PDA

View Full Version : Which came first, Faith, or God's plan in Jesus?



FarEastBird
06-07-2014, 07:33 AM
Which came first, Faith, or God's plan in Jesus
What are the implications if Faith came first?
What are the implications if God's plan came first?
How God's omniscience play in these issues?

foudroyant
06-07-2014, 09:05 AM
Not sure if there is even a "first" but rather there is one eternal now.

FarEastBird
06-07-2014, 09:12 AM
Not sure if there is even a "first" but rather there is one eternal now.
Doesn't that will fall into pantheism?

foudroyant
06-07-2014, 09:31 AM
No, because God exists outside of the time He created which makes Him no dependent upon it.

FarEastBird
06-07-2014, 10:43 AM
No, because God exists outside of the time He created which makes Him no dependent upon it.
I believe that pantheists will not have a problem in their view regardless of a distinction of the creator to his creation. What you did is just explain a part of God. Even in a metaphysical realm, what I thought would not really differ to who I am. Even when we consider God to be a mind (the closest we can speak of a transcendent being) yet we cannot make a sense with a mind that does not have ideas, and physical manifestations.

But there is even greater problem with your belief; it is of how would you explain that man had a faith independent from God, that made God to had a plan in his first move on creation?

My point is that the word "plan" in your worldview of godhead is actually nonsensical. Isn't it?

Jedidiah
06-07-2014, 02:03 PM
Which came first, Faith, or God's plan in JesusGod's plan in Christ was in place prior to the creation. So it came first.



What are the implications if God's plan came first? How God's omniscience play in these issues?Our ability to comprehend God is limited to what He chooses to reveal. His omniscience is always in play and always beyond our ability to define it.

Jedidiah
06-07-2014, 02:04 PM
No, because God exists outside of the time He created which makes Him no dependent upon it.

God exists outside the time He created, but He exists in some state that we are not now and never will be able to fully comprehend.

IDScience
06-07-2014, 02:06 PM
I fairly certain it was the egg, and everything else came after

FarEastBird
06-07-2014, 02:53 PM
God's plan in Christ was in place prior to the creation. So it came first.

Our ability to comprehend God is limited to what He chooses to reveal. His omniscience is always in play and always beyond our ability to define it.
Then the problem remains that to say God planned is nonsensical. You are admitting two concept of time here in which, I believe, the latter is your preferred meaning.

And to my understanding, you preferred the second concept of time because you cannot make a coherent reason of why God's planned came first from the first concept of time.


Our ability to comprehend God is limited to what He chooses to reveal. His omniscience is always in play and always beyond our ability to define it.
I can understand about our limited knowledge, but what is being revealed in a thing that is not coherent? It even confuses me of what time is.

On one hand, I can make an interpretation of the revelation which is reasonable and sound, so why would I take your word?

Paul said, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." And Isaiah says, " So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it."

So what is the point giving us incoherent words that, not only we cannot comprehend it, but we also don't know what it accomplishes.

If I will take your word, or your meaning of time, I'll have to throw away many things of what I understand about time, and consider them my delusions.

FarEastBird
06-07-2014, 02:58 PM
I fairly certain it was the egg, and everything else came after
That's possible. Isn't it the angels existed before the heaven and the earth? And angels have "feathers," you know?

Jedidiah
06-07-2014, 06:02 PM
And to my understanding, you preferred the second concept of time because you cannot make a coherent reason of why God's planned came first from the first concept of time. Sorry this is mainly gibberish to me. I prefer the second because Scripture makes it clear to me.


I can understand about our limited knowledge, but what is being revealed in a thing that is not coherent? It even confuses me of what time is.

On one hand, I can make an interpretation of the revelation which is reasonable and sound, so why would I take your word?

Paul said, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." And Isaiah says, " So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it."


If I will take your word, or your meaning of time, I'll have to throw away many things of what I understand about time, and consider them my delusions.Can you explain this to me? It does not seem reasonable.

Sparko
06-07-2014, 06:28 PM
1 peter 2:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Jedidiah
06-07-2014, 07:39 PM
Yeah, Sparky. I should have quoted it perhaps.

FarEastBird
06-09-2014, 08:27 AM
Sorry this is mainly gibberish to me. I prefer the second because Scripture makes it clear to me.
What you did is claim the word of God as mystery because you cannot understand it, and then you call me gibberish as if you have something you understand of the mystery you claim.



I can understand about our limited knowledge, but what is being revealed in a thing that is not coherent? It even confuses me of what time is.

On one hand, I can make an interpretation of the revelation which is reasonable and sound, so why would I take your word?

Paul said, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." And Isaiah says, " So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it."
Can you explain this to me? It does not seem reasonable.
God has given us his words in order for us to be changed, and by this we cannot deny the fact that the event of change happens by sequence; that the past came before the future. But if you would claim that the reality is an "eternal now,"then I could not make sense between the difference of the past and the future. How can you "plan" if all aspect of time is "now?" How could I make sense that God truly planned without claiming that "now" is different of the "future?"

Sparko
06-09-2014, 08:48 AM
"plan" seems to be YOUR word, FEB, and you are infusing it with your own meaning. So why are you asking others to debate some term you came up with and the meaning you infused it with?

The bible is clear that the Father ordained Jesus to be the savior before creating the world. That means it was already done. Not "planned" to be done. The only place time comes into the equation is that we live in a universe with time and the event had to take place at some time in the timeline of mankind because Jesus became one of us.

Hebrews 4:3
For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.


2 Timothy 1:9
Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

God even chose us to belong to him before he even created the world.

Ephesians 1:4
According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love

Bill the Cat
06-09-2014, 09:28 AM
and then you call me gibberish

He was saying that he does not understand your broken English. Your grammar is very difficult to understand at times.

FarEastBird
06-09-2014, 10:49 AM
"plan" seems to be YOUR word, FEB, and you are infusing it with your own meaning. So why are you asking others to debate some term you came up with and the meaning you infused it with?

The bible is clear that the Father ordained Jesus to be the savior before creating the world. That means it was already done. Not "planned" to be done. The only place time comes into the equation is that we live in a universe with time and the event had to take place at some time in the timeline of mankind because Jesus became one of us.

Hebrews 4:3
For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.


2 Timothy 1:9
Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

God even chose us to belong to him before he even created the world.

Ephesians 1:4
According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love

Finding meaning is indeed my point, Sparko. But quite honestly, I am not infusing my own meaning on the word plan; my understanding of that word is just a regular meaning that is applied by common people. Rather, you are the one's who make your own meaning, and in so doing, creating confusions as well. I cannot accept that the revelation of God is without understanding.

On one point, the consequence of your belief is more applicable to the Calvinist, than a Molinist: as Calvinist would deridely ask "who triggered the switch of our salvation?" A Calvinist can defend himself using your understanding that there is no such past and future, but only eternal now that God is good and humans are evil. (This is just a part of my musings considering your belief on the meaning of time).

Sparko
06-09-2014, 11:01 AM
Finding meaning is indeed my point, Sparko. But quite honestly, I am not infusing my own meaning on the word plan; my understanding of that word is just a regular meaning that is applied by common people. Rather, you are the one's who make your own meaning, and in so doing, creating confusions as well. I cannot accept that the revelation of God is without understanding.

On one point, the consequence of your belief is more applicable to the Calvinist, than a Molinist: as Calvinist would deridely ask "who triggered the switch of our salvation?" A Calvinist can defend himself using your understanding that there is no such past and future, but only eternal now that God is good and humans are evil. (This is just a part of my musings considering your belief on the meaning of time).

er, what?

My belief? I just quoted some bible verses to you. You can accept them or not.

No where does it say God PLANNED Jesus to save us. It says he foreordained him.

Also "plan" in english can be a verb or a noun. You are using "plan" as a verb when the bible doesn't use it that way in regards to salvation. It could however be used as a noun in that God had a plan for our salvation "before" he even created the universe. And by "before" I mean "prior to" in a logical sense, not a temporal one.

Your comments about Calvinists and Molinists make no sense whatsoever. Either you don't understand either one, or I am just not reading what you are trying to say correctly.

FarEastBird
06-09-2014, 02:19 PM
er, what?

My belief? I just quoted some bible verses to you. You can accept them or not.
Quoting a verse, even the whole Bible, does not make the person understands what s/he is talking about. The reason I posed the question in the OP is because people understand them in way that it does not make sense.


No where does it say God PLANNED Jesus to save us. It says he foreordained him.
Let me leave this part for the moment.


Also "plan" in english can be a verb or a noun. You are using "plan" as a verb when the bible doesn't use it that way in regards to salvation. It could however be used as a noun in that God had a plan for our salvation "before" he even created the universe. And by "before" I mean "prior to" in a logical sense, not a temporal one.

It would not matter considering the word as a noun or a verb, the problem arises as admitted by Jedidiah regardless he agrees with foudroyant. The problem is then real. And so I cant accept fodrouyant's view to be a revelation, when it is purely unproductive, and merely pushes the believer to be fanatical.


Your comments about Calvinists and Molinists make no sense whatsoever. Either you don't understand either one, or I am just not reading what you are trying to say correctly.
Perhaps, different forms of soteriologies are accusing each others of not making sense. So, you, as a Molinist, would not accept my Calvinistic proposition(though I am not strictly a Calvinist). I guess we have to leave this part since it would just rehash ongoing conflicts between soteriologies. I guess we have to go then after the issues of coherence before accusing who ever make sense. Because, IMO, people throw nonsense arguments in the excuse that "nobody understand God's omniscience, anyways." So, perhaps, if you'd be sincere, let us try to resolve the truth of God's omniscience.

37818
06-10-2014, 06:57 PM
Which came first, Faith, or God's plan in Jesus
*
*
How God's omniscience play in these issues?From the perspective of God's omniscience, neither precedes.


What are the implications if Faith came first?
What are the implications if God's plan came first?There is an order to the carrying out of God's plan, in which the plan precedes faith as it is to be carried out.

As to temporal order:
God precedes truth (God Himself being the fundamental truth of all truth).
Truth (plan) precedes faith.
Truth (God's plan) is the originator of faith in it.

Now that is how I understand this.

FarEastBird
06-11-2014, 11:53 AM
From the perspective of God's omniscience, neither precedes.


The foremost problem I see in this is that this is pantheism in the strictest sense. It shows that my existence is part of God's omniscience. Whatever that exists, whether visible or invisible, all these things are part of God's being. We are not a product of a choice, but rather we are part of God's knowledge. And this will ultimately leads to accepting evil as part of God's being.


I wish there will be pantheists in here and discuss this issue.



There is an order to the carrying out of God's plan, in which the plan precedes faith as it is to be carried out.


As to temporal order:
God precedes truth (God Himself being the fundamental truth of all truth).
Truth (plan) precedes faith.
Truth (God's plan) is the originator of faith in it.


Now that is how I understand this.


How can God precedes truth, when truth is part of God's omniscience?


The problem with your point of view is when you consider omniscience as the ability of what is to know, but then what is to be known is not independent of God itself.


I agree, however, that God's plan precedes faith. Whether we speak of individual faith, or the faith as a whole, it is preceded by God's plan. The problem arises, however, when people think of omniscience according to your POV.


My POV is simple, God knows everything because He created all things according to his purpose. His purpose of creation is not about his omniscience but of his power. God can create Truth (God's plan) in different ways.

37818
06-11-2014, 06:34 PM
The foremost problem I see in this is that this is pantheism in the strictest sense. It shows that my existence is part of God's omniscience. Whatever that exists, whether visible or invisible, all these things are part of God's being. We are not a product of a choice, but rather we are part of God's knowledge. And this will ultimately leads to accepting evil as part of God's being.You conflate things created with the omnipresence of God. God is everywhere, but not everything (pantheism). You my friend come across to me to have a very imprecise view of God.



I wish there will be pantheists in here and discuss this issue.This reminds me of an alleged Hindu story, where a young disciple of a noted guru, was taught that he was a god. And one day an elephant in his way would not move, but instead, pick the young man up in his trunk, and placed him on the side of the road and went past him. The next day, the young man when back to his guru, and asked him, how this could happen since if he was a god as taught it should not have. The guru explained that the elephant is a god also.





How can God precedes truth, when truth is part of God's omniscience?God is the ultimate truth. All other truths proceed from Him.



The problem with your point of view is when you consider omniscience as the ability of what is to know, but then what is to be known is not independent of God itself.You do seem to conflate the eternal and immutable God with the temporal truths. God being eternal and omniscient cannot not know.



I agree, however, that God's plan precedes faith. Whether we speak of individual faith, or the faith as a whole, it is preceded by God's plan. The problem arises, however, when people think of omniscience according to your POV.Explain what you mean. The problem is people are finite in knowledge. God is infinite.



My POV is simple, God knows everything because He created all things according to his purpose. His purpose of creation is not about his omniscience but of his power. God can create Truth (God's plan) in different ways.So your God is limited in knowledge. Is that your view? An all powerful being, who does not know for sure what he is doing. Hay, he could change his mind, and all of this would cease to . . . <blink>

FarEastBird
06-12-2014, 05:47 PM
You conflate things created with the omnipresence of God. God is everywhere, but not everything (pantheism). You my friend come across to me to have a very imprecise view of God.

Note what I said: "It shows that my existence is part of God's omniscience." I am not merely speaking of my physical existence, but I become part of the knowledge of God. See the difference?

One thing, note that I responding to your point where time is "eternal now," to wit that we are speaking of conceptual things. Perhaps, you don't subscribe to the "eternal now" concept?

Anyways, I do not subscribe to such concept; it is, IMO, absurd and unrealistic. There is no boundary for thinking of possibilities. Secondly, it makes God to be finite.



This reminds me of an alleged Hindu story, where a young disciple of a noted guru, was taught that he was a god. And one day an elephant in his way would not move, but instead, pick the young man up in his trunk, and placed him on the side of the road and went past him. The next day, the young man when back to his guru, and asked him, how this could happen since if he was a god as taught it should not have. The guru explained that the elephant is a god also.

You misread me. I wan't the pantheists to present also their ideas, if there is anything of what I am discussing that may resemble in their beliefs.


God is the ultimate truth. All other truths proceed from Him.
The problem is about when we speak of "eternal now" the word "proceed" is actually meaningless. Every point of time is merely a part of a whole "now."


You do seem to conflate the eternal and immutable God with the temporal truths. God being eternal and omniscient cannot not know.
I seem cannot agree of your understanding of immutability.

Ask God the highest number..... As I said there is no boundary of thinking about possibilities.


Explain what you mean. The problem is people are finite in knowledge. God is infinite.
In my POV, where I do not subscribe to the "eternal now", God is the ultimate mover, and the first cause. But in the POV of "eternal now" you can see the problem as I laid initially in this post.



So your God is limited in knowledge. Is that your view?
Not at all! Thinking is a process and there is no boundaries of possibilities. However, God's creation is finite. And it would not make sense that God does not know his creation.




An all powerful being, who does not know for sure what he is doing. Hay, he could change his mind, and all of this would cease to . . . <blink>
Not everything that God does is "necessary." He saved us through mercy; mercy is not a necessary action, and it is not an act of love either. Yet because the creation was made for his glory, it is necessary for Him to maintain it for eternity.

37818
06-16-2014, 08:35 PM
Note what I said: "It shows that my existence is part of God's omniscience." I am not merely speaking of my physical existence, but I become part of the knowledge of God. See the difference?It seems that I see it to be more of a difference than you do. Our existence in God's knowledge. How can it not be? That does not make the things God knows omnisciently to be God too. Which is how your view is coming across to me.


One thing, note that I responding to your point where time is "eternal now," to wit that we are speaking of conceptual things. Perhaps, you don't subscribe to the "eternal now" concept?The "eternal now" concept is one way we can partially comprehend God's omniscience of past present and future. Of course God's omniscience of of the end from the beginning does not exclude Him from fully knowing both the logical and temporal order of things as they had and now do and will happen. Like imagining that there is only one electron. All electrons are that one electron. There are places where electrons are not. God's omniscience is full and complete.


Anyways, I do not subscribe to such concept; it is, IMO, absurd and unrealistic. There is no boundary for thinking of possibilities. Secondly, it makes God to be finite.Well, at best that view only partially presents God's infinite knowing to our finite minds. It is an explanation for our finite minds. God's mind is infinite, to say the least.





You misread me. I wan't the pantheists to present also their ideas, if there is anything of what I am discussing that may resemble in their beliefs. Fine. Pantheism holds everything is God. It conflates the things in God's prence with His omnipresence. God being everywhere at once. Past, present and future (like the "eternal now" but not the same).

"For in him we live, and move, and have our being; . . ." -- Acts 17:28.



The problem is about when we speak of "eternal now" the word "proceed" is actually meaningless. Every point of time is merely a part of a whole "now."Yeah. From our finite point of view. God's point of view is infinite and does not exclude Him from the temporal. The eternal Trinity of Persons in the Godhead demonstrates God's temporal relationship is also an eternal one. The Son of God.



I seem cannot agree of your understanding of immutability.God is eternal - being immutable. The Trinity, Father, Son of God and the Holy Spirit always were both an eternal and temporal relationship. So the eternal immutability of God never changes. But through God's temporal relationship, which is immutably true, change takes place: Creation (John 1:3), the incarnation (John 1:14), the holy sinless life, death for sin and the bodily resurrection where in Jesus Christ the man is now the same forever (Hebrews 13:8).


Ask God the highest number..... As I said there is no boundary of thinking about possibilities.There is no highest number. Infinity is not a number.



In my POV, where I do not subscribe to the "eternal now", God is the ultimate mover, and the first cause. But in the POV of "eternal now" you can see the problem as I laid initially in this post.There is no first cause, unless one believes this universe is the only one God made or will ever make and change. There are first causes. Otherwise to suppose a first cause is to deny God's immutability. What is caused requires a change on the part of the one who causes it. (The Son of God always was. So in any case, God remains immutable.)




Not at all! Thinking is a process and there is no boundaries of possibilities. However, God's creation is finite. And it would not make sense that God does not know his creation.And if God (the Son of God) made infinite creations besides this universe we know, it is no more difficult than this universe being the only one ever. And any finite number of creations/universes would not be needed. This one is just as remarkable as any finite number. Or infinite creations with there being no first creation ever. Whether one or infinite, still requires the infinite God (by way of the Son of God, John 1:3; Colossians 1:16,17. The Son of God is required.).





Not everything that God does is "necessary." He saved us through mercy; mercy is not a necessary action, and it is not an act of love either. Yet because the creation was made for his glory, it is necessary for Him to maintain it for eternity.

You are mistaken here. ". . . for God is love. In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son [to be] the propitiation for our sins. . . ." -- 1 John 4:8-10.

"He that loveth not knoweth not God; . . ." v.8 (2 John 9; John 13:34, 35.)

NoBibleEqualsSinner
06-25-2014, 03:27 AM
Which came first, Faith, or God's plan in Jesus
What are the implications if Faith came first?
What are the implications if God's plan came first?
How God's omniscience play in these issues?

"God's plan in Jesus" is that Jesus is God, and that Jesus's Faith is the Father's Faith. The questions are deliberately asked in a way that tries to separate the faith of Christ from the plans of the Father. Christ said He did the will of the Father, making Himself equal with God. The Father and Son are one. It is impossible to separate the Faith of Jesus from the plan of the Father. God is the Son and the Father in one. There is only one God. And Jesus is God.

FarEastBird
07-05-2014, 08:37 PM
It seems that I see it to be more of a difference than you do. Our existence in God's knowledge. How can it not be? That does not make the things God knows omnisciently to be God too. Which is how your view is coming across to me.
I am not speaking of my view, rather I am trying to show the consequence of your belief. And no, I am not saying that the things God knows is God too. Rather think of how a materialist argue that the mind and the brain are the same. Reality, in your view, is fixed and finite in the "eternal now." The consequence would be that whatever existed is become whole in the "eternal now," making it a part rather than imagined, or constructed, or proceeded, from God.



The "eternal now" concept is one way we can partially comprehend God's omniscience of past present and future. Of course God's omniscience of of the end from the beginning does not exclude Him from fully knowing both the logical and temporal order of things as they had and now do and will happen. Like imagining that there is only one electron. All electrons are that one electron. There are places where electrons are not. God's omniscience is full and complete.
When we conceive of things in an "eternal now," then God's mind cannot be changed. And more, everything that is to be known is coexisting with God. This is the consequence of your belief of omniscience. Just like metamorphosis is part of the butterfly, the same can be conceived of every event becomes part of God. The caterpillar and cocoon are parts the existence of the butterfly, in like wise every event that exists in the eternal now is part of the existence of God.



Well, at best that view only partially presents God's infinite knowing to our finite minds. It is an explanation for our finite minds. God's mind is infinite, to say the least.
Finite and infinite are contradictory. When you put all things that can be known in an “eternal now” you have already set God’s mind as finite; which will fall into the problem that all that exists is but all of what God’s mind is all about.



Fine. Pantheism holds everything is God. It conflates the things in God's presence with His omnipresence. God being everywhere at once. Past, present and future (like the "eternal now" but not the same).

"For in him we live, and move, and have our being; . . ." -- Acts 17:28.
Unfortunately, in accepting your view of omniscience, there is not a difference in holding to a pantheistic view. If the reality is known and fixed in God’s omniscience, what is the difference of the reality to be understood as God’s being? None.




Yeah. From our finite point of view. God's point of view is infinite and does not exclude Him from the temporal. The eternal Trinity of Persons in the Godhead demonstrates God's temporal relationship is also an eternal one. The Son of God.
The problem is you are isolating the Son in God’s omniscience, instead of taking the whole of “eternal now.” How about us in that whole eternal now, don’t we also fall as part of the Godhead?



God is eternal - being immutable. The Trinity, Father, Son of God and the Holy Spirit always were both an eternal and temporal relationship. So the eternal immutability of God never changes. But through God's temporal relationship, which is immutably true, change takes place: Creation (John 1:3), the incarnation (John 1:14), the holy sinless life, death for sin and the bodily resurrection where in Jesus Christ the man is now the same forever (Hebrews 13:8).



There is no highest number. Infinity is not a number.
I did not say that infinite is a number. What I am implying is that you cannot set the nature of mind to what is being thought, or been thought.




There is no first cause, unless one believes this universe is the only one God made or will ever make and change. There are first causes. Otherwise to suppose a first cause is to deny God's immutability. What is caused requires a change on the part of the one who causes it. (The Son of God always was. So in any case, God remains immutable.)
The point of taking the concept of eternal now is that there is no “first cause,” isn’t it? And I wonder why would you simply isolate the Son in the eternal now instead of taking everything of it.





And if God (the Son of God) made infinite creations besides this universe we know, it is no more difficult than this universe being the only one ever. And any finite number of creations/universes would not be needed. This one is just as remarkable as any finite number. Or infinite creations with there being no first creation ever. Whether one or infinite, still requires the infinite God (by way of the Son of God, John 1:3; Colossians 1:16,17. The Son of God is required.).
From the way I see your POV is that every event comes to pass in time because it is part of God’s being. And so, God created human beings for it is part of God’s being. And that there is no other way would God have created except the way it is in the “eternal now.”


You are mistaken here. ". . . for God is love. In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son [to be] the propitiation for our sins. . . ." -- 1 John 4:8-10.

"He that loveth not knoweth not God; . . ." v.8 (2 John 9; John 13:34, 35.)
Whom God loved “first” were actually the one who will be saved. Not because we loved God. Those whom God loved were the ones elected since the beginning and were predestined to eternal life. The significance of pointing the saved as referring to those whom God loved first is because some men love God, and yet were not saved(read Rom 10:1-3). My point in this is that that the love of God is different to that of the human love. I was actually meaning that God’s mercy is not an act of love as of how humans understood what love is. God cannot love man because of its fallenness. But through God’s mercy, it is God himself who makes us worthy to be the subject of His love.

37818
07-05-2014, 09:29 PM
"God's plan in Jesus" is that Jesus is God, and that Jesus's Faith is the Father's Faith. The questions are deliberately asked in a way that tries to separate the faith of Christ from the plans of the Father. Christ said He did the will of the Father, making Himself equal with God. The Father and Son are one. It is impossible to separate the Faith of Jesus from the plan of the Father. God is the Son and the Father in one. There is only one God. And Jesus is God.

Jesus is a man, an immortal man in God's presence for us.

"For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; . . . " -- 1 Timothy 2:5.

"All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. . . . _ . . . and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." -- Isaiah 53:6, 12.

They are not the same Person,

". . . It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me. . . . _ . . . if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also." -- John 8:17 - 19.

". . . And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. . . _ . . . But of that day and [that] hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." -- Mark 13:. . . 32.

". . . Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power." -- Acts 1:6, 7.

They are the same God.

". . . the kingdom of the Christ and God." -- Ephesians 5:5. John Darby Translation.

37818
07-05-2014, 10:29 PM
I am not speaking of my view, rather I am trying to show the consequence of your belief. And no, I am not saying that the things God knows is God too. Rather think of how a materialist argue that the mind and the brain are the same. Reality, in your view, is fixed and finite in the "eternal now." The consequence would be that whatever existed is become whole in the "eternal now," making it a part rather than imagined, or constructed, or proceeded, from God.The consequence you suppose is not true. God's omniscience is not affected by our thinking of it as a "eternal now." Do not conflate the things God knows with what will be.




When we conceive of things in an "eternal now," then God's mind cannot be changed.Two things here. One our conceiving of things in an "eternal now" has no effect on God's knowing. Two, God does not change. Events change, and the outcome changes as it comes from God because of that change. Not that God changed. God's temporal agent, changes His actions as God. The Son of God is the God of the OT in thought and deed. God does not change. The Son of God as God's agent does.


