| Author | Message | ||
     easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1722 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 66.245.201.172 |
In the Four Spiritual Laws sections state: "We must individually RECEIVE Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord; then we can know and experience God's love and plan for our life. When we Receive Christ, we experience a New Birth. (John 3:1-8). Receiving Christ involves turnibng to God from self (repentance) and trusting Christ to come into our lives to forgive our sins and to make us the kind of people that He wants us to be. Just to agree intellectually that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that He died on the cross for our sins is not enough. Nor is it enough to have an emotional experience. We receive Jesus Christ by faith, as an act of the will." - The Four Spiritual Laws Steps to Peace with God in the "Billy Graham Christian Worker's Handbook" has the following: "*To receive Christ you need to do four things: 1. ADMIT your spiritual need. "I am a sinner." 2. REPENT and be willing to turn from your sin. 3. BELIEVE that Jesus Chrisdt died for you on the cross. 4. RECEIVE, through prayer, Jesus Christ into your heart and life." I have given the Scripture Titus 3:8-11 on FACT.net as a reason not to debate with people. There are several reasons that I think are Scripturally solid to show my problems with some people here. 1. The Dispensationalist have stated on this website that Repentance is not necessary for salvation. For me, all through Scriptures Repentance is necssary for salvation. Head knowledge of Scripture is not enough to save us. We need the New Birth, be Born Again, Repent of our sins in order to be saved. It is more than head knowledge, it must be a change in the heart. 2. The Dispensationalist have stated that all the "sign gifts" have ceased in 70 AD. From my point of view the greatest gift is receiving indwelling power of the Holy Spirit when one receives Jesus Christ. In saying this, from my point of view they are stating that the Holy Spirit cannot be received. 3. The Dispensationalist says all "sign gifts" have ceased in 70 AD, and this discredits the last 2,000 years of Church history. This does not seem intellectually feasible to reject all of the Sign, and Miracles recorded in the past 2,000 years. Seems nuts to me. Based upon the Biblical viewpoint regarding REPENTANCE, and the accepted Christian Communities accepted idea of REPENTANCE being a necessary part of salvation I can have no debate, or dealings with a person that does not believe so. Titus 3:8-11 directs me not to engage with anyone that has the above viewpoints. I am stating that accepted Christian doctrine by the Body of Christ, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestantism - all state that REPENTANCE is needed in order to be saved, and there are many people here that reject this elemental part of Salvation. | ||
| easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1723 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 66.245.201.17 |
I am not talking about all Dispensationalist either. John M., or Wyoming who occasionally post are Dispensationalist and write and believe in True Repentance, and know the concept of LORDSHIP to the Lord Jesus Christ. I'm really asking spiritual peoples that are P/C why they even bother talking about spiritual things, such as the Baptism with the Holy Spirit, the Charismata sign gifts in 1 Corinthians 12-14 with people who do not believe in True Repentance, or another one that can't get the facts straight regarding history, and distorts the facts...easily provable, (I can't figure out why they don't check the facts before they post - I guess they are lazy...or just don't care about clear false accusations against their enemies)? I'm asking people who believe in spiritual gifts, for example Xman, (sounds like a Pastor to me), who is debating currently why they are debating with people who have stated the following that I can easily cut and paste statements, not out of context either, such as: * Regarding 1 Cor. 13, -Both "Born Again" and P/C churches don't have love, therefore their teaching are false. * I haven't stepped into a church in 30 years. * The Lordship in Romans 10:9 isn't necessary for salvation, just believe in John 3:16. * Admits that he likes a guy that is a cult according to most Christians, it is one group I have never studied. * States that the only reason to go to church is to get more head knowledge of the Bible. * States that a TV program of church is the same as going to a church. * Uses terminology and name calling that is insulting to people, and in my opinion I feel HATRED from the person. Not the 1 Cor. 13:1 of love that he says "Born Again" and P/C churches do not have. This isn't a spiritual person to me. Why debate about spiritual things with a person that states the above? How is a person that concentrates on the mind going to understand spiritual things? What is the point? Why not start with, "The Four Spiritual Laws", by Bill Bright? | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 826 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.7.196.227 |
easeltine: Some good points there, but I personally don't know how closely watchman or tatm follow those things or hold to those statements. I keep my discussion on the topic at hand and don't go through the hassel unless forced, of digging up past statements. I'll just let them make them again. I have several reasons for discussing. First, I want to take advantage of this opportunity to hear the other side's arguments and evidence because I've not encountered anyone very well able to present that previously. Second, it helps me either establish what I believe afresh (since I haven't revisited this stuff in years), which is timely for me at this time in my life, or discard anything I've held on to that is incorrect. Finally, maybe someone will learn that not all tongue talkers are the same, believe the same, or practice tongues the same, and that the errors of history or the present do not negate an important spiritual "gift". There are other non participants who occasionally read, and I consider them also. So far, no discussion has progressed very far anyway. Watchman seems much more organized than tatm and perhaps that discussion will go better. If it peters out, no harm. That's typical in my experience here. | ||
| easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1724 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 66.245.201.90 |
Thank you for your explanation Xman. The experience I have had with them is frustrating, it's more than just their arguments, it's their attitudes. I really feel the Titus 3:8-11 is a Scripture for me personally against debating these topics with them. | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 829 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.7.196.227 |
I can certainly relate to your frustration, and I agree it's the attitude, not the substance. Some are very insulting and quite arrogant in their presentation and it makes it difficult. On the internet, where I can measure my response a bit its easy to be "patient", but I doubt I could carry these discussions as civilly in real life with some folks. | ||
| easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1726 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 66.245.201.228 |
xman3, TATM's personal beliefs are summarized on: http:/members.boardhost.com/cults This person is really sold on this Dispensationalist/Cessationist ideas. They really should read We've Been Robbed by Wilfred Meloon, or get one of Jack Deere's book, "Surprised By the Power of the Spirit." | ||
| belong2jesus Intermediate Member Username: belong2jesus Post Number: 336 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 116.68.67.223 |
Dear Erich, It's been such a long time...I've been waiting for your testimony for such a long time - I think more than 2 years =). I just randomly visited this and saw that you had posted something. Do e-mail me when you get time. Did you visit our site: TWJ Ministries Blessings | ||
| easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1727 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 66.245.201.228 |
Ok Sid! I have not posted here except recently. Same old Dispensationalist denying the power of the Holy Spirit. I know that where you come from nobody has problems believing in the supernatural. Only in intellectual America do they not have an understanding that Jeus Christ is still working in Signs and Wonders today. | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3679 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
easeltine, More bastardization of scripture -
This is the classic 'born again' theory proffered by some churches as scriptural truth. These churches take the bastardized interpretation of these scriptures and make a religion out of it. Of course, there is little truth in your interpretation. Let's get the proper interpretation out there for the viewer's edification. The entire 'born again' religion is a house of cards. It is based upon a single word, 'again', in the English rendering of the KJV [John 3:3]. Due to lack of scholarship, those in this christian religion don't bother to verify the true meaning of the English-rendered 'again' in the manuscripts. A quick check of Strong's Concordance for 'again' yields - G509 an'-o-then From G507; from above; by analogy from the first; by implication anew: - from above, again, from the beginning (very first), the top. As one can see, the literal meaning is 'from above'. This is the proper interpretation and rendering in this case for reasons that I will explain in a bit. However, first, we should demonstrate why the implied meaning of 'anew' is not applicable. It sets a different standard for salvation then John 3:16, which only requires belief [confirmed by Christ himself as He indicated the malefactor on the cross was saved]. If the 'born again' in John 3:3 meant 'born anew', John would be contraticting himself in the same Chapter of his own inspired book in 3:16. Christ, Himself, explained it in verse 13 - Joh 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. Jesus informs us that, in order to go to heaven, even He, whom existed before [like everyone else] in spiritual body, had to be born in the flesh in order to go to heaven. Jesus explained it well in verses 5-6. Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Yes, we have two bodies -- one spiritual and one flesh. See 2 Cor. 15. So, when one is born, we are born of the water bag in our mother's womb. This is the flesh body. The spiritual body is the soul that God places in each baby at conception. Hence, the term 'born again' is a literal interpretation that should have been rendered - Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God. It simply means that those spiritual bodies that refuse to be born into flesh man [fallen angels] cannot see heaven. The fallen angels will perish along with Satan in the Lake of Fire. Any other angels that refuse will also perish. | ||
| termin8d Advanced Member Username: termin8d Post Number: 772 Registered: 7-2005 Posted From: 60.234.129.189 |
Watchman, you said that the spiritual body is the soul. Am I correct in assuming that you believe that man is bipartite? I believe that the human spirit is distinct from the soul. (1 thes 5:23) | ||
| easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1728 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 66.245.201.231 |
For the record - "More bastardization of scripture - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: "We must individually RECEIVE Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord; then we can know and experience God's love and plan for our life. When we Receive Christ, we experience a New Birth. (John 3:1-8). *** This is the classic 'born again' theory proffered by some churches as scriptural truth. These churches take the bastardized interpretation of these scriptures and make a religion out of it. Of course, there is little truth in your interpretation." THIS IS NOT MY INTERPRETATION! I AM QUOTING DIRECTLY FOR THE FOLLOWING SOURCE! This is a direct quote from Handbook of Today's Religions by Josh McDowell & Don Stewart 1983 by Campus Crusade for Christ exactly from The Four Spiritual Laws. It's a classic Christian book on Cults and False Religions! | ||
| easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1729 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 66.245.201.231 |
Interesting interpretation and teachings Watchman. | ||
| easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1730 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 66.245.201.231 |
I recognize it takes guts to post teachings that most of Orthodox Christianity would say is Cultish. | ||
| the_apostolic_truth_ministries Advanced Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 977 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 71.229.6.252 |
Mr. Easeltine: Quoting: "TATM's personal beliefs are summarized on: http:/members.boardhost.com/cults End quote. You will find every one of those post on this board, no great secret there. Mr. Termin8d: Tri - Bi? Great argument for theologians with nothing to do. There are as many scripture supporting tri as there are supporting bi. Your position is no better than the opposition's position. | ||
| the_apostolic_truth_ministries Advanced Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 978 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 71.229.6.252 |
Dispensationalist? Forgive me for rotflmao. Dispensationalist == Finnis Jennings Dake, author of the pentecostal Bible, describes himself as dispensational. hehehehehhehehehehehehe | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3680 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
easeltine,
I did not see you cite your source. Nor did I see you disagree with the points therein. I think it was fair to assume that those are your beliefs as well. If not, then you still have not clarified your beliefs. It really is not necessary to copy/paste sections of other men's work unless you agree with them. Nonetheless, that interpretation at the top of the thread is in error as I demonstrated in my prior post. | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3681 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
termin8d,
Not really -- I was not very clear in my prior post since the subject you broach is different from the topic that I was responding to. My belief is that the spirit {Greek - pneuma) is nothing other than the spiritual body referenced in John 3, 2 Cor. 15, and many other places. In essence, spiritual bodies are angels. They exist in a dimension not visible to flesh man. God knows them well before he selects them to go into the zygote of flesh mankind. The soul is the intellect of the spiritual body shared in common with the flesh body. It goes with the spiritual body, back to God for preliminary judgment [Luke 16], upon death of the flesh. | ||
| termin8d Advanced Member Username: termin8d Post Number: 773 Registered: 7-2005 Posted From: 60.234.129.189 |
Are you saying we have angels inside us? I find your teachings to be very unusual. | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 831 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.7.204.167 |
Watchman: What exactly is the "mechanism" for salvation. How does one become a Christian and what exactly happens when they do? I'm not in the least ashamed to say I believe that one must be born again, born from above, saved, or whatever anyone wants to call it. That verse is often used, but it is peposterous to think that our theology is based on one verse. It's far more complex than that, and frankly, it doesn't matter what that words special meaning is in light of the whole of scripture. There is so much wrong in what you are saying, and it is so close to Shepherd's Chapel's aberrant teachings that I won't start something that will get out of hand, but those 4 points up top are actually a very minimalistic approach to salvation. Most churches require a bit more than that out of their leadership. I believe all 4 of them, though I am taking them at face value rather than researching them any further to see if they really say what they say. | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3684 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
