Does Jesus have a human soul?

Deadworm said:

Did Jesus have a human "soul" just like we do?
If so, when was His soul created?

Click to expand...

buzuxi02 said:

To be fully human means you have a material human body and a rational soul.

Click to expand...

God bless Joshua said:

When Jesus died on the cross He gave up His Soul to Father.

Click to expand...

Randy777 said:

Actually Jesus stated
Father, into your hands I commit my spirit."

Click to expand...

buzuxi02 said:

If God became man then he had a human rational soul which encompasses the free will, intellect, and faculties of human nature.

Click to expand...

How can this topic be explored when there are so many different understandings of what a soul is? This is natural, because scripture is not clear on the meaning of soul. At one place it represents just life, even animal life. Others see it as the reasoning consciousness of men, but I would say animals do the same in limited capabilities. I like the common colloquial understanding of the word, which would be the spiritual essence of people and only people. It can be filled with either God's Spirit or Satan's. This scripture defines two main parts of people, the body/flesh and the soul/spiritual.


Of course you can find scripture that has other uses of the word soul, like how it is commonly used in the OT.


And, you can find scripture that says you have more than two parts.


And of course, translations are all over the place, the worst being KJV. But for my argument, I will use the stated definition.


Now for your question about Jesus' soul. God is spirit. God is eternal. Jesus is God incarnate. The Son of God is eternal, but the flesh he "took on" is not. It had a beginning as such.


When male and female animals reproduce, they form new flesh. God created man in his image with the unique ability to create flesh and spirit. Flesh is called the body. Spirit is called the soul. What is unique about Jesus is that he is both man and God. His flesh came from Mary. His soul came from heaven. It was not formed at conception like it is for every other man that had his start being conceived from a man and a woman. This is why it is so important to note how Luke emphasizes the virgin birth. If Jesus had a normal father, a new soul would have been created.

So many people are led astray with thinking Jesus was just like us. He was not. His flesh was just like us. His soul was God. This is how we say he was both man and God. Scripture affirms Jesus was unique by him being called something instead of someone when being compared with Solomon. Why does it make this distinction? Because God said Solomon would be the wisest person to ever live. But, Jesus was wiser than Solomon.

Deadworm said:

Did Jesus have a human "soul" just like we do?
If so, when was His soul created?
Does His human soul survive now? If so, is the risen Jesus human now in a way that He was not prior to His soul's creation?
If so, does His current mode of being differ from what it was prior to His soul's creation?
How does the existence of Jesus' soul fit in with the doctrine that He was fully human and fully divine and with the doctrine of the Trinity?

Click to expand...

Jesus told the disciples to feel the wounds in his hands and feet after being bodily raised from the dead. He retains his human nature... fully God and fully human. A "change" after his incarnation.

1 John 3 "we shall be like him - for we shall see Him as He is"

Deadworm said:

Jason: "No. Jesus did not have a human soul like we do because Micah 5:2 says that the Messiah is from everlasting."

No it doesn't. The relevant Hebrew means "from of old, from ancient days" and the Hebrew "olam" does not mean "eternal."

Click to expand...

Okay look. You do not speak or write Biblical Hebrew. Nobody does. It is a dead language. So let's not pretend like we do know such a language, okay? Our Bible is translated from the original languages into English. If we cannot trust that there is a perfect Word of God today in a language that exists today, then people are only guessing as to what God's Word says. So no. Eternal means eternal. Yes, I realize in some cases the word "forever" does not always mean "forever" in the Bible. I believe in "Conditional Immortality." But in this case, the cross references determine that Jesus is eternally God.

For example, Isaiah says,

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." (Isaiah 9:6).

Okay. This child is called "Mighty God" and "the Everlasting Father." Everlasting Father is someone who exists from everlasting. Mighty God is not a created being who came into the universe, either. The Word was made flesh. It is not the flesh than formed and then was the Word made flesh. No, no, no.... no, no. It is the Word made flesh (See John 1:1-3 and John 1:14).

In Isaiah we see God (the Lord) refer to Himself as the first and the last.

Isaiah 41:4 says, "I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he."

Yet, in Revelation we see Jesus refer to Himself as the first and the last.

Revelation 1:17-18 says,
17 "And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death."

God exists eternally and does not have a beginning. So Jesus is God and He has always existed. So He did not come into being with a human soul. Jesus existed long before He took on a physical human body.

You said:

My post documents the creation of souls at the dawn of creation and I quote Colossians 1:15's identification of Jesus as "The firstborn of all creation."

Click to expand...

Are you saying that you believe that Jesus came into existence at the beginning?
If that is so, then is Jesus like some kind of demi-god or lesser God or something?

For me, there are two ways to read Colossians 1:15. One way is to say that the "Word" (Who is the eternal uncreated second person of the Godhead or Trinity) received a soul-less empty shell of a body that is of angels. His body could have been given directly to Him directly by God the Father and He became the first of the creation who had a temple or body so as to interact with the material universe. For angels can eat solid food according to Genesis 18.

A second way of interpreting Colossians 1:15 is that "first born" refers to Jesus being the "first born" of all of the upcoming new creation whereby He will resurrect the saints bodily and even the animals during the Millennium and then later with the New Earth. In other words, Colossians 1:15 could be speaking prophetically. This makes sense because Colossians 1:18 says, "And he is... the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence."

