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.
Originally Posted by Campbell34 Incorrect, you gave me the facts as YOU believe have happened.
The thing is that facts should stand on their own.
I can't, because like I've posted many times before, you will believe whatever you want to believe.
So you are saying that Christians don't fear God?
Or hell?
Because when it comes to that Christians have to choose who they fear more; their fellow humans or God who’ll cast them into eternal hell for not obeying Him.
What makes you think I haven't?
Trying to retake Jerusalem for the Christians is a defensive war?
Sounds like an occupational war to me.
Originally Posted by Nikk So you agree with me that Elohim is not a Christian word?
Elohim is a Jewish word and not Greek, Latin or any other European language.
All Wikipedia did is translate the word Elohim from Jewish into English.
In the same way that they have translated nephilim*, which is more commonly used in the American Standard Version Bible. Genesis 6.4
Nephilim comes from the root "nephal" or "to fall". So the "Sons of God" or those who believe on the name of God (not the lineage of seth). Had children and these Children fell away from faith in God. That is why the Nephilim were before the flood and after the flood. These Nephilim were destroyed by the flood and after the flood at Sodema and Gemorah. Nephilim are those who have become so degenerate and evil that they are "renown" for their evil.
Elohim is not Jewish. Jews are from Judah. Isrealites are from Isreal. Hebrews are the decendants of Eber (Grandson of Noah). So the word Elohim is Hebrew! Or, of the language of the Hebrews that came out of Egypt with Moses.
Since Christianity is the sect of Judaism that believes Jesus is Messiah, then all that is of Judaism and from them and their ancestors, belongs to the Christians. So Abraham belongs to the Christians as does the Torah and blessings therein.
Wikipedia is not the expert of the bible. It is written by a vast array of people from all walks of life and education. Because of this it is a good reference but not the standard.
The Sons of God is a title for those who believe "B'n" is "son". So the Son is still a son, not Elohim. Two different people. The sons of power is the same title, still a son of the power and not the power. The daughters of men is a title to mean woman (for Eve came out of Adam-man). So, those who believed in God married woman and had children who fell away from the faith (Nephilim). These children were destroyed by God in the flood because they were wicked.
Well , I guess it goes back once again to Colossians 1:16,17 does'nt it. Trinitarians insist this is proof that Jesus is the creator. Colossians 1:16, (16) "for in him were all things created in Heaven and on earth: everything visible and everything invisible, thrones, ruling forces, sovereignties, powers - all things were created for him and through him". Yet they ignore Colossians 1:15 which says, "He is the image of the unseen God, the first-born of all creation".
Jesus is always said to have a beginning. In this case he is called the first-born of all creation. So I guess the question would now be, In what sense is Jesus "the first-born of all creation" ? I've heard the arguement from Trinitarians saying that first-born here means prime, most excellent, most distinguished; hence Jesus to them is not considered to be a part of creation, but the most distinguished in relation to those who were created. But if this were so and if the Trinity doctrine was true, then why are the Father (Jehovah or Yahweh -whatever) and the Holy Ghost or Spirit not also said to be the first-born of all creation ??????? The Bible applies this expression ONLY to Jesus, the son. So it's obvious that Jesus is the eldest of Almighty God's family of spirit sons who already existed before the physical heavens and earth were created.
In fact there are numerous instances in the Bible where the expression first-born are applied to Israel, Pharoah, animals, etc. In each case it has reference to the eldest of a group. As first-born it would seem Jesus had the privilage of helping his father. I have no idea of what the mechanics of creation entailed, but it's not necessary anyway.
When reading the life and ministry of Jesus Christ in the Gospels, Jesus never ever gives credit to himself, but only to the father. Even when he often privately healed someone, he charged the person to tell no one. However , the cured individual did anyway. The point is, Jesus never wanted to draw attention to himself. That would have been improper if he were God almighty who does deserve credit for all things good. Certainly religious leaders today could take a lesson from that. Unlike todays Monolithic powerhouse religious organizations, Jesus never had a Public Relations staff, Damage Control Lawyers and Legal Team, etc.
