• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Paul's limited understanding!

The Hammer of Witches

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Jun 7, 2016
1,020
592
America
✟14,999.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Paul never endorsed nor proclaim the virgin birth of Jesus!
I would like to point out, while John writes about the virgin birth in his gospel, it is not mentioned in any of his epistles. Does that mean he did not believe it happened? Jude does not mention it in his epistle, nor does James. Does that mean that they don't believe it. The virgin birth is at the core of Christian doctrine, the epistles written not only by Paul, but by the other authors of the Bible were written to edify and teach the new believers that they may grow in the faith.
I must also point out that Luke was a close friend of Paul's and his gospel contains the most detailed account of the virgin birth in the gospel! Paul clearly demonstrates full understanding of the gospel and truth in his epistles.
 
Upvote 0

Righttruth

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Jan 13, 2015
4,484
341
✟199,440.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I would like to point out, while John writes about the virgin birth in his gospel, it is not mentioned in any of his epistles. Does that mean he did not believe it happened? Jude does not mention it in his epistle, nor does James. Does that mean that they don't believe it. The virgin birth is at the core of Christian doctrine, the epistles written not only by Paul, but by the other authors of the Bible were written to edify and teach the new believers that they may grow in the faith.
I must also point out that Luke was a close friend of Paul's and his gospel contains the most detailed account of the virgin birth in the gospel! Paul clearly demonstrates full understanding of the gospel and truth in his epistles.

OK. Others have not mentioned, but Paul sounds like a common birth to a woman.
 
Upvote 0

The Hammer of Witches

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Jun 7, 2016
1,020
592
America
✟14,999.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
OK. Others have not mentioned, but Paul sounds like a common birth to a woman.
Paul's expression "born of a woman, born under the law" has been interpreted as implying that Jesus had no human father. I am sure others have already brought this up.
 
Upvote 0

Righttruth

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Jan 13, 2015
4,484
341
✟199,440.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Paul's expression "born of a woman, born under the law" has been interpreted as implying that Jesus had no human father. I am sure others have already brought this up.

It can't be. That is simply to defend Paul at any cost by hook or crook method!
 
Upvote 0

anonymouswho

Active Member
Jul 28, 2015
366
124
35
✟24,458.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I used Father and Son for "Root and Offspring" because I hoped it would be a helpful analogy. I'm sorry I didn't get a chance to get back to this yet, but I'll try to tomorrow.

BTW, the post you were replying to (which I just posted again here) was sort of a continuous thought, but I don't believe you commented on the rest of it, particularly about what verses such as John 1:3, Colossians 1:16-17, Matthew 22:45 and John 17:5 are saying ... which all speak of Jesus as someone FAR greater than a mere man.

--David

Hello David. I'm sorry I didn't address these verses. I've wrote a lot and I have several people talking to me, so I'm trying to get back to everyone in a timely matter.

I interpret John 1:1 as...

In the first was the λόγος (reason) and the reason was moving towards the God and divine was the reason
It was in the first with the God
All δι’ (because of) it emerges and without it emerges not one that has emerge

So in John, I see that God had a reason, and that reason was that God would accomplish making mankind in his image...and all emerges because of the reason. Yeshua is the man that came on behalf of the reason...

"This is he of (ὑπέρ:in behalf of) whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me." KJV

""This is He on behalf of whom I said, 'After me comes a Man who has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me (Greek: foremost of me he was).'" NASV

Although I do not agree with Paul, I do not disagree with him about Colossians 1:15-17...

"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature (not born first, but as Issac was called Abraham's firstborn):
For by (δι’ because of) 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 (δι’ because of) him, and for him:
And he is before all things, and by (ἐν:in) him all things consist.
And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence."

I already addressed Matthew 22:45. Yeshua was speaking figuratively as "the bread of life which comes down from heaven". That is why he said we must "eat his flesh", because his flesh is the word of God. And man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word of the living God.

"And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." John 17:5

This passage and another verse...