You said:

Your preference for the KJV gives you away as someone untrained in academic biblical scholarship. Why would you rely on so corrupt a text from the early 1600s when the most reliable biblical manuscripts were still unknown and the science of Text Criticism had not been developed to group biblical manuscripts into families by region and date so that errors could be identified and traced to their origin?

Click to expand...

This is just absolutely silly. The KJV is the pure of Word and that is not even debatable if you were to compare them with Modern Translations. There is no contest. While I may use Modern Translations to help update the language in the KJV sometimes, they are not my final Word of authority for obvious reasons. For many of them put the devil's name in them, they corrupt the teaching on holy living, they eliminate the one clearest verses that teaches the Trinity, and other important doctrines, or truths, etc.

Jason0047 said:

Jason: "Also, there are many Pre-Incarnate appearances of Christ in the Old Testament," as well...So if this is the case, then He could not have had a human soul that was formed out the genetic code of all of humanity or Adam."

Click to expand...

You said:

You need to read more carefully. Your comment is irrelevant because Jesus' soul was created as "the firstborn of all creation (Colossians 1:15)."

Click to expand...

No. It is not irrelevant because this "Angel of the Lord" is called God several times in the Old Testament. God is not a created being but God is eternal and uncreated. That kind of goes with the territory in being God. See again my CF thread here on the pre-incarnate appearances of Christ that tell us He is God.

Jason0047 said:

"The Word who is God was made flesh (John 1:1-3, John 1:14)." KJV"

Click to expand...

You said:

Irrelevant! Before the creation of Jesus' human soul at the dawn of creation, He was the Word (Greek: "Logos"), which means the rational Self-expression of God as opposed to God in His unknowability.

Click to expand...

No. The Word is God and the Word was with God. It does not say... The Word is a demi-god or lesser god.

Jason0047 said:

"I believe a soul is formed from the genetic code or genes from the parents at the time of conception."

Click to expand...

You said:

Thus, you disregard the clear teaching of Scripture to the contrary. btw, Are you claiming that the Holy Spirit gave Jesus 23 of His genes through virginal conception?

Click to expand...

I am not a genetics expert. But God making a human body without a human soul is possible for Him because God is in the miracle making business. Oh, and there is nothing clear in Scripture that teaches any kind of pre-existence of the soul. That is something you prefer to see in the Bible that does not exist.

Jason0047 said:

"There is no such thing as a pre-existence of souls in heaven.
The soul only exists as DNA or genetic code in Adam or one's parents genetic line before they are physically conceived into the world."

Click to expand...

You said:

Your claim is refuted by my establishment of the standard acceptance of preexistence in the Bible and ancient Judaism. See below.

Click to expand...

Not all Jewish teachings are an authoritative source for spiritual matters of the faith because they rejected their Messiah and ignored the weightier matters of the Law, etc.

Jason0047 said:

"As for the book(s) of Enoch: The book(s) of Enoch is not biblical.

Click to expand...

You said:

These comments expose your ignorance of how modern scholars, conservative and liberal study the background of biblical ideas. What you don't realize is that that it is irrelevant whether these books are canonical; what is relevant is that, together with the Essenes, they document the ancient Jewish consensus on the soul's preexistence and thus illuminate the background of biblical texts that imply the same teaching.

Click to expand...

Please go back and actually look at the reasons I provided that show that the book of Enoch is not biblical.

Jason0047 said:

"GOD is Omniscient (i.e. He knows all things). So when He says that He knew Jeremiah before He formed him in the womb in His Word, it is talking from God's perspective of knowing all things and not about the false belief of the pre-existence of souls."

Click to expand...

You said:

Your forced interpretation requires God to say, "Before you were in your mother's womb, I foreknew you." God's use of "knew" implies that Jeremiah's soul preexisted.

Click to expand...

No it doesn't. You are being way too imaginative with such a word. I can say that I knew that something was going to happen without actually using the word "foreknew." For example: I can say that I knew that it was going to be heavy traffic tomorrow because road crews would begin construction and shut down various lanes on the highway.

Jason0047 said:

"John 9:1-2 is talking about how he may have been born blind because of the sins that he would commit within this life. Remember, GOD knows the future of each and everyone of us."

Click to expand...

You said:

Wrong on 2 counts! First, the focus on "the sins of his parents" implies a period prior to the blind man's birth. Second, to foreknow what we would do, God must view the future as it must unfold without blindness. But no such future existed because the man was born blind! Your interpretation assumes determinism rather than free will and is not advocated in any academic modern commentary on the Gospel of John.

Click to expand...

No. There is no such thing as multiple universes. We live in one universe and God knows what is going to happen within our universe. Yes, everyone has free will to choose, but God knows what are choices are going to be. Also, you are seeing Pre-existence in this passage when it does not specifically talk about it. You want it to be true, so you will see it everywhere in Scripture (despite any actual real evidence in the Bible that talks about it). You are making assumptions and being imaginative. That is not proof of a Pre-existence of the soul in the Bible.