Another point on why it would be impossible for him to be God almighty is the ransome Sacrifice. If he were God , then the ransome sacrifice would be a hoax. Correct me if I'm wrong, but did'nt Satans challenge to God say that all humans serve god out of selfishness and for the reward awaiting them ? Adam apparently was perfect and using freewill diliberately left God. Adam was perfect. The Mosaic Law dealt with a legal issue of eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, etc. Like for Like. Jesus gave his perfect human life as sacrifice for the perfect life lost by Adam and Eve. Now it is said that God cannot lie or sin. If Jesus were God who cannot sin, then what were all the test about ? It would have been a set up where you have a Kangaroo Court against Satan''s challenge. Nothing would have been settled as far as the legal issue raised. There would be in this case, no equal like for like. It would have been a sham.
Well, I've said all I can say for now. I enjoy the discussion, but I also work
Cheers
<<<<< Jesus is always said to have a beginning. In this case he is called the first-born of all creation. So I guess the question would now be, In what sense is Jesus "the first-born of all creation" ? I've heard the arguement from Trinitarians saying that first-born here means prime, most excellent, most distinguished; hence Jesus to them is not considered to be a part of creation, but the most distinguished in relation to those who were created. But if this were so and if the Trinity doctrine was true, then why are the Father (Jehovah or Yahweh -whatever) and the Holy Ghost or Spirit not also said to be the first-born of all creation ??????? The Bible applies this expression ONLY to Jesus, the son. So it's obvious that Jesus is the eldest of Almighty God's family of spirit sons who already existed before the physical heavens and earth were created.
>>>>>
What in the world are you talking about, "Out Of Context" ???????? Colossians 1:18 has nothing to do with any Trinitarian proof. That is merely another one of the 30+ scriptural references to the term "First-Born" and it's absolutely correct in it's application here. As I stated before, in every instance where the term or expression is used, it speaks of the individual as the first-born, eldest or beginning of a group. In this case it references Christ as being the first-born from the dead.
Now you and I know that there were others who technically were resurrected from the dead , even long before Jesus. Jesus himself performed some of these, but they all eventually died again. Jesus is the first-born of all those who receive everlasting life and never die again according to the scriptures. So let's look at that verse again that you insisted was part of the context. (Authorized King James Version) Colossians 1:18 , "And he is head of the body, the church: (Just to interject here for a moment. William Tyndale correctly translated this word away from the Catholic Latin Church to the more correct Greek word for "Congregation") who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that all things he might have preeminence".
Now the point of that scripture is to show that the congregation rightly looks to Christ as the head, and not to any human as the preeminent one. A failure to recognize this FACT causes disunity in the Christian Congregation. That's why the world has so many Christian denominations today Campbell. It's called Politics. That's how the Catholic church and Protestant Churches got here in the first place. So let's look further into this same context of thought which has nothing to do with Jesus being God. The Apostle Paul had to write this letter to the Corinthian Congregation: 1 Corinthians 1:11-13 , (11) "From what Chleo's people have been telling me about you, brothers, it is clear that there are serious differences among you. (12) "What I mean is this, every one of you is declaring, 'I belong to Paul' or 'I belong to Apollos' or 'I belong to cephas' or 'I belong to christ' ". (13) "Has Christ been split up ? Was it Paul that was crucified for you, or was it in Pauls name that you were baptised" ?
Now we can ALL see how that fits into the context of Colossians 1:18. But I also like the term here used to describe the congregation, "the body". A body has many parts to it, and the Christian congregation is likewise a body in that there are many different people with talents, abilities, responsibilities, etc, but ONLY Christ is it's head.
Okay, real simple No!
My references below are going to be New Jerusalem Bible (MJB) unless I otherwise state differently.
I realize you won't like this but here it is anyway. There's no arguing that Jesus had a prehuman existance before coming to Earth. But he was not one of the persons of an Almighty, eternal triune Godhead. The Bible plainly states that in his prehuman existance, Jesus was a created being, just like the Angels were spirit beings created by God. Neither Jesus nor angels ever existed before their creation. Again, Jesus in his prehuman existance was "the first-born of all creation". (Colossians 1:15 , NJB) He was "the beginning of God's creation". (Revised Standard Catholic Edition) Now notice how closely those references to the origin of Jesus correlate with the expressions uttered by the figurative "Wisdom" in the book of Proverbs: "Yahweh created me, the first fruits of his fashioning, before the oldest of his works. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills, I came to birth, before he made the earth, the countryside, the first elements of the world". (Proverbs 18:22,25,26 , NJB) While the term "wisdom" is used here to personify the one whom God created, and most scholars agree that it is actually a figure of speech for Jesus as a spirit creature prior to his existance as a man on Earth.
