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.
If we look at the NT text, there are places where it seems to quote the LXX and others which seem to favour the MT. This is not a black and white question.
King James put his own spin on that passage in Isaiah.
The Septuagint.
Isaiah 9:6 "For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him."
7 "His government shall be great, and of his peace there is no end: it shall be upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to support it with judgment and with righteousness, from henceforth and forever. The seal of the Lord of hosts shall perform this."
Jews memorized Scripture so who could say which one they memorized it from? Jews were scattered and many of them only spoke the Koine Greek of the Septuagint when it was translated. I trust the Septuagint and use it for all my OT studies.
In light of my previous post, I believe that those referred to in Matthew 7 are those of the 'greatest' number with the 'most' influence. Not those of the least numbers with the least ability to offer influence on others.
That in an of itself would point to the 'churches' with the most members, not the one's with the 'least' members.
And the 'falling away' is a term used 'in general'. As in 'the majority' will end up 'falling away'.
That would indicate that the 'churches' with the most influence would be the ones being in reference. And isn't it odd that those 'churches' with the most influence are often the ones that are most verbal about the 'wonderful things' they are doing in the 'name of Christ'?
Yet history plainly illustrates that these same 'Churches' have contained corruption from the inside out in a manner equal to the institutions of the rest of 'this world'. An indication that these 'Churches' are no less 'worldly' than the 'world' in general.
They 'pretend' to be Holy, but in truth, the clergy are often as ruthless and greedy and contrary to the truth as the rest of 'this world'.
Blessings,
MEC
Well, so do the Eastern Orthodox, but we manage to use the LXX without losing our faith in the Holy Trinity.
I don't know anything about various translations, but it's interesting you picked up on that quote only from everything I said.
Jesus Christ is indeed God, because he is made God by God. No different than how Moses was made God by God,
Yet Jesus Christ is the highest of all created beings, therefore he is higher God than even Moses.
I just quoted the scripture! Are you people really that blind that you cannot see that the scripture states it?
This scripture demonstrates that God does gives authority, in this case to Moses, thus conveying the same type of authority he gave Jesus Christ to be God, and a much higher authority than Moses, yet the Father is the one true God who gives authority. Tada. Read and learn.
Yet this is not offered to us in the Bible. This is what you imagine to exist.
All that is offered is that 'in the beginning'. Certainly you are not implying that God has a 'beginning'?
So we 'know' that 'things' existed before 'in the beginning'. That means that 'in the beginning' is a reference to those things that pertain to 'use': who the Bible was written to. In essence, the words could be offered thus: "In the beginning of the things that pertain to man". For God has 'no beginning'. And we know that there were many 'things' before those 'things' that pertain to us. God wasn't floating in a void twiddling His fingers for eternity. Surely you offer no such concept.
So what you have offered is pretty much 'false understanding' so far as 'in the beginning' or 'things' that were created in that 'beginning'.
Christ refers to Himself as: "The beginning of the creation of God". Now how do you recommend we accept or deny these words? If we accept them, then show us how Christ 'as God' was the 'beginning of the creation of God'. If you can't, then it's obvious that you don't really understand what you so often 'act' like you do.
I believe that the words couldn't have been offered more simply. They are so simple a child can understand them. "The beginning of the creation of God" simply implies that Christ was created FIRST in the beginning of the 'creation of God'.
And we have other scripture that backs up His claim: The 'firstborn' of every creature'. A plain and simple piece of understanding offering that before any other 'creature' was formed, Christ was formed first.
And then there is the word 'made'. As in:
Acts 2:36
Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
Hmmm................. "God hath MADE Jesus both 'Lord' and "Christ". Wow. Pretty profound ain't it? God made Jesus both 'Lord' and "Christ". This plainly shows that Jesus Christ didn't 'make Himself' anything. It was accomplished by His Father: God.
Just like the place that He now sits: "At the right hand of God".
What your 'churches' have erred in teaching you is obvious to any that have actually read the Bible without such 'preconceived notions'.
If there is a 'Jesus' that is God, it is not the same God that the Hebrews/Jews followed and worshiped. For 'that God' is singular, uncompounded, without equal.
And God revealed Himself in such a manner to distinguish Himself from all the other 'multi part' Gods that the rest of the world was worshiping. Including the Greeks and Romans previous to their introduction to Christ.