No. What this shows is that all three persons of the Godhead were involved in the resurrection. You do not like the idea of Jesus having power to resurrect Himself, but that is what He says. Jesus says.... "I" and He does not say.... somebody else. You can either deal with the fact or you can continue to ignore it.

buzuxi02 said:

You are both a Nestorian and monophysite then, believing that the one and same Person of Christ can be divided and the natures, co-mingled and confused. In fact you have a non-Christian anthropology believing the soul or spiritual component of man is a separate non-related entity to his material human form. The body alone is not a nature and unlike religions that believe in reincarnation, the body with its soul is a true union of its nature.
This idea of yours has already been discussed and condemned 1500 years ago. Why rehash the arguments of Nestorius and Eutyches?

Click to expand...

I believe Jesus is 100% God on the inside. The body is just a shell. He said so Himself. If Jesus had a human soul, then we need to clearly see that in Scripture. But the Bible condemns the worship of the creation or the creature. Only God alone is to be worshiped. Your not grasping that concept does not change such a truth. Throwing around labels is just a matter of deflection on your part. Prove your case with Scripture.

Deadworm said:

Jason: "No. Jesus did not have a human soul like we do because Micah 5:2 says that the Messiah is from everlasting."

No it doesn't. The relevant Hebrew means "from of old, from ancient days" and the Hebrew "olam" does not mean "eternal." My post documents the creation of souls at the dawn of creation and I quote Colossians 1:15's identification of Jesus as "The firstborn of all creation."

Your preference for the KJV gives you away as someone untrained in academic biblical scholarship. Why would you rely on so corrupt a text from the early 1600s when the most reliable biblical manuscripts were still unknown and the science of Text Criticism had not been developed to group biblical manuscripts into families by region and date so that errors could be identified and traced to their origin?

Jason: "Also, there are many Pre-Incarnate appearances of Christ in the Old Testament," as well...So if this is the case, then He could not have had a human soul that was formed out the genetic code of all of humanity or Adam."

You need to read more carefully. Your comment is irrelevant because Jesus' soul was created as "the firstborn of all creation (Colossians 1:15)."

Jason: "The Word who is God was made flesh (John 1:1-3, John 1:14)." KJV"

Irrelevant! Before the creation of Jesus' human soul at the dawn of creation, He was the Word (Greek: "Logos"), which means the rational Self-expression of God as opposed to God in His unknowability.

Jason: "I believe a soul is formed from the genetic code or genes from the parents at the time of conception."

Thus, you disregard the clear teaching of Scripture to the contrary. btw, Are you claiming that the Holy Spirit gave Jesus 23 of His genes through virginal conception?

Jason: "There is no such thing as a pre-existence of souls in heaven.
The soul only exists as DNA or genetic code in Adam or one's parents genetic line before they are physically conceived into the world."

Your claim is refuted by my establishment of the standard acceptance of preexistence in the Bible and ancient Judaism. See below.

Jason: "As for the book(s) of Enoch: The book(s) of Enoch is not biblical.
Jason on Wisdom of Soiomon 8:19-20:] "I do not agree with Catholicism."

These comments expose your ignorance of how modern scholars, conservative and liberal study the background of biblical ideas. What you don't realize is that that it is irrelevant whether these books are canonical; what is relevant is that, together with the Essenes, they document the ancient Jewish consensus on the soul's preexistence and thus illuminate the background of biblical texts that imply the same teaching.

"GOD is Omniscient (i.e. He knows all things). So when He says that He knew Jeremiah before He formed him in the womb in His Word, it is talking from God's perspective of knowing all things and not about the false belief of the pre-existence of souls."

Your forced interpretation requires God to say, "Before you were in your mother's womb, I foreknew you." God's use of "knew" implies that Jeremiah's soul preexisted.

Jason: "John 9:1-2 is talking about how he may have been born blind because of the sins that he would commit within this life. Remember, GOD knows the future of each and everyone of us."

Wrong on 2 counts! First, the focus on "the sins of his parents" implies a period prior to the blind man's birth. Second, to foreknow what we would do, God must view the future as it must unfold without blindness. But no such future existed because the man was born blind! Your interpretation assumes determinism rather than free will and is not advocated in any academic modern commentary on the Gospel of John.

Jason: "Jesus says, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." (John 2:19). Scripture says, "But he spake of the temple of his body." (John 2:21)."

Peter's citation of Psalm 16:10 implies that, without God's agency, Jesus' soul would have been abandoned in Hades. So John 2:21 simply means that Jesus' soul had to cooperate with God's resurrection power.​

Click to expand...

There is a difference between eternity or everlasting than the days of antiquity or ancient times. Certainly Jesus was before the world began.
Micah 5:2 YLT
And thou, Beth-Lehem Ephratah, Little to be among the chiefs of Judah! From thee to Me he cometh forth — to be ruler in Israel, And his comings forth [are] of old, From the days of antiquity.

buzuxi02 said:

You are both a Nestorian and monophysite then, believing that the one and same Person of Christ can be divided and the natures, co-mingled and confused. In fact you have a non-Christian anthropology believing the soul or spiritual component of man is a separate non-related entity to his material human form. The body alone is not a nature and unlike religions that believe in reincarnation, the body with its soul is a true union of its nature.
This idea of yours has already been discussed and condemned 1500 years ago. Why rehash the arguments of Nestorius and Eutyches?

Click to expand...

