|
|
Rank: Advanced Member  Joined: 9/8/2011 Posts: 338 Location: Lake worth, Florida
|
TerryD wrote:jnk309 wrote:TerryD wrote:1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. This is why Christendom are in confusion with the Bible, TerryD. Trinitarians try to muddy up the sacred secret by saying that "He" at 1 Timothy 3:16 is God himself. They base this on the King James Bible, which reads, "God was manifest in the flesh." However, what do most reliable Greek manuscripts say? Consistently, they use the pronoun "He" instead of "God." Textual critics now agree that the insertion of "God" in this scripture is a scribal error. Thus, more recent translations, such as the American Standard Version, The New English Bible, and The New World Translation correctly read: 'He [or, He who] was manifest in the flesh.' Rather, it was his beloved Son and first creation, of whom the apostle John wrote: So the word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father, and he was full of undeserved kindness and truth."--John 1:14. Keep it up, TerryD, you may get the hang of it before its too late. At least you are pursing it. Where did you post Jesus was impaled on a tree? I liked that. But I can't find it. I will stick with the KJV.
Mat 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
I have no idea where I posted that Jesus was impaled on a tree. I don't believe I did. I posted a definition for impale. There's no way that Christ was crucified in that manner. If there seems to be a conflict between the angel's instructions to Mary ["you are to call his name Jesus"] and Isaiah's prophecy's ["she will certainly call his name Immanuel"], let it be remembered that the Messiah was also to be called by yet other names. [Luke 1:31; Isaiah 7:14] For example, Isaiah 9:6 said concerning this one: "His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace." Yet none of these names were given to Mary's firstborn as personal names, neither when he was a babe nor after he took up his ministry. Rather they were all prophetic title-names by which Messiah would be identified. Jesus lived up to the meaning of these names in every respect, and that is the sense in which they were prophetically given, to show his qualities and the good offices he would perform toward all those accepting him as Messiah. So also with his title Immanuel. He measured up to and fulfilled its meaning. Keep searching TerryD, we all do making sure of all things.
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member  Joined: 1/7/2010 Posts: 4,073 Location: WI
|
jnk309 wrote:TerryD wrote:jnk309 wrote:TerryD wrote:1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. This is why Christendom are in confusion with the Bible, TerryD. Trinitarians try to muddy up the sacred secret by saying that "He" at 1 Timothy 3:16 is God himself. They base this on the King James Bible, which reads, "God was manifest in the flesh." However, what do most reliable Greek manuscripts say? Consistently, they use the pronoun "He" instead of "God." Textual critics now agree that the insertion of "God" in this scripture is a scribal error. Thus, more recent translations, such as the American Standard Version, The New English Bible, and The New World Translation correctly read: 'He [or, He who] was manifest in the flesh.' Rather, it was his beloved Son and first creation, of whom the apostle John wrote: So the word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father, and he was full of undeserved kindness and truth."--John 1:14. Keep it up, TerryD, you may get the hang of it before its too late. At least you are pursing it. Where did you post Jesus was impaled on a tree? I liked that. But I can't find it. I will stick with the KJV.
Mat 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
I have no idea where I posted that Jesus was impaled on a tree. I don't believe I did. I posted a definition for impale. There's no way that Christ was crucified in that manner. If there seems to be a conflict between the angel's instructions to Mary ["you are to call his name Jesus"] and Isaiah's prophecy's ["she will certainly call his name Immanuel"], let it be remembered that the Messiah was also to be called by yet other names. [Luke 1:31; Isaiah 7:14] For example, Isaiah 9:6 said concerning this one: "His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace." Yet none of these names were given to Mary's firstborn as personal names, neither when he was a babe nor after he took up his ministry. Rather they were all prophetic title-names by which Messiah would be identified. Jesus lived up to the meaning of these names in every respect, and that is the sense in which they were prophetically given, to show his qualities and the good offices he would perform toward all those accepting him as Messiah. So also with his title Immanuel. He measured up to and fulfilled its meaning. Keep searching TerryD, we all do making sure of all things. I am sure the Bible says Christ is God in the human form."If a man loses pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music in which he hears, however measured, or far away.” Henry David Thoreau
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member  Joined: 3/3/2008 Posts: 12,990
|
Matthew 1:23
“The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son,
and they will call him Immanuel” —which means, “God with us.”
Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth? - Galatians 4:16
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member  Joined: 9/9/2008 Posts: 2,980
|
John 10:29-30 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”
John 10:37-38 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”
~ Insults Should Be Written In Sand ~ Compliments Should Be Carved In Stone ~
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member Joined: 3/3/2008 Posts: 12,990
|
Isaiah 9:6
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called Wonderful Counselor,
Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth? - Galatians 4:16
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member Joined: 9/8/2011 Posts: 338 Location: Lake worth, Florida
|
stevelundgren wrote:
Isaiah 9:6
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called Wonderful Counselor,
Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Does saying that Jesus Christ is "a god" conflict with the Bible's teaching that there is only one God? No, for at times the Bible employs that term to refer to mighty creatures. Psalms 8:5 read: "You also proceeded to make him [man] a little less than godlike ones," that is, angels. In Jesus' defense against the charge of the Jews, that he claimed to be God, he noted that "the law uses the word gods of those to whom the word of God was addressed," that is, human judges. [John 10:34, 35, JB; Psalms 82:1-6] Even Satan is called "the god of this system of things" at 2 Corinthians 4:4. Jesus has a position far higher than angels, imperfect men, or Satan. Since these are referred to as "gods," mighty ones, surely Jesus can be and is a "god." Because of this unique position in relation to Jehovah , Jesus is a "Mighty God."--John 1:1; Isaiah 9:6. But does not "Mighty God" with its capital letters indicate that Jesus is in some way equal to Jehovah God? Not at all. Isaiah merely prophesied this to be one of four names that Jesus would be called, and in the English language such names are capitalized. Still, even though Jesus was called "Mighty," there can be only one who is "Almighty." To call Jehovah God "Almighty" would have little significance unless there existed others who were also called gods but who occupied a lesser or inferior position.
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member Joined: 9/8/2011 Posts: 338 Location: Lake worth, Florida
|
sarge wrote:
John 10:29-30 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”
John 10:37-38 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”
That text at John 10:30, is often cited to support The Trinity, even though no third person is mentioned there. But Jesus showed himself what he meant by his being "one" with the Father. At John 17: 21, 22, he prayed to God that his disciples "may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I in union with you, that they also may be in union with us...that they may be one just as we are one." Was Jesus praying that all his disciples would become a single entity? No, obviously Jesus was praying that they would be united in thought and purpose, as he and God were.--See also 1 Corinthians 1:10. At 1 Corinthians 3:6, 8, Paul says: "I planted, Apollos watered...He that plants and he that waters are one." Paul did not mean that he and Apollos were two persons in one; he meant that they were unified in purpose. The Greek word that Paul used here for "one" [hen] is neuter, literally "one [thing]," indicating oneness in cooperation. It is the same word that Jesus used at John 10:30 to describe his relation with his Father. It is also the same word that Jesus used at John 17:21, 22. So when he used the word "one" in these cases, he was talking about unity of thought and purpose. Regarding John 10:30, John Calvin [who was a Trinitarian] said in the book Commentary on the Gospel According to John: "The ancients made a wrong use of this passage to prove that Christ is...of the same essence with the Father. For Christ does not argue about the unity of substance, but about the agreement which he has with the Father." Right in the context of the verses after John 10:30, Jesus forcefully argued that his words were not a claim to be God. He asked the Jews who wrongly drew that conclusion and wanted to stone him: "Why do you charge me with blasphemy because I, consecrated and sent into the world by the Father, said, 'I am God's son'?" [John 10:31-36, NE] No, Jesus claimed that he was, not God the Son, but Son of God.
|
|
|