The apostles never taught Jesus to be God. And Jesus never revealed Himself to the apostles as God. Jesus referred to God as His Father. To His Father as God. And He stated without confusion that the Father is greater than the Son. Even discussed that all He did was for the glory of His Father: God.
Once when called 'Good Master', he rebuked the man in offering that 'there is only one that is good and that is God'. So He wouldn't even allow men to call Him 'good' while dwelling in the flesh.
And when He offered 'how are we to pray', "Our Father who art in heaven.......................... thy will be done on Earth as it is in heaven.
And then there are the words that utterly destroy any possibility of 'trinity': "My God, my God, why hath thou forsaken me?" He is not praying to a 'third person of the trinity: the Father', He states clearly who He is praying to: God, who is His Father as well as ours.
And then Paul makes it perfectly clear in almost every letter he wrote:
Ephesians 1King James Version (KJV)
1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:
2 Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
How much clearer could it be offered?
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ
It's kind of hard to understand how these words are so difficult for some to accept.
But I understand this: If one is insistent upon worshiping Christ 'as God', then it is imperative that one 'make' Christ God.
I do not worship Christ 'as God'. I worship 'only God as God'. But I am sure that the Son is worthy of our worship as well. But not as the Father, but as the Son. The Son is certainly worthy of our worship.
But what if? What if Christ is 'not God'? Then that would mean that the 'Christ' that is being worshiped 'as God' is a 'false Christ'. For we are to worship nothing as God but God Himself. And the only way that we are capable of worshiping the Son is 'as The Son'. If we worship anything as God that is not God, then we are worshiping a 'false God'.
Not my words. These are about as clearly outlined in the Bible as they could be. Yet so many find the means to ignore all that doesn't 'fit' what they 'want' to believe.
There is no indication that the Word referred to in John was anything but the Word of God until the Word became flesh. It was only then that the Word could be considered to be Christ. And even then He plainly states that the words He offered were 'not His own' but given Him by the Father. So in essence, calling Christ the Word is figurative. He is not nor has He ever been the "literal" Word of God. If so, show it. You can't. But I 'can' show that while Christ was living in the flesh on this world a voice from Heaven was heard. By numerous different people. And that voice 'was' the Word of God. Not figurative or symbolic, but the 'literal Word of God'.
Blessings,
MEC
Moses was a God!!!! lol Where did you get that from? A Chinese fortune cookie?
And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. (Exodus 7:1 [KJV])
Are you blind,
Well, that would not be the Orthodox Church. Orthodox priests are holier than angels, for unlike angels, they are allowed to look upon our Lord in the Eucharist. If one encounters an angel and an Orthodox priest, one should greet the priest first. Indeed, Orthodox hagiography records many instances of angels assisting our priests during the Divine Liturgy.
There are also numerous reports of bilocation, involving among others St. John Maximovitch. There was also recently a most interesting incident in Romania in which a deceased saint from Mount Athos apparently celebrated the liturgy in a remote village.
Are you blind,
Moses was not a God!!!! There is only one God!! Are you mad!! God was just showing Pharaoh how powerful Moses was with 'God' at his side!
Moses was not a God!!!
I can't agree that these words 'make' Moses 'a God'. It speaks of perception, not a literal transformation.
It states that TO PHARAOH yet will be 'a god'. It does not state that 'You will be a God'. So it may as well have said 'to Pharaoh you will be 'like' a god'. But this doesn't make Moses 'a God'.
Blessings,
MEC
God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground." (Genesis 1:28 [NIV])
for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. (Galatians 2:6 [ESV])
To the one who is victorious and does my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations-- (Revelation 2:6 [NIV])
Moses was indeed a god, but not because he is literally a god like the Father is God, as not even Jesus Christ is literally equal to God the Father, but because this scripture conveys the authority God gives, and thus Moses was considered a god because of this authority granted to him. This same type of authority God gave to Moses is similar to the authority God gave to Jesus Christ.
Moses was indeed a god, but not because he is literally a god like the Father is God, as not even Jesus Christ is literally equal to God the Father, but because this scripture conveys the authority God gives, and thus Moses was considered a god because of this authority granted to him. This same type of authority God gave to Moses is similar to the authority God gave to Jesus Christ.
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?