termin8d,
Spiritual bodies and angels are one and the same. Flesh man was created in their image to house them [Gen. 1:26]. | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3685 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
xman3,
The fact that you are not ashamed to state that you are 'born again' has no bearing on the fact that the 'born again' theology of some churches is unbiblical as I proved in my post above. I am not sure what you mean by 'mechanism'. One either believes or doesn't believe, as John 3:16 states the basis for salvation. I'm sorry to hear that you believe in the extra-biblical means for salvation [4 points at the top of the thread]. If must keep you folks busy deciding whom qualifies and whom does not qualify for salvation. I think that the confusion for many comes from the false concept of 'once saved, always saved'. With this false concept implanted in their minds, the tendency is to write many other conditions into salvation that don't exist in order to judge our fellow mankind. The fact is that there is only one unforgiveable sin [which cannot have possibly been committed yet], and it is not divorce, adultery, murder etc. However, an abundance of unrepented sin can certainly cause one to lose their salvation. | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 834 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.7.204.167 |
The fact I'm not ashamed to admit that isn't intended to address theology. It's addressing the fact that some say your views are interesting or bold as you "boldly" tell us we are wrong, and I say they are full of baloney and I'm not going to tip-toe around it. Yes, we must believe. What I am interested in is what exactly happens then. Seems you say that humans have relations and God puts an angels spirit or an angel or a spirit, which are all the same to you, into that human. Apparently this is a sinful angel spirit,or do they even need to be saved? Is there a moment when one receives Christ and is saved or not? The terminology "born again" is irrelevant to me. It's only in there once or twice anyway. There's much said concerning salvation, repentance, faith, and humility though, and all are part of the process. James said the demons believe and shudder. So what if someone merely believes. That's not enough, but if you pick only a few choice verses to "prove" your point it can certainly seem like all you have to is "believe". I'll grant you we are saved by grace through faith. Repentance doesn't save us, but it stands to reason that one who believes will presumably admit they are a sinner, and will repent. If they don't, then I doubt they were serious about it, and frankly, aside from an admission they were a sinner, they would have no need for salvation. It seems odd you would say that an abundance of unrepentant sin will cause one to lose his salvation, but you quibble with repentance for salvation. More than odd. It makes no sense. | ||
| easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1731 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 66.245.201.80 |
Watchman, Yes, I agree with the interpretation I gave. I wanted to make it very clear that here and in other posts you have used the terms: "More bastardization of scripture -" "These churches take the bastardized interpretation of these scriptures and make a religion out of it." "Of course, there is little truth in your interpretation." "Due to lack of scholarship..." When you have used these terms the most they are not my private interpretations, most of the time they are direct quotes from, men like R.A. Torrey, D.L. Moody, Josh McDowell, Charles Ryrie, Bill Bright etc. To really understand what I am trying to tell you take your statement, "Due to lack of scholarship..." and do an Internet Research on the author of Handbook of Today's Religion, and the statement that you are attacking, Josh McDowell. Your ideas are the ones outside of "Orthodox Christianity" - meaning the three Branches of Christianity - Roman Catholicism, Orthodox, and Protestantism | ||
| termin8d Advanced Member Username: termin8d Post Number: 774 Registered: 7-2005 Posted From: 60.234.129.189 |
Watchman: Wrong. Man was created in God's image to receive God, not angels. | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3687 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
xman3, Your 'born again' belief either is or is not biblical -- it is that simple. As I demonstrated from the Word of God, it is not. So, please don't act like it is me "boldly" telling you it is wrong -- I am simply rightly dividing the Word of Truth and sharing that truth with you and the other viewers.
I don't understand what you are asking -- John 3:16 clearly states that those whom believe shall have eternal life.
I am not sure what you mean by 'receives Christ'. However, the malefactor crucified next to Christ was saved upon his belief only. Abraham was saved only upon his belief that the son of God would come. So, when you write, "So what if someone merely believes. That's not enough", you do err. My anecdotal evidence suggests that many churches use their extra-biblical recipe for salvation as a means to judge their fellow man. Those that don't follow their recipe are declared 'unsaved', thereby substituting their own judgment for God's judgment. If one allows the Bible to be one's theology, then, by way of salvation by belief only, we leave judgment up to God as to whether one remains in good standing throughout life. Yes, repentance and forgiveness is the blessing of Christ's sacrifice for us. Yes, good works make up for a multitude of sins. Yes, baptism is a wonderful declaration. But, only God knows what is one's heart at death in the flesh. For instance, all those that maintain 'rapture' as their belief system, believe that Christ was God's begotten son, are baptized, repent, forgive others, and even do all the extra-biblical requirements that you folks add to salvation, and are alive at the end, will not be saved here in the flesh. Through false doctrine, they believe they will be 'raptured' away, and thereby, are duped by Satan. They end up worshipping Satan and are not the virgin bride of Christ upon Christ's return. Then, there will be those saved in the Lord's Day, when Jesus no longer plays the role of the Messiah. So, let's leave salvation to God and try to understand and square the scriptures. | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3688 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
termin8d,
Obviously, you have never studied the Hebrew. Let's look at it so that you and the viewers can be edified. Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. Here, we have God speaking to someone and includes Himself -- like a mom might speak to her kids by saying, "Let us make cookies". So, the questions begs of all of us to discern whom is meant by "us" and "our". The answer is given by the definition of 'God' in the superlative sense. It is given in Strong's - H430 el-o-heem' Plural of H433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: - angels, X exceeding, God (gods) (-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty. The proper interpretation of the "us" and "our" in Gen. 1:26 is 'God and the angels'. Of course, Christ was made in the image of God thru Mary. Mankind was made in the image of the angels. Hope this helps you out. | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3689 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
easeltine,
Obviously, you are the authority on man's works. I will stick to rightly dividing the Word of Truth. Hence, to the extent that the works you reference differ with the rightly divided Word of Truth that I presented here, those work and those men, of course, are in error. See 2 Tim. 3:16. | ||
| termin8d Advanced Member Username: termin8d Post Number: 775 Registered: 7-2005 Posted From: 60.234.129.189 |
watchman: Your interpretation would mean that God and the angels created man and yet the bible says that God alone creates. | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3691 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
termin8d,
No. See Gen. 1:27 - Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. God spoke to the angels in verse 26 and created mankind in verse 27. | ||
| easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1734 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 66.245.201.57 |
Watchman, His point is that the Scripture says, "Let us make man..." in 1:26 He is stating that it says the "us" is making or creating, therefore we as Christians believe that it is referencing the Lord God Jesus Christ, since angels can't create, so they can't be the "us" that is making or creating in the verse. | ||
| termin8d Advanced Member Username: termin8d Post Number: 776 Registered: 7-2005 Posted From: 60.234.129.189 |
Exactly Easeltine. Watchman, you are inconsistent in your argumentation. The bible says in the image of God He created them, it never says in the image of God and angels He created them. By the way, your arguments may have impressed some people here but not me. Anybody can use a lexicon to try and prove their points, just as anybody can read words from the bible out of context to push their theology. A lexicon provides a range of possible variances in meanings of words. It is not a grammatical tool. Now, try again and read the verses in their context and tell me truthfully if you are convinced that man is made in the image of God and angels. | ||
| termin8d Advanced Member Username: termin8d Post Number: 777 Registered: 7-2005 Posted From: 60.234.129.189 |
By the way Watchman, I'm a Trinitarian, and so I have no problem with God referring to Himself as Us, i.e. the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 837 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.7.204.167 |
watchman: Your 'born again' belief either is or is not biblical -- it is that simple. True, though I am as tired of the word(s) born again as you are. I get your point, though I am my own man in these discussions and not a representative of "you folks". You did not even adress the issue of salvation. You picked (again) one word or phrase ON YOUR OWN, becaue I never used it, and then attributed an entire indictment of what I believe based on something I never said. I could care less if it means born from above. That's where God is and He's my pop, so I guess it's true. I don't understand what you are asking I am asking you what happens when you believe. Does the sin nature change? Do you believe we have a sin nature even? You know what I mean. Think of it from my view, who believes that we are spiritually transformed, rather than simply receiving the Holy Spirit to "help" us. Does one need to repent before they are saved? I am not sure what you mean by 'receives Christ'. I am asking if there is a specific moment in time when a person is saved by excersizing their faith in Jesus. For example, I can point to the specific day I was saved. See, I don't need the word(s) born again. I use the traditional phrase "receive Christ", but I actually mean receive the Holy Spirit through faith in Christ. Abraham was saved only upon his belief that the son of God would come. I do not believe that at all and it is contrary to scripture. Abraham was saved by faith in Christ, or He was not saved. It was impossible for anyone to be saved prior to the resurrection of Jesus. I'll say he was preserved, in paradise, along with the thief who also needed salvation. Once agin though, it has no bearing on my beliefs either way because that starts getting near the "pygmies in Africa" questions. I'm not quite sure how God gets the message of Jesus to them, but scripture tells me He does. Of course, if one believes nothing really happens to change a person when they are saved and when the Holy Spirit comes to abide with them, then I suppose they could actually believe those folks were saved, despite not having the Holy Spirit. Maybe its semantics. Either way, they're both saved now. Why would you think I concern myself with everyone else's salvation state? They stand or fall before their master on their own, and I'm just told to preach or testify and leave the rest to God. I mean, I think your theology's all messed up, but you could well be a Christian. You seem to really love God and especially His Word, and that says a lot to me. Every stinkin' denomination believes different and they all have some saved, and some not, and I don't know which. I do know that Jesus is the ONLY way and that's what I present to them. End times theology is too complicated for me right now. I know what I see about it, but I've heard every spin imagineable elsewhere and relying on others makes it a mess. | ||
| termin8d Advanced Member Username: termin8d Post Number: 778 Registered: 7-2005 Posted From: 60.234.129.189 |
XMan, just a quick question... You mentioned that scripture teaches that God gets the gospel out to everybody (I'm paraphrasing here). Could you show me which verses in the scriptures tell you this? Much grace to you brother. | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3692 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
easeltine,
Christians should know how to read and study the scriptures before they declare what is and what is not the "Christian" belief [at direct inference that any other position is not "Christian"]! There is no evidence in scripture that Jesus was the creator. See Gen. 1:1 - Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. When we witness the 6 days of the second earth age creation in Gen. 1, we see no mention of Jesus doing any creating. In the NT, we have no declaration by Christ, Himself, that he was the creator. So, your point, "it is referencing the Lord God Jesus Christ", is truly unscholarly -- in fact, it is outright biblically-illiterate. Verse 27 clearly identifies God as the creator of mankind on the 6th Day -- not Jesus. Any argument that the "us" and "our" in verse 26 refers to Jesus because "angels cannot create" is moot. Such position requires proof that Christ was the creator in Gen. 1. The definition of God in the superlative, as identified in verse 26 by the words "us" and "our" can only mean God and the angels. | ||
| easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1735 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 66.245.201.246 |
John 1 clearly states He has and there is no twist that you can do to change the fact that it clearly states. This is another requirement for salvation. One must believe that Jesus Christ is God Almighty come in that flesh in order to be saved. That's what Romans 10:9 is meaning. For if one does not beleive in the Jesus Christ of Isaiah 9:6 and Isaiah 44:6 they do not know the correct Jesus. | ||
| termin8d Advanced Member Username: termin8d Post Number: 779 Registered: 7-2005 Posted From: 60.234.129.189 |
Colossians 1:13-16 13 For He has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by Him and for Him. Hebrews 1:8-10 8 But about the Son He says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of Your kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, Your God, has set You above your companions by anointing You with the oil of joy." 10 He also says, "In the beginning, O Lord, You laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. You're wrong again Watchman. | ||
| termin8d Advanced Member Username: termin8d Post Number: 780 Registered: 7-2005 Posted From: 60.234.129.189 |
Easeltine: We're obviously dealing with someone here who loves to twist scripture. Do you think there's much point for us to dialogue with him? | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 845 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.7.204.167 |
