Jesus Christ Did Pre-Exist, but He also Began. Only the Father Has No Beginning (moved)

[Wgw]

Since when is taking a verse here and a verse there evil? All scriptures are inspired by God

Except presumably the verses one opts to arbitrarily reject or alter.

 

[cgaviria]

Except presumably the verses one opts to arbitrarily reject or alter.

Do you know what arbitrary means? Tell me your definition of arbitrary.

 

[Wgw]

Do you know what arbitrary means? Tell me your definition of arbitrary.

It can mean something unreasonable or unsupported, something capricious or whimsical, or a unilateral, absolutist decision, or any given value in mathematics. It is my opinion that your arbitrary rejection of Matthew 28:19 is arbitrary on account of being capricious, unwarranted, unjustified, and essentially, a unilateral whim.

 

[cgaviria]

It can mean something unreasonable or unsupported, something capricious or whimsical, or a unilateral, absolutist decision, or any given value in mathematics. It is my opinion that your arbitrary rejection of Matthew 28:19 is arbitrary on account of being capricious, unwarranted, unjustified, and essentially, a unilateral whim.

It means doing something impulsive. Like if I were to just randomly get up off my sofa and jump off my balcony. That is arbitrary. So in regards to my conclusions on the verses of the trinity, that is not arbitrary. I didn't just sit there one day and just choose to discard those verses. It was a topic I studied and gave much thought, and then I drew my conclusions. Arbitrary is not the right word for this.

 

[Wgw]

It means doing something impulsive. Like if I were to just randomly get up off my sofa and jump off my balcony. That is arbitrary. So in regards to my conclusions on the verses of the trinity, that is not arbitrary. I didn't just sit there one day and just choose to discard those verses. It was a topic I studied and gave much thought, and then I drew my conclusions. Arbitrary is not the right word for this.

It is arbitrary in the sense of being unilateral and capricious. It is, like all arbitrary decisions, informed by a personal desire; it does not take into account scholarly evidence or other external considerations. Thus, arbitrary.

 

[cgaviria]

It is arbitrary in the sense of being unilateral and capricious. It is, like all arbitrary decisions, informed by a personal desire; it does not take into account scholarly evidence or other external considerations. Thus, arbitrary.

Neither is it any of those two things. Just as you choose to believe what you believe based on your own reasonings, so do I have my own reasonings on why I believe thus. It is neither capricious nor arbitrary nor unilateral. So again, poor choice of word, to call my choice as "arbitrary". Were you there when I deliberated concerning my choice? No. Does it disagree with what you believe? Yes. Do you find your own evidences stronger than mine? Apparently. But regardless of your own opinion and your own conclusions, does this automatically indicate that everyone in the world opposing your view does so arbitrarily? No, unless you know someone personally for certain that chose to believe impulsively without thinking. This is why I asked if you even knew what "arbitrary" meant, because it seemed more as if you were just trying to use an interesting word in a scenario that doesn't even correspond with the meaning of the word, as if you even knew me to even know it was an arbitrary decision, in spite of evidences I brought forth already indicating otherwise.

 

[Wgw]

Neither is it any of those two things. Just as you choose to believe what you believe based on your own reasonings, so do I have my own reasonings on why I believe thus. It is neither capricious nor arbitrary nor unilateral. So again, poor choice of word, to call my choice as "arbitrary". Were you there when I deliberated concerning my choice? No. Does it disagree with what you believe? Yes. Do you find your own evidences stronger than mine? Apparently. But regardless of your own opinion and your own conclusions, does this automatically indicate that everyone in the world opposing your view does so arbitrarily? No, unless you know someone personally for certain that chose to believe impulsively without thinking. This is why I asked if you even knew what "arbitrary" meant, because it seemed more as if you were just trying to use an interesting word in a scenario that doesn't even correspond with the meaning of the word, as if you even knew me to even know it was an arbitrary decision, in spite of evidences I brought forth already indicating otherwise.

You brought forward no relevant evidence. Sorry, but a 14th century Hebraic manuscript translation is not evidence, nor is a paraphrase in Eusebius. Particularly in light of the fact that the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, complete 4th century Bibles believed by many to have been in whole or in part the work of the effort led by Eusebius to produce bibles for Constantinople, have the verse. There is no credible manuscript evidence that refutes Matthew 28:19. Whereas Mark 16:9-16, which you attempted to use to refute Matthew 28:19, is credibly disputed and regarded by many, if not most, scholars, as spurious.