"I and my Father are one." John 10:30

...are bother fully explained here....

"And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one" John 17:22

We share the same glory that Yeshua had with the Father before the wold began. This was the glory of the reason that God set into motion before He ever prepared the ages. This glory was that we should be in His Image, after His Likeness, and to have dominion over all things...just like He says from the very beginning...

"And God said, Let us make (נַֽעֲשֶׂ֥ה: accomplish) man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." Genesis 1:26

This was all accomplished in Yeshua the Messiah, and it is accomplished when we "die" and we are "born again". Yeshua is the firstborn of those "born again", and now we are the sons of God!

rhíza.
Secular Greek. This word means literally “root” of a plant, figuratively “foot” of a mountain, historically “founding” of a city, genealogically “origin” or “stem” of a family, cosmologically “origin” of things (i.e., the earth), and psychologically the soul as our “origin.” Kittel, G., Friedrich, G., & Bromiley, G. W. (1985). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (p. 985). Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.

rhiza (ῥίζα, 4491) is used (a) in the natural sense, Matt. 3:10; 13:6, 21; Mark 4:6, 17, 11:20; Luke 3:9; 8:13; (b) metaphorically (1) of “cause, origin, source,” said of persons, ancestors, Rom. 11:16, 17, 18 (twice); of things, evils, 1 Tim. 6:10, RV, of the love of money as a “root” of all “kinds of evil” (marg., “evils”, KJV, “evil”); bitterness, Heb. 12:15; (2) of that which springs from a “root,” a shoot, said of offspring, Rom. 15:12; Rev. 5:5; 22:16. Vine, W. E., Unger, M. F., & White, W., Jr. (1996). Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Vol. 2, p. 539). Nashville, TN: T. Nelson.
4491 ῥίζα [rhiza /hrid·zah/] n f. Apparently a primary word; TDNT 6:985; TDNTA 985; GK 4844; 17 occurrences; AV translates as “root” 17 times. 1 a root. 2 that which like a root springs from a root, a sprout, shoot. 3 metaph. offspring, progeny. Strong, J. (1995). Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship.

My concordance says something different, but it doesn't matter. My concordance only shows 1 Timothy 6:10 as meaning "cause, origin, source", because Paul says money is the root of all evil. But I'm going to quote your concordance and bolden what I see (you also bolden "offspring" for some reason, which is what I'm saying "root" means- because it offsprings from a seed)...

rhíza.
Secular Greek. This word means literally “root” of a plant, figuratively “foot” of a mountain, historically “founding” of a city,genealogically “origin” or “stem” of a family, cosmologically “origin” of things (i.e., the earth), and psychologically the soul as our “origin.” Kittel, G., Friedrich, G., & Bromiley, G. W. (1985). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (p. 985). Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans. (This offers no verses or explanation why it would mean origin)

rhiza (ῥίζα, 4491) is used (a) in the natural sense, Matt. 3:10; 13:6, 21; Mark 4:6, 17, 11:20; Luke 3:9; 8:13; (b) metaphorically (1)of “cause, origin, source,” said of persons, ancestors, Rom. 11:16, 17, 18 (twice) (none of these verses have to do with genealogy- Paul is metaphorically talking about actual roots, and roots come before branches. But the seed comes before all); of things, evils, 1 Tim. 6:10, RV, of the love of money as a “root” of all “kinds of evil” (marg., “evils”, KJV, “evil”); bitterness, Heb. 12:15; (2) of that which springs from a “root,” a shoot, said of offspring, Rom. 15:12; Rev. 5:5; 22:16 (This is the verse in question, and the concordance says it means offspring- descendant). Vine, W. E., Unger, M. F., & White, W., Jr. (1996). Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Vol. 2, p. 539). Nashville, TN: T. Nelson.

4491 ῥίζα [rhiza /hrid·zah/] n f. Apparently a primary word; TDNT 6:985; TDNTA 985; GK 4844; 17 occurrences; AV translates as “root” 17 times. 1 a root. 2 that which like a root springs from a root, a sprout, shoot. 3 metaph. offspring, progeny. Strong, J. (1995).Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship."

