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 pre-creation existence of Jesus

page: 13
3
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2009 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 




yes, but as was said earlier, there was this claim that those who observe the sabbath on the wrong day had the mark of satan and not of god.

those are heavy claims. if that was such a vital part of worship, why would paul make it clear that it was a conscience matter?


Those are heavy claims but I didn't completely agree on them. It was jmdewey's post that mentioned it as a sign for the mark of the beast or seal of God. I simply stated that it was a possibility but that there was more involved than just the days of worship.




[20] Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
[21] But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;



Remember that the word "sin" is defined by the bible as "transgression of the law." If the law is done away with, why is there still sin? The old covenant law was not perfect because man wouldn't honor it whole-heartedly. Paul is explaining that as a christian, the laws are to be written in our heads and hearts.... not on a tablet of stone. By this, a christian systematically follows the laws or commandments without even trying to. A perfect christian would not transgress any of the old testament commandments. By putting our old, sinful body away in baptism, we are telling God that we want to start fresh and new with the transgression of the laws buried in the old body. Starting in a new, christian body, the goal is to remain sinless as the example of Christ taught us.




actually, there is nothing to prove that they observed the sabbath. we know that some did, as paul pointed out, but there is nothing to say that first century christians followed it as law.



The Ten Commandments.... not just the Sabbath, are practiced throughout the New Testament, including the post-Jesus era of the NT.

First Commandment: Love God and put no other before Him.
Matthew 4:10 - Then Jesus said to him, "Away with you, Satan! For it is written, 'You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve.'"
Matthew 22:37-38 - Jesus said to him, "'You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' "This is the first and great commandment."

Second Commandment: You shall not worship false idols.
1 John 5:21 - Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen
1 Corinthians 6:9 - Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor IDOLATERS, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,
1 Corinthians 10:7, 14 - And do not become idolaters as were some of them. As it is written, "The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play." 14 - "Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry."
Ephesians 5:5 - For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.

Third Commandment: Do not take the LORD's name in vain.
Matthew 5:33-34 - "Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.'
But I say to you, do not sear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God's throne;"
Matthew 7:21-23 - "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in YOUR NAME, cast out demons in YOUR NAME, and done many wonders in YOUR NAME?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you, depart from Me, you who practice LAWLESSNESS!'"
Luke 11:2 - So He said to them, "When you pray, say: 'Our Father in heaven, HALLOWED BE YOUR NAME. Your Kingdom come......"
1 Timothy 6:1 - Let as many bondservants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and His doctrine may not be blasphemed.

Fourth Commandment: You shall keep the Sabbath holy.
Luke 4:16 - So He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. And as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the SABBATH DAY, and stood up to read.
Acts 13:14 - But when they departed from Per'ga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the SABBATH DAY and sat down.
Acts 13:42 - So when the Jews went out of the synagogue, the Gentiles begged that these words might be preached to them the next SABBATH.
Acts 13:44 - On the next SABBATH almost the whole city came together to hear the word of God.
Acts 16:13 - And on the SABBATH DAY we went out of the city to the riverside, where prayer was customarily made; and we sat down and spoke to the women who met there.
Acts 17:2 - Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them and for three SABBATHS reasoned with them from the Scriptures,
Acts 18:4 - And he reasoned in the synagogue every SABBATH, and persuaded both Jews and Greeks.
Hebrews 4:4 - For He has spoken in a certain place of the SEVENTH DAY in this way: "And God rested on the SEVENTH DAY from all His works";
Hebrews 4:9 - There remains therefore a REST for the people of God.

I will quit with that for now. Understand that the Great Commandment and Golden Rule spoken of by Jesus is very unique but never does away with the Ten Commandments. Let me explain:

The Great Commandment is to "Love God with all your heart and all your soul and all your mind, this is the first and greatest command."
Why is this the greatest command? Because God hates sin. To break one of His commands is to break them all. Matthew 5:19 states "Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
The Great Commandment is basically a summary of ALL 10 commandments but more directed to the first 4 commandments. To show your love for God, you flee from idols, refrain from swearing in His name, and honor the day He sanctified as our day of rest.

The Golden Rule is to "Love your neighbor as yourself" which actually summarize the final 6 commandments. The last 6 commandments are those directed toward your fellow man. Honor your mother and father, do not murder, do not seal, do not commit adultry, do not bear false witness (lie), and do not covet what your neighbor has. All are directed to your fellow neighbor. By following these six rules, mankind would be constantly kind to each other. For all to love God and their neighbor by following these rules, would create a peace on earth. This of course will not be achieved until the Second Coming of Christ. Point is, none of these laws were ever done away with and there is nothing in the NT showing that. If so, it would be a direct contradiction to Jesus' own words "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fullfilled." Matt. 5:18.

Jesus is mentioning that nothing will change from the law until heaven and earth "pass away" when ALL is fulfilled. When does heaven and earth pass away? When the new heaven and new earth are created after judgement.

You say Jesus fulfilled the Law and Prophets, which is true, but the word "fulfill" used in this context is the verb "to fill" which is to fill a role. Not to do away with. The role Christ filled was that of the High Priest. No longer do we have to sacrifice animals, incense, harvest, or foreskin for the remission of sins because Jesus is now our mediator between man and God, not the levitical system of the high priest. The commandments still stand. Oh, and I have something for you about the clean and unclean meats too.




posted on May, 27 2009 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Locoman8
 


By putting our old, sinful body away in baptism, we are telling God that we want to start fresh and new with the transgression of the laws buried in the old body. Starting in a new, christian body, the goal is to remain sinless as the example of Christ taught us.
I wonder if you realize that what you said could be a word for word quote from a Catholic catechism.
I have to agree that it is more than just a day. Seeing as your theology is Catholic, might as well join up and worship Sunday.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Locoman8
The Great Commandment is to "Love God with all your heart and all your soul and all your mind, this is the first and greatest command."
Why is this the greatest command? Because God hates sin.


actually no.

its the principle that guides the law. it is love that we are suppose to show to god and our neighbor that makes us do good things instead of bad.

i dont have time to get into it since im about to run out the door but you are getting christian principles mixed up with mosaic law.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 




Eating pork and working on the sabbath that type of stuff is allowed now.
Sacrifices of animals all finished. The rules of unclean, done, circumcision which was hugely debated in the 1st century, finished.

Jesus made things way easier for those us that want to serve God, as far as rules go. And I am thankful for it.



