U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-24-2009, 09:30 AM
 
Location: Prattville, Alabama
4,883 posts, read 5,125,140 times
Reputation: 807

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Shawn_2828 View Post
What I gave was perfect, you just don't want to accept it.
I have to differ with you there too Miss Shawn....that verse is not found in any respectable manuscript but was added by men. There is ample proof of this if you care to research it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-24-2009, 11:24 AM
 
20,187 posts, read 12,858,086 times
Reputation: 5420
I guess you are a literalist then. Many words are not find in the bible. You won't find the word Christmas in the bible so I guess you cannot use that word.

What do you call the season around Christ's birth that we celebrate then? The celebration of Christ's birth season? Most people have shortened it to Christmas. We all know what that means. It's the same thing on a lot of concepts in the bible---man has named them to easily understand the same concept.

Maybe you do not believe in the Trinity or maybe you call it that Father, Son and Holy Spirit thing. So you use the words you want to use and the rest of us will use the easier words for the same thing.

Who is wrong? Neither if we are describing the same thing, just silly. I would rather not get caught up in the literal laws like Jesus warned the Pharasees not to get entangled in the law instead of helping their fellow man and always correcting them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2009, 05:03 PM
 
Location: South Carolina
3,586 posts, read 5,350,730 times
Reputation: 576
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristyGrl View Post
I have to differ with you there too Miss Shawn....that verse is not found in any respectable manuscript but was added by men. There is ample proof of this if you care to research it.
I have researched it, you should research it in the greek text.

It doesn't matter if you differ with me, God is the one who gave the Words. The Father is the one who called Jesus God, not me, and of The Holy Spirit. So, if you differ, you should take that up with God.


ΜΑΤΘΑΙΟΝ 28:19 Greek NT
πορευθέντες μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος,

The Hebrew and Greek bible is the best bible that we shoud use and go by, but if you noticed most is all here don't can't read that bible. So, we just communicate in the english bible here, and with most who only read that bible.

If would do no good to write in hebrew and greek if you or others can't read it.

I study the english just as well as the hebrew and the greek bible. When I read the english bible, if the Holy Spirit does not correct me, and tell me that the words are deceiving them I move on. Eventually I will only use the hebrew and greek text and will do the same. As of now, God does not tell me that the verse that I believe should not be considered as the truth, so I don't trust mans words but Gods.

To many people trust man, and are being deceived.

Last edited by Miss Shawn_2828; 10-24-2009 at 05:25 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2009, 05:20 PM
 
Location: New York City
5,556 posts, read 6,723,608 times
Reputation: 1351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
The Bible never uses the phrase "God the Son." It is always "Son of God."
While observing this interesting thread, I happened to notice the above comment. Now, for the record, I am a FORMER Christian (which means my opinion from here is not going to matter to most, I'm sure), but I want to make an observation (of reason) here. Of course, what I am about to mention will be considered blasphemous at face value, I think it is worth considering. MAYBE is can provide some proper perspective if one cares to have some.


It is worth pointing out a few things about Jesus' early followers and how they viewed Jesus. In the book of Acts, Peter the Disciple, gives a sermon that appears to reflect the EARLIEST Christian view of Jesus. He says in Acts 2:36:

"Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ."

Later in the same book (Acts 13:32-33), Paul has this to say:

And we declare to you glad tidings—that promise which was made to the fathers. God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm:


‘ You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You.’

Note that the "raised up" refers to Jesus' alleged resurrection mentioned in verse 30. To the early Christians, Jesus becomes the "son of God" after the resurrection. Before that he was a mere man that God empowered to do great things who was killed by the religious leaders in his prime. God thus, vindicates him by raising him from the dead and then giving him an elevated title - son of God.

Did the early Christian stop there? No. It was an easy leap from there to believe that Jesus must have been the son of God even earlier than that. For those, the belief was that Jesus became the son of God at his baptism. Not surprisingly, the Gospel of Mark, the first Gospel reflect this. In Mark 1:11 at Jesus' baptism, God thunders down the confirmation that Jesus is his son. Here, it does not mean that a "son" in a father participating in a sexual act to bring about a son. "Son," in biblical terms can mean a variety of things, simply one chosen by God to do his will on earth as a type of intermediary. Outside of this, the book of Mark gives no idea that Jesus is more than just a special man, chosen of God at the start of his ministry to be his agent (anointed messiah/son) on earth. There is no Virgin birth or Christans story involved or needed and so Mark begins with Jesus' adult ministry when he is officially anointed as son of God.

The progression moves from there when we get to the later Gospel of Luke, for example. Here Jesus is the son of God at his birth. Luke then goes on to provide an explanation as to how this was possible and the explanation is found in the oft disputed and incredulous story of the "Virgin birth." Jesus comes into existence AT his special birth months after the Holy Spirit of God impregnates Mary.