The last instance is what you bolded. It says "offspring, progeny". Both offspring and progeny mean a descendant. Being called "the root of David" does not mean Yeshua is his ancestor in any way whatsoever.

Thank you.
 
Upvote 0

St_Worm2

Simul Justus et Peccator
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2002
28,243
45,817
69
✟3,157,934.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Hi AW, I don't believe I have time to reply right now, but as I skimmed over what you wrote, I noticed you mentioned Matthew 22:45, Jesus and the "Bread which comes down from Heaven". There's stuff about a marriage feast in there, some more stuff about tributes to Caesar made in his likeness, a story about seven brothers who all shared the same wife, and some blown away Pharisees, but I don't think there's anything in Matthew 22 about "bread" :scratch: Would you mind elaborating a bit? Thanks!

I'm pretty tired, so I'm probably not going to get back to the rest until tomorrow but I'll try.

Thanks!

--David
 
Upvote 0

anonymouswho

Active Member
Jul 28, 2015
366
124
35
✟24,458.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Holy Spirit not a person of itself. His Father created him, Jesus in the womb of Mary. That's what I think. The Father used His Power, the Holy Spirit to do this. Just like the Power of Spirit first hovering helped create our cosmos.

I would say this is the best interpretation one could have concerning the virgin birth. This is what I believed when I first denied the trinity. But at that point, I still believed Yeshua was the Stoics' and Philo's "Divine Logos", some spiritual being that God used as a tool "through" which all things emerged. It took me a long time to accept he was just a man, but now that I do, everything makes sense. Not just questions concerning theology. I mean the answer to everything. Why did God prepare the universe? Mankind. Why did God prepare mankind? Mankind. What did God send as His means of saving all mankind? The man, Yeshua the Messiah, our elder brother that has inherited all things, and all things were made because of him and for him...because he is a man. This is so true, so simple, and so beautiful that it amazes me it took so long for me to accept this.

Thank you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nothead
Upvote 0

ToBeLoved

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 3, 2014
18,705
5,818
✟368,235.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Holy Spirit not a person of itself. His Father created him, Jesus in the womb of Mary. That's what I think. The Father used His Power, the Holy Spirit to do this. Just like the Power of Spirit first hovering helped create our cosmos.
Can you explain that again?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Upvote 0

anonymouswho

Active Member
Jul 28, 2015
366
124
35
✟24,458.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi AW, I don't believe I have time to reply right now, but as I skimmed over what you wrote, I noticed you mentioned Matthew 22:45, Jesus and the "Bread which comes down from Heaven". There's stuff about a marriage feast in there, some more stuff about tributes to Caesar made in his likeness, a story about seven brothers who all shared the same wife, and some blown away Pharisees, but I don't think there's anything in Matthew 22 about "bread" :scratch: Would you mind elaborating a bit? Thanks!

I'm pretty tired, so I'm probably not going to get back to the rest until tomorrow but I'll try.

Thanks!

--David

Ha! You're right. I apologize. I've been jumping all over the bible looking at so many different verses, and I guess I got confused about which verse we were talking about. This is what I wrote concerning Yeshua calling himself lord of David...

Yeshua, the man, is the son of Joseph. Joseph is the descendant of David. Once Yeshua was baptised by John the Baptist and the spirit descended on him like a dove, he became the Messiah- the anointed one. So he was no longer Joseph's son, nor was he David's. He became the son of God.

Yeshua could no longer call David his father, because he had one Father...

"And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9

So likewise....we are the root and offspring of our earthly father, but...

"Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." 1 John 3:2

Again, I apologize. Please let me know if you need me to clarify anything. Thank you.
 
Upvote 0

anonymouswho

Active Member
Jul 28, 2015
366
124
35
✟24,458.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Why wouldn't you just translate right from the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek?