termin8: I am not saying God gets the gospel to everybody. I am saying that everybody who is saved can only be saved through faith in Jesus because That's the only way. There's lots of scripture telling us Jesus is the only way. I am saying that for those who are saved (Abraham, thief, and more) they were saved through faith in Jesus. Now millions have been saved I presume, through the years, that have not heard the name of Jesus. What I said was, those who are saved, somehow God gets the gospel to them (Jesus only way) and I don't know how, but He does because of the main principle of salvation-faith in Jesus alone. If there is another road to salvation other than faith in the name of Jesus, then Jesus, Paul, and essentially God lied to me over and over. This is why I press watchman for what happens when a person believes. If one does not believe in transformation or an indwelling Holy Spirit, then it's easy to theologize Jesus death and resurrection right out of the gospel. If one could truly be saved prior to Jesus resurrection and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, then who needs Jesus. All we ever really needed was the thought of (a) jesus. No sacrifice necessary. | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 846 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.7.204.167 |
Watchman: There is no evidence in scripture that Jesus was the creator. See Gen. 1:1 - Read Colossians 1 just for starters. Verse 27 clearly identifies God as the creator of mankind on the 6th Day -- not Jesus. Any argument that the "us" and "our" in verse 26 refers to Jesus because "angels cannot create" is moot. Such position requires proof that Christ was the creator in Gen. 1. The definition of God in the superlative, as identified in verse 26 by the words "us" and "our" can only mean God and the angels. Now this is funny. We have to prove that Christ was creator (which isn't even that hard) or else "Us" couldn't be Jesus, so in conclusion if its not Jesus than it must be angels. How about, prove it was the angels that created the earth, or we must conclude "Us" is Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Talk about circular reasoning. I'll be interested in your answer though, and if you have one, I suspect it will be based on the specific meaning of a word or 2 in Strongs that has 5 different possible meanings of which you will pick the one matching your theology best, rather than those clumsy writers and translators again. | ||
| oneway Advanced Member Username: oneway Post Number: 848 Registered: 1-2007 Posted From: 69.30.157.124 |
"Verse 27 clearly identifies God as the creator of mankind on the 6th Day -- not Jesus. Any argument that the "us" and "our" in verse 26 refers to Jesus because "angels cannot create" is moot." watchman_2, there could be perhaps billions and billions of angels. Did all of them help God create man? If not, perhaps you could clue us in on which angels assisted and how many of them there were. You should be able to find this info in Scripture, right? Also, unless you believe that Christ and the Father are one in the same, why would the Father use angels and not his own son in creating man? Perhaps you need to show us in Scriptures where angels have the ability to create, being that they were created themselves. | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 847 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.7.204.167 |
Good verses termin8d. Better than my lazy reference. It takes so long to type in the verses, I avoid it 'till pressed and go on memory and paraphrasing until I have to. | ||
| termin8d Advanced Member Username: termin8d Post Number: 781 Registered: 7-2005 Posted From: 60.234.129.189 |
God bless u bro. I'm going up to Taiwan for about 5 weeks. I'm not sure if I'll be able to post here during that time. Hopefully I will. In any case, may the Lord continue to supply you with much grace. | ||
| oneway Advanced Member Username: oneway Post Number: 849 Registered: 1-2007 Posted From: 69.30.157.124 |
"Better than my lazy reference. It takes so long to type in the verses, I avoid it 'till pressed and go on memory and paraphrasing until I have to." xman3, why do you need to type in any verses? Doesn't copy and paste work for you? One software bible that I use is Theophilos KJV. It takes but a sec to copy any verse or verses, no tedious typing necessary. | ||
| fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 2717 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.255.151.176 |
try this xman. cut and paste is the new fangled way to do things these days. biblegateway.com | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3693 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
termin8d,
I'm not an authority on the Trinitarian label you give yourself. As it is with all sects/denominations, the teachings, under any label, either are or are not biblical. The word 'trinity' is not in the bible; hence, the label 'trinitarian' is coined by man, not by God.
I agree, in part, with what you wrote. It is true that a lexicon or concordance is simply a dictionary of the meanings of words in the language spoken. And, a lexicon/concordance will not make one a scholar in Biblical interpretation. However, it is an essential tool for the English-speaking world in order to understand God's Word. As is quite evident from the 'tongues' and 'born again' viewers here, there is a tendency to take singular English-rendered scriptures and make a religion out them. As is also evident, these religions are solely based upon their understanding of the English rendering, while demonstrating total ignorance of the meaning of their foundation words in the original language or the fact that these words are even a mistranslation in modern parlance. I don't believe there would even be 'born again' or 'tongues' sects/denominations if the proper terminology of 'born from above' or 'non-native languages' was used instead. There would be little incentive if these church members proselytize by claiming that others need to "be born from above to be saved" or "speak non-native languages to be saved". It is clear that these christian religions use these mistranslated/misinterpreted English phrases/words as a means of one-up-manship in order to claim the rest are unsaved [don't follow their recipe for salvation]. If one eliminates those foundation words from their Bible vocabulary, their respective house-of-cards religions collapse. Their religions depend upon the exclusivity principle that only they do things right and are saved -- the rest are hell-bound. That is why they put the blinders on with respect to any truth that proves their foundation belief to be erroneous -- it would mean that they are just like the rest of those Christians that they have claimed to be unsaved. For them, it is better to keep the blinders on, save face, and deny/dismiss any Truth that they are in error. | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3694 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
termin8d,
Actually, you have the same problem with your position -- how to square verse 26 with verse 27. You claim that the "us" and "our" in verse 26 is God and Jesus because you think Jesus, not angels, is capable of creation. If so, then in verse 27, it should read "We created" instead of "God created". Hence, the same inconsistency exists with your argument. Their is a clear problem in the English rendering between these 2 verses. However, your inconsistency can never be resolved in the scriptures; whereas, my position can be squared. Let's take a look so that you and the other viewers can be edified. The KJV with Strong's numerical indicators - Gen 1:27 So God430 created1254 (853) man120 in his own image,6754 in the image6754 of God430 created1254 he him; male2145 and female5347 created1254 he them. I have emboldened the words that exist in the manuscript. All the rest were added, including punctuation, based upon the interpreter's understanding. If we write only the base words we have - "God created man image image God created male female created" I underlined the word 'man' because it is the key in determining the correct interpretation of verse 27. The Hebrew word 'adam is rendered in the KJV as 'man' (plural), 'man' (singular), and 'Adam" (the guy in the Garden of Eden). Without giving a full course on the usage of the Hebrew 'adam', the word 'man' in verse 27 is predicated by the article eth', which is Strong's 853 as noted above, thereby making it demonstrative. It means with emphasis, "this very man" [with the word 'man' undefined]. So, in proper context one must establish the 'man' in verse 27 that is referred to. Of course, we have to go back to verse 26, where the man was defined and contemplated for creation. Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. As one can see, the 'man' contemplated in verse 26 is plural -- it is best rendered in today's parlance as 'mankind'. One can see all the different purposes set forth for mankind in this scripture. Likewise, we need to go back to verse 26 to understand the word 'image'. In verse 26, the 'image' contemplated was 'our' image. It is the Hebrew word of 'God', which is Elohim, utilized in the superlative context ["the angels" as defined in Strong's]. So, if we substitute 'mankind' into verse 27 and evaluate the word 'image' in the context of verse 26, the mistranslation is readily apparent - Gen 1:27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Since 'man' is plural [='mankind'] and 'image' is based upon 'God' in the superlative sense, the words 'his own', 'God', and 'him' in verse 27 are incorrect. | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3695 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
cont'd In addition, the context of verse 27 is not a declaration or statement by God as was verse 26. So, the replacement for 'his own' cannot be the word 'our' as used in verse 26 since our is an adjective of the pronoun 'we'. Hence, it is best translated at its actual superlative definition -- "the angels". Likewise, the word 'him', as underlined, should read 'them'. The correct rendering is - Gen 1:27 So God created mankind in the angels' image, in the image of the angels created he them; male and female created he them. These corrections make the verses consistent with each other; however, they do not necessarily resolve the debate as to whom "us" and "our" is referring to in verse 26 [other then Strong's definition]. The reason that in can never be Christ whom God is referring to in verse 26 is the manner in which God speaks. One can see that God is speaking down to [far inferior to God] whomever spoken to. Yet, in verse 27, God, alone, does the creating. Researching the nature of Christ, we learn that Jesus is God's own separate manifestation of himself in the realm of angels and later in the realm of flesh mankind. He was to be called Immanuel, which means "God in man". When Christ walked the earth, He declared that "if you see me, you see the Father". Since Christ existed and was part of the divine Godhead at the time of the 6 days of the second earth age creation in Gen. 1, there would be no need for God to say anything at all in verse 26, if the "us" and "our" therein was Christ. Since Christ has the mind of God, God would be speaking to himself. The only interpretation that fits for "our" and "us" is "the angels". | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3696 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
xman3,
Thank you -- I will try not to lump you into a group with the others.
I believe that I thoroughly addressed it. John 3:16 gives the basis for salvation. I elaborated on the fact that all that believe and were saved at one point will not eventually be saved. Also, there are some that were never saved in the flesh who will ultimately be saved by the time of the Great White Throne Judgment. What did I not cover??
I don't know what you mean by the term 'spiritually transformed'. Sin is sin -- defined as a transgression of God's law. It never changes as God does not change His mind as to what His laws are. Those that think that becoming a Christian means they will no longer sin are grossly in error. We simply have the Messiah, whom paid the price for that sin, to rely upon for erasing it from our body of works upon repentance.
Again, I go back to the Bible for instruction in doctrine. The malefactor crucified next to Christ was saved. There was nothing other then his belief in the Kingdom and request that Christ remember him. There was nothing other than belief associated therewith -- no indication that he 'was born again', 'received Christ', or 'receive the Holy Spirit'. Those are 'extra-biblical' concepts derived by mankind as one-upmanship exclusivity traditions. God is a heart knower -- which means that He knows when and if a person actually believes.
You do err! First, in order to make such a statement, you would have to have biblical support for someone on that side of the gulf that was not saved [which there is none]. As for the impossibility of salvation before resurrection, that is easily refuted - 1Pe 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 1Pe 3:19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Here we see that Christ, after crucifixion and before resurrection, went and preached unto the spirits [spiritual bodies] in prison [hell as referred to in Luke 16 -- the non-saved side of the gulf]. As one can see, Christ did not also preach to the Abrahamic side. The answer is quite obvious -- because they were already judged to be saved. | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3697 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
easeltine,
Again, you demonstrate your biblical illiteracy and stamp it so with your idiotic comment. See John 1:3. Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. Undoubtedly, you are relying upon the English rendering 'by' and making a religion out of it [again]. You conclude that Jesus is the creator by way of this one scripture; whereas, the remainder of the Bible states that God, alone, was the creator. So, a true Bible student, before he/she goes and forms a religion out of one translated word, would naturally investigate the word 'by' in the Greek to verify the true meaning. It is Strong's number 1223 - G1223 dee-ah' A primary preposition denoting the channel of an act; through (in very wide applications, local, causal or occasional). In composition it retains the same general import: - after, always, among, at, to avoid, because of (that), briefly, by, for (cause) . . . fore, from, in, by occasion of, of, by reason of, for sake, that, thereby, therefore, X though, through (-out), to, wherefore, with (-in). In composition it retains the same general import. As one can see, it means 'through', in a wide array of usage. I have emboldened more appropriate meanings. If Jesus was the creator, then Gen. 1 would state so, which it does not. The first mention of Christ in the OT comes at Gen. 2:9, "tree of life". If God and Jesus were jointly referred to as 'God', 'Our', or 'Us' in Gen. 1, one would think that the same reference to 'We' as the 'tree of life' would have been used in Gen. 2:9. A belief that Jesus was the creator does not square with the remainder of the Bible. Hence, the word 'by' in John 1:3 is misinterpreted in today's parlance. Even by using the meaning 'through' instead of 'by', one can see that it suggests something other than what you thought - Joh 1:3 All things were made through him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. More appropriate is the phrase 'for the sake of' - Joh 1:3 All things were made for the sake of him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. By using the correct meaning of the Greek word and eliminating the mistranslation, we get to a meaning that is consistent with the rest of the Bible. The scriptures, thereby, are squared.