. . . And more, everything that is to be known is coexisting with God. This is the consequence of your belief of omniscience. Just like metamorphosis is part of the butterfly, the same can be conceived of every event becomes part of God. The caterpillar and cocoon are parts the existence of the butterfly, in like wise every event that exists in the eternal now is part of the existence of God.The only "thing" which always co-existed with God is the Logos who we know to be the Son of God (John 1:1, 2, 3). Everything else was made (v.3).




Finite and infinite are contradictory. When you put all things that can be known in an “eternal now” you have already set God’s mind as finite; which will fall into the problem that all that exists is but all of what God’s mind is all about.No. God's mind is not affected by our concept of "eternal now." God is infinite. The Logos (John 1:1, 2) who faces God eternally is both infinite and finite. The trinity explanation of the God, being the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit - is a finite, temporal face of the infinite eternal God to us. They always were. God does not change.




Unfortunately, in accepting your view of omniscience, there is not a difference in holding to a pantheistic view.That is a misconception. It is your contention. I deny this. It is simply not true since in pantheism everything is God. That is not my view. It is your argument which conflates God's omniscience with every created thing. They are not the same.


If the reality is known and fixed in God’s omniscience, what is the difference of the reality to be understood as God’s being? None.Your argument is from a finite mind's point of view. And it is false. God knows the end from the beginning, and cannot not know. ". . . Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times [the things] that are not [yet] done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: . . ." -- Isaiah 46:10. And "The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations. " -- Psalm 33:11.






The problem is you are isolating the Son in God’s omniscience, instead of taking the whole of “eternal now.” How about us in that whole eternal now, don’t we also fall as part of the Godhead?Again, that by explanation of God's omniscience using the "eternal now" to illustrate it, does not limit God by the illustration.







I did not say that infinite is a number. What I am implying is that you cannot set the nature of mind to what is being thought, or been thought. Then what are you talking about? You are not making any sense. What do you think you are doing? You are doing what you said cannot be done, are you not?





The point of taking the concept of eternal now is that there is no “first cause,” isn’t it? And I wonder why would you simply isolate the Son in the eternal now instead of taking everything of it.They are not the same things. For example, the things in a box are not the box.

Whether there be a "first cause" Genesis 1:1 being God's sole creation or not. It does not matter to the question.






From the way I see your POV is that every event comes to pass in time because it is part of God’s being.No. That is not my view. Things which come to pass are NOT part of God. God is both omniscient and omnipresent regarding the things which come to pass and are. They are not God nor part of God. Do you think the Apostle Paul taught we are God, saying, "For in him we live, and move, and have our being?"



And so, God created human beings for it is part of God’s being. And that there is no other way would God have created except the way it is in the “eternal now.”Who actually teaches this, besides you?



Whom God loved “first” were actually the one who will be saved. Not because we loved God. Those whom God loved were the ones elected since the beginning and were predestined to eternal life. The significance of pointing the saved as referring to those whom God loved first is because some men love God, and yet were not saved(read Rom 10:1-3). My point in this is that that the love of God is different to that of the human love. I was actually meaning that God’s mercy is not an act of love as of how humans understood what love is. God cannot love man because of its fallenness. But through God’s mercy, it is God himself who makes us worthy to be the subject of His love.Through the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit (2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Peter 1:2).

But I think you still have it wrong about God's love.

". . . For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. . . . " -- John 3:16.

It is just that we are not to love this world, ". . . Love not the world, neither the things [that are] in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. . . ." -- 1 John 2:15.

So God's love is explained this way, " . . . But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." -- Romans 5:8.

NoBibleEqualsSinner
07-06-2014, 02:23 PM
Jesus is a man , an immortal man in God's presence for us.

"For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; . . . " -- 1 Timothy 2:5.[1]

"All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. . . . _ . . . and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." -- Isaiah 53:6, 12. [2]

They are not the same Person,

". . . It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me. . . . _ . . . if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also." -- John 8:17 - 19. [3]

". . . And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. . . _ . . . But of that day and [that] hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." -- Mark 13:. . . 32. [4]

". . . Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power." -- Acts 1:6, 7. [5]

They are the same God. [6]

". . . the kingdom of the Christ and God." -- Ephesians 5:5. John Darby Translation.

They are the same God, indeed.

[1] Timothy called Christ "God our Saviour" (II Tim 2:3).

[2] Isaiah called Jesus "Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:6).

[3] John called the Savior "The Word" (