Now lookie here what else Proverbs has to say about "Wisdom" (or Jesus) It says about Jesus that he was "by his (God's) side, a master craftsman". Proverbs 8:30 , NJB) This would also harmonize with his role as master craftsman in Colossians 1:16 that says of Jesus as "through him God created everything in heaven and on earth". 'Today's English Version' bible, this was actually changed in 2001 to 'Good News Translation'
So apparently it was by means of this master craftsman, his junior partner, that the Almighty God created everything else. The bible basically summarizes it this way, "For us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things......... and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things". Revised Standard, Catholic Edition.
It's obvious that it was to this master craftsman that God said, "Let us make man in our own image" (Genesis 1:26 , NJB) The terms "us" and "our" used in this expression DO NOT denote a Trinity. If you Campbell were to say to some one ,'Let us make something for ourselves' no one would normally understand this to apply that several persons were combined as one inside of you. You would simply mean that two or more individuals are going to work together on something. Same thing here with God using the terms "us" and "our" he was simply addressing another individual , his first spirit creation, his master craftsman, the prehuman Jesus.
I say "No" to your question in keeping with the way Jesus always refused any kind of credit while here on earth. He always gave the credit to his Father , even though he was used to perform miracles. I can also tell you this. The Trinity did'nt become established until the Fourth Century with the official Nicean, Athanesian, and Apostolic Creeds which were enforced through murder, torture, burning at the stake, etc. If the Trinity were true, Almighty God the Father and his son Jesus certainly would never have advocated such hideous means of teaching biblical truth. Only sick twisted minds of demonic clergyman of the times could do this.
The Bible does'nt have to talk about the mechanics of how things were and got done. It does'nt have to. It does'nt have to explain it in the creation account either. I'm going to open another thread on the Genesis Creattion account and how it actually slams Creationism. The Seventh Day Adventist blew it with that court case in Arkansas and I'll show you why. I think this thread has served it purpose for now. Everyone here needs to dump all religious doctrinal predjudice from ALL Christian denominations and do your own research with scholarly reference works that have been done on the bible from men who beaten into oblivion by the very ones who had the most to loose. The Clergy of today's Churches. I've already pointed out who some of these men were and there's a lot more. Just let the Bible define itself.
Well heres the problem. Jesus did not make every other thing. Only in a Watch tower Bible would you find that kind of translation. And greek scholars (world wide) will tell you that the JWs translation is one of the most perverted translation out there. And they will tell you this, because their Bible was played with in order to get it to agree with their doctrine, not the other way around. And the New Testament tells us that Jesus created the earth, while the Old Testament tells us that the God of the Old Testament created the earth alone and by Himself. Now you can dance around this as much as you like, but I believe the Bible. And only if you believe that God exist as more than one person can you resolve this issue.
And the only way you can believe that Jesus and the God of the Old Testament are seperate beings who both created the earth is if you are willing to believe a false translation of the Bible, which would be the New world translation put out by the WatchTower society. The Bible does define itself. Yet it will not be defined by a gross mistranslation.
<<<<< Jesus is always said to have a beginning. In this case he is called the first-born of all creation. So I guess the question would now be, In what sense is Jesus "the first-born of all creation" ? I've heard the arguement from Trinitarians saying that first-born here means prime, most excellent, most distinguished; hence Jesus to them is not considered to be a part of creation, but the most distinguished in relation to those who were created. But if this were so and if the Trinity doctrine was true, then why are the Father (Jehovah or Yahweh -whatever) and the Holy Ghost or Spirit not also said to be the first-born of all creation ??????? The Bible applies this expression ONLY to Jesus, the son. So it's obvious that Jesus is the eldest of Almighty God's family of spirit sons who already existed before the physical heavens and earth were created.
>>>>>
Arianism was rejected in the 4th century.
Also, any modern day proponents of Arianism should read the Cappadocians...they corrected any misunderstandings concerning the Trinity by placing the distinctions of the Triune Godhead within the relationship of the Persons (i.e. the way the Persons related to one another in eternal community) (see hypostasis) and not the Essence (ousia).
Also, any modern day proponents of Arianism should read the Cappadocians...they corrected any misunderstandings concerning the Trinity by placing the distinctions of the Triune Godhead within the relationship of the Persons (i.e. the way the Persons related to one another in eternal community) (see hypostasis) and not the Essence (ousia).
The trinity continues to be a man made doctrine and always will be.
Jesus said, i can only do what i see the Father do.