God is Jesus Father. What "person" answer you are looking for I don't think matters.

According to the trinitarian doctrine, God is three persons that make one God. Matthew and Luke both say it was the third person- "the Holy Spirit"- that caused Mary to become pregnant. This would make the Holy Spirit person Jesus' father. But the trinitarian doctrine says the Father is the father of "God the Son". I'm just confused about which person of God is God's father.

My understanding is that the OT is written in Hebrew and the NT in either Greek or Aramaic. So that's why I'm a little confused that you are going back to Hebrew and wondering why they are different.

I use the KJV because a lot of people believe it was "divinely inspired". When I get to a verse that contradicts another, I check the original Greek for both. Most of the NT books were written in Greek, but it is a fact that Matthew originally wrote his gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic (no original copies exist, but many "church fathers" attest to physically seeing it because it was stored in a library in Caesaria).

I do believe Luke was originally written in Greek. I'm not sure about John, but I believe John personally wrote his gospel in Greek. Just like I believe Peter personally wrote Hebrews in Greek (you should look this up...Hebrews is one of the finest examples of Koine Greek ever written. Some believe Yeshua himself wrote it because the language is so pure and perfect). The reason I believe this is because...

"Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus." Acts 4:13

"And they (the Apostles) were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?
Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine." Acts 2:4

I believe Mark is a paraphrase of Matthew. Most scholars believe Matthew copied Mark because they are so similar. I believe the Apostle Matthias in Acts 1:23 wrote his gospel in Hebrew, and the gospel of Mark was a Greek translation that was meant to act as a sort of Sparknotes for Matthew.

So Hebrew Matthew first, Mark's Greek translation second, and the Greek translation of Matthew with the virgin birth added was last.

I hope that clears everything up. Thank you.
 
Upvote 0

nothead

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2013
1,250
40
✟24,335.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Can you explain that again?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The Holy Spirit is not a HE of itself, rather a power, force, presence, medium of communication, spirit.

It takes on referents and the main one was historically it's maker, owner and operator, the Father.

The Spirit OF God the Father is now with mostly Jesus as referent, although originally again originated and sent by the Father.
"...will come in my name," meaning the identity referent. Thus the Paraclete is called BOTH the Spirit of God (the Father) and the Spirit of Jesus. And the testimony OF it, "Abba, Father," I believe is Jesus speaking in Spirit.
 
Upvote 0

ToBeLoved

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 3, 2014
18,705
5,818
✟368,235.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
The Holy Spirit is not a HE of itself, rather a power, force, presence, medium of communication, spirit.

It takes on referents and the main one was historically it's maker, owner and operator, the Father.


The Spirit OF God the Father is now with mostly Jesus as referent, although originally again originated and sent by the Father.
"...will come in my name," meaning the identity referent. Thus the Paraclete is called BOTH the Spirit of God (the Father) and the Spirit of Jesus. And the testimony OF it, "Abba, Father," I believe is Jesus speaking in Spirit.
Sounds like you do not believe the Trinity are all God and all equal.

Jesus does not need to speak in Spirit (note the capital 'S') to say 'Abba Father' to His Father. Jesus is GOD. The Holy Spirit stands as an equal person of the Godhead.

The Father did not 'make' the Holy Spirit.

You must have some Biblical support for this unorthodox belief? Never heard this before, so I'm interested.
 
Upvote 0

ToBeLoved

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 3, 2014
18,705
5,818
✟368,235.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
I already addressed Matthew 22:45. Yeshua was speaking figuratively as "the bread of life which comes down from heaven". That is why he said we must "eat his flesh", because his flesh is the word of God. And man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word of the living God.

"And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." John 17:5

This passage and another verse...

"I and my Father are one." John 10:30

...are bother fully explained here....

"And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one" John 17:22

We share the same glory that Yeshua had with the Father before the wold began. This was the glory of the reason that God set into motion before He ever prepared the ages. This glory was that we should be in His Image, after His Likeness, and to have dominion over all things...just like He says from the very beginning...
I am so, so confused.