This is by no means a true statement. Where is the mosaic law done away with? Only the punishments for transgressing these laws are over with. Those that commited adultry would, by the mosaic law, be stoned. Jesus taught us otherwise. The laws themselves still stand, just not the way the transgression of the laws are carried out. Clean and unclean meats were not a specific sign between God and His people. It was a health law that at that time was never understood but through today's advances and achievements in science and health, we are able to see that the food defined under the leviticus record of unclean meats all have a common trait. Unclean animals are all either GLUTTONOUS (swine), BOTTOM-FEEDERS (shellfish, catfish) or SCAVANGER/HUNTERS (birds of prey, land animals of unclean nature). I cut out unclean meats from my diet about 8 or 9 months ago and now can't stand the taste of pork or shrimp. These animals clean up the refuse of the world. That is their job. That is what God designed them for. Shellfish and catfish purify the water. Pigs eat what's in front of them. Philidelphia, PA actually uses hogs to clean up their sanitation and landfills. Most of us stay away from birds of prey and scavanger birds so I'll pass that one. It's not hard to identify unclean meats when you think about it. Unclean meats came to the christian world through the gentiles and mainly the Roman pagan influence through the roman catholic church. I have a lot to say on clean and unclean meats but I want to get your reaction before going further.

On a side note, I know these subjects are off-topic but since I'm the OP of this thread, I am inviting free christian discussion on any matter here.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Where do you get off saying that I am following the catholic ways? I am in full support of the 7th day sabbath.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 01:19 AM
link   
Check out my new thread under "Faith and Spirituality" titled "Did Jesus' Teachings Abolish the Old Testament Laws?"
We can further discuss the subject there. I also went into detail on the subject at hand.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Locoman8
The laws themselves still stand, just not the way the transgression of the laws are carried out.


show the scripture.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


go to my new thread. the conversation continues there.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 02:14 AM
link   
Thought I would add some interesting stuff I found reading through the literature I get from the United Church of God. I want to share with my JW friends some info on the pre-creation existence of Christ.



Much More Than a Man
"Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?" (Matthew 16:13).
Today it isn't politically correct to state dogmatically that Jesus was more than an extraordinarily gifted person, a moral person, a wise philosopher, a Jewish sage or a political reformist. Nor is it acceptable to say that His teachings are the only route to a life beyond the grave and to lasting peace for the world.

After all, we live in a world that dislikes such absolutes. And some dislike even more the authority that One who claimed to be God might claim over their lives. Thus throughout history all kinds of ideas have sprung up about Jesus of Nazareth.

Why is there so much controversy over one man? He regularly makes the cover of weekly newsmagazines. More books have been written and more scholarly work done about this Jewish teacher from Galilee than any other man who ever lived.

The simple answer is that He claimed to be God—and from the record was able to support that claim, as we have seen.

He assures us He will prove it to the entire world when He comes to earth a second time in glory, majesty and divine supernatural power that will astound people all around the globe.

God comes to earth
The question remains: How was Jesus God? If Jesus was God, then who was the Father He spoke of so often? How could Jesus and the Father both be God at the same time?

Where did Jesus come from? Was He created at some point? Did He come into existence when He was born of Mary? Was He an angel? Was He a spiritual essence or "thought" in the Father's mind prior to His human existence?

The story of how Jesus came to be born tells us that He was no ordinary human being. The record takes great pains to explain that He did not have a human father, but that His Father was God Himself.

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 1:18).

"Betrothed" in their culture meant the agreement for them to marry was binding even though the marriage itself had not yet taken place. Both Joseph and Mary knew they had not been together in physical union, and Mary certainly knew she was a virgin. But Joseph was naturally questioning why his intended bride was pregnant, and he worried over how to handle this crisis.

"Then Joseph her [betrothed] husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, 'Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins'" (verses 19-21).

Joseph needed reassurance that Mary was telling the truth about her pregnancy, and the obvious way to convince him was by having an angel speak to him. Mary had received a similar message as recorded in Luke 1:26-38. The angel Gabriel appeared and announced to Mary that she would conceive a son whom she was to name Jesus. She insisted that she had never been with a man—she was a virgin.

Gabriel then explained how this would happen. He said, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God" (verse 35).

In traditional theological terms, this is something of an enigma. Jesus recognized that God was His Father, but we are told that what Mary conceived in her womb was by the Holy Spirit. Most people believe the Holy Spirit is the third person in the Trinity. But since the Holy Spirit engendered Jesus in Mary's womb, how could God the Father be Jesus' Father?

The answer is simply that the Holy Spirit is not a person, as is assumed in the traditional teaching of the Trinity. The Bible nowhere teaches that the Holy Spirit is a distinct person. It does, however, refer to the Holy Spirit as the power of God, as implied in this very passage (for a detailed examination of this biblical truth, download or request our free booklet Who Is God?).

God, whom Jesus referred to as His Father, used His own power, referred to as the "Holy Spirit," to beget Jesus in the womb of Mary. Therefore, Jesus is the Son of God by birth.

Matthew, writing under divine inspiration, explained the significance of the angel's message to Joseph, showing that it fulfilled Isaiah's prophecy of the virgin birth of "'Immanuel,' which is translated, 'God with us'" (Matthew 1:23).

When Jesus was born, He was God in the flesh—"God with us." This was what the angel was saying and what God had foretold long before.

Who was Jesus before His human birth?
The most definitive and clear statement about Jesus before His human birth is recorded in the first few verses of John's Gospel. John, Jesus' closest disciple, takes great care to explain that this Jesus is no ordinary man.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). Who was this "Word"? "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth" (verse 14). John goes on to explain that the Word who "became flesh and dwelt among us" was Jesus of Nazareth. He also gives us explicit and definitive statements containing important details about Jesus prior to His human birth.

"The Word" is Jesus and He was with God, and He was God. This language is unmistakable and can mean only one thing: There were two beings—God and the Word.

The Word "was in the beginning with God" (verse 2). The beginning of what?

Jesus existed before the beginning
Since John's Gospel begins with the words "In the beginning," it seems likely that John is alluding to Genesis 1:1. But while Genesis 1:1 continues with, "God created...," John begins his Gospel with, "In the beginning was the Word..." He tells us that the Word already existed "in the beginning."

In Genesis the creation of the universe and time itself marks "the beginning"; in John the existence of the Word precedes that beginning.

The Creator of the universe obviously existed before the universe because He caused the universe to come into being.

