|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 9, 2011 21:39:44 GMT -5
Cool! I put it in Favs. Roo |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 9, 2011 21:45:06 GMT -5
Cool! I put it in Favs. Roo Did you know that we have a bookmark feature here as well? Its located at the top left of each thread. |
|
|
|
Post by stormcrow on Jan 9, 2011 22:03:50 GMT -5
I'm sorry guys, I was pretty tired and upset when I wrote my farewell post last night...the guy calling me a Satanist was on another forum. No one here is that rude or stupid. My humblest apologies for the mix-up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 9, 2011 22:07:01 GMT -5
I'm sorry guys, I was pretty tired and upset when I wrote my farewell post last night...the guy calling me a Satanist was on another forum. No one here is that rude or stupid. My humblest apologies for the mix-up. No harm done. Welcome back. |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 9, 2011 23:08:44 GMT -5
If you are a "satanist" for using the LXX, then so were Jesus and the Apostles. The LXX is cited 67% of the time by them.Your last statement is qualitatively true, but technically false. About half of the so-called LXX cites are equivalent to, but not identical to the LXX. They were likely translated to Greek directly from an ancient Hebrew text that matches the Dead Sea Scrolls. Among NT quotes, the Hebrew DSS matches the Greek LXX in over 200 places where both disagree with the modern Hebrew text. The DSS agrees with the modern Hebrew only 8 times where the LXX disagrees. |
|
|
|
Post by simplyforgiven on Jan 10, 2011 1:46:19 GMT -5
Hi Bev, I know that it wasnt a debate, but thats why i stated im "assuming" because thats the way i generaly see things, when a person chooses to only refute one part of a post that i put effort in. So i just assumeedddd thats you agreeed. you could have just stated, "you know, i disagreee but dont got the time to respond" or whatever you wanted. but since you only refuted one part of my post, i just assumed with the crazy thoughts that bounce of the walls of my brain that you could possibly (in hope) agreed. Knowing GodMaybe you misunderstood my point and where i was trying to get at. Im responding to your theology as the way you see it. You believe that Jesus is seperate from God. so therefore My statement is held true, that No one can know God. You said this Which is where I disagree. My statement reflects that NO one can know God. So for Jesus to make such a claim, means that HE IS God. Get what im saying? at times i have a hard time communicating my contentions, if you misunderstood please ask me what you dont understand. Im complicated at times but never dull  I get what you're saying, Dennison, but I don't believe that your statement that "NO one can know God" is true. I provided scriptures that indicate otherwise. It makes no sense to use knowing God in the negative if the positive is not possible. There is no strength in an argument saying "like the Gentiles who do not know God" if indeed it is impossible for anyone to know God. So the audience being addressed with that argument must know God, or at least it is expected that they should know Him. Also, just because Jesus is the way to knowing God, it does not follow that he is God. I think I'm done for the night. My husband isn't feeling well and has already turned in, so I think I will follow his lead. Have a good night! In Terms of Evidence just by stating the negative doesnt suggest exactly WHOM knows God. so it doesnt prove anything. its humanaly impossible for anyone to know God without Jesus. So the Epistles of Paul are in reference to the believers that know Jesus, therefore know God. No one has ever Seen God, and do not know him, because by Jesus is God revealed as the Father and made known. John 1:18 (King James Version)
18No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
John 8:19
Then they asked him, “Where is your father?” “You do not know me or my Father,” Jesus replied. “If you knew me, you would know my Father also.”
Luke 10:22 (King James Version)
22All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.
15Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
1 Timony 6
16Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.For anyone to Know God it must be through Jesus. but to claim that a Man can know God by mere will is impossible because no one knows him if not by revelation. |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 10, 2011 15:41:29 GMT -5
I'm sorry guys, I was pretty tired and upset when I wrote my farewell post last night...the guy calling me a Satanist was on another forum. No one here is that rude or stupid. My humblest apologies for the mix-up. No worry Crow. I've done it too especially when not wearing my reading glasses. Roo |
|
|
|
Post by worshippingjesus on Jan 10, 2011 18:40:14 GMT -5
"Can you tell me why you think "Jesus Christ is a created being" is a heresy?" If Jesus is a created being, He suffers under the same Adamic curse that all creation does. Consequently, He would require a redeemer as well. If He requires a redeemer, then He cannot redeem us. The sacrificial atonement had to be a spotless lamb, free of defect. Were Christ created, He would be as tainted by the stain of sin as anyone of us, and His sacrificial death could not atone for us. Jesus is God manifest in the flesh (which is what the phrase "God incarnate"means). If He is created, He cannot be God. And if He is not God, He cannot save us, as there is only one name under heaven by which men must be saved. As someone else cited Isaiah, God alone is savior. Therefore either Christ is also God (something to which He alluded to many times in scripture), or He is not. If He is not, His death, no matter how well intentioned, was in vain. Oh, and as to why I believe it's a heresy? Because it nullifies the atonement, which is the single-most important truth of the entire Bible. That's my $.02.  Thanks, stormcrow. Nothing new there. Normal reformed response. That's not to assume that you are "Reformed," just that what you provided was typical of the type of response I usually get from those who are. Hi Once4all How about this response...? All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him "nothing came into being that has come into being". John 1:3 ..." nothing came into being that has come into being" apart from Jesus and we know he did not create himself.  Blessings Keith |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 10, 2011 18:45:49 GMT -5
Bev wrote:
Yet all other non-trins say, "Typical Catholic response." Bev seems to think that certain responses are distinctive of the Reformed.
Should a moderator drive a wedge between people?
Roo
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 10, 2011 19:35:31 GMT -5
Thanks, stormcrow. Nothing new there. Normal reformed response. That's not to assume that you are "Reformed," just that what you provided was typical of the type of response I usually get from those who are. Hi Once4all How about this response...? All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him "nothing came into being that has come into being". John 1:3 ..." nothing came into being that has come into being" apart from Jesus and we know he did not create himself. Blessings Keith Hi Keith. In my view, there are two ways to see John's prologue. 1. The "Him" is God. The fulfillment of God's Word (being the coming of the Messiah, Jesus) doesn't enter the prologue until verse 14. 2. The "beginning" of John's gospel is no different than the "beginning" in Luke's gospel, Mark's gospel, Acts, and 1 John. They all refer to the beginning of Jesus' ministry heralded by John the Baptist. I expounded more on this here: livebytr.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=jesusisgod&thread=525&page=1 |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 10, 2011 19:47:28 GMT -5
Bev wrote: Yet all other non-trins say, "Typical Catholic response." Bev seems to think that certain responses are distinctive of the Reformed. Should a moderator drive a wedge between people? Roo If certain beliefs were not distinctive of specific traditions, then we would not have all the denominations and divisions in the Church that currently exist. |
|
|
|
Post by simplyforgiven on Jan 11, 2011 0:09:23 GMT -5
Speaking of John.
Has anyone noticed that almost the first 5 verses of John almost match up with Gensis 1-5?
Im sure John was doing that in purpose.