Because few Protestants know about the Church Councils and what they taught. One of my memories as a Lutheran was our Pastor asking how many people believed that Mary was the Mother of God. 3 hands went up. Then he asked how many people believed Mary was the Mother of Christ. 30 hands went up. My Pastor just shook his head, scrapped the Bible study he was going to do and launched into full lecture mode on Nestorianism.

Jason0047 said:

I believe Jesus is 100% God on the inside. The body is just a shell. He said so Himself. If Jesus had a human soul, then we need to clearly see that in Scripture. But the Bible condemns the worship of the creation or the creature. Only God alone is to be worshiped. Your not grasping that concept does not change such a truth. Throwing around labels is just a matter of deflection on your part. Prove your case with Scripture.

Click to expand...

So you disagree with the Athanasian creed:

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Substance of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood into God. One altogether; not by confusion of Substance [Essence]; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ;

GreekOrthodox said:

So you disagree with the Athanasian creed:

Click to expand...

It is a full time job to keep track of everyone's creeds out there. I just believe the Word of God and what it says.

You said:

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Substance of his Mother, born in the world.

Click to expand...

I am not denying the Incarnation. I believe Jesus is 100% God eternally; And I believe that He took on a flesh and blood human body. He suppressed His Omniscience so as to be like a man but you cannot change who GOD is. So no human soul was added or mixed in when the Incarnation took place. The uncreated and eternal "Living Word" (second person of the Godhead or Trinity) took on the living body of a man (but no human soul was involved because the Word already has a soul that is divine and eternal). What need would He have for a human soul? It makes no sense. Does theology need to be neat and clean for us to understand whereby we have to say He is God 100% and a man 100%? Surely not.

Besides, Jesus paid for our sins within His body and not within His soul. So no human soul was actually needed to pay the penalty for sins.

You said:

Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood into God. One altogether; not by confusion of Substance [Essence]; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ;

Click to expand...

I believe the "Living Word" took on a physical flesh and blood body of a man, because the Scripture is clear in the fact that it says this, but you will not find in the Bible anywhere that says that Jesus took on a human soul. One's imagination is what says such a thing; And not the Word of God. In fact, if Jesus were to do this, we would be in violation of worshiping Him because we are only to worship God alone and not anything created. To say that Jesus has a human soul is to say that he is like a Hercules (a by product of a god and a human). While Jesus was God and man, He was not like a Hercules.

Jason0047 said:

"Are you saying that you believe that Jesus came into existence at the beginning?"

Click to expand...

Deadworm said:

Again, you have not read my post carefully. As a soul, Jesus is "the firstborn of all creation," but prior to that Jesus is the eternal "Logos," a term which, when used philosophically, means more than "Word:" it means "the rational Self-expression of God as opposed to God in His unknowability.​

Click to expand...

Well, you said in another thread here that it is not correct to claim that the Trinity is three persons. What exactly is your definition of the Trinity? Is the Father God? Is the Word (Logos) God? Is the Holy Spirit God?

So who do you think the text is talking about then?
It sounds like a child being born who is called "Mighty God", etc.
Do you know of anyone else that fits that description?

You said:

Second, Jesus is God the Son, not God "the everlasting Father."

Click to expand...

In what sense is Jesus a Father? Well, Jesus is federally a Father representing those who are in him, as the head of a tribe represents his descendants. The apostle Paul comes to our help here, for in the memorable chapter in the Corinthians, he speaks of those who are in Adam, and then he talks about a second Adam. Adam is the father of all living; he federally stood for us in the garden, and federally fell and ruined us all. He was the representative man by whose obedience we should have been blessed, through whose disobedience we have been made sinners. The curse of the fall comes upon us because Adam stood in a relationship towards us in which none of us stands towards our fellows. He was the representative head for us; and what a fall was there when he fell! for every one of us in his loins fell in him. “In Adam all die.”

Those who put their trust in Jesus will one day be resurrected after His flesh and blood.

"Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them." (Hebrews 7:25).

“O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting? . . . But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 15:54-55, 1 Corinthians 15:57).

Jesus will be like our father to us because everyone will live again (i.e. be resurrected physically) by Him. Jesus is everlasting and eternal. So Jesus is like an everlasting father to us. Granted, Jesus is not God the Father, but He is like a father whereby He can be called one.

You said:

Third, modern scholarship rightly views this text as a symbolic name for Hezekiah, not alleging his deity, but rather alleging how his rule symbolizes God's presence. Note the present tense, "unto us a child is given." I challenge you to find a single academic commentary book on Isaiah that applies this text to Jesus.

Click to expand...

Jesus said beware of the scribes. The scribes are those who "tran-SCRIBED" the Law or the Scriptures. The scribe today would be the scholar of our day because they transcribe the Scriptures into what they think it means. So I do not trust scholars always in what they say because Jesus said to beware of them.

Anyways, the Hezekiah interpretation on Isaiah 9:6 is a desperate attempt to change what it clearly says because somebody does not like the idea that Jesus is the Mighty God. A normal reading of Isaiah 9:6 does not give the impression that it is talking about Hezekiah. If such an interpretation was even remotely true, then it would say that a child was born to be a spokesperson for the Mighty God and the Prince of Peace. It would also give us clues that would point to Hezekiah, as well. However, no such clues exist in Isaiah 9:6. Jesus is said to give peace. Jesus is said to be a prince. Jesus is said to be God. Jesus is said to be mighty in power. Jesus is like a father to us and He is eternal according to Scripture. Isaiah 9:6 sounds like a man who is also God, as well (with a normal reading). So the evidence (within Scripture) is stacked against you.

