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.
I got many different kinds of replies. Exactly what post did i miss? I was busy looking for answers to my questions but instead got a lot of stuff about the creed.
Are you saying the scriptures i posted are heresy?
On 2 Cor, see vs 6, and the contrast between Moses and the Lord in 15 and 16. He’s talking about the letter vs the spirit. Paul usually speaks of Christ and the holy Sprit as distinct. He means something like Christ gives us the spirit of the law. Remember that in NT Greek there was no distinction between lower case and capitals, so using a capital here may be misleading.THe bible says that the Lord is the Spirit. 2 Corinthians 3:17 Whats that mean?
Isaiah says that a child will be born, and His name will be called eternal Father and mighty God. Isaiah 9:6 WHo is that child and who is the eternal Father?
THe bible says that the Lord is the Spirit. 2 Corinthians 3:17 Whats that mean?
Isaiah says that a child will be born, and His name will be called eternal Father and mighty God. Isaiah 9:6 WHo is that child and who is the eternal Father?
The bible says that Jesus is Lord. It says that God is a Spirit, and it says that God was manifested in the flesh. As who? As the son, Jesus, the Lord... therefore, the Lord is that Spirit.
The child is the son, God manifested in the flesh. The Father is the eternal Spirit, that same one God. People define this as three in one... I believe we are not fully capable in fallen human flesh to adequately describe the spiritual being of the one who created us.
Neither... I just shared Scripture.are you Unitarian or Oneness?
In Isaiah 9:6, Jesus is called, "‛ad 'âb", commonly translated as "The everlasting Father". Some see in this that Jesus Christ is also God the Father, and argue that the Two are One Person. The Hebrew "'âb" (father), also has the meaning, "originator, protector, ruler, chief" (see Brown, Driver, Briggs, Hebrew-English Lexicon). Interestingly, the Greek version of the Old Testament, known as the Septuagint, renders the Hebrew, "pateer tou mellontos aioonos", literally, "Father of the coming age", which is how the Latin Vulgate has it, "the Father of the world to come".
Neither... I just shared Scripture.
God is a Spirit (John 4:24). God was manifested in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16). So I simply ask, "When was God manifested in the flesh? What manifestation was Paul speaking of?" And the answer is simple... as the Son.
Now, we are expected to submit to Jesus as Lord (Romans 10:9), there is one Lord (Ephesians 4:5) and the Lord is that Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:17).
It's just Scripture.
I am fine with that my friend. I don't use the same terms, I see it a little differently but we really are not in disagreement. In fact, I really believe it is unrealistic for fallen humans who have a 2000 +/- page book that contains VERY LITTLE on the being of the Creator, to all come to the same exact understanding of His being at this time. I think it is more important for us to allow each other to understand Him as we each do and respect that. There is too much division in our one body already.Thanks, I hope I did not offend you? OK, firstly, some English versions do not give an accurate rendering of the Hebrew or Greek. So, when Jesus says, "πνεῦμα ὁ θεός", the literal way to translate this would be "God is spirit", i.e., not a physical Being, where the nature and not the personality of God is meant. there is no "is" in the Greek. The context shows that Jesus is speaking of the Father only.
In 1 Timothy 3:16, "God was manifest in the flesh" is the equivalent of John 1:1, and 1:14, "and the Word was God...the Word became flesh...". Both refer to the Person of the Lord Jesus, Who alone was "manifest in the flesh". God the Father and Holy Spirit, never became Incarnate.
The Three Persons in the Holy Trinity, are EQUALLY "Almighty God" (Elohim), "Lord" (Yahweh), as "distinct" Persons, but One Divine Being, the Godhead. Bible language is very precise to show "distinctions" between the Three Persons Who are God, yet not "separateness". The Divine Being cannot be "divided". It is the greatest Mystery ever, and taught in the Holy Bible as Truth.
The good thing is you're digging. The bad thing is, it is clear you don't read Hebrew yet. You should take classes though, I think you would be good at it. I know you don't know because you said the verse says "ad ab." It doesn't, it says, "avi-ad" ( אֲבִיעַד ). That is the downside of using Strong's and BDB in eSword and other programs like it. The Hebrew is in it's root form in the dictionaries when it is generally in another form in the verses.
Anyway, in general, when the beit begins a word is carries the B sound, when within a word is sounds like a V. So as written, it is literally, "Father eternal," or "Father forever," or "Father of continuous existence," and so forth.
I won't say any more. I have already been banned on here once on this topic. It's a shame because I have a question I can ask I know you can't answer and maintain your current position.
But, this also isn't a big issue anyway. We are fallen humans who arrogantly believe they can define the being of the spirit that created us?
I am fine with that my friend. I don't use the same terms, I see it a little differently but we really are not in disagreement. In fact, I really believe it is unrealistic for fallen humans who have a 2000 +/- page book that contains VERY LITTLE on the being of the Creator, to all come to the same exact understanding of His being at this time. I think it is more important for us to allow each other to understand Him as we each do and respect that. There is too much division in our one body already.