John explicitly says that it was the Word—Jesus Christ—through whom all things were created (John 1:3). Paul agrees completely with John in language that is unmistakable (Ephesians 3:9), adding, "He is before all things and in Him all things consist" (Colossians 1:16-17). (See "Jesus Christ's Apostles Understood Him to Be the Creator.")

Paul makes the logical point that since Christ was the agent by whom all things were created, then He must have necessarily existed before the creation. Jesus also referred to His existing before the creation when, in praying to the Father, He spoke of "the glory I had with you before the world began" (John 17:5, NIV).

Jesus speaks of the relationship between Himself and the Father "before the foundation of the world" (verse 24), a phrase echoed by Paul in Ephesians 1:4.

The Word
The preexistent Jesus is characterized by the name or title "the Word." Perhaps one of the reasons the Greek word logos, translated "Word," is used is that this best describes one of the major roles of Christ—He was to reveal the Father. Logos means "the expression of thought" (Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, "Word").

Logos is used in the New Testament of a saying or statement of God, the word of God, the revealed will of God and direct revelation given by Christ, and could be spoken and delivered (ibid.). John applied this word as a personal title to the One who "became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14).

What John is saying is that a personal Being, whom he calls the logos or "the Word," became incarnate—became a flesh-and-blood human being—in the person of Jesus Christ. The fact that the Word became a flesh-and-blood person implies that the Word was a specific individual being prior to His becoming a physical human baby born to Mary.

John also tells us that the Word is personally distinct from the Father, though He is at the same time one with the Father. They are the same, eternal, and are of the same nature and essence. The Word is God as truly as is the One with whom He exists in the closest union of being and life. As Jesus said, "I and My Father are one" (John 10:30).

The oneness between the Father and the Word has to do with their complete harmony and agreement in working together—not that they constitute only one Being as the Trinitarian theory mistakenly teaches.

Who and what is God?
John's simple but clear statements give us an understanding of God that was now made plain by the appearance of Jesus Christ. The language used expresses to us that there are two Beings, coexisting and called God—God and the Word who is also God.

If they existed in some other form than two self-existing beings, both the Greek and the English language are capable of describing something altogether different. But the language does not do this. It speaks clearly of two, together, both of whom are God. If there was only one, alone, then John wouldn't have said, "the Word was with God."

The question arises: If Jesus was the Word, and thus God, how could God who is infinite become finite? What happened to the Word at the moment He became an ovum begotten with life from the Father in the womb of Mary?



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 02:20 AM
link   


We don't know exactly how God performed this miracle, but it's evident from Scripture that God could become a physical human being and therefore become subject to a finite, physical existence—limited to time and space, subject to pain, suffering and death and to being tempted.

And Jesus did this. As Paul described it: "He, who had always been God by nature, did not cling to his privileges as God's equal, but stripped himself of every advantage by consenting to be a slave by nature and being born a man. And, plainly seen as a human being, he humbled himself by living a life of utter obedience, to the point of death, and the death he died was the death of a common criminal" (Philippians 2:6-8, New Testament in Modern English).

Jesus could die. Jesus could experience human emotion. Jesus could feel hunger and pain. He could agonize at the prospect of pain and death. Yes, God could die. But only if He were to become a physical human being. This He did. And who was He? He was the same person He had always been, even having memories of His past eternity with the Father.

Notice Jesus' prayer in John 17:5: "And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began" (NIV). Here He speaks straightforwardly of His past experiences and memories with the Father, confirming everything John wrote in the first few verses of his Gospel.

Yes, Jesus' sacrifice was one of virtually unimaginable proportions. And knowing who He was and what He willingly gave up should make all the difference to you and me when coming to terms with the enormous magnitude of His sacrifice.

Was Jesus a Created Being?
John 1:3 contains two direct statements that tell us that it was the preexistent Jesus who created all things. "All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made." Notice that John is not content to say only that all things were made through Him, but John adds the fact that "without Him nothing was made."

Paul confirms exactly what John wrote: "For by Him all things were created." Paul goes on to make sure that we understand what he means by all things—"that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him" (Colossians 1:16).

Since Jesus created all things, He could not have been one of the "created things." Paul then adds, so there can be no mistake, "He is before all things, and in him all things hold together" (verse 17, NIV).

Dr. Norman Geisler comments: "The context of this passage makes it clear that there are no exceptions; Christ is the Creator of all things including angels and everything visible or invisible. Nowhere is this made more clear that Christ is not a creature—angelic or otherwise—than in the relation of angels to Him. Since Christ could not be both the Creator of everything and at the same time a creature Himself, it is necessary to conclude that He is Himself the uncreated Creator of all creation" (Christian Apologetics, 1988, p. 338).

He adds a footnote: "In view of the clear teaching that Christ is Creator and not a creature, the Arian misinterpretations of phrases like Christ is 'firstborn' (Colossians 1:15) or 'beginning of creation' (Revelation 3:14) are wrong. Christ is 'firstborn' in the sense of being the unique (not created) Son of God. Christ is first over creation, not first in it" (ibid.).

Micah 5:2 stated that the messianic King to come was "from everlasting." Jesus had appeared in His divine life before His human birth as the priest-king Melchizedek (see Hebrews 7), "having neither beginning of days nor end of life" (verse 3).

Jesus was not created. He existed from eternity along with God the Father.



I know it's a bit to read but after the threads on Christ not existing before His birth by Dr.X and my new thread on the "Two Jehovahs of Psalm 110" which requires the belief in an ever-existing Christ, I had to research and found this commentary from the church I follow to present the argument on the "pre-creation existence of Christ". What better thread to present this information in? God bless you all.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Locoman8
Thought I would add some interesting stuff I found reading through the literature I get from the United Church of God.


ok, i read it.

it is my impression that the united church of god are a very confused people.


The simple answer is that He claimed to be God


when?


The story of how Jesus came to be born tells us that He was no ordinary human being.


is he suggesting that jesus was more than human?


Matthew, writing under divine inspiration, explained the significance of the angel's message to Joseph, showing that it fulfilled Isaiah's prophecy of the virgin birth of "'Immanuel,' which is translated, 'God with us'" (Matthew 1:23).

When Jesus was born, He was God in the flesh—"God with us." This was what the angel was saying and what God had foretold long before.


so jesus was lying?

john 4:[24] God is a Spirit:

was Jehovah himself lying?

num 23:[19] God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?