 

[cgaviria]

You brought forward no relevant evidence. Sorry, but a 14th century Hebraic manuscript translation is not evidence, nor is a paraphrase in Eusebius. Particularly in light of the fact that the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, complete 4th century Bibles believed by many to have been in whole or in part the work of the effort led by Eusebius to produce bibles for Constantinople, have the verse. There is no credible manuscript evidence that refutes Matthew 28:19. Whereas Mark 16:9-16, which you attempted to use to refute Matthew 28:19, is credibly disputed and regarded by many, if not most, scholars, as spurious.

How old are you buddy? Seriously. First your usage of "arbitrary" clearly not knowing what it even means in reference to our earlier discussion on the matter at hand, and now no "relevant" evidence? The evidence is relevant, it wouldn't be relevant if I brought forth evidence about how my car is black or any other irrelevant random thing, that's what relevance means, so I did bring forth reasonings and evidences relevant to the matter. You're usage of words cracks me up, its like you don't even know what you're saying, just putting words together not even knowing what you're saying. lol.

 

[Wgw]

How old are you buddy? Seriously. First your usage of "arbitrary" clearly not knowing what it even means in reference to our earlier discussion on the matter at hand, and now no "relevant" evidence? The evidence is relevant, it wouldn't be relevant if I brought forth evidence about how my car is black or any other irrelevant random thing, that's what relevance means, so I did bring forth reasonings and evidences relevant to the matter. You're usage of words cracks me up, its like you don't even know what you're saying, just putting words together not even knowing what you're saying. lol.

The "evidence" is in fact entirely lacking in relevance. Indeed, I reject that it is even "evidence." You quote Eusebius of Caesarea; well, I might be rather impressed by that, except our conversations suggest a general lack of familiarity with what Eusebius wrote, so I suspect this came from a tract, probably of Oneness Pentecostal origin. It is irrelevant however, as it was not uncommon for Patriatic fogures to paraphrase the Bible, and we furthermore have extant manuscripts of Matthew from the age of Eusebius that have Matthew 28:19; including two very possibly produced under the direct supervision of Eusebius himself.

You then refer to the Shem Tov manuscript, which could not be any more devoid of relevance to the question of the authenticity of Matthew 28:19. This is a fourteenth century manuscript that consists largely of a polemic against Christianity; it is a translation into rabinnical Hebrew and is inherently suspect.

Textual criticism is rather more interested in fourth century manuscripts in the original Koine Greek, than it is in fourteenth century translations.

 

[brocke]

Since when is taking a verse here and a verse there evil? All scriptures are inspired by God, and different verses give different insights on certain matters. If there are ten verses on subject, must I only study one verse or should I study and use all ten? Or is it that you don't like that I have many verses to support what I am saying? I can even quote all the verses I brought forth without my spiel and they still say the same thing, it's just that you refuse to accept the truth of the word of God, that's what it really boils down to. I have not come up with anything on my own, I have quoted scripture for each thing I have stated.

I never said what you are doing was evil. I said it was bad biblical scholarship as it is eisegesis not exegesis.

You take a sentence or verse to support your position. But you ignore how that passage you quote is used in its context both in the book it is from and in the scripture as a whole. You also are contradicting centuries of long established theology by claiming that Jesus Christ was created and that we can be divine.

But as I said earlier its okay. You are a Mormon for what you are stating is Mormon Theology not Christian Orthodox Theology. That is why this the controversial theology forum.

Yes scripture is inspired by God and as Paul says, "All scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work." (1 Timothy 3:16-17 NSRV) But you are making conclusions that are wrong. Claiming that you have a revelation from the Holy Spirit that lets you see the truth and I don't - well a lot of people who have created cults have made that sort of accusation about their critics.

You are on very dangerous ground and you are going against long traditional accepted theology. You have come of this on your own. So I really question your theology on this subject.

Were is your authority to be postulating this theology and teaching it? In other words what is your Apostolic succession? Who sent you forth and are you accountable to?

 

[cgaviria]

I never said what you are doing was evil. I said it was bad biblical scholarship as it is eisegesis not exegesis.

You take a sentence or verse to support your position. But you ignore how that passage you quote is used in its context both in the book it is from and in the scripture as a whole. You also are contradicting centuries of long established theology by claiming that Jesus Christ was created and that we can be divine.

But as I said earlier its okay. You are a Mormon for what you are stating is Mormon Theology not Christian Orthodox Theology. That is why this the controversial theology forum.