The corrupted text were for the unity of the Roman Church, not about truth. Since when do we trust politicians to reveal truth.
The trinity continues to be a man made doctrine and always will be.
Jesus said, i can only do what i see the Father do.
The corrupted text were for the unity of the Roman Church, not about truth. Since when do we trust politicians to reveal truth.
godspeed,
freedom
If the trinity is a man made doctrine can you explain to me how the Bible tells us that Jesus Christ made the earth. And yet at the same time the Bible tells us that the God of the Old Testament made the earth (ALONE) and by (HIMSELF)? Unless Jesus and the Father equal one God, how do you resolve that issue? The Bible is very clear here. The God of the Old Testament made the earth (ALONE and by HIMSELF). So who do we believe? Was it Jesus as the New Testament states? Or was it the God of the Old Testament?
Read that and then come tell me I am inconsistent. (But I am guessing many do not want to be confused with facts OR it does not fit the normal "sound-byte" paradigm mentality of many here)
Well heres the problem. Jesus did not make every other thing. Only in a Watch tower Bible would you find that kind of translation. And greek scholars (world wide) will tell you that the JWs translation is one of the most perverted translation out there. And they will tell you this, because their Bible was played with in order to get it to agree with their doctrine, not the other way around. And the New Testament tells us that Jesus created the earth, while the Old Testament tells us that the God of the Old Testament created the earth alone and by Himself. Now you can dance around this as much as you like, but I believe the Bible. And only if you believe that God exist as more than one person can you resolve this issue.
And the only way you can believe that Jesus and the God of the Old Testament are seperate beings who both created the earth is if you are willing to believe a false translation of the Bible, which would be the New world translation put out by the WatchTower society. The Bible does define itself. Yet it will not be defined by a gross mistranslation.
I'm NOT quoting from a WATCHTOWER BIBLE Campbell. Everything I've quoted here came eons before any Watchtower Society. Maybe you need to go back and read again. If you don't like, then tough. Maybe you should read Alexander Hislop's book, "The Two Babylons" so that you will understand the true origins of your religious beliefs.
Here's what Campbell would have everyone believe. Let's take Jesus' baptism account. Here you have Jesus coming up out of the water just after being baptized. Then this Dove flys down out of heaven. Let's see now, the Dove is the Holy ghost and that's God. Then God (the Dove) lands on God's (Jesus') shoulder. Then Jesus does'nt want all the onlookers to know that he is God, so he uses Vantriliquism to through his voice off into the clouds and says, "And Lo a voice from heaven, saying, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" Matthew 3:17 , (Authorized King James Version)
Sounds absurd does'nt it. Well it's your belief Campbell.
If the trinity is a man made doctrine can you explain to me how the Bible tells us that Jesus Christ made the earth. And yet at the same time the Bible tells us that the God of the Old Testament made the earth (ALONE) and by (HIMSELF)? Unless Jesus and the Father equal one God, how do you resolve that issue? The Bible is very clear here. The God of the Old Testament made the earth (ALONE and by HIMSELF). So who do we believe? Was it Jesus as the New Testament states? Or was it the God of the Old Testament?
I'd have to see the translation you are siteing in order to answer your question.
I'd have to see the translation you are siteing in order to answer your question.
Scriptures please.
godspeed,
freedom
No kidding. He first tells us an untruth about the translation I'm quoting from, but does'nt tell us what he uses. I've quote from the Authorized King James Version , New Jerusalem Bible , Revised Standard , Catholic Edition and I've listed each time the translation I quoted from, but apparently that's not good enough. I've tried to stick with one or two that most people are familiar with. Mostly I've quoted from the King James as it and it's language are familiar to most folks. But I don't really like it because it's mostly a Version and not a translation. It's a Version in the sense that it explains what the writer's believe or want it to mean. The only time when I've disagreed with it is when the Author of the (KJB) has diliberately damaged and corrupted the scripture to prove Trinitarian views and I proved that by quoting the research done by Sir Isaac Newton & William Whiston. I'm sure most Trinitarians believe these men are frying in "HELL" as we speak for pointing out their corruption of scripture.
Oh and the Bible does NOT say Jesus created the Earth
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.
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.
Incorrect, you gave me the facts as YOU believe have happened.
I can't, because like I've posted many times before, you will believe whatever you want to believe.
So you are saying that Christians don't fear God?
What makes you think I haven't?
Trying to retake Jerusalem for the Christians is a defensive war?