John also tells us that the Word is personally distinct from the Father, though He is at the same time one with the Father. They are the same, eternal, and are of the same nature and essence.


so... which is it? are they different or the same?


The oneness between the Father and the Word has to do with their complete harmony and agreement in working together—not that they constitute only one Being as the Trinitarian theory mistakenly teaches.


didnt he just say that they "are the same, eternal, and are of the same nature and essence."????


John's simple but clear statements give us an understanding of God that was now made plain by the appearance of Jesus Christ. The language used expresses to us that there are two Beings, coexisting and called God—God and the Word who is also God.


except he draws this conclusion from a sloppy translation, as such, he gets circular with the title "god".



We don't know exactly how God performed this miracle, but it's evident from Scripture that God could become a physical human being and therefore become subject to a finite, physical existence—limited to time and space, subject to pain, suffering and death and to being tempted.


i quoted some scriptures before.. (john 4:24, num 23:19)

so basically he is saying that jesus, jehovah, and the apostles were lying.

james 1:[13] Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:


As Paul described it: "He, who had always been God by nature, did not cling to his privileges as God's equal, but stripped himself of every advantage by consenting to be a slave by nature and being born a man. And, plainly seen as a human being, he humbled himself by living a life of utter obedience, to the point of death, and the death he died was the death of a common criminal" (Philippians 2:6-8, New Testament in Modern English).


again, poor translation.

NIV- Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,

NAS- who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

WEB - who, existing in the form of God, didn't consider equality with God a thing to be grasped,


Jesus could die. Jesus could experience human emotion. Jesus could feel hunger and pain. He could agonize at the prospect of pain and death. Yes, God could die. But only if He were to become a physical human being. This He did. And who was He? He was the same person He had always been, even having memories of His past eternity with the Father.


what?


Dr. Norman Geisler comments:..... "it is necessary to conclude that He is Himself the uncreated Creator of all creation" (Christian Apologetics, 1988, p. 338).

He adds a footnote: "In view of the clear teaching that Christ is Creator and not a creature, the Arian misinterpretations of phrases like Christ is 'firstborn' (Colossians 1:15) or 'beginning of creation' (Revelation 3:14) are wrong. Christ is 'firstborn' in the sense of being the unique (not created) Son of God. Christ is first over creation, not first in it" (ibid.).


so words like "firstborn" and "only begotten" should be ignored because thats not what the bible is saying... even though thats what it's saying.

the bible uses "firstborn" and "only begotten" because that is exactly what jesus is. he is the firstborn and only begotten creation of god.

what dr. Geisler assumes is that because jesus had a hand in creation, that jesus is the creator, which isnt the case

eph 3:9 [9] And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

col 1:[15] Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
[16] For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Jehovah used Jesus as his "masterworker" (proverbs 8:30 Then I was beside Him, as a master workman; And I was daily His delight, Rejoicing always before Him,)

NOTHING about jesus creating things demands that we assume jesus is without a beginning.

-----------------------------------------------------------

sorry, but the writer is confused.

jesus is god, but he isnt.

jesus is human, but he's more.

which is it?

he picks the scripture that suit him but ignores the rest..



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566

Originally posted by Locoman8
Thought I would add some interesting stuff I found reading through the literature I get from the United Church of God.


ok, i read it.

it is my impression that the united church of god are a very confused people.


The simple answer is that He claimed to be God


when?


"before Abraham was, I AM." The Jews sought to throw stones at him for blasphemy. This punishment was only worthy of someone claiming to be Jehovah.




The story of how Jesus came to be born tells us that He was no ordinary human being.


is he suggesting that jesus was more than human?


You and I both know that Jesus was the "Word" before His human existence and that He was born of the Holy Spirit. He was not just a mere human. His body was completely human and subject to human temptations and pain. Like I said, you are automatically objective of this. I know you don't agree with all of it but I'm pretty sure you agree with what I just explained. He was more than human.




Matthew, writing under divine inspiration, explained the significance of the angel's message to Joseph, showing that it fulfilled Isaiah's prophecy of the virgin birth of "'Immanuel,' which is translated, 'God with us'" (Matthew 1:23).

When Jesus was born, He was God in the flesh—"God with us." This was what the angel was saying and what God had foretold long before.


so jesus was lying?

john 4:[24] God is a Spirit:

was Jehovah himself lying?

num 23:[19] God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?


What's the deal Miriam? God, indeed, is not a man but seeing that the Word was also God and gave up His godly attributes to become human, He became God (by title) in the flesh.... "God with us". You do agree that Jesus is the Word of God and that He was a God don't you? There was no lie in the statements.




John also tells us that the Word is personally distinct from the Father, though He is at the same time one with the Father. They are the same, eternal, and are of the same nature and essence.


so... which is it? are they different or the same?


You are being obnoxious right now. You know that God the Father and Jesus the Son are One in purpose but different in form or manifestation. They are separate celestial beings with a common purpose. They are different but the same. They share the Holy Spirit as well.




The oneness between the Father and the Word has to do with their complete harmony and agreement in working together—not that they constitute only one Being as the Trinitarian theory mistakenly teaches.


didnt he just say that they "are the same, eternal, and are of the same nature and essence."????


Uh, yeah. They're both Gods so they are the same. They are both Eternal and they are both made up of the same essence... which is spirit.




John's simple but clear statements give us an understanding of God that was now made plain by the appearance of Jesus Christ. The language used expresses to us that there are two Beings, coexisting and called God—God and the Word who is also God.


except he draws this conclusion from a sloppy translation, as such, he gets circular with the title "god".


Oh, so because "Jehovah" wasn't used, it's sloppy translating?





We don't know exactly how God performed this miracle, but it's evident from Scripture that God could become a physical human being and therefore become subject to a finite, physical existence—limited to time and space, subject to pain, suffering and death and to being tempted.


i quoted some scriptures before.. (john 4:24, num 23:19)

so basically he is saying that jesus, jehovah, and the apostles were lying.

james 1:[13] Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:


I answered this earlier. It is no lie. The Word gave up His godly attributes to be born in the flesh and thus become subject to human pain and death.




As Paul described it: "He, who had always been God by nature, did not cling to his privileges as God's equal, but stripped himself of every advantage by consenting to be a slave by nature and being born a man. And, plainly seen as a human being, he humbled himself by living a life of utter obedience, to the point of death, and the death he died was the death of a common criminal" (Philippians 2:6-8, New Testament in Modern English).


again, poor translation.