|
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 11, 2011 0:28:50 GMT -5
Speaking of John. Has anyone noticed that almost the first 5 verses of John almost match up with Gensis 1-5? Im sure John was doing that in purpose. Dennison, My coauthor and I have discussed that at length. |
|
|
|
Post by simplyforgiven on Jan 11, 2011 1:40:14 GMT -5
Speaking of John. Has anyone noticed that almost the first 5 verses of John almost match up with Gensis 1-5? Im sure John was doing that in purpose. Dennison, My coauthor and I have discussed that at length. so you agree? It makes perfect sense that John was trying to mimic Genesis. |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 11, 2011 2:05:19 GMT -5
Dennison, My coauthor and I have discussed that at length. so you agree? It makes perfect sense that John was trying to mimic Genesis. Yes, I agree. It is a major topic in Chapter 15 of Beyond Creation Science. Keep going. The mimicing doesn't end with verse 5. |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Jan 11, 2011 4:23:42 GMT -5
Ok, I need to get something off my chest and it involves recent dealings with some people and certain other websites. Let me say right off the bat I am not a Preterist. I am not a Futurist. I am not an Anglo-Franco-Irish-Native American-American. I am not a Right-Wing Fundamentalist. I am not a Left-Wing Liberal. I am not anything any of those things such stereotypical terms might suggest. Here's the problem with such labels: they are "discussion-enders." Here's what I mean (and I will cite two recent examples from my own recent past to illustrate my point.) Up until a few months ago, I was very active on another website (PM me if you want the name of it), and underwent a massive transformation there in my understanding of prophecy. I had been there for about 4 years and had learned quite a bit (thank you Retrobyter and Bob97, if you ever happen to read this). As a result of my learning there, I had abandoned most of what people consider the "mainstream futurist" view of prophecy. As a result of my posts, which reflected my evolving learning, I was told by the administration of that website to restrict all future posts to the "Preterist One-Stop Thread." In all my years of church and Christian college experience, I had never heard the term "preterist" nor even knew what it meant! When I had embarked upon my search for the truth, I had decided to follow the evidence wherever it might lead. If the scripture could be shown to support the mainstream view, I would've gone with that. However, the more I read from the defenders on that website of the mainstream evangelical view, as typified by LaHaye, Jenkins, van Impe, et al, the more nonsensical the view became. When I repeatedly tried to point out the nonsense of the positions they were taking, I was banned for life from that website for failing to keep my posts in the "Preterist-only" thread: a kind of intellectual and doctrinal "ghetto" that people could avoid because of the supposed dangers such views represented to the faith of others. (I guess that's where they keep the people they believe to be heretics while still maintaining a veneer of free and open discussion.) Does that mean I am a Preterist? No, and here's why: A few weeks ago, when I asked the pastor at a new church my wife and I were attending to explain why the word "tribulation" (thlipsis) is never mentioned in any form AFTER Revelation 7:14 (he was teaching on Revelation), he said, "Oh, so you're a preterist", then proceeded to ignore my question. "Preterist", as it happened, was a label that allowed him to think he knew everything about my eschatology and theology there was to know and, in knowing, to ignore me. He placed me in the same doctrinal ghetto in his mind to which a website had likewise relegated me. All I did was ask a question pertaining to the teaching I had just heard. I'm not writing this to garner sympathy or support. I am writing this to warn people of the danger in labels which are - more often than not - used to relegate people of a certain point of view (any point of view) to a place of cold indifference, or worse, outright disdain. I will never allow myself to be called "preterist" or "futurist" because - as even those in the Body of Christ have shown - such labels engender prejudice and animosity, neither of which has any place in our search for the truth. I, therefore, remain committed to following the evidence where it leads and leaving the labels to people who cannot seem to think any deeper about the Bible than that which they can read on a bumper sticker or billboard. And that is the end of my rant. (P.S. I am a conservative Christian, so if that offends anyone, I'm OK with that. We're used to being ignored.  What about labels like Amish, Baptist, Catholic, Evanagelical, Lutheran, Mennonite, Nazarene, Independent, Orthodox, Presbyterian, Quaker, Reformed, and Weslyan? These are labels I hate. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 11, 2011 12:37:22 GMT -5
