meant to say that the Holy Most High did not enter the woman by flesh but by spirit only. Naturally it should be understood that the flesh of Jesus did not enter the celestial realm at all.

He [The Word] was not given another Spirit of life but retained His celestial Spirit of which is in the celestial substance. Just as your spirit is celestial and is judged in post mortem and is either rewarded or punished in the same spirit, it does not change its life support in either the terrestrial or celestial realms. In other words the celestial spirit is an everlasting source of energy regardless of which substance houses that spirit. So let us understand that the flesh of man is procreated but the spirit of man is given as the life source and not created as a life source. Once it is given by The Most High it is not retrieved but is everlasting even in the second death. The only creation (production) of man was the formation of Adam from the created terrestrial substance. Our minds are taught that each individual is created but that is not true. Each individual’s flesh is procreated from the created substance of this terrestrial creation. The spirit of man/woman is not created but is given to each procreated man/woman by the Holy Spirit of The Most High. The only portion of man/woman that is procreated is that of the terrestrial substance.

This differs in that a human when conceived is not created but is procreated by another human and then a portion of the spirit of life is given [not created]. If each human was created then the scriptures are not correct because the Word did not create after the Sabbath and the Word did not create Himself. By your thoughts you suggest that the preexisting Word [God] created Himself and by this imagination you are suggesting that Jesus was not a preexisting celestial entity. If Jesus was created as a terrestrial entity then He was created twice by your reasoning. Could Jesus be created once as a celestial entity and again as a terrestrial entity? How could this be? Can He then resurrect and return to the celestial ream and be recreated the third time? And all three times be of the same mind? According to the apostle John, in John 1:1-5, my understanding is that the Word and Jesus are the same spirit but not the same substance. Are you suggesting that Jesus was created three times or perhaps you reject His preexistence and resurrection as one entity?

If Jesus was created as a terrestrial entity then was His spirit created at that time also? If so then what happened to His preexistence as the Word? As Jesus physically died was he then created back to the celestial realm as The Word? If that is what you propose then the Word and Jesus are three entirely different creations of both terrestrial and celestial substance. That would be once as the terrestrial Jesus and twice as the Word. If so then we are not even in the ballpark of the theology of Christianity.

So, to end my thought is to say that when I say Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and not created is to say that His spirit is all that was instilled into the woman and not His flesh. He had no flesh in the celestial realm as no flesh can be allowed in the kingdom of heaven. His flesh was procreated by the mother in a natural fashion but the life force was given by transferring the spirit from celestial to terrestrial substance.



That is very good metaphysical speculation.

I was never interested in that, I believe our conversation is about Jesus being a creation of God's, HIS Word, and not equal by Biblical standards alone.

The problem you have is you need to use your words and avoid the Bible because it doesn't back up what you say, it's empty tradition and a corruption of the Spirit of the letter of the Word of God to equate Jesus with God.

After all he denies equality himself many times, so you may believe what you say but can't claim the Bible agrees.

I will gladly show you again, as I never finished.



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: TerriblePhoenix


The problem you have is you need to use your words and avoid the Bible because it doesn't back up what you say, it's empty tradition and a corruption of the Spirit of the letter of the Word of God to equate Jesus with God.

Ps 12:6, 7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
You claim it to be corrupted by traditions. But God's words via his prophet Daved says the Lord will preserve his words to every generation pure as they were back then so are they today in English.

It is your word against God's word. I will stick to God preserved word over your words any day of the week, and have greater wisdom, insight and enlightenment to live my life according to his will and ways.


edit on 3-1-2017 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: TerriblePhoenix


The problem you have is you need to use your words and avoid the Bible because it doesn't back up what you say, it's empty tradition and a corruption of the Spirit of the letter of the Word of God to equate Jesus with God.

Ps 12:6, 7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
You claim it to be corrupted by traditions. But God's words via his prophet Daved says the Lord will preserve his words to every generation pure as they were back then so are they today in English.

It is your word against God's word. I will stick to God preserved word over your words any day of the week, and have greater wisdom, insight and enlightenment to live my life according to his will and ways.



. What's your point, Chester?



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: TerriblePhoenix


The problem you have is you need to use your words and avoid the Bible because it doesn't back up what you say, it's empty tradition and a corruption of the Spirit of the letter of the Word of God to equate Jesus with God. After all he denies equality himself many times, so you may believe what you say but can't claim the Bible agrees.

I do use my own expression with my own choice of words. If i do not use my own expression and words then I always use the proper quotes and credits. I am not a thief nor try to use persuasive untruths in any of my posts.

I have also posted the biblical source of John the first chapter several times to you but have yet to read your response. If my tradition is empty then the scriptures are also empty as what I have posted is in the scriptures. Do yourself justice and read John the first chapter. In that you will see that Jesus preexisted in the celestial world as the celestial Word and yes He was and is now the only Begotten image and Son of the Most High El.. He is and was God and is the Creator of this Universe and the Celestial creation. That is the mystery that you have as yet not measured in your mind. John 3:16 tells us also that whosoever believes this report will have everlasting life. I hope that one day you will understand.



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: TerriblePhoenix

What you don't see the point?

go back and read a few more times you'll get the point.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join