Jason0047 said:

"You do not speak or write Biblical Hebrew...It is a dead language."

Click to expand...

You said:

Unlike me, you have obviously taken no courses in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. I have been a Teaching Fellow in the Harvard Classics department and a Theology professor. So don't project your ignorance of biblical languages onto me.

Click to expand...

Several problems here. First, the Scriptures cannot be understood by the method that the world uses. The Scripture is taught by the Holy Spirit.

"But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." (1 John 2:27).

"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth..." (John 16:13).

Second, learning from a book or from a teacher a dead language is not the same as growing up speaking and writing that language when it was alive. Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Greek are languages that are not spoken or written anymore. People (Scholars) today can have an idea to what these languages say to an extent (Because these languages were translated into English, etc.), but they cannot know with 100% certainty the accuracy of their findings because they did not grow up with the apostle Paul speaking and writing Biblical Greek, or with Moses writing and speaking Biblical Hebrew, etc. You may be proud of your academic achievements but they really are not the same as actually speaking and writing the real language as if you were there. For example: I tried to study Brazillian Portuguese from a book. But when I tried to apply it, my fiancé (now my wife) kept correcting me telling me that the book is not exactly what a person would say in real life always. So there is a difference between real world application and what somebody says in a book. Then there is slang, grammar, and different dialects for various regions, etc.

You said:

The interpolation of Mark 16:9-20 is more egregious and doctrinally dangerous. Mark ends with no resurrection appearance of Jesus and some scribes found this unacceptable. So 16:9-20 is just one additional ending that was contrived to provide a more palatable ending.

Click to expand...

Mere opinion and not or Historical Science. There is no basis of rational reasoning to support such a conclusion (Such as real world examples that express a universal truth that all men can agree upon).

You said:

Not only was this passage absent from earlier manuscripts; modern scholars agree that its very different Greek style from Mark also gives it away as an interpolation. Indeed, one early Greek manuscript containing this text identifies the forger as Aristo of Pella, a Christian apologist from the 2nd half of the 2nd century.

Click to expand...

Opinion and Historical Science (Which is not the same as Observational Science).

You said:

There are 2 reasons why 16:9-20 is more egregious and doctrinally dangerous.
"And these signs will accompany those who believe: they will speak in new tongues. They will pick up snakes in their hands and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them (16:17)."

(1) True, Paul was once spared from the bite of an aggressive viper that surprised him by attaching to his hand by a fire (Acts 28:3) and Jesus promises protection for those who inadvertently "tread on snakes and scorpions (Luke 1O:19)." But many Appalachian Christians rightly take Jesus' promise in Mark 16:17 to mean a deliberate act of picking up deadly snakes and drinking poison as a test of faith. Sadly many of these Appalachian Christians and their children have died from rattler bites and strychnine rat poison when they put their faith to the test in this way.

Click to expand...

This is not proof at all. These Appalachian Christians were simply reading Scripture wrong. They did not compare Scripture with Scripture. Scripture clearly says you are not to put God to the test or to tempt Him. So Mark 16:17 could then only be interpreted in the same way that Acts of the Apostles 28:3 is interpreted. They are only protected if they were attacked without them trying to tempt God or put Him to the test. Words in the Bible are not always as precise as we would like them to be. But if one compares Scripture with Scripture (with the Lord's help), the meaning becomes more clear.

You said:

(2) 16:17 highlights speaking in new tongues as a "sign" or badge of the true believer. This is the most powerful text in support of the standard Pentecostal doctrine of speaking in tongues as the unique initial evidence of baptism in the Holy Spirit. It is doubtful that this doctrinal distinctive would have been created without Jesus' promise here. Once the bogus nature of Mark 16:9-20 is recognized, the pattern of tongues speaking in the Book of Acts is insufficient to sustain this Pentecostal distinctive. I say this as a tongues speaker, who is encouraged by Paul's wish that everyone speak in tongues and his celebration of the fact that he speaks in tongues more than everyone (1 Corinthians 14:5, 18). But that is not the equivalent of claiming that Spirit baptism requires tongues as its unique initial evidence.

Click to expand...

While I believe God can do miracles today, I believe tongues have ceased because the prophetic book known as the Bible is complete. In fact, I am against things like holy laughter, or if a person is moving about in convulsions and or screaming in pain; i do not believe that these experiences are something that is of God because they are not an example of the fruits of the Spirit. Furthermore, we are told to test the spirits to see if they are of God or not, as well.

Anyways, Mark 16:17 is not saying that one has to speak in tongues as proof one has the Holy Spirit. Mark 16:17 does not even remotely say that. So this again is not proof that Mark 16:17 should not be in our Bibles.

You said:

The bias of the KJV causes it to make many other errors, including one that has negatively affected the leadership potential of women: the identification of the apostle in Romans 16:7 as Junias, a male name. The NIV produces the correct and unbiased translation:
"Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was."