I do not see the scriptural support, at all through the verses you gave.

See second sentence in red: How could Yeshua have 'had' that relationship with the Father, past tense? What are you saying here, that Jesus is not at the right hand of the Father again? The Word says that He is.
 
Upvote 0

nothead

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2013
1,250
40
✟24,335.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Sounds like you do not believe the Trinity are all God and all equal.

Jesus does not need to speak in Spirit (note the capital 'S') to say 'Abba Father' to His Father. Jesus is GOD. The Holy Spirit stands as an equal person of the Godhead.

The Father did not 'make' the Holy Spirit.

You must have some Biblical support for this unorthodox belief? Never heard this before, so I'm interested.

99% are not Spirit-baptized so ORTHODOXY means little to me.

No one ever PRAYS to the Holy Spirit in Bible, OR worships it directly. You will find this heinous idea in the local Christian bookstore but NOT in the Bible. These two things NEVER done in the first gen faith OR OT proves the Holy Spirit is NOT an equal Partner of God.

And Jesus is NOT God. I cannot say why since this is NOW anathema ON THIS FORUM. Since the status quo CANNOT prove otherwise by word and reference to scripture, having FALSE interpretations, they ADMINed this option out.
 
Upvote 0

ToBeLoved

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 3, 2014
18,705
5,818
✟368,235.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
99% are not Spirit-baptized so ORTHODOXY means little to me.

No one ever PRAYS to the Holy Spirit in Bible, OR worships it directly. You will find this heinous idea in the local Christian bookstore but NOT in the Bible. These two things NEVER done in the first gen faith OR OT proves the Holy Spirit is NOT an equal Partner of God.

And Jesus is NOT God. I cannot say why since this is NOW anathema ON THIS FORUM. Since the status quo CANNOT prove otherwise by word and reference to scripture, having FALSE interpretations, they ADMINed this option out.
Ok, well I see where you are coming from I guess and it is not Biblical nor Trinitarian.

Just because we do not 'pray to' or 'worship' the Holy Spirit does NOT mean that He is not God. And I don't know how you do not see that Jesus was God. I'm totally confused now, but do not explain don't want you getting in trouble with the forum admins and mod's.

Also, what is Spirit baptized in your understanding? If it whether one has the Holy Spirit or not, let me tell you that salvation DEPENDS on having the Holy Spirit. No Holy Spirit, no salvation.

I'd read up on it.
 
Upvote 0

amariselle

Jesus Never Fails
Sep 28, 2004
6,648
4,201
The Great Northern Wilderness
✟75,570.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
99% are not Spirit-baptized so ORTHODOXY means little to me.

No one ever PRAYS to the Holy Spirit in Bible, OR worships it directly. You will find this heinous idea in the local Christian bookstore but NOT in the Bible. These two things NEVER done in the first gen faith OR OT proves the Holy Spirit is NOT an equal Partner of God.

And Jesus is NOT God. I cannot say why since this is NOW anathema ON THIS FORUM. Since the status quo CANNOT prove otherwise by word and reference to scripture, having FALSE interpretations, they ADMINed this option out.

Jesus is not God?
 
Upvote 0

nothead

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2013
1,250
40
✟24,335.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Ok, well I see where you are coming from I guess and it is not Biblical nor Trinitarian.

Just because we do not 'pray to' or 'worship' the Holy Spirit does NOT mean that He is not God. And I don't know how you do not see that Jesus was God. I'm totally confused now, but do not explain don't want you getting in trouble with the forum admins and mod's.

Also, what is Spirit baptized in your understanding? If it whether one has the Holy Spirit or not, let me tell you that salvation DEPENDS on having the Holy Spirit. No Holy Spirit, no salvation.

I'd read up on it.
The Spirit is an IT not a HE, ma'am. If it WAS a HE of COURSE we be praying to IT.
 
Upvote 0