NIV- Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,

NAS- who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

WEB - who, existing in the form of God, didn't consider equality with God a thing to be grasped,


Poor understanding on your part. Basically was a lesser of two Gods who gave up his Godly abilities to suffer the price for mankind's sins.




Jesus could die. Jesus could experience human emotion. Jesus could feel hunger and pain. He could agonize at the prospect of pain and death. Yes, God could die. But only if He were to become a physical human being. This He did. And who was He? He was the same person He had always been, even having memories of His past eternity with the Father.


what?


Yeah, because Jesus existed with God before creation.




Dr. Norman Geisler comments:..... "it is necessary to conclude that He is Himself the uncreated Creator of all creation" (Christian Apologetics, 1988, p. 338).

He adds a footnote: "In view of the clear teaching that Christ is Creator and not a creature, the Arian misinterpretations of phrases like Christ is 'firstborn' (Colossians 1:15) or 'beginning of creation' (Revelation 3:14) are wrong. Christ is 'firstborn' in the sense of being the unique (not created) Son of God. Christ is first over creation, not first in it" (ibid.).


so words like "firstborn" and "only begotten" should be ignored because thats not what the bible is saying... even though thats what it's saying.

the bible uses "firstborn" and "only begotten" because that is exactly what jesus is. he is the firstborn and only begotten creation of god.

what dr. Geisler assumes is that because jesus had a hand in creation, that jesus is the creator, which isnt the case

eph 3:9 [9] And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

col 1:[15] Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
[16] For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Jehovah used Jesus as his "masterworker" (proverbs 8:30 Then I was beside Him, as a master workman; And I was daily His delight, Rejoicing always before Him,)

NOTHING about jesus creating things demands that we assume jesus is without a beginning.


How about the fact Jesus was the beginning of creation as in He started the creation process in His Father's name. How about "only begotten" refering to the fact that Jesus is the first of humankind to be resurrected.
-----------------------------------------------------------


sorry, but the writer is confused.

jesus is god, but he isnt.

jesus is human, but he's more.

which is it?

he picks the scripture that suit him but ignores the rest..




Isn't that what you're doing? You were completely biased in the beginning of your post on things you have stated you believe in. Good job proveing nothing to me. I expected more from you.











posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Locoman8
 


The Bible also says:

John 1:1-3

"1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.

1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Jesus Christ created everything through His spoken Words.

Jesus Christ is GOD incarnate



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Locoman8


The simple answer is that He claimed to be God


when?


"before Abraham was, I AM." The Jews sought to throw stones at him for blasphemy. This punishment was only worthy of someone claiming to be Jehovah.


first off, "I AM" is a mistranslation. "I have been" and second, it wasnt even a quote of exodus.

and you know this. ive pulled this information up so many times. are you seriously going to make me pull it up again?



You and I both know that Jesus was the "Word" before His human existence and that He was born of the Holy Spirit. He was not just a mere human. His body was completely human and subject to human temptations and pain. Like I said, you are automatically objective of this. I know you don't agree with all of it but I'm pretty sure you agree with what I just explained. He was more than human.


just because he WAS a spirit creature, doesnt mean he CONTINUED to be after his human conception.

if jesus was "more" than a human, then how could the ransom make any sense?



What's the deal Miriam? God, indeed, is not a man but seeing that the Word was also God and gave up His godly attributes to become human, He became God (by title) in the flesh.... "God with us". You do agree that Jesus is the Word of God and that He was a God don't you? There was no lie in the statements.


because the author makes no effort to distinguish any of it.

saying jesus is God is much different than saying jesus is A god.

God is not flesh. God was not made flesh.

not one scripture says that god became flesh





John also tells us that the Word is personally distinct from the Father, though He is at the same time one with the Father. They are the same, eternal, and are of the same nature and essence.


so... which is it? are they different or the same?


You are being obnoxious right now. You know that God the Father and Jesus the Son are One in purpose but different in form or manifestation. They are separate celestial beings with a common purpose. They are different but the same. They share the Holy Spirit as well.


im not being obnoxious....

They are the same, eternal, and are of the same nature and essence.

im sorry, but you are not saying the same thing he is.



Uh, yeah. They're both Gods so they are the same. They are both Eternal and they are both made up of the same essence... which is spirit.


yeah, you're definatly not saying the same thing he is.



Oh, so because "Jehovah" wasn't used, it's sloppy translating?


no. he doesnt understand the difference between "the word was god" and "the word was a god".



Poor understanding on your part. Basically was a lesser of two Gods who gave up his Godly abilities to suffer the price for mankind's sins.


"god" simply means "mighty one".

satan is called a god.
the wise ones of israel were called "gods"
wooden statues are called gods

jesus is god only because he is infact mighty.

the author is asserting that jesus was "equal" to god, using a poor translation of philippians to back it up.





Jesus could die. Jesus could experience human emotion. Jesus could feel hunger and pain. He could agonize at the prospect of pain and death. Yes, God could die. But only if He were to become a physical human being. This He did. And who was He? He was the same person He had always been, even having memories of His past eternity with the Father.


what?


Yeah, because Jesus existed with God before creation.


what actually confused me was this leap of logic he used, jesus could die, therefore god could die.



How about the fact Jesus was the beginning of creation as in He started the creation process in His Father's name. How about "only begotten" refering to the fact that Jesus is the first of humankind to be resurrected.


firstborn - [πρωτότοκος] firstbegotten (born), first brought forth

nothing in there about "starting" anything

Hebrews 11:28 πίστει πεποίηκεν τὸ πάσχα καὶ τὴν πρόσχυσιν τοῦ αἵματος, ἵνα μὴ ὁ ὀλοθρεύων τὰ πρωτότοκα θίγῃ αὐτῶν.
By faith, he kept the Passover, and the sprinkling of the blood, that the destroyer of the firstborn should not touch them.

Luke 2:7 καὶ ἔτεκεν τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς τὸν πρωτότοκον καὶ ἐσπαργάνωσεν αὐτὸν καὶ ἀνέκλινεν αὐτὸν ἐν φάτνῃ, διότι οὐκ ἦν αὐτοῖς τόπος ἐν τῷ καταλύματι.
She brought forth her firstborn son, and she wrapped him in bands of cloth, and laid him in a feeding trough, because there was no room for them in the inn.