Blessings.
Ken
You are right that I don't do Hebrew, but only Greek, and I know that I come short because I rely on sources that are not always reliable. I like to go back to the original as much as I possibly can, because the English looses much in translation.
However, what BDB says about the Hebrew for "father" is correct, as I have checked this elsewhere.
Of course... in the original. And I trust the copies we have but make sure to never take just one verse to make a case out of. Which might be why we have these copies... God's way of keeping us from being lazy... we have to verify and have multiple witnesses.Can I ask if you believe the 66 Books of the Holy Bible, to be the Inspired, Infallible Word of God, in the original autographs?
Of course... in the original. And I trust the copies we have but make sure to never take just one verse to make a case out of. Which might be why we have these copies... God's way of keeping us from being lazy... we have to verify and have multiple witnesses.
Now I will say I have and still do use extra-biblical books for context. Where the idea came from that the verse before and after is context is beyond me.
The Targumim, the Talmud, Josephus, etc. Basically as commentary but even more. For example, if a NT writer uses an idiomatic phrase or other abstract form of speech that is unique to Judea or the ancient near east and is lost to us by time and geography, then seeing the same used in other places helps me better grasp the intent. Or, perhaps there are cultural debates happening that are mentioned that we are unaware of. If we are unaware, then when we read we have to fill in the blank with what we understand. For example....can I ask in which way can these "extra-biblical books" shed any light on what the Inspired Word of God tells us? I assume that you use them as you would a commentary?
The Targumim, the Talmud, Josephus, etc. Basically as commentary but even more. For example, if a NT writer uses an idiomatic phrase or other abstract form of speech that is unique to Judea or the ancient near east and is lost to us by time and geography, then seeing the same used in other places helps me better grasp the intent. Or, perhaps there are cultural debates happening that are mentioned that we are unaware of. If we are unaware, then when we read we have to fill in the blank with what we understand. For example....
Luke 14:1 Now it happened, as He went into the house of one of the rulers of the Pharisees to eat bread on the Sabbath, that they watched Him closely.
Can you tell me much about this verse? Is there anything deeper that might help me understand the concept of things he might say or do while there? The answer is yes. You see, in that day there were two schools of Pharisaical thought. One was called Beit Hillel (School or House of Hillel) which is where Paul attended by the way. I know that because I know that Gamaliel was Hillel's grandson and that he taught at his grandfather's school. Beit Hillel was known for teaching "the Spirit of the law." Now the second school was known as Beit Shammai, and it was known for teaching "the letter of the law." By the way, the influences of these two schools and them being defined by teaching the spirit or letter of the law... is the basis for Paul's "spirit or letter" points throughout his letters, But I digress.....
Anyway... because of the understanding of what was taught in each of the two schools, we can know that Jesus was eating at Beit Shammai. How do I know? Because of how they tried to set him up...
Luke 14:2 And behold, there was a certain man before Him who had dropsy. (3) And Jesus, answering, spoke to the lawyers (Lawyers... not as in civil law, as in God's law) and Pharisees, saying, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?" (4) But they kept silent. And He took him and healed him, and let him go. (5) Then He answered them, saying, "Which of you, having a donkey or an ox that has fallen into a pit, will not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day?" (6) And they could not answer Him regarding these things.
At Beit Shammai it was taught that no work of ANY KIND would be done on Shabbat. But at Beit Hillel, doing "good" on Shabbat should be expected. So, messiah was at Beit Shammai, the House or School of the sect of Pharisees that received the brunt of all of his rebukes and admonishments. In fact, as a side note... the School of Shammai received ALL of the correction save for on the topic of divorce. When he disagrees with the Pharisees on that one, he is disagreeing with those from Beit Hillel.
So not to be overlooked... Jesus went into the school of Pharisees that resisted him the most "and ate with them." We can learn a lot from that.
Blessings.
Ken
No, they are just context fillers. We are... well, I am... a 52 year old man living in Kentucky reading in English. But those English words were penned in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek over 2000 years ago by Semites. The paradigm of them (their bias, their perspective) is simply different from mine because we were raised in different cultures. God inspired them to write but the fact that we have 4 gospels that are CLEARLY unique in form tells us that God inspired them but that He allowed them to 'retain their individuality.' As such, we need to understand a little of THAT perspective in order to better see the depths of their points.Indeed, I can see what you mean, as these works can shed some light on the Teachings of the Bible. But, as long as they do not add, or take away, or change what the Bible says. It won't be a good thing for all Christians to do this, as some could well be misled by things these works say.
I'm a little confused here.I posted these same scriptures and questions in another thread and people started talking about heresy. I would like for them to demonstrate how its heresy................Are you saying the scriptures i posted are heresy?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?