The Greek itself allows for both "Junia" and "Junias," but Junia is a rather common female name in the New Testament world, while Junias is virtually unattested as a man's name. As early as Origen, church Fathers recognize this and celebrate Junia as a female apostle, the highest ranking status in the early church.

Paul notes that Junia has been a Christian even before him, a fact that raises the possibility that Junia is one of the commissioned disciples in Luke 10:1, one of the female disciples who helped finance Jesus' ministry (Luke 8;2-3), and one of the 500+ witnesses to a resurrection appearance of Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:6). Oxford scholar Richard Bauckham has made an intriguing linguistic case for "Joanna" as the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek "Junia." Thus, Junia is one of the female disciples who traveled with Jesus, supported Him financially and, then unlike the male apostles, followed Him to the cross and the empty tomb (Luke 23:49; 24:9-10).

Click to expand...

A lot of speculation here over just one word in Scripture. Such speculation over one word is not conclusive proof that you are correct in any way. You have to build a stronger case than just point to one word in Scripture and then form all kinds of opinions about what is happening with that one word. But as far as women having authority over a group of men believers is not allowed. Why? Eve deceived Adam. It's what the Scriptures say. Granted, this does not mean women cannot preach the gospel on the streets or that they cannot tell others about Christ or that they cannot teach children, and or other women, etc. But God designed women to be different from men for a reason.



Source used:
724. His Name—The Everlasting Father

Jason0047 said:

"The KJV is the pure of Word and that is not even debatable if you were to compare them with Modern Translations."

Click to expand...

Deadworm said:

As I said, the KJV translators lacked access to the earliest and most accurate manuscripts. Nor did they compare biblical texts with their quotations from the earliest Church Fathers. Nor had the science of Text Criticism yet developed that organizes Bible manuscripts into families in order to trace where, when, and how erroneous readings crept into the text. But you need some specific examples of just how corrupt the manuscripts used in the KJV really are.​

Click to expand...

Here are...

Three Scriptural Reasons to Trust in A Perfect Word Today.

#1. God's Word claims that it is perfect:
God's Word claims that it is perfect (Psalms 12:6) (Psalms 119:140) (Proverbs 30:5) and that it will be preserved for all generations (Psalms 12:7) and it will stand forever (Isaiah 40:8) (1 Peter 1:25). Therefore, seeing Scripture plainly states these facts, it then becomes an issue of a test of your faith in God's Word (See the test the devil gave to Eve in Genesis 3:1); For the Bereans were more noble because they compared the spoken Word of God with the written Word of God (Acts of the Apostles 17:11). In other words, if the Bereans thought the written Word was corrupt in some way they would have no way of really knowing if the spoken Word of God was true or not.

#2. KJV vs. Modern Translations:
A simple side by side comparison of the KJV vs Modern Translations shows us that the devil tries to place his name in the Modern Versions. Have no idea what I am talking about?

Well, many Bible versions say that it is the dragon who is standing on the sea shore in Revelation. This is just evil and wrong.

See Parallel Version for Revelation 13:1 here...

Revelation 13:1 The dragon stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. It had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on its horns, and on each head a blasphemous name.

See, if you know anything about Bible language, standing on something means that you "own it"; And the devil wants to own you. In the King James, John is standing on the seashore. Yet in many Bible versions the dragon (i.e. the devil) is standing on the seashore.

Why is this a problem?

Let's look at...

Genesis 22:17

"That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;"

Did you catch that? God says to Abraham that He will multiply his seed as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is upon the seashore where he will then possess the gate of his enemies (i.e. the devil and his kingdom). The apostle John who wrote Revelation was Jewish and he was the promised seed of Genesis 22 standing on the seashore in Revelation 13. It was not the dragon or the devil standing on the seashore.

For certain Modern Versions eliminate the part of the passage in Revelation 13:1 that says that John is standing on the seashore (When he refers to himself as "I").

Also, the devil tries to take out key points in important discussions within the Bible (Which can affect doctrine). For example: In Romans 7 Paul talks from the Jew's perspective in keeping the Old Testament Law (Which leads to problems), and he gives us the climax or heart of his message as a solution in Romans 8:1. Now, certain modern translations have eliminated "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Eliminating this passage destroys the whole thrust of Paul's argument. Walking in the Spirit is the key to being in Christ Jesus. You eliminate that and you destroy Paul's argument. Also, 1 John 5:7 is the only verse in the Bible that is the clearest and most concise teaching on the Godhead (i.e. the Trinity).

#3. Biblical Numerics:
Bible Numbers that glorify God and His Word. (Note: These are not equidistant letter sequences or numbers that attempt to get one to have a special dream, or to divine the future in some way - Striving to foretell the future is forbidden in the Bible). Numbers are something that we deal with in our everyday life and all things glorify God. They also have purpose and meaning in the Bible. 40 is the biblical number for trial or test. Noah was in the trial of weathering the storm within the Ark while it rained for 40 days and 40 nights. Jesus was under the trial of fasting in the wilderness for 40 days and 40 nights. So numbers have an ascribed meaning to them within the Bible that a person cannot deny. In addition, he numbers in God's Word also glorify Him, too. What am I talking about? Check out this video on Numbers & the Greek New Testament.

Sevens in the Bible - Chuck Missler:


Also, here is a video series by Mike Hoggard that talks about the number 7 in the King James.