Romans 8:29 ὅτι οὓς προέγνω, καὶ προώρισεν συμμόρφους τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πρωτότοκον ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς·
For whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

Hebrews 1:6 ὅταν δὲ πάλιν εἰσαγάγῃ τὸν πρωτότοκον εἰς τὴν οἰκουμένην, λέγει, καὶ προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι θεοῦ.
Again, when he brings in the firstborn into the world he says, "Let all the angels of God worship him."

Colossians 1:18 καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν ἡ κεφαλὴ τοῦ σώματος τῆς ἐκκλησίας· ὅς ἐστιν (ἡ) ἀρχή, πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν, ἵνα γένηται ἐν πᾶσιν αὐτὸς πρωτεύων,
He is the head of the body, the assembly, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Revelation 1:5 καὶ ἀπὸ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὁ μάρτυς, ὁ πιστός, ὁ πρωτότοκος τῶν νεκρῶν καὶ ὁ ἄρχων τῶν βασιλέων τῆς γῆς. τῷ ἀγαπῶντι ἡμᾶς καὶ λύσαντι ἡμᾶς ἐκ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ,
and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us, and washed us from our sins by his blood;

anything in those scriptures that suggest "firstborn" can be used a "starter"?

what about "only begotten"?

μονογενής - only-born, i.e. Sole -- only (begotten, child).

to beget - 1 : to procreate as the father : sire 2 : to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth

how is resurrecting jesus "begetting"?


Good job proveing nothing to me. I expected more from you.


actually i was expecting more from you.

frankly, half these arguments make no sense.

how is it that jesus can be uncreated and yet be god's son?

how is it that jesus is God, and yet be different than God?

to you its semantics, but frankly the author sounds like every other trinitarian ive talked to. his language is the same. even if he honestly believes that god and jesus are separate, hes not explaining it well.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Jesus Christ is GOD incarnate


1 cor 11:[3] But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

it really doesnt get any clearer than that



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


Jesus Christ is God manifest in the flesh, to say otherwise is heresy and damnation.


1 John 4:2-3

"Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

And every spirit that confesseth NOT that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world."


It really doesn't get any clearer than that.



[edit on 19-10-2009 by NOTurTypical]



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   
The problem lies when certain folk "pick and choose" scriptures to support the doctrine of devils instead of looking at the TOTALITY of scriptures.

In layman's terms: Using the EXCEPTION to define the rule is a logical fallacy.

Woe to you who subscribe to the doctrines of the manuscripts born from Alexandria, Egypt.

Note the roots of corruption:


A BRIEF HISTORY OF MODERN TRANSLATIONS:

"Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit: but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." —Matt. 7:17-18

Note the roots of corruption.

I. Justin Martyr (100 A.D.)

A. He was born a pagan, and died in the robes of a pagan priest.

B. He was the first to mix Gnosticism with Christianity. Gnosticism was a heretical doctrine which taught that Christ was created by God the Father. Funk and Wagnall's Standard Dictionary defines Gnosticism as "A philosophical and religious system (first to sixth century) teaching that knowledge rather than faith was the key to salvation." Many scholars today place their knowledge above faith in God's word.

"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" —Rom. 10:17

C. Historian Dr. Benjamin G. Wilkinson wrote, "In the teachings of Justin Martyr, we begin to see how muddy the stream of pure Christian doctrine was running among the heretical seats fifty years after the death of the apostle John."

("Which Bible?". ed. Dr. David 0. Fuller, Grand Rapids International Pub., Grand Rapids, Mica., 49501, p. 191)

II. Tatian (150 A.D.)

A. He was a disciple of Justin Martyr.

B. Like Martyr, he also embraced Gnosticism.

C. Tatian wrote a harmony of the gospels using the Christian Scriptures and the Gnostic gospels, thus omitting Scripture (such as John 8:1-11; and Mark 16.9-20).

D. His. "Harmony of the Gospels" was so corrupt that the Bishop of Syria threw out 200 copies.

III. Clement of Alexandria (200 A.D.)

A. Clement was a disciple of Tatian (Remember Luke 6:40-"The disciple is not above his master: but everyone that is perfect shall be as his master.")

B. Clement taught that there was no real heaven or hell, no blood atonement of Christ, and no infallible Bible.

C. He used the Gnostic Scriptures to teach his students.

D. He founded the school of Theology in Alexandria Egypt.

IV. Origen (184-254 A.D.)

A. Origen was a disciple of Clement of Alexandria.

B. He held to the same doctrine as Clement, plus he taught baptism was necessary for babies to gain salvation.

C. Origen stated, "The Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written." (Ibid. p. 192).

D. Dr. Wilkinson stated, "When we come to Origen, we speak the name of him who did the most of all to create and give direction to the forces of apostasy down through the centuries." (Ibid.).

E. Origen was one of the first textual critics. His textual work in both the N.T. and the O.T. (the "Hexapla") was the basis for two of the most corrupt manuscripts used by the Roman Catholic Church. (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus).

F. Origen developed a method of Biblical interpretation which is called "allegorization". Origen believed the Bible was only a set of stories that illustrate truth, but not literal facts. He believed Christ to be created and subordinate to the Father (the same as Jehovah's Witnesses), the pre-existence of the soul before birth (the same as the Mormons), and the final restoration of all spirits (Universal Salvation). (see Dr. Earle Cairns "Christianity Through The Centuries", Zondervan Publishing House, p. 122).

V. Eusebius (260-340 A.D.)

A. He was trained at Origen's school in Alexandria.

B. Eusebius was the editor of two Greek manuscripts (mss.) named Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. These two mss. were discredited and abandoned by early Christians as being corrupt. ("Which Bible?" p. 139,143).

These are Roman Catholic mss. and were not used by Protestant Christians until 1881. These two mss. are the basis for Roman Catholic Bibles and every major English translation of the Bible since 1901. These mss. were not the ones used for the King James Bible.

C. Eusebius was Roman Catholic in his doctrine (see his book, "Ecclesiastical History", Vols. 1-5).

D. He was commissioned by Emperor Constantine to make 50 copies of Scripture for the Roman church. Eusebius copied the Gnostic Scriptures and Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

VI. Jerome (340-420 A.D.)

A. Like Eusebius, Jerome was Roman Catholic in doctrine.

B. Jerome translated the Greek mss. of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus into Latin (called Jerome's Latin Vulgate). This was the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church.

C. The ms. Vaticanus was placed in the Vatican library, while the ms. Sinaiticus was abandoned in a Catholic monastery, and they were not used for the next 1,500 years.