By the time the Gospel of John rolls around years after the appearance of Mark's Gospel, Jesus is regarded as more than just a mere man who is chosen by God to do his bidding. His has no genesis and has always been with God and frankly, is God himself by extrapolation. He THEN comes into the world AS God in human flesh even though John does not tell us how. We are left to assume John is working with the understood version that he was born of a virgin, but actually existed in eternity past.

This view became the standard within later Christianity amongst the Gentiles. Jesus was the preexistent Word of God who became flesh. As we have seen, however, this was apparently not the original view held by the early Christians. The divinity of Jesus was a later Christian invention found only in one Gospel, John.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2009, 05:28 PM
 
Location: South Carolina
3,586 posts, read 5,350,730 times
Reputation: 576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
The Bible never uses the phrase "God the Son." It is always "Son of God."

God did not send Himself into the world to save sinners. God sent His Son.

If Jesus is God, how could he ascend to heaven where His God was after coming out of the tomb?

The Bible knows nothing about Jesus and the Father having the same equal "nature."

The only way to invent the man-made doctrine of the trinity is you have to make up phrases not found in the Bible.

Also, if God is a separate being from the holy spirit, then Jesus had two fathers for He called Himself the Son of God and was begotten by holy spirit.
Quote:
The Bible never uses the phrase "God the Son." It is always "Son of God."
This verse is calling Jesus God, from The Father

Hebrew 1:8

8But about the Son he says,
"Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever,
and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.

This verse is calling The Son God. You seem to over look certain scriptures due to you not liking what it is saying. This is the Father calling The Son God.

Ummmm if you don't like it, you might want to take this up with God.

Last edited by Miss Shawn_2828; 10-24-2009 at 05:48 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2009, 05:43 PM
 
17,968 posts, read 12,456,138 times
Reputation: 989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Shawn_2828 View Post
This verse is calling Jesus God, from The Father

Hebrew 1:8

8But about the Son he says,
"Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever,
and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.

This verse is calling The Son God. You seem to over look certain scriptures due to you not liking what it is saying. This is the Father calling The Son God.

Ummmm if you don't like it, you might want to take this up with God.
Dear Miss Shawn, the point is that I actually do believe that the God of Jesus did tell him that he is God. The problem is, what did God mean by that? You think it must mean Jesus is now the God that said He can be God? What do you do with Moses who is a type of Christ? God told Moses that he (Moses) is God and Aaron his prophet. Is Moses now the supreme deity of the universe?

The word "God" is a title. It tells us what office a person holds and what that person does. In being called "God" Jesus has the duty of subjecting humanity since THEOS means Subjector or Placer.

The Jewish judges were called Elohim/THEOS/God too for they subjected the people to the law.

Ummmm, if you don't like it, you might want to take this up with God.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2009, 08:31 PM
 
Location: South Carolina
3,586 posts, read 5,350,730 times
Reputation: 576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
Dear Miss Shawn, the point is that I actually do believe that the God of Jesus did tell him that he is God. The problem is, what did God mean by that? You think it must mean Jesus is now the God that said He can be God? What do you do with Moses who is a type of Christ? God told Moses that he (Moses) is God and Aaron his prophet. Is Moses now the supreme deity of the universe?

The word "God" is a title. It tells us what office a person holds and what that person does. In being called "God" Jesus has the duty of subjecting humanity since THEOS means Subjector or Placer.

The Jewish judges were called Elohim/THEOS/God too for they subjected the people to the law.

Ummmm, if you don't like it, you might want to take this up with God.
It means what it says. You are making things harder than what it really is. You should take scripture for what it say. The words are not hard, it says O God, geeeze.

God is not a name, and the word God does not mean for a name in the bible. God is what Jesus is called. He has many other names that are not titles, like Alpha and Omega, Everlasting FAther, Mighty God,which means what it says.

This is not rocket science. You should study the scriptures in the Jewish bible.

The scriptures call Jesus God, The FAther calls Jesus God, there is nothing that is confusing. If you are confused then you choose to be because it is simply there.

Moses is a type of Christ, not the Christ. There are other types of Christ in the bible, but they are not Christ. Jesus is not the God, He is God.

I already took it up with God and He is loving what I see in scripture, Him.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2009, 11:54 PM
 
20,187 posts, read 12,858,086 times
Reputation: 5420
Moses was a type of Christ? I was never taught that. Where in the bible does it say that? I truely want to know, not being snarky.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2009, 12:01 AM
 
Location: South Carolina
3,586 posts, read 5,350,730 times
Reputation: 576
Quote:
Originally Posted by janelle144 View Post
Moses was a type of Christ? I was never taught that. Where in the bible does it say that? I truely want to know, not being snarky.
Actually you are right, the first time I saw it was in someone else post. My error in rewriting what they wrote.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2009, 06:07 AM
 
3,067 posts, read 3,491,788 times
Reputation: 241
I think the rock that Moses hit, that is considered a type of Christ image...

as is an animal such as a lamb.
also, a star I believe is also called a type of image of Christ.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top