King James Code - Number 7 - Mike Hoggard (Part 1):


King James Code - Number 7 - Mike Hoggard (Part 2):


Now, while I may not agree with Mike on everything he teaches in the Bible nor on the way he teaches Bible numbers in every example, I have found that he has made some startling discoveries. Discoveries that do not appear in the modern translations but only in the King James.

I believe the 1769 KJV is the Word of God for our world language (English) today.
In 1611, the printing process was not perfected yet and there was no set standard in spelling yet, either.

From my experience, I have discovered that there are two wrong extremes on this topic. One wrong extreme says the KJV is evil and to even use it is to be a part of a cult (That teaches that one must worship a book - Which is simply not true). The other wrong extreme says the same thing. For I have found that many KJV-Onlyists believe that you should only read the King James. Many other KJV-Onlyists will also say that the King James is not all that hard to understand, too. However, I disagree with both of these conclusions, though.

Anyways, while I believe the KJV is the divinely inspired Word of God, I do not think one should stick to just reading it alone. For I have found Modern Translations to be very helpful in updating the language (From Old English); However, I do not put my entire trust in Modern Translations because the devil has placed his name all over them and key doctrines have been watered down and important messages within God's Word have been neutered.

In other words, I read Modern Translations as if I am panning for gold. I have to sift thru the dirt or the garbage in order to get to the gold of the passage that lines up with the King James (and the original Hebrew and Greek).

This gold that is found within the dirt of the translations can be very useful because it reflects what is in the King James. This is the gold that people hear and are saved when they hear the gospel message. For someone can be saved just by hearing a few Bible verses about the gospel message of Jesus Christ. This gold shines thru and penetrates their heart.

Like the Parable of the Sower. Believers receive the Word of God into their heart from those passages that are talking about salvation. Words that line up with the King James. These words are sown in their heart. And if they let this Word take root in their heart by continually reading the Word of God, then they will have hidden His Word in their heart so they will not sin against Him. It will have taken root and they will not fall away due to persecution or the trials of this life.

For it only takes a few Bible verses to get someone saved. However, washing yourself with the water of the Word is going to be a lot more effective if you use the pure Word of God.

Part 2:

In fact, this is not the only time the devil has tried to place his name in the Bible in exchange for something that is supposed to be sacred or holy. We see the devil tries to place his name in Modern Translations in Daniel 3.

In Daniel 3, the Babylonian king says there is one like the "Son of God" in the fiery furnace along with Daniel's three friends. This is Jesus! Yet, in the Modern Translations it says the "son of the gods." In many false religions we can see how certain gods had mated with human females and created a hybrid. This is popular even in Greek mythology. So who saved Daniel's friends? Jesus or some hybrid like Hercules?

Nebuchadnezzar thought this was an angel of God (singular and not plural).

"Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king's word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God." (Daniel 3:28).

This was not the "son of the gods (plural) (little "g")!!!
No way Hosea! I mean, "No way José!"
Nebuchadnezzar clearly was referencing the most high God.
The Bible says (even something similar in your Modern Version),

"Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the mouth of the burning fiery furnace, and spake, and said, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, ye servants of the most high God, come forth, and come hither. Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, came forth of the midst of the fire." (Daniel 3:26).

Angels are called the: "sons of God" in Job.

The fourth person in the fire was still Jesus! The son of God. The Scriptures were still correct in their inspiration by God when they say, "and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God." While Nebuchadnezzar did not know it was the second person of the Godhead or the Trinity, the Lord our God who inspired Scripture surely would have glorified the name of the Son of God (Jesus) in this instance. For it was Jesus who was in the fire with Daniel's three friends!

Also, please check out this thread here, as well. It will help to explain this situation a little better, too.

Jesus is the Messenger of the Lord in the Old Testament.
(Please take note: I do not believe Jesus is an angelic being; I believe Jesus is the second person of the Godhead or the Trinity and that He is fully 100% God who took on the flesh of man).

In Isaiah 14:12, the devil's name "Lucifer" is replaced with "Day Star" or the "Morning Star."
Yes, I am aware that "morning stars" are angels in the book of Job.

But Modern Translations also say this is the Shining Star or the Son of the Dawn. Why?

Jesus says,
"I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." (Revelation 22:16).

So Jesus is the BRIGHT and MORNING star!

Yet, the individual in Isaiah 14:12 in Modern Translations is called the shining (bright) and morning star or the Day Star, etc.

So the devil is trying to be like the most high here. He is taking a similar sounding title of Jesus in Isaiah 14:12.

For where is the bright and morning star up in the sky?
It is the sun.
That is why He is called the bright and morning star because the sun is bright and rises in the morning.

Also, Lucifer means "light bearer."
Scripture tells us this is what it means.

"And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light." (2 Corinthians 11:14).

The word "angel" also means "messenger." So 2 Corinthians 11:14 is saying that Satan is a light messenger or light bearer. In fact, when Satan is described with having all kinds of jewelry on him, it was symbolic of who he was. Certain gemstones refract light. They are not light themselves, but they merely reflect whatever light is in existence. Gemstones are like little light bearers. So how fitting the name "Lucifer" is for the devil. Yet, Modern Translations seek to give the devil a name that is similar to Jesus. This is wrong (of course).