VII. Tischendorf (1869)

A. He was the first Protestant to find and use the mss. of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

B. Tischendorf was a liberal theologian.

VIII. Westcott and Hort (1881)

A. They used Vaticanus and Sinaiticus to produce a new Greek N.T.. This Greek N.T. is not the same as the one used for the KJB nor during the Reformation.

B. Their Greek N.T. was the basis for the Revised Version (RV) of 1881 and the basic Greek text for all modern translations such as the RSV, TEV, NASV, N.TV, etc.

C. The Greek text of Westcott and Hort (W & H) differs from the Greek text of the King James Bible (the Received Text) 5,788 times, or 10% of the text. (For examples, see the section "A Brief Comparison of Bible translations".)

D. Since all modern translations are based on the work of W & H, it would do us well to know the theology of these two men.

WESTCOTT: "I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry (Mary-worship) bears witness."

"No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did."

HORT: "Mary-worship and Jesus-worship have very much in common."

"Protestantism is only parenthetical and temporary."

"The pure Romish view (Catholic) seems to be nearer, and more likely to lead to the truth than the Evangelical."

"Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue."

These men did not hold to sound doctrine; instead they have turned, "...away their ears from the truth, and she be turned unto fables." —2 Tim. 4:4

NOTE: Where the KJB and the Catholic Bible (such as the New American Bible) differ, the NIV and the NASV agree with the Catholic Bible. The Bible says, "For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: —2 Corinthians 2:17a. The prophet Amos wrote, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord." —Amos 8:11


King James Controversy



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Compare this to the roots of the Sinaticus and Vaticanus MSS:

A brief history of the KJV and it's Received Greek text::


A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE AND ITS GREEK TEXT:

I. Believers at Antioch (1st. century)

A. The believers in Antioch were the first to be called "Christians" (Acts 11:26).

B. Since Antioch is in Syria, they translated the Bible into Old Syrian. This Bible agrees with the KJB and not the Catholic line of mss.

C. The believers at Antioch copied the Scriptures in both Syrian and Greek on papyrus (a paper-like material).

II. Believers in Greece (1st.-3rd. century)

A. They used the Greek text of Antioch and rejected the Greek text of Alexandria Egypt as corrupt. (Fuller, p. 194-215).

B. This is the church which departed from Rome and the Catholic church in the 4th century. History shows that the text of the KJB always goes away from the Roman Catholic Church. This being a historical fact, then why go back to Rome to make a new translation?

C. These believers copied Scripture on papyrus in both Greek and Old Latin (not Jerome's Latin Vulgate, but Old Latin). This Bible was translated in 150 A.D. and agrees in its text with the KJB, not the modern translations.

III. Believers in Northern Italy (3rd.-12th century)

A. They copied and used the Old Latin Bible and rejected the vulgate as corrupt.

B. These believers were called "Waldensens" and were known for the evangelism they did and the street preaching.

C. During the Inquisitions by the Catholic church, the Waldensens were the believers who were put to death (see "Foxe's Book of Martyr's")

IV. Believers in Early England and France (2nd.-17th. century)

A. They used the Old Latin Bible of the Waldensens as the official translation. They also copied the Greek text which later came to be called the Receptus.

B. These believers were very evangelistic and suffered much under Rome.

V. Erasmus (1466-1536 A.D.)

A. Erasmus compiled the Greek mss. of the believers in Greece, Italy, England, and France and the Old Syrian and Latin translations to produce the Greek N.T. the Reformers used.

B. Note, this was the Greek text of the Reformation. This line always goes away from Rome.

VI. Luther (16th. century)

A. Luther translated the Bible into German using the text of Erasmus. He rejected the Greek text of the Catholic church (the text modern translations use).

B. Luther was the father of the Reformation.

VII. The King James Bible (1611)

A. The N.T. was translated off the Greek text of the Reformation. The translators rejected Jerome's Vulgate and the Catholic Bible.

B. The translators were men of God who knew their task. Note the following concerning a few of the translators of the Y-M.

1. Dr. Lansalot Andrews He was the chairman. He spoke 20 languages. He spent 5 hours a day in prayer. (see E. M. Bound, "Power Through Prayer" p. 33).

2. Dr. John Reynolds, Puritan leader. He spoke Hebrew and Greek as well as he could English by the time he was 18 years old.

3. Dr. John Boise He spoke Hebrew by the time he was 5 Years old. By the time he was 14 years old he spoke Greek. He spent from 4:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. studying each day.

4. Dr. Miles Smiths He spoke Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic as well as he could English. He also served with Dr. Thomas Bilson as one of the two final editors of the whole King James Bible.

5. Dr. William Bedwell: He was called the father of Arabic studies in England. He wrote Lexicons in Arabic, Hebrew, Syriac and Chaldean. (Note: a Lexicon is like a Dictionary telling the meaning of words and their root meaning).

6. Dr. Thomas Holland: Not only was he a great Hebrew and Greek scholar, but a man of great dedication to God. His dying words were, "Come, 0 come, Lord Jesus, Thou Morning Star! Come, Lord Jesus; I desire to be dissolved and to be with Thee."

7. Dr. Laurence Chaderton: He was noted for his knowledge of Latin, Hebrew and Greek. He also spoke French, Spanish, and Italian ' Because of his Christian faith his father cut him off from his family. People enjoyed his preaching so much that they would beg him to preach even after he had just preached a two hour sermon! He was committed to personal witnessing. He said of his household servants, "I desire as much to have my servants know the Lord as myself."

8. All the translators of the KJB suffered under the reign of Queen Mary (also called "Bloody Mary") before James became King of England. This is the only Bible committee to suffer persecution of their faith.

NOTE: For more information on the above translators and the others, see "Which Bible?" pp. 13-24, or the book by Dr. Gustavus S. Paine, "The Men Behind The KJB"

C. The text of the KJB is the same today as it was in 1611, (see enclosed "A Brief Summary of Some Objections to the King James Bible", V.)

D. The translators of the KJB believed they translated the pure word of God. (see Appendix 2).

E. The Greek text of the KJB is based on the majority of all Greek mss. and the line of Bible Believers throughout Church history.

F. The KJB is the Bible of the Great Awakening, the Well's Revival, the preaching of Edwards, Wesley, Moody, Carry, Hudson Taylor, Sunday, Spurgeon, etc., and every major revival from 1611 until now! No modern translation (or its Greek text) can make the same claim.