so you agree? It makes perfect sense that John was trying to mimic Genesis. Yes, I agree. It is a major topic in Chapter 15 of Beyond Creation Science. Keep going. The mimicing doesn't end with verse 5. But any mimicry you detect is not because it is about that same creation, but rather the NEW creation; as also the "beginning" in Luke's gospel, Mark's gospel, Acts, and 1 John. |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 11, 2011 20:20:08 GMT -5
Yes, I agree. It is a major topic in Chapter 15 of Beyond Creation Science. Keep going. The mimicing doesn't end with verse 5. But any mimicry you detect is not because it is about that same creation, but rather the NEW creation; as also the "beginning" in Luke's gospel, Mark's gospel, Acts, and 1 John. Right! |
|
|
|
Post by simplyforgiven on Jan 12, 2011 3:13:04 GMT -5
But any mimicry you detect is not because it is about that same creation, but rather the NEW creation; as also the "beginning" in Luke's gospel, Mark's gospel, Acts, and 1 John. Right! so your stating that its not talking about "The Beginning" but different beginnings? |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Jan 12, 2011 3:27:23 GMT -5
I thought this was a thread about labels. Along that line, I asked, "What about labels like Amish, Baptist, Catholic, Evanagelical, Lutheran, Mennonite, Nazarene, Independent, Orthodox, Presbyterian, Quaker, Reformed, and Weslyan?  |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 12, 2011 9:47:43 GMT -5
so your stating that its not talking about "The Beginning" but different beginnings? Not "beginnings" as though there were many, but the two major beginnings that the Scriptures record: The old creation/covenant and the new creation/covenant. Wow, you'd think I was a proponent of CC or something based on that statement! No, not yet. But when the Bible speaks of "creation," there are only two: the Genesis creation and the new creation in Christ. Both are beginnings. |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 12, 2011 9:57:26 GMT -5
so your stating that its not talking about "The Beginning" but different beginnings? Not "beginnings" as though there were many, but the two major beginnings that the Scriptures record: The old creation/covenant and the new creation/covenant. Wow, you'd think I was a proponent of CC or something based on that statement! No, not yet. But when the Bible speaks of "creation," there are only two: the Genesis creation and the new creation in Christ. Both are beginnings. The two beginnings in covenantal terms are Israel (the First H & E) and the New H & E. Oops! I just gave Vaughn heads up. Roo |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 12, 2011 9:57:29 GMT -5
I thought this was a thread about labels. Along that line, I asked, "What about labels like Amish, Baptist, Catholic, Evanagelical, Lutheran, Mennonite, Nazarene, Independent, Orthodox, Presbyterian, Quaker, Reformed, and Weslyan? They are all Christian, but the label loosely defines their distinctives. The labels define the direction in which their study has taken them. I can't deny anyone their independence to study the scriptures and come to their own conclusions. We can't force anyone to abandon one understanding for another. Optimally, we all desire fellowship with like-minded believers. Denominations reflect that desire in action. |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 12, 2011 9:59:43 GMT -5
Bev,
Please see my post immediately yours. We posted at the same time.
Roo
|
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 12, 2011 10:24:33 GMT -5
so your stating that its not talking about "The Beginning" but different beginnings? Dennison, There are two creations, two H&E's, two covenants, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 12, 2011 11:09:13 GMT -5
Bev, Please see my post immediately yours. We posted at the same time. Roo Thanks, Roo. |
|
|
|
Post by simplyforgiven on Jan 12, 2011 17:27:41 GMT -5
so your stating that its not talking about "The Beginning" but different beginnings? Dennison, There are two creations, two H&E's, two covenants, etc. Im going to let that point go. Because you and Jack are going to debate about it, so i will stay innocent in mind and wiat for your OP EDIT: for coding issues -Admin |
|
|
|
Post by comankind on Mar 20, 2011 22:28:13 GMT -5
Stormcrow, I enjoyed this rant. I completely concur and is the reason I try to tell others that I'm a Christian, a student of scripture, and I currently believe that the entire bible has been fulfilled.
Labels indeed cause problems, and it's the primary reason why I typically don't refer to commentary or prescribed theology. Everything is chock-full-of labels. Even terms like "orthodox" or "fundamentalist" aren't found in the Bible, yet they are used so naturally when categorizing perspectives. We do this to ourselves you know - and this is why Pharisees and Sadducees existed.
Oh well. Can't get distracted with who says what. The tent of God is with mankind, and he's there to help us through it.
|
|