Part 3:

The King James is available in a few other languages.

Textus Receptus in Spanish (RVG 2010):
https://www.amazon.com/Santa-Biblia-Rústica-Valera-Spanish/dp/0758907567/
King James Francais in French:
Bible King James Française | King James Française
Koning Jacobus Vertaling in Dutch:
http://www.koningjacobusvertaling.org/info_english.php
Bibelen Guds Ord in Norwegian:
http://www.hermon.no/netbibelen/
Thai King James Bible Version:
The Bible (Thai: from KJV)
Korean King James Version:
https://www.amazon.com/Korean-English-Bible-Leather-Golden/dp/B005DPPENA/

GreekOrthodox said:

So you disagree with the Athanasian creed:

Click to expand...

You might as well put me in the same camp. I especially don't believe this line.

"This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved."

BobRyan said:

Jesus told the disciples to feel the wounds in his hands and feet after being bodily raised from the dead. He retains his human nature... fully God and fully human. A "change" after his incarnation.

Click to expand...

No his resurrected body is not like ours. Can you go through walls? Can you disappear? Hebrews says the Son of God was made lower when he took on flesh. It says he is now in glory. Kinda like the transfiguration.

AnticipateHisComing said:

No his resurrected body is not like ours. Can you go through walls? Can you disappear? Hebrews says the Son of God was made lower when he took on flesh. It says he is now in glory. Kinda like the transfiguration.

Click to expand...

I do not believe Jesus's flesh and blood changed after the resurrection. He still needs to be our substitute so as to intercede on our behalf according to Hebrews 7:25. I believe his walking through walls, etc. is something that is a part of Him being GOD.

GreekOrthodox said:

Because few Protestants know about the Church Councils and what they taught. One of my memories as a Lutheran was our Pastor asking how many people believed that Mary was the Mother of God. 3 hands went up. Then he asked how many people believed Mary was the Mother of Christ. 30 hands went up. My Pastor just shook his head, scrapped the Bible study he was going to do and launched into full lecture mode on Nestorianism.

Click to expand...

Did your Lutheran pastor capitalize Mother when he said mother of God or mother of Christ? I thought only the Catholics placed such divine reverence to the woman.

The cynic in me wonders why one that left the Lutheran Church fondly quotes their pastor.

AnticipateHisComing said:

No his resurrected body is not like ours. Can you go through walls? Can you disappear? Hebrews says the Son of God was made lower when he took on flesh. It says he is now in glory. Kinda like the transfiguration.

Click to expand...

Moses and Elijah "appear" on the mount of transfiguration with Christ in glorified form according to Luke 9 and Matthew 17.
John says "we shall be like him for we shall see him as He is " in 1 John 3.
Christ says to the disciples to see the still-remaining wounds in his still-remaining hands and side.

So not saying that His glorified form is exactly as in his pre-resurrection form - but it was still human.

Jason0047 said:

I am not denying the Incarnation. I believe Jesus is 100% God eternally; And I believe that He took on a flesh and blood human body. He suppressed His Omniscience so as to be like a man but you cannot change who GOD is. So no human soul was added or mixed in when the Incarnation took place. The uncreated and eternal "Living Word" (second person of the Godhead or Trinity) took on the living body of a man (but no human soul was involved because the Word already has a soul that is divine and eternal). What need would He have for a human soul? It makes no sense. Does theology need to be neat and clean for us to understand whereby we have to say He is God 100% and a man 100%? Surely not.

Besides, Jesus paid for our sins within His body and not within His soul. So no human soul was actually needed to pay the penalty for sins.

Click to expand...

I think the Athanasian Creed is lacking to describe how Hebrews describes the Son of God being made lower when he took on flesh and then elevated in glory when he returned to heaven.

BobRyan said:

So not saying that His glorified form is exactly as in his pre-resurrection form - but it was still human.

Click to expand...

Do you believe that the Son of God appeared in human form before he was born Jesus? Those OT "Christophanies.

Jason0047 said:

I do not believe Jesus's flesh and blood changed after the resurrection. He still needs to be our substitute so as to intercede on our behalf according to Hebrews 7:25. I believe his walking through walls, etc. is something that is a part of Him being GOD.

Click to expand...

Are you Catholic? Hebrews says nothing about a substitute or continued sacrifice continuing. I don't see relevance in Hebrews 7:25. Hebrews 10 says the sacrifice is complete. As for an intercessor, there is one mediator between God and man and while Jesus did introduce a new covenant, the Son of God has always been our shepherd and mediator.

Hebrews 12:24 to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus,

John 10:11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

Psalm 23:1 The Lord is my shepherd, I lack nothing.

AnticipateHisComing said:

I think the Athanasian Creed is lacking to describe how Hebrews describes the Son of God being made lower when he took on flesh and then elevated in glory when he returned to heaven.

Hebrews 2:9 But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.​

Click to expand...

The Athanasian Creed also seems to suggest that Jesus has a human soul when it says, "...Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh..."

Source:
Athanasian Creed - Wikipedia

This to me is wrong because the Bible nowhere teaches that Jesus has a human soul or that he was perfectly (entirely in every way a man). Jesus did have a flesh and blood body, but He could not be perfectly man in every way without stripping Himself of His divinity or His attributes in naturally being God.