Matthew 12:33 "Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known of his fruit."

1. The tree of the modern translation is corrupt, how can the translation be good?

2. The tree of the KJB is pure, how can the translation be bad?

3. The fruit of the KJB is Reformation and Revival, not Rome.

4. The modern translation says it is with error, the KJB says it is without error. Which one would you want to read???

5. The Bible always calls for choices (Josh. 24:15); this is also true in reading a Bible translation. You must choose which one you will read. Do so, not by what men say, but by the Word of God.


The King James Bible Controversy



[edit on 19-10-2009 by NOTurTypical]



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 





Jesus Christ is God manifest in the flesh, to say otherwise is heresy and damnation.


Now that sounds really old school, like 15th century.

Careful that you judge people that have thoroughly studied the Greek and Hebrew and many different bibles and come to a different conclusion. Remember when you judge your brother by pointing one finger at him three fingers are pointing back at yourself. Here are some people that studied the bible thoroughly and came to a different conclusion.

Michael Servetus

Servetus rejected the belief of the Trinity, stating that it was not based on the Bible. He noted that it arose from teachings of (Greek) philosophers, and he advocated a return to the simplicity of the Gospels and the teachings of the early Church Fathers that pre-dated the development of trinitarianism. Servetus hoped that the dismissal of the Trinitarian dogma would make Christianity more appealing to believers in Judaism and Islam, which had preserved the unity of God in their teachings. According to Servetus, trinitarians had turned Christianity into a form of "tritheism", or belief in three gods.]Michael Servetus....Due to his rejection of the Trinity and eventual execution by burning for heresy, Unitarians often regard Servetus as the first (modern) Unitarian martyr.

Isaac Newton

"Isaac Newton was a heretic. But ... he never made a public declaration of his private faith — which the orthodox would have deemed extremely radical. He hid his faith so well that scholars are still unravelling his personal beliefs."....and almost certainly an antitrinitarian...Isaac Newton is generally thought to have not believed in Trinitarianism. He listed "worshipping Christ as God" in a list of "Idolatria" in his theological notebook.

Henry Grew

was a Christian teacher and writer whose studies of the Bible led him to conclusions which were at odds with doctrines accepted by many of the mainstream churches of his time. Among other things, he rejected the Trinity, immortality of the soul, and a hellfire of literal eternal torment.





The Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics describes the five stages that led to the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity.

1. The acceptance of the pre-human existence of Jesus as the (middle-platonic) Logos, namely, as the medium between the transcendent Sovereign God and the created cosmos. The doctrine of Logos was accepted by the Apologists and by other Fathers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, such as Justin the Martyr, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Ireneus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Lactantius, and the 4th century Arius.

2. The doctrine of the timeless generation of the Son from the Father as it was articulated by Origen in his effort to support the ontological immutability of God, that is, He's ever-being a Father and a Creator. The doctrine of the timeless generation was adopted by Athanasius of Alexandria.

3. The acceptance of the idea that the Son of God is homoousios to his Father, that is, of the same transcendent nature. This position was declared at the creed of the First Council of Nicaea, which specifically states the Son of God is as immutable as his Father.

4. The acceptance that the Holy Spirit also has ontological equality as a third Person in a Divine Trinity and the final trinitarian terminology by the teachings of the Cappadocian Fathers.

5. The addition of filioque to the Trinitarian creed, as accepted by the Roman Catholics.

Sounds just like the apostasy Jesus predicted.


When you look at the list of Unitarians they are some of the smartest people that ever lived. And you are saying they are all wrong.


* Hermas c. 140 (he considers the Father superior and the Son as the archangel Michael)
* Clement of Alexandria c. 190
* Natalius, ~200
* Sabellius, ~220
* Origen c. 230 (he considers the Father superior)
* Paul of Samosata, 269
* Arius, 336
* Eusebius of Nicomedia, 341
* Constantius II, Byzantine Emperor, 361
* Antipope Felix II, 365
* Aëtius, 367
* Ulfilas, Apostle to the Goths, 383
* Priscillian, 385, considered first Christian to be executed for heresy
* Muhammad, 632, see also Isa
* Ludwig Haetzer, 1529
* Michael Servetus, 1553, burned at the stake in Geneva
* Sebastian Castellio, 1563
* Ferenc Dávid, 1579
* Fausto Paolo Sozzini, 1604
* John Biddle, 1662
* Thomas Aikenhead, 1697, last person to be hanged for blasphemy.
* John Locke, 1704
* Isaac Newton, 1727
* William Whiston, 1752, expelled from University of Cambridge in 1710 * Jonathan Mayhew, 1766
* Emanuel Swedenborg, 1772
* Benjamin Franklin, 1790
* Joseph Priestley, 1804
* Joseph Smith, 1805
* Thomas Paine, 1809
* Thomas Jefferson, 1826
* James Madison, 1836
* William Ellery Channing, 1842
* Robert Hibbert, 1849
* John Thomas (Christadelphian), 1871
* Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1882
* Robert Roberts (Christadelphian), 1898
* Benjamin Wilson, 1900
* James Martineau, 1900
* Félix Manalo, 1914
* Charles Taze Russell, 1916
* Neville Chamberlain, 1940
* William Branham, 1965
* Herbert W. Armstrong, 1986
* Eliseo Soriano, 1947


There are more but I am sure you get the idea.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


I won't lose a bit of sleep, the Word of God simply states:


"Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

Matthew 7:17-20


And the history of the Alexandrian MSS is documented above. The Christians at Antioch rejected it as corrupt. And what does the Word have to say about the believers at Antioch??



Acts 11:25-26

""Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul: And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch.

And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch."


So the Word of God declares the believers at Antioch were the first to be called "Christians", and these same men rejected the corrupt Alexandrian MSS, the MSS corrupted by Pagans and Gnostics.

Do you think Pagans and Gnostics are "good trees" or "corrupt trees"? I have NEVER read anywhere in the Word of God where it refers to pagans as "good".

I use the Word of God to judge, and I will be judged by the Word of God. Believers do not take part in the "Great White Throne" judgment, that is for unbelievers, all believers have to stand before the Lord at the "Judgment Seat of Christ". Where good works are rewarded and bad works are destroyed by fire, but at that judgment are none sent to hell, it's merely for the works done in a believer's lifetime.

(Spelling edit)



[edit on 19-10-2009 by NOTurTypical]







 
3
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join