That is what the word 'begotten' means in John 3:16 -- the requirement for salvation. | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3698 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
termin8d,
I never admit to being 100% correct [although I actually study to show myself approved]. So, let's take a look at the scripture to see whom needs edification. Col. 1:16- For by Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by Him and for Him. Check out the word 'by' in Greek. The second 'by' is the same Greek word used in John 1:3 [See my post to easeltine above.] It is best rendered 'for the sake of'. The first word 'by' is Strong's No. 1722 - G1722 en A primary preposition denoting (fixed) position (in place, time or state), and (by implication) instrumentality (medially or constructively), that is, a relation of rest (intermediate between G1519 and G1537); “in”, at, (up-) on, by, etc.: - about, after, against, + almost, X altogether, among, X as, at, before, between, (here-) by (+ all means), for (. . . sake of), + give self wholly to, (here-) in (-to, -wardly), X mightily, (because) of, (up-) on, [open-] ly, X outwardly, one, X quickly, X shortly, [speedi-] ly, X that, X there (-in, -on), through (-out), (un-) to(-ward), under, when, where (-with), while, with (-in). Often used in compounds, with substantially the same import; rarely with verbs of motion, and then not to indicate direction, except (elliptically) by a separate (and different) prep. It is a fixed proposition and, in this case, fixes the state of why everything was created. You will notice the proper renderings of 'because of' and 'by reason of'. The rendering that squares the scriptures is - Col 1:16 For because of him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by reason of him, and for him: Hebrews 1:10 - He also says, "In the beginning, O Lord, You laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. If you read the context of Heb. 1, you will see that it confirms my point - Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; It clearly states that God made the worlds -- not Jesus. He made them for Jesus. So, your interpretation of verse 10 is already proven false. In verse 10, the term Lord is God. Well, now that we have studied this topic, we can see it is you, once again, needing edification -- not me. On a personal basis, it is alright to lack knowledge -- not everyone has studied to the same degree. However, it is quite arrogant for you to state that others are wrong -- especially when it is clear that you haven't studied. For, if you had studied, you wouldn't be making so many egregious errors in scriptural interpretation. | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3699 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
termin8d,
Looks like we need to start a new dictionary named after you. twisted scripture - n. 1. Any rightly-divided Word of Truth that termin8d does not agree with; 2. Bible Truths that do not conform to Trinitarian doctrine; 3. Any Bible discussion point that results in proving termin8d and/or trinitarian doctrine to be in error. | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3700 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
xman3, I believe that I have addressed your remaining points [Post No. 846] in my posts above. If not, I will be happy to address any remaining issues regarding the topics discussed herein. (Message edited by watchman_2 on December 17, 2007) | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3701 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
oneway, I already covered the fact that God is speaking down to some group in Gen. 1:26 as a mother would speak to her little kids by saying 'Let us make cookies'. Of course, in my analogy, the mother does all the making while the kids observe. Likewise, when it got down to actually creating flesh mankind in verse 27, it was God, alone, doing the creating. There was no 'us' or 'our' involved in that. Yes, there are billions of angels as there are billions of people to prove it. (Message edited by watchman_2 on December 17, 2007) | ||
| egk Intermediate Member Username: egk Post Number: 483 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 70.232.155.192 |
Watchman, Unfortunately, your use of Strongs has led you into error. Greek is an inflected language, meaning that the nouns have different endings that indicate their grammatical use. The Greek word dia can be followed by words ending in the genitive case and words ending in the accusative case. In John 1:3 di' autou "through him" is dia used with the genitive case. Dia plus the genitive means "through a place", through time" or "of means or agency". The latter meaning is the only one that makes sense in the context; "he - the word - is the one through whom all was created." Dia followed by the accusative indicates the reason something is done. So your rendering of John 1:3 as "for his sake" is grammatically impossible. As for Col 1:16, the phrase is en autoo. en is the most frequently used preposition in Koine Greek. As a result, it has a very wide range of meanings. Among those meanings are instrumentive (causatic)ones, “All things were created by means of him." Your reading is also possible, but when compared with John 1:3, I believe that the instrumentive reading is the more likely one Heb 1:2 the "by him" is di' ou that is dia followed by the genitive case, so the last clause of this verse says, "by means of him, he also made the worlds." Your reading of Heb 1:2 is grammatically impossible. The definitions for dia and en were from "A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature” translated and edited by Arndt and Gingrich. It is one of the standard scholarly lexicons of NT Greek. I graduated from college with 16 semester hours in Ancient Greek. Watchman, you sincerely and earnestly study the Bible. Why don't you take a course in NT Greek to see what the NT says in the original? EGK PS Term, I have a short time to post; I hope to get my testimony done in several days. | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3703 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
egk,
Well, there are many things that I would like to do in life, including learning Hebrew and Greek. However, life's priorities dictate my schedule. I have an 8 year old daughter to raise, a one-man business to run, my Bible studies, and, of course, my participation here [which God richly rewards me for]. If I only didn't need to sleep, I could do . . . Thanks for the suggestion. | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3704 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
egk, You might check out the understanding of Dr. Bullinger, author of the Companion Bible. The Appendices that he wrote have been an invaluable aid to me. He covers the subject of the Greek prepositions in Appendix 104. Here is a link - http://www.biblestudysite.com/cbapend.htm | ||
| oneway Advanced Member Username: oneway Post Number: 853 Registered: 1-2007 Posted From: 69.30.157.124 |
"I already covered the fact that God is speaking down to some group in Gen. 1:26 as a mother would speak to her little kids by saying 'Let us make cookies'. Of course, in my analogy, the mother does all the making while the kids observe.' watchman_2, ok I believe I see where you're coming from now. Not that I agree. So what you're basically saying is this. God told the angels that He was going to make man in His and their image. And since you claim Christ took no part in creating man, it must also mean that God did not make man in Christ's image either. That is unless you want to play JW and claim that Christ is a created angel, or if you want to claim that the Father and Christ are one and the same. Otherwise I fail to see how you can draw your conclusion. | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 849 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.7.204.167 |
Watchman_2: At one time when I was a debator, my strategy was to take each point someone made, and respond with 4 or 5 other points in addition so that by the time my exponential increase was completed after 2 or 3 more speeches, the opponent had literaly no time to address everything I said. Thats how I feel here. There is so much in your posts, and a significant part of it which I see problems ranging from not really answering my questions, to what seem to me to be wrong conclusions, that I can't condense it into any one topic to discuss. That's one of my factnet frustrations, and unavoidable, that often one person ends up dealing with 3 or 4 others, posts get muddled together, responses overlap, and soon we have a whole host of things we're discussing instead of 1 or 2. I allowed myself to get distracted by unrelated doctrine that I'm trying to avoid discussing in this thread, and then get prone to confusing what we discussed in the 2 different threads. I'll try split my issues and post tongues stuff over there, and other stuff here because 4kb just is too limiting to say everything, and super long posts are tedious to read. Thanks for your continued responses though. You're doing a good job juggling all these things for now and since you seem more serious about continuing the discussion than I am accustomed to, I will get less general also. I will carefully read your responses and post later tonight. | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3705 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
oneway, I am not an authority in Hebrew and cannot speak as to the accuracy of the adjective "our" and the pronoun "us" as was added to supplement the base Hebrew words in verse 26. I know of no early rendering that did not include those words. The Jewish Tanakh varies slightly in that "our" is replaced by "of us", which is the same meaning. Absent any authority claiming otherwise, I will accept the words "us" and "our" to be accurate representations. The reason I used the analogy of the mom making cookies would be the overall purpose of talking down to kids that way. Moms do this as an instructional tool to show the kids what is involved in making cookies. The kids will learn from the mom's inclusion of them in the activity. So, when God is stating, "Let us make mankind in our image", he is instructing the angels what he is doing. After all, they existed for a very long time in the first earth age. Then, after destroying the first earth age [Gen. 1:2, Jer. 4] and in laying the foundation [Greek katabole] of this second age, I am sure there was confusion among the angels as to what will happen to them. The angels witness God's works in the first 5 days of creation of this second age and are probably wondering if they will be allowed to exist on the reformed planet as they did in the first age -- as spiritual bodies. So, it was God's way of instructing the angels as to what will happen to them by bringing them into the process by the words "us" and "our". However, when it came to the actual creating of mankind, it was God, alone, whom did it [verse 27]. | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 853 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.7.204.167 |
Gen 1:27 So God created mankind in the angels' image, in the image of the angels created he them; male and female created he them. I believe this particular belief of watchman_2 needs to be highlighted. This is what attempting to understand scripture from a piece meal Greek translating method using Strong's produces. Man was created , not in God's image, but in the angels image. All readers, please ponder this conclusion and say to yourself, if this conclusion is so far off, what about the rest of them. If one wants to believe this, then you may say if this is the conclusion only watchman can come to, than he/she is clearly who to listen to. I just can't let this slide by, buried in a past post. | ||
| easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1744 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 66.245.201.206 |
Termin8d, To answer your question way up there...If you are still there...Titus 3:8-11...this passage keeps coming to my spirit when I see these posts. | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 854 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.7.204.167 |
In addition to the one of several specific examples I have just given, I will expound slightly. watchman_2 said "I am not an authority in Hebrew Now who among us here really is of course. Definitely not me. There are authorities who are experts and authorities in not only Hebrew, but also Greek and Aramaic. Many of these authorities who are experts have both established the canon of scripture and translated the many versions we see. Let's consider how a confessed non expert is attempting to not only rewrite many verses that have been established as acceptably translated by thousands of experts, but also arrives at conclusions based exclusively on these new translations. While I commend and appreciate the fact that watchman does indeed study to show himself approved like many of us, the end result of this study is consistently being shown to run contrary to the translations and conclusions of all of mainstream, Christianity and thousands of experts. Watchman would simply say they err. I would simply say watchman errs, and the proof is rapidly being laid out systematically before us by his own posts. | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3706 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
xman3,
LOL! This is one of your sillier posts. The Bible was only translated into English. It was written in 'tongues'. So, to fully understand it, one has to go back to the original 'tongue' to obtain meanings and usage of the words. FYI, the 'tongue' of Gen. 1:27 is Hebrew -- not Greek. In addition, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance was and is the recognized authority as a Bible lexicon -- from the 'tongues' of the Bible to English.
How would you know that it is far off?? Do angels have wings or do they look like humans? You fail to place the 6 days of creation in Gen. 1:6 in the proper context of time and purpose.
LOL! This post is equally as silly! Let's examine your statement. By your own admission in 1 Cor. 14:1, the word 'gifts' does not exist at all in the scripture [nor does 'things' or anything else that 'tongues' people want to claim]. Yet, as I posted on the other thread, every English rendering carries through this error from the earliest English rendering -- Bishop's Bible [1547]. So, where are all these thousands of experts?? One would think that, if so many experts actually translated from the 'tongues' of the manuscripts, the error in 1 Cor. 14:1 would have been noticed and not included in about 50% of the English renderings. The fact is that very few have attempted to translate the manuscripts. Even the translators of the 1611 KJV used the Bishop's Bible translation as their guide and did not independently translate the scriptures [as is evident by 1 Cor. 14:1 and Acts 12:4]. In addition, one does not have to be an authority in Greek and Hebrew to understand that there are many problems with the English renderings. 1 Cor. 14:1 is a prime example in that, no matter which English rendering read, it makes no sense in English. As I pointed out to termin8d above, it is clear that the wording of Gen. 1:26-27, in English, does not show any consistency irrespective of one's belief as to meaning. The only way to truly square these scriptures, as I have done, is to know context. So, it is quite obvious that your statement was one that was uneducated.