Yes scripture is inspired by God and as Paul says, "All scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work." (1 Timothy 3:16-17 NSRV) But you are making conclusions that are wrong. Claiming that you have a revelation from the Holy Spirit that lets you see the truth and I don't - well a lot of people who have created cults have made that sort of accusation about their critics.

You are on very dangerous ground and you are going against long traditional accepted theology. You have come of this on your own. So I really question your theology on this subject.

Were is your authority to be postulating this theology and teaching it? In other words what is your Apostolic succession? Who sent you forth and are you accountable to?

I don't really concern myself with such things like "scholarshiply" ways of studying scripture, if a scripture says, "do not steal", must I read the entire chapter to understand its meaning? Or should I take this scripture to mean, stealing is a sin? I have brought forth scriptures that speak for themselves, as I have said, I need not even write my spiel concerning the scriptures I brought forth because they speak for themselves about what I'm telling you. Yes I understand what I am saying is not widely accepted by those who profess Jesus, but since when has real truth ever been a popular thing?

 

[brocke]

I don't really concern myself with such things like "scholarshiply" ways of studying scripture, if a scripture says, "do not steal", must I read the entire chapter to understand its meaning? Or should I take this scripture to mean, stealing is a sin? I have brought forth scriptures that speak for themselves, as I have said, I need not even write my spiel concerning the scriptures I brought forth because they speak for themselves about what I'm telling you. Yes I understand what I am saying is not widely accepted by those who profess Jesus, but since when has real truth ever been a popular thing?

And your lack of concern for "scholarshiply" ways is why you are in heresy. You continue to claim that you have seen the truth in scripture and that it is self-evident. But you are wrong and you have decided anyone that disagrees with you is not of God as they do not possess the Holy Spirit to see the truth that you see. So you are in dangerous ground as you have placed yourself above other authority and are not accountable to others. This is how cults begin.

I sincerely hold you in my prayers cgaviria. For the evil one is misleading you and I sincerely fear what you may do and where you may go with this teaching you are proposing.

 

[cgaviria]

And your lack of concern for "scholarshiply" ways is why you are in heresy. You continue to claim that you have seen the truth in scripture and that it is self-evident. But you are wrong and you have decided anyone that disagrees with you is not of God as they do not possess the Holy Spirit to see the truth that you see. So you are in dangerous ground as you have placed yourself above other authority and are not accountable to others. This is how cults begin.

I sincerely hold you in my prayers cgaviria. For the evil one is misleading you and I sincerely fear what you may do and where you may go with this teaching you are proposing.

I don't care what the scholars have to say, I care what the scriptures have to say. Whether they turn left or right, it doesn't change what the scriptures say. Most of the world is swayed by false teaching, and I would instead warn you to come out of their heresies, because it is they that do not uphold the entire truth of the scriptures. I have presented scriptures to you, take them or leave them if you wish. All things will eventually come to the light.

 

[cgaviria]

I have made edits to this original thread for anyone wishing to reread.

 

[brocke]

I don't care what the scholars have to say, I care what the scriptures have to say. Whether they turn left or right, it doesn't change what the scriptures say. Most of the world is swayed by false teaching, and I would instead warn you to come out of their heresies, because it is they that do not uphold the entire truth of the scriptures. I have presented scriptures to you, take them or leave them if you wish. All things will eventually come to the light.

Okay if you say so guess I am the one taken into the evil teachings. I guess there comes a time you really have to let someone go off into the errors of their ways. Just let me know when you finally realize you are a Mormon.

 

[FanthatSpark]

Okay if you say so guess I am the one taken into the evil teachings. I guess there comes a time you really have to let someone go off into the errors of their ways. Just let me know when you finally realize you are a Mormon.

brocke,

We do not know each other so know the following is in "think upon this with God" implied in meekness to lose all taught ways for a moment and apply this verse Hebrews 4:12 . This is not a convince you dialog. This is a take it before God and weigh it for truth. Not your truth which means one has an opinion ...

What is knowledge in duality connected to this Matthew 16:18 where a gate of hell is mankind,
myself included ? Mankind can not judge itself or we get this heresy in judgment of two separate views from two separate gates of hell for there is pride in knowledge. However, we do it (judge) and there lies our nature in duality. We judge that which never was judged... darkness. The following is a reiteration of our duality posted earlier. Because God judged the light as good... We alone put the default in Gods silence of the dark. Source scripture ( Genesis 1:2-4 John 8:11 concentration on "neither do I condemn you") of mankinds duality of self placed default of darkness. Like but not limited too , Evil, sin, heresy, etc... Just something to ponder friends .