You post this out of disapproval of my findings -- not because you know anything, studied the 'tongues' of the Bible by way of Strong's, or can place Gen. 1 in context of time and purpose. | ||
| mcmstaff78 Senior Member Username: mcmstaff78 Post Number: 2052 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 167.193.134.61 |
Not sure how Watchman can argue what he is: Gen. 1:26 states "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." And Gen. 1:27 says "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Elohim is God, not "angels" - verse 27 clearly identifies "his own image" with "image of Elohim". | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3708 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
mcm, See Strong's for the Hebrew Elohim - H430 el-o-heem' Plural of H433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: - angels, X exceeding, God (gods) (-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty. In the superlative sense, it means 'angels'. That is whom God is speaking to in Gen. 1:26. There is no consistency between the renderings of verse 26 and 27. The image spoken of in verse 26 is "our", yet, in verse 27, it is rendered "his own". Irrespective of whom one considers the "our" and "us" refers to in verse 26, it doesn't carry through, in English, to verse 27. So, the only way to fully undestand these scriptures is to place them in correct context of time and purpose. When one does this, the "us" and "our" of verse 26 can only be referring to 'the angels'. | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 856 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.7.204.167 |
Watchman: Silly or not, I'll let the reader judge. As far as I'm concerned your conclusion is heretical. 21 versions all wrong, and watchman_2 right? OK, whatever you say. I'll take the experts over the confessed non expert. There are problems with most renderings, but they're not the ones you are pointing to. No sense arguing though because I know you are wrong and the others can decide how credible or incredible your assertions are. I didn't post it out of disaproval of your findings, I posted it because you keep saying it. Clumsily rendered, the scolars err, xman errs, easeltine errs. Its like a broken record that you keep writing. I do disapprove of your conclusions though. In saying that, I do feel I ought to go deeper on some areas and I will, but I just wanted the readers and participants to see what you concluded and let them decide, because we aren't going to ever agree on your take on 1.Humans and angels being the same 2.Angels creating anything 3. Man being made in the image of anyone other than God Himself. | ||
| mcmstaff78 Senior Member Username: mcmstaff78 Post Number: 2054 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 167.193.134.61 |
Watchman, sorry, you can't do theology based soley on a strong's word study. At no time has either the Jews nor Christians taught that Elohim, in this text, referred to anyone but God and that the image was the image of God. Elohim is translated "God" throughout the passage. For it to refer to angels one place, must mean that it refers to angels in every place. Consequently, in verse 1 it would be "In the beginning Angels created the heaven and the earth." You're starting to sound quite the Gnostic to me. | ||
| mcmstaff78 Senior Member Username: mcmstaff78 Post Number: 2055 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 167.193.134.61 |
Just some facts, "Eloihim" or "Elohiym" appears 2606 times in the OT. It is translated as follows: God 2346, god 244, judge 5, GOD 1, goddess 2, great 2, mighty 2, angels 1, exceeding 1, God-ward 1, godly 1. The Septuagint, which was the bible of the NT church, translates "elohiym" as "Theos" (God) everytime in Genesis 1. | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3709 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
xman3, Before you go judging [again] as to what is and what is not 'heretical', I suggest you understand the meaning of the word. By definition, 'heresy' is any opinion or doctrine at variance with religious orthodoxy. Orthodoxy, itself, is ubiquitously defined as 'accepted or established doctrine'. So, 'heresy' itself is in the eye of the beholder as to what is 'accepted' or 'established' doctrine. Of course, to all Catholics every Protestant is a heretic. In fact, the term heretic was coined by them from their perception, and other Christians were persecuted if they did not conform. So, certainly, a vast majority of Christians do not consider 'gibberish' as 'established' or 'accepted' doctrine. Hence, by the very definition, you are a 'heretic'. So, perhaps it might be best to focus on the truth of God's Word and leave such errantly descriptive words such as 'heretical' out of the conversation. I notice how well you all love to hear TATM describe your 'toungues' religion as 'pseudo-christian cult'. Let God's Word do the correcting [2 Tim. 3:16]. (Message edited by watchman_2 on December 18, 2007) | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 859 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.7.204.167 |
By definition, 'heresy' is any opinion or doctrine at variance with religious orthodoxy. I'd say that saying man was created in the image of angels and NOT in the image of God qualifies. And, I might add, I did actually say "as far as I'm concerned", which agin qualifies as in the eyes of the beholder. As for tongues, I've been called every name in the book and heretic is a lot nicer than some of them. Personally, I don't consider tongues that big of a deal. If someone does it, more power to them, if they don't oh well. Their loss in my view. It has NO reflection whatsoever on salvation to me. I believe claiming we are not made in the image of God is far more serious a problem. I will not, however, use that word again because your point is well taken. I apologize for the offense and ought to have been less dramatic about it. | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3710 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
xman3,
You missed the point as usual. If a word is added [not in the manuscripts], such as 'gifts' or 'things', the fact that 21 renderings include this word proves that the 21 renderings were not direct translations from the manuscripts. It thoroughly defeats your point regarding the 'thousands of experts'. | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3711 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
xman3,
If you are going to list my beliefs, please list them correctly. 1. I never stated that humans and angels are the same. 2. I never stated that angels created anything. 3. Partially true. Flesh man is not in the image of God. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom. 1Co 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Hence, the flesh man that God created on the 6th day [Gen. 1:27] is not in the image or likeness of God. However, the angels [our spiritual bodies] were created in the image and likeness of God as was Christ. Since the angels already existed, the creation of Gen. 1:27 was that of the flesh man to house the spiritual bodies. That creation was not in the direct image of God; but, in the direct image of the angels. It is in the indirect image of God as the angels were already in existence and present when God did some more creating. Our spiritual bodies -- yes, but our flesh bodies -- no. (Message edited by watchman_2 on December 18, 2007) | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3712 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
mcm, Thank you for the statistics on 'Elohim' and the LXX. I think that it demonstrates that one should not rely upon the LXX for understanding many of these complex issues. | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 860 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.7.204.167 |
You missed the point as usual. Wrong again. I know your point. It's just not my point. You don't honestly expect me to accept that your point is valid when I do not think it is do you? My point is that people who are experts thought it appropriate to translate it one way, 21 of them in this case though I am unfamiliar with most of those versions, while you a confessed non expert interprate it differently in ways which have significant implications on many other things. It's very clear you hold your own interpretations in higher regard than most accepted theologians and translators, despite their expertise and knowledge. I just want people to be clear on that. Regardless, what more can be said about some of these things. At some point when we clearly see it differently, then we just have to disagree and move on or we just keep repeating ourselves. I'm content to let it rest and let the other readers and participants decide for themselves who is mistranslating and bastardizing scripture. You pick at Greek vs Hebrew. Are you a Greek expert? My understanding is generally the NT is Greek, and the OT is hebrew. I thought there was some Aramaic in their too. I'm no expert in any of them. | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3713 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
mcm,
I never indicated that one gets theology from Strong's. One gets theology from the manuscripts in the languages that they were written in. Strong's is the best tool for the English reader to get one back to Hebrew and Greek for edification and theology. As is plainly evident on these threads, many take their spin on an English-rendered scripture, without verifying the veracity thereof in the manuscripts, and make religions out of them. 'Born again' and 'tongues' churches of today are perfect examples. Relevant to the topic of creation, you will see the arguments within these threads that Christ was the creator. Such argument is made in complete disregard of Gen. 1 wherein it is clearly stated God did the creating. Such unscholarly approach in disdain of squaring the scriptures is not theology at all -- but, is religious hackism.
Your claim is clearly false unless you have proof that you have been alive for 6,000 years and are witness to every teaching.
See my comment above about taking renderings, instead of the manuscripts, and making a religion out of it. Your comment is based upon the Septuagint, which is nothing other then a translation from the Hebrew OT to Greek. It contains many translational errors -- just like the English renderings.
That is another false statement. The Strong' definition, that I posted, clearly indicates when it is proper to render the wording as 'angels' -- in the superlative sense. Hence, it is the words "us" and "our", which are superlative, that let the Bible student know that it is 'angels' spoken of by God.
Clearly, you are not educated in what Strong's describes in the definition of 'Elohim'. It does not translate to 'angels' in verse 1 because the word is not used in the superlative sense.
No comment required -- you already demonstrated that you don't really know what you are posting about. | ||
| matt_hatter Senior Member Username: matt_hatter Post Number: 4374 Registered: 5-2006 Posted From: 216.226.180.3 |
Watchman, your teaching on angels/the spirit is new to me. Would be give me a brief overview of your beliefs in this area, along with those teachers who have caused you to come to this conclusion? Just curious. | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 862 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.7.204.167 |
Before I prove you said exactly what I said you did, I will ask you a simple question. Is our flesh body the person, or is the spirit/soul the person? I will tell you that I believe the flesh body is merely the earth suit or house for the actual man, the spirit(soul). I had thought you had stated within the last few days something that was the same, that our body was merely the house of the spirit that God placed within. That will be the key of course, because in no way do I think the flesh or the flesh body is created in the image of God. This idea that the flesh body lets you off the hook for calling people and angels the same doesn't compute to me, because the flesh body and the person are 2 different things. The Spirit lives on, but the body will either be transformed or decay. | ||
| oneway Advanced Member Username: oneway Post Number: 855 Registered: 1-2007 Posted From: 69.30.157.124 |
Not that I agree with watchman_2, but I don't find his interp of Genesis 1:26 as far fetched as you're all making it sound. He's not claiming angels created man. We should all be able to agree that angels were created way before man ever was. The question then is, were angels created in the image and likeness of God? If they were, then watchman's interp could be correct. And again, so that I make it clear, I'm not agreeing with watchman's interp, I'm just trying to see it from his pov. | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 864 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.7.204.167 |
Ok oneway. You spent some time talking about this with him earlier and you seemed similarly inclined after hearing him to say the same. Perhaps he is not saying what it appears, and I(we) have jumped the gun a bit, perhaps not. We'll see how it plays out. I did catch a glimpse the other day at what you were getting at, but it's hard to overcome what it looks like is being said. Thing is, this section is not the friendly confines of the SC threads, and what goes over well over there as good theology doesn't go over so well anywhere else. | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3715 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
xman3, You keep mentioning these [mythical] "respected theologian". Properly translated, you mean - respected theologian - n. 1. A person whom produces a writing regarding a theological issue that supports xman3's beliefs. Let's be honest here. All of us, irrespective of beliefs, claim only the theologians that support our beliefs as credible or "respected". Those that don't are dismissed as not credible or not respected. It is a term, like heretic, which is only valid in the eye of the beholder. It is meaningless when it comes to debate/discussion of God's Word. Either an interpretation is made by rightly dividing the Word of Truth or it is not -- it all boils down to that. So, in the case of 1 Cor. 14:1, the word 'gifts' or 'things' is not in the Word of Truth. The fact that it was added in the Bishops Bible, and copied in every English rendering thereafter, does not make it right. Nor, is it proof that it was a scholarly addition. The key is the word rendered 'spiritual [Greek pneumatikos] - G4152 phyoo-mat-ik-os' From G4151; non-carnal, that is, (humanly) ethereal (as opposed to gross), or (daemoniacally) a spirit (concretely), or (divinely) supernatural, regenerate, religious: - spiritual. Compare G5591. It can be a noun, meaning human spirits -- i.e. souls, or it can be an adjective, meaning divinely spiritual. Since there was no object which the word pneumatikos described in the manuscripts, the Bishop's translators should have rendered it as a noun. It was a clear error in translation, which forced them into another error -- adding to scripture. One does not need to be a "respected scholar" to see the error. It is quite obvious to spot with the tools we have before us today. Of course, you are entitled to believe as you see fit -- just do so with the knowledge that you are in error regarding the interpretation of 1 Cor. 14:1. For your further studies, I suggest you download the KJV with Strong's Concordance. It is a tremendous help. There are many available internet sources. (Message edited by watchman_2 on December 18, 2007) | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 865 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.7.204.167 |
watchman: When I say respected translators, it has nothing to do with whether they support me or not. When I say it, I am referring to the people who set the canon of scripture and translated the different versions that are generally accepted by most Biblical scholars, whatever they are. They are experts. I am not. I trust them to an extent. I trust them more when they pretty much all say the same thing. There's certainly a real place for Strong's etc..., which I have in addition to several thousand other reference works that I could try and wade through, via my nice software program, but it always comes up the same when I do. I do see what you are saying though but it goes both ways. Go ahead and believe what you want- just do so with the knowledge that you are interpreting scripture through your own theology. Some of the stuff you say, for instance the stuff about the Bishop's Bible, I know nothing at all about though. That sounds like something mcmstaff might know about though. I can't believe just because you say so that every English Bible is translated from the Bishop's Bible, but I can't say not either. Never heard of it. I'll try deal with 1Cor over in the other thread rather than this one though, because there's enough other stuff here I see. Now, would you please answer my question? Oneway has been talking to you a lot and maybe he better understands what you are saying and I have misunderstood your points. | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3716 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
matt_hatter,
I'll give it a try [without documentation]. It is not possible to understand the Bible without understanding the context thereof in time and God's purpose. Contrary to popular opinion, the 6 Days of creation in Gen. 1 were not the beginning of the universe and all that God created therein. The 6 days are the creation of the second age. The planet was populated with an abundance of life that came and disappeared long before any timeline back to Day 1. Spiritual bodies [angels] roamed the planet and had free will. Satan was created good; but, he turned evil and drew one-third of the angels with him. God put down this revolt and decided to terminate that first age. Satan was the only one sentenced to perish as a result of his actions. This second age is merely an effort by God to redeem souls that would have been lost if full judgment had been pronounced upon the angels at the end of the first age. So, God decided to create a flesh man to house the spiritual bodies. The angelic spirit is simply placed inside the flesh man, absent knowledge of what transpired in the first age, in order to have a fair chance to love God by accepting the Savior or following Satan. Those that pass the test will go on to the third age. Those that don't will be sent to the Lake of Fire with Satan. I learned this through the teachings of Shepherds Chapel and a lot of home study on my own to verify. | ||
| matt_hatter Senior Member Username: matt_hatter Post Number: 4375 Registered: 5-2006 Posted From: 24.214.93.12 |
Thanks for the explanation. Where does SC find the scriptural confirmation for the "1st" age? I am not trying to pick a fight, seriously. I am just curious about the belief. | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3717 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
matt_hatter, 2 Pet. 3:5-8, Gen. 1:1-2, Jer. 4, Isa. 45:18 for starters | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3718 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
xman3,
I didn't say that! What I am stating is that the renderings are not original works -- not translated directly and independently from the manuscripts. If they were, approximately half would render it as 'souls' and the other half would render it 'spiritual' with some inventive object to go with the adjective.
Everyone can be their own expert -- just have to study.
I did and I agree. It is the spirit/soul that pays the price for the sins of the flesh.
Depends on how you define 'person'. What makes everyone whom they are is the spirit that God places in them and their own actions thereafter. Those spirits existed long before the 6 Days of creation in Gen. 1 as the 'angels' and, hence, by technical definition, is not what God created on Day 6. | ||
| easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1750 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 72.164.43.195 |
Regarding Watchman's interpretation of Genesis 1:26 - His is the same way that the Jewish Rabbi Ravi would interpret these Scriptures, and the Jehovah Witness. We have a different point of view. As Christians we believe that God is the "Us" and "Our", and that the "Us" and "Our" is making man, and angels don't make or create. Coming from the perspective of traditional Orthodox Christianity we see so many Scriptures differently regarding this subject throughout that Bible. Our minds are very different on the matter. | ||
| turtle Senior Member Username: turtle Post Number: 1679 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 72.66.229.201 |
Easteltine, Maybe that is why these groups find flaws in scripture. I have never heard a main stream church group like Baptist, methodist and so forth say there are flaws. Not the type they are talking about. | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3719 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
easeltine,
You don't represent orthodox christianity with your perspective since you have defined 'tongues' as gibberish indiscernible utterings. You are in a huge minority view with such a belief and, thereby, would be considered unorthodox or a heretic. Nonetheless, the Bible informs us that the majority of church types are, in fact, wrong theologically. [See Rev. 2 and 3.] | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3720 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
turtle
Just to clarify matters, I don't find flaw in the scriptures. The English renderings are a different matter. Such are works of mankind and, thereby, are proned to be flawed. | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 868 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.7.204.167 |
Depends on how you define 'person'. Well that's the very question I am asking. For clarification, I am saying that the body is not the person at all. The person lives in a body. You have, however, essentially answered me enough for me to prove you said what I said. Xman " I can't believe just because you say so that every English Bible is translated from the Bishop's Bible, but I can't say not either. Never heard of it. watchman: I didn't say that! watchman: The fact that it was added in the Bishops Bible, and copied in every English rendering thereafter That is what made me write that. Replace traslated with copied if you want. I think I'm clear now on what you said though. watchman "Everyone can be their own expert -- just have to study. That is true for math and science etc..., but not for Spiritual things. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned and are not gleaned from study ALONE. It is part true. Additionally, perhaps potentially we can become experts on Greek and Hebrew from study, but the proof of expertise is in the final analysis, not the mere fact someone studied. Also if someone calls themselves an expert (or considers themselves one) and through their expertise comes up with a bunch of strange and incorrect theology through that study, I'd have to say they were not expert or correct at all. | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 869 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.7.204.167 |
If you are going to list my beliefs, please list them correctly. 1. I never stated that humans and angels are the same. 2. I never stated that angels created anything. 3. Partially true. 1. I never stated that humans and angels are the same What makes everyone whom they are is the spirit that God places in them and their own actions thereafter. Those spirits existed long before the 6 Days of creation in Gen. 1 as the 'angels' It simply means that those spiritual bodies that refuse to be born into flesh man [fallen angels The angelic spirit is simply placed inside the flesh man, This is what I am referring to. The spirit of a man, the real eternal person, is clearly called an angel. They are the same exactly in what you said. Also, I note, you have said the fallen angels are those that refused to be put into human bodies. That's different, but I'm sure you could clarify. As for point 2. Angels creating anything. I will retract that based on your explanation to easiltine. I understand you are saying God was speaking to the angels (us) but only He did the creating. I think us is God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit so to speak, but I believe I understand what you said better now. Space limits me so I will address #3 in the next post. | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 870 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.7.204.167 |
Continuing on. I will repeat that watchman did not say angels created anything, because I emboldened point 1, which I think he said and I could prove, but did not embolden number 2 which he didn't say. On to point 3, the more important of them. 3.3. Man being made in the image of anyone other than God Himself. Gen 1:27 So God created mankind in the angels' image, in the image of the angels created he them; male and female created he them. This conclusion was explained in great depth which I appreciate, but of course, do not believe is correct. I won't subject everyone to recopying the entire post you "proved" this statement with, but it is up top further. I am emphasizing this for everyones sake, because it is these beliefs, which are mostly unique to the Shepherd's Chapel around here, but are ones I have also heard elsewhere at times by other non Christian (not referring to SC here) groups, make the discussion difficult because of the huge gulf between our understanding and beliefs of foundational things. The point being, that all of these things have significant impact on salvation, what salvation is, who God is, who we as people are and who Jesus came to redeem. Essentially, the end result of this theology is that Jesus died on a cross to redeem angels. Now one could say that they aren't really angels because they become "humans" when they enter a flesh body and only the angels in human bodies can be redeemed, but that is merely an escape from the actual conclusions and statements made already. | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 872 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.7.204.167 |
Now I admit that watchman is very good at using Strong's and I am not so good, but what the heck. I'll give it one shot here. Luke 20:36 states we will be like (NAS) or equal (KJV) to angels in the resurrection. The word "equal" in Strong's is an ADJECTIVE, not a noun, isaggelos, which means just what it says. There is no expounding or other definitions. Jesus is saying here we will be equal to, or like the angels, but clearly is not saying we will be angels. Now it seems clear to me we are not angels, and it seems clear to me this is a descriptive term, but I also read numerous commentaries on this passage. Universally they all conclude that this passage does not call people angels, but likens them to angels in a comparative sense. Hebrews 1:14 states concerning angels, "are they not ALL ministering spirits sent out to render service for those who will inherit salvation." Hebrews 2:16 "assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendants of Abraham". That's enough for now I think. The point here, is that the spirit is the person, and it is LIKE an angel in that it is eternal and does not operate under the limitations of this age in the resurrection, but it is not an angel. I can see though, how you arrived at some of what you say watchman, but I will need clarification on this issue. I need a more in depth understanding of where you come up with the idea that an angel spirt is placed in a human body. I also need more clarification as to where it says fallen angels are spirits or angels that refused to go into a human body. I have followed many of your posts both here and at the chapel threads and I know you are very good at supporting your views. Actually, in many ways you are much better than me at using some of these tools and such so I am at a disadvantage there, relying mostly on my Bible at hand. That's part of the reason I enjoy talking with you, and part of the reason it is difficult talking with you. You have good reason, based on your study, to believe as you do because you always support it. I don't always agree with your conclusion or method, but I respect your efforts at study and explanations. I believe you adhere to SC doctrine not because P.M. said it, but because you have studied it out also and become convinced. It's wrong in my understanding of things, but its sincere. | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 873 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.7.204.167 |
You don't represent orthodox christianity with your perspective since you have defined 'tongues' as gibberish indiscernible utterings. You are in a huge minority view with such a belief and, thereby, would be considered unorthodox or a heretic. Please now watchman. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Heretic? One can present orthodox views on one matter and not another so that statement really says nothing. To call easiltine a heretic because he speaks in tongues, is also calling me one because I do, just hours after you asked me not to do so. It also is another example of why Dobman's critisism of tongue talkers as high minded and thinking they know who is and isn't saved etc... is not at all unique to tongue talkers, but is overwhelmingly a characteristic of those who post here against tongues. | ||
| oneway Advanced Member Username: oneway Post Number: 857 Registered: 1-2007 Posted From: 69.30.157.124 |
"It's wrong in my understanding of things, but its sincere." xman3, do you think the Lord rewards those that are sincere in their studies but are clearly wrong? To be honest with you, I can't accept that he's even saved. Why? Because his teacher teaches that he was justified in a prev earth age when he battled against satan and won. In other words he is one of God's elect, so Christ's sacrifice wasn't necessary in saving him. Apparently he has already been judged worthy in a prev earth age. watchman makes a good point about the thief on the tree. But I believe Romans 6:1-8 can also apply to this thief. Read those verses with spiritual understanding and eyes open, you should be able to see how they can also apply to the thief on the tree, who Christ promised would be with him in paradise. | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3721 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
xman3,
2 Tim. 2:15 informs us to STUDY to shew ourselves approved -- not practice unbiblical spiritual rituals such as indiscernible gibberish. It is true that one's spiritual walk with Christ is a personal manner, which no one has a right to criticize. However, the purpose of study is to instruct us on doctrine, righteousness, and proof as set forth in 2 Tim. 3:16. In essence, studying instructs us if we are following the correct or incorrect path -- if our spiritual walk is with Christ or is with Satan. So, when I read your and easeltine's posts here, I can see that there is much resistance [excuse making] to your getting into the Word of God in order to determine for yourself whether your gibberish rituals are biblical or not. The Bible is God's letter to each and everyone of us. It is not meant to only be interpreted by [mythical] "theologians" or "experts". It really appears to me that you gibberish-speaking christians don't want to know the truth. I have likened your gibberish rituals to a drug addict. The spiritual high that you receive is just like the 'high' a drug addict receives. I am not denying that you folks receive a spiritual high. The question is whether that 'high' is of the Holy Spirit or of Satan [seducing spirits-- see 1 Tim. 4:1]. Thus, when I see the collective reluctance of gibberish-speakers to study and analyze the Word for real doctrine and righteousness and, thereby, witness the abundance of excuses/denials you folks raise, I am convinced that you all give heed to seducing spirits -- your spiritual high is Satanic. For, Christ is the Living Word of God. The Word was with God in the beginning [John 1:1]. Hence, efforts to separate spiritualism from intellectualism of the Word cannot possibly be of Christ. Jesus, himself, often said, "Have you not read?". Hence, I conclude that you folks give heed to seducing spirits, are controlled by those seducing spirits, and you post the words given you by those seducing spirits. IMO, it is not the Holy Spirit. | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3722 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
xman3,
Angels have only one body -- the spiritual body given by God [other dimension]. Man has two bodies -- spiritual and flesh. Hence, they are not the same. Regarding fallen angels, see Gen. 6, Jude, and Rev. 12, 13, and 17. >>>>> Regarding easeltine, you know full well what he was intending by suggesting he represented 'orthodoxy'. He had it coming. >>>>> Regarding dobman's comments, you should ask dobman. He can explain for himself. >>>>> The Bible [manuscripts] is/are its own self-interpreter. It is our job to rightly divide it. That is all that I attempt to do and bring forth to the viewers here. The fact that you, and others, don't agree or find such Bible representations unusual, out of step with orthodoxy, or far-fetched really is of no relevance. My positions, like yours, are either biblical or unbiblical. There is only one truth -- God's truth. No man can claim to have a monopoly on it ['orthodox']. Either we present God's truth or we don't. | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 876 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.7.204.167 |
Oneway: Eventually we would get to the crux of the matter after wading through this angel stuff, and the rest, because they all have significant impact on salvation. It's always perplexed me why the detractors at the SC threads do not hammer at the very thing you are pointing to. They waste time on racism and things which are sketchy or not as important, when the fact is, the real problem is the salvation doctrine. It doesn't look like we'll get there here though, after watchman's last post. | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 877 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.7.204.167 |
watchman: That was a nice story about seducing spirits. Right back at ya. Blame it on gibberish if you want, but there is nothing about tongues in those last posts. They are irrelevant to anything I said. I am discussing, here, your take on angels and men because of it's implications to salvation and the work of the cross. Since you didn't really address anything, but chose merely to throw out some generic reason to discount what I say, I'll just let those posts stand on their own for now and just re post the same things as necessarry to expose those dangerous doctrines, short of any other explanation. You disappoint me with your lack of humility and hypocracy though, concerning the heretic issue. I expected better. | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3723 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
xman3,
It starts with the understanding as to why we are here. One needs to understand God's purpose in the 6 Days of Creation in Gen. 1. That purpose is made clear in the NT - 2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. Here we have a second witness of John 1:1 that in the beginning was the Word. In verse 7, we learn why we are here and that, in the age that was, there was sin and ungodly behavior. [Reserved unto judgment] In fact, it is clear from a read of Genesis that Satan had already fallen before interacting with the woman and Adam in the Garden. We learn how Satan fell in the book of Ezekiel. Eze 28:2 Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God: We find out that Satan was not always that way -- he was created by God good - Eze 28:12 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. Yes, Satan was good until, by free will, he sinned - Eze 28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. Satan had free will. Was Satan alone in sinning? Rev 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, Yes, those entities are called 'angels'. So, we know that Satan drew others into the revolt against God in the first age. They were 'angels'. Hence, when we read 2 Pet. 3, we have the background that it was some angels, headed by Satan, that sinned. God has purposed this second age for judgment of the ungodly. But, does God refer to them as 'angels'?? 2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. Yes, for this second age, it is for judgment and perdition of ungodly MEN! So, we have the connection of the 'angels', who sinned in the first age, to 'men', that sin in this age. So, the only remaining question is whether the 'angels' of the first age comprise the flesh body or the spiritual body. The answer is obviously the incorruptible spiritual body as confirmed by 1 Cor. 15. Our spiritual bodies are that which are judged by God -- those same angels that existed in the previous age. | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3724 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
xman3,
That is because you don't speak 'tongues' -- you practice gibberish rituals. Your 'high' is from seducing spirits -- not the Holy Spirit. | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3725 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
oneway,
Common on now -- you know that I have never said that. You should also be clear, for the viewers' sake, that the 'predestination', 'elect', 'justified', 'saints', etc doctrine has biblical backing. In fact, it was even taught by Christ. Joh 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. Joh 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. In verse 39, Christ references those "which He hath given me". These are the 'elect', whom were already saved before the foundation of this world age. Christ did not lose any of them. They will be conformed [if they stray] onto Christ - Rom 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. The rest have free will to follow Satan or love God by accepting Christ. They are referred to in verse 40 as "everyone which seeth". That fits perfectly with John 3:16 -- the basis for salvation. | ||
| mcmstaff78 Senior Member Username: mcmstaff78 Post Number: 2056 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 167.193.134.61 |
Watchman demonstrates the truth of the old chestnut, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". Show me one reputable Hebrew scholar that would agree with his interpretation of Genesis 1. "Not farfetched"? It is incredulous. You cannot translate "elohyim" as "Angels" in one part of the same passage and but not in others. Gen. 1 states, "In the beginning Elohyim created the heavens and the earth." And to discount the LXX, when it was the scriptures for the Apostles and early Christians up to the point when the Vulgate was translated, demonstrates a profound presumptuousness. The Hebrew massoretic text that most OT are based upon today stems from the 9th century AD jewish composition. Gee, you don't think those Jews had any self-interest in compiling a canon of scripture that attempted to undercut Christian doctrine any way they could, huh? The theology Watchman is peddling strikes me pretty much as regurgitated Gnosticism. | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 878 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.7.204.167 |
That is because you don't speak 'tongues' -- you practice gibberish rituals. Your 'high' is from seducing spirits -- not the Holy Spirit. Gee watchman. First the arrogance and hypocricy, now the not so subtle insults which have nothing to with this stuff. You're slipping. Not to mention the old, lump 'em together philosophy. I don't even know what this high is you refer to. Now you promised you wouldn't do that either. Your list of sins is growing. But I digress. You attempt to establish the existence of a 1st age. With the exception of these 2 things Here we have a second witness of John 1:1 that in the beginning was the Word. Satan had already fallen before interacting with the woman I find it reasonable. Up until the gargantuan leap you make at your 2Peter reference. Having said that even, all you did was say there was a first age and that satan and his cohorts were angels. Actually, I believe that already for basically the reasons you outlined. What you haven't done in any way, shape, or form is to show where an angel sspirit or any pre-existing spirit is placed in a flesh body to become a man. Not even a mention, and that is what we are supposed to be talking about. Then, you make the fantastic leap out of nowhere and say God now calls these revolting angels ungodly men. There is no connection whatsoever. Lets see. We are men. We live in this age. We will be judged. That qualifies as judgement for ungodly men, and I see NO connection to angels and NO tie in to angels being placed into flesh bodies. This is an amazing piecmeal of unrelated scriptures that I doubt even Strong's could bail you out of. There are so many remaining question , none of them the one you suggest, that space fails me again. | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3726 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
mcm,
Show me one reputable Hebrew scholar first. There probably is no such thing as a "Hebrew" scholar -- most are Kenites. From Wikipedia:
Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel So, when you say that 'Elohim' is always interpreted as 'God', one can see, from the Jewish perspective, it is only "sometimes" interpreted as 'God'. Thank you; but, Dr. Strong is clearly a respected scholar in Hebrew. I will stick with his work. You simply demonstrate ignorance on this subject.
I did not say that the LXX was a bad work -- just inferior to the Hebrew text. Likewise, the KJV is a good work -- just inferior to the Hebrew OT and the Greek NT manuscripts. It is not even difficult at all for a layperson to prove if the MT was translated from the LXX or the copied from Hebrew text. Of course, it comes from Hebrew text. The LXX is just a rendering. Has it ever entered into your brain that, since the Greeks [Alexander the Great] conquered the Holy Land, many people may have spoken Greek at the time and it was more convenient for them to study/quote from the LXX then the Hebrew text?? It is no different today as we quote/study from English renderings because that is the language we understand. We do this with the full knowledge [except for some sects/denominations] that the original languages of the Bible were not English. You surely fit the old adage, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 880 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.7.204.167 |
Show me one reputable Hebrew scholar first. There probably is no such thing as a "Hebrew" scholar -- most are Kenites. Wow. This is amazing statement watchman_2 has made. My goodness! Like I said. His dangerous theology is being laid out ststematically before us in his own posts. | ||
| mcmstaff78 Senior Member Username: mcmstaff78 Post Number: 2061 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 167.193.134.61 |
Watchman, I didn't write that Elohyim is always translated in the whole of the OT as "God". My goodness, I already posted stats on how it is translated. But it is translated throughout Genesis chapter 1 as "God". Why don't you actually deal with the main point of my argument - Gen. 1 reads "In the beginning, Elohyim created the heavens and the earth..." If Elohyim refers to "angels" later in the chapter, then it must refer to "angels" in this part. I would suggest that the LXX is better than the current Massoretic text in the sense that it is closer to the mainstream textual family of the OT at the time of Christ than the 9th Century Massoretic text is. Again, a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. Must cults and bizzare "Christian" expressions come from turning age old understandings of the scriptures on their head. Charismacostals do it with the "gifts" and "baptism of the Holy Spirit", you're doing it with you Gnostic angel stuff. | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 881 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.7.204.167 |
watchman: considering the title of this thread, which was started by easeltine asking if they are even saved, is repentance needed- all from a 4 steps to receive Christ perpsective. It is clear you do not fit the qualifications those steps outline, such as they are. It is also clear you don't even accept them as valid or have any need to worry about them. I understand your theology here, and I don't see any point in demonstrating how it is far off from most accepted views because that has already been emphatically established by many posts and your own desire not to identify with it anyway. We could argue back and forth who's right and who's wrong about varioous words and scriptures, but I don't see either one of us bending too much here. I'm not interested in giving you a soapbox for your beliefs, and you're not interested in giving me one, so I suggest we leave it as is. | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3727 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
xman3,
Sure I did!! You are just too busy denying Truth to fit your theology that you cannot recognize or see it when it is handed to you on a silver platter. See 2 Pet. 3:7 [with Stong's number identifiers] - 2Pe 3:7 But1161 the3588 heavens3772 and2532 the3588 earth,1093 which are now,3568 by the3588 same846 word3056 are1526 kept in store,2343 reserved5083 unto fire4442 against1519 the day2250 of judgment2920 and2532 perdition684 of ungodly765 men.444 Look at the word 'are' in Strong's - G1526 i-see' Third person plural present indicative of G1510; they are: - agree, are, be, dure, X is, were. It is interpreted and best rendered as 'they are'. Who is the "they"? It is none other then the inhabitants of that first age -- the angels. Check out the word 'store' - G2343 thay-sow-rid'-zo From G2344; to amass or reserve (literally or figuratively): - lay up (treasure), (keep) in store, (heap) treasure (together, up). In today's parlance, it is best rendered 'amassed'. Check out the word 'reserved' - G5083 tay-reh'-o From τηρός teros (a watch; perhaps akin to G2334); to guard (from loss or injury, properly by keeping the eye upon; and thus differing from G5442, which is properly to prevent escaping; and from G2892, which implies a fortress or full military lines of apparatus), that is, to note (a prophecy; figuratively to fulfil a command); by implication to detain (in custody; figuratively to maintain); by extension to withhold (for personal ends; figuratively to keep unmarried): - hold fast, keep (-er), (ob-, pre-, re) serve, watch. As I have emboldened, it is to God's end that this age occur to prevent from loss. The loss God is trying to prevent is the perdition of souls -- the souls that would have been lost had judgment been pronounced at the end of the first age. This age is the age of grace in more ways then people think. It is God's entire plan to salvage some souls that would have otherwise been lost. This scripture is best rendered, in today's parlance, as - 2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word the angels are amassed, maintained in effort to prevent further loss unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3728 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
mcm, If you have been paying attention, I have covered the fact that 'Elohim' means God in Genesis 1 except for the superlative cases used in verses 26 and 27 -- the words "us", "our", and "his"[KJV]. The discussion/debate is to whom God is talking and referring to in these superlative instances. Now, based upon your commentary, you claim it always means 'God'. Since this would mean that God is talking to himself, I would venture that even the others in disagreement would also disagree with you. There is no reason for God to talk to himself or refer to Himself as "us" or "our" while dictating this book to Moses. The others have argued that the references speak of Jesus. Throughout several posts, I covered my rationale for claiming that this makes no sense as well. So, I have concluded and sided with Dr. Strong's definition of 'angels' as to whom God is speaking to in verse 26. The references to "us" and "our" therein are best rendered as 'the angels' and 'the angels''. My understanding is bolstered by the three earth ages and the fall of Satan and many angels therewith him during the first age. I have extensively covered how the angels of that first age are the spiritual bodies placed within flesh man this age in response to several posts. Now, you can argue all day long regarding the merits of the Septuagint v. the MT; but, in actuality, it is irrelevant with respect to understanding the "us" and "our" in verse 26, as the LXX contains those words as well. I don't care to argue either and maybe we can refrain from deroggatory comments from now on. You certainly are entitled to your own views. I am simply here to provide the Truth for those that have eyes to see and ears to hear. If I am wrong and you can demonstrate why, I am always happy for the edification. | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 883 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.7.204.167 |
Watchman: Do you really want to continue this discussion? There are numerous important questions I've asked you haven't answered. When I make an effort to actually begin to use Strong's and scripture, you ignore it. When I compliment you for something, despite our disagreement, it is always met with the same arrogance. I expected it from tatm and ceased discussion with him because of it, but I did not expect it from you. We have a small amount of agreement, and a lot of major disgreement concerning these things. When we begin to bring kenites, ss doctrine, and other Shepherd's Chapel beliefs into this, I see trouble on the horizon. I was very respectful of all of you when I went into the SC threads and discussed this stuff though my beliefs were no different than now. I don't see that attitude expressed here and frankly, I'm a lover, not a fighter. I tire of the hypocrisy, the arrogance, and the constant insults, subtle though they may seem. I have emphasized where you are in great error, as you believe you have done, so we can let those who read decide. The truth is, with thousands of posts, contentious and argumenative as they are, in the SC threads discussing this stuff I have no desire to go on just to give you more opportunity to jabber on AT me with no consideration for what I say, or me, just so you have a forum for your unorthodox (generally and literally) beliefs. I am quite satisfied with what I have posted thus far and I believe I have made my point in this thread already. I enjoy a good discussion and digging into the word as much as you do, but constantly hearing about gibberish, a mystical high I am unaware of, xman you err, every scholar errs, and every other subtle and not so subtle disrespectful comment you feel you must include with your scripture commentary tempts me to resort to the same stuff which just isn't my style or desire. | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3729 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
xman3, I make no apologies for speaking truth. And, though you may tire of hearing that the rituals you practice are unbiblical, nonetheless, it is true. I previously asked you for a different word besides 'gibberish' to describe it, yet you provide no other accurate term. Your claim that it is 'tongues' that you practice is complete hypocrisy in that there is no definition of 'tongues' in scripture that remotely likens itself to your indiscernible uttering rituals. It is not just I that warn you of such ungodly pursuits. Others here have done likewise. I have even laid it out for you in scripture. And, we have the testimonies of those that were in your religion. Bear has even edified you regarding the origination of your rituals in the year 1901 -- not back to the time of Apostle Paul. Bear has basically confirmed my 'drug addict' analogy to your ungodly rituals. Oneway has provided personal testimony regarding the evil nature of your rituals. God had to intercede in Oneway's life to prevent Oneway from continuing in such ungodly rituals. There comes a time in a person's life that one, with the slightest intelligence or sense of self respect, has to realize, by way of all the mounting evidence before them, that they are truly in error. The question at that point is whether one can admit error or will stubbornly save face, even if saving face lead them all the way to the gates of hell. There truly is nothing new under the sun. Even when Christ himself did miracles before their very eyes, there were those that deny, mock, and decry Him. The disciples, except John, were martyred for speaking Truth. If one qualifies the edification process by excepting one's own beliefs/practices [religion], then one cannot be edified at all. If one truly seeks Truth, one has to accept that the truth might prove that everything one currently believes in or practices may be errant. In the Bible, people refusing such edification are referred to as the "willingly ignorant". Such people fill the Factnet forum with their posts. To them, edification is great -- just as long that it is the others that are edified. Edification never pertains to them. At the time of Galileo, the religious establishment believed [the 'orthodox' position] that the earth was the center of the universe. When they peeked into Galileo's telescope, which showed the moons of Jupiter thus disproving their belief, they still denied the Truth. So, only you can decide if you can be edified. Can you see the moons of Jupiter?? | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 884 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.7.204.167 |
watchman: Ah yes. One final dose of arrogance to perhaps goad me into continuing. I shan't bite though. I hope you practice these posts in front of a mirror. Let's see. First warning. Second warning. Yup, this qualifies to me. Titus 3:9-11. | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3730 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
xman3, It is not arrogance and I am not goading you at all. I provided you truth. One either wants to learn or not. That, of course, is your decision. I guess that you are not edifiable -- no moons revolving around Jupiter. | ||
| turtle Senior Member Username: turtle Post Number: 1687 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 72.66.229.201 |
I have a question to that believes they receive an angel. The Bible speaks that we will judge angels. Speaks angels are guardian spirits. The Holy Spirit though is different, he is God and speaks of Jesus and the Gather. So angel person do you interpet scripture on these points. May this has already been discussed and if so tell me how far up. This is was is going through my mind as I read this. | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 891 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.7.204.167 |
One man's truth is another man's decpetion. We shall have to let our points stand where they are, and let all the readers be edified and make up their mind. I am not going anywhere though. I'm just not going to continue this particular discussion for the reasons stated. I'm sure you'll have other opportunities to edify me, and who knows. Maybe I can even edify you. | ||
| mcmstaff78 Senior Member Username: mcmstaff78 Post Number: 2065 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 167.193.134.61 |
Watchman - IOW, you took a position and are forcing it into the scripture as support. Again, there is no basis for it in the scriptures. Welcome to the wonderful world of Gnosticism. You and the Charismacostals are just kissing cousins. | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3732 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
mcm, I laid it out on a silver platter for those with eyes to see the Truth. You have no argument against it other then you don't care for Dr. Strong's work -- that's fine. However, even you would have to admit the argument presented is impelling. So, spare me your immature commentary -- it is meaningless. | ||
| mcmstaff78 Senior Member Username: mcmstaff78 Post Number: 2068 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 167.193.134.61 |
Watchman, do you always engage in such disingenuous argumentation? I have no truck with Strong's. It is your misuse of Strong's that I take issue with. There is no basis within the context to support interpreting Elohyim as "angels" in any part of Gen. 1 other than your own rejection of the Trinity and unwillingness this passage as implicit revelation of that truth. Since God is under no necessity at all, He has no "need" to do anything. I would also deny that this relates a literal conversation, but rather is a anthropopathic representation which communicates a) a rudimentary concept of the Trinity of the Godhead; and b) that man is more than a physical creature. The "image of God" is not material, but encapsulates the qualities of Personhood. To quote one source: My "commentary" isn't "immature", you just don't like it. "Impelling"? No, ludicrous is more like it. But it fits the Gnostic trends of our age so I'm sure you find many ignorant of the scriptures to whom it appeals. | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3733 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
mcm, Yes, your comment was immature. Gnostic and Charimacostal beliefs are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Your personal commentary is meaningless. >>>>> So, let's look at whether or not you have something of merit regarding the scriptures.
Now pay attention very carefully [as you have not caught it the many other times that I have posted this]! The topic of debate is whom are the "us" and "our" present with God and to which God was speaking in verse 26 of Genesis 1. Even your beloved LXX renders it "us" and "our". I know of no rendering that provides different wording. If you are aware of a rendering that does have different wording, I would appreciate the information. The word "us" is simply a pronoun. The word "our" is an adjective for the pronoun "us". If you have had any education, you proably were exposed to sentence structure and the definition of a pronoun. Since you have demonstrated a lack of understanding, I will assist you. A pronoun is simply a substitution for a noun. In the case of verse 26, the pronoun "us" can only refer to or be a substitution for the word 'God'; however, the usage is clearly in the plural superlative sense. Therefore, in order to get the Hebrew definition for the pronoun "us" and the adjective "our", one has to look up the definition of 'God' and look for the plural superlative meaning. When this is done in Strong's, lo and behold we have a superlative meaning - H430 el-o-heem' Plural of H433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: - angels, X exceeding, God (gods) (-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty. As one can see, I properly utilized the word 'God' for defining the words "us" and "our" in verse 26. Furthermore, I used the correct superlative meaning provided in Stong's as emboldened above. So, at this point, unless you are going to argue that little gods, magistrates, or judges is more appropriate, and can support such view in scripture, it is clear that I have proven my position and accurately used Strong's to support it. I will expect your acknowledgment that you were in error in your next post. | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3734 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
mcm,
I guess that you don't believe the Bible then - Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. God tells us that He said it. I am glad that I am not you -- accusing God of being a liar! | ||
| mcmstaff78 Senior Member Username: mcmstaff78 Post Number: 2069 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 167.193.134.61 |
Thank you for your comments, watchman. May the Illumination of the Incarnate God, our Lord & Savior Jesus Christ, fill your heart and soul! Merry Christmas!! | ||
| matt_hatter Senior Member Username: matt_hatter Post Number: 4383 Registered: 5-2006 Posted From: 216.226.180.3 |
Now pay attention very carefully [as you have not caught it the many other times that I have posted this]! it is clear that I have proven my position I will expect your acknowledgment that you were in error in your next post. I guess that you don't believe the Bible then - I am glad that I am not you -- accusing God of being a liar! While you are being illuminated, hopefully a light will show your need for a little humility. As the arrogance of your posts increase, it seems so ironic to me that you insist that you are right in so many ways, but follow a strange doctrine that was invented by some geezer on TV and unaccepted in almost all orthodox Christian groups. The irony of it all is that there are several posters here (on an anti-cult site) who accept no one as fellow believers, a true sign of a cultist. | ||
| easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1771 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 72.164.43.195 |
"And God said, Let us MAKE..." | ||
| fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 2751 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.255.151.176 |
"to a child, the truth is self evident; to an adult it is hidden." -anonymous- | ||
| fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 2755 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.255.151.176 |
"to know the truth is to know thyself; the search is limitless." -anonymous- | ||
| fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 2756 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.255.151.176 |
change is continuous; how can the search for truth be otherwise? -anonymous- | ||
| mcmstaff78 Senior Member Username: mcmstaff78 Post Number: 2072 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 167.193.134.61 |
Because truth isn't a syllogism, indicative or counterfactual conditional, He is a Person!! Feliz Navidad!! Christ is Born! Glorify Him!! | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3736 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
matt_hatter, The Bible is not "strange doctrine" to many as you contend. I suggest that you invest in a dictionary and look up the definition of the word 'arrogance'. It is not arrogant to rightly divide the Word of Truth. It is my Christian duty and pleasure to share the Truth with those that have eyes to see it. For those of you that have no eyes to see, I respect your right to believe as you see fit. It is the edification of the Biblically illiterate and defense of the Truth of God's Word that brings me to this forum -- not my self-importance. It is a typical tactic of losers to attack the messenger in order to draw attention away from the fact that they have been proven wrong. In your case, I have not even engaged you in debate regarding any topic. So, at best, your comments are ill-placed. Your personal commentary is meaningless. In fact, it actually works against your credibility since I have given you no cause to address me in such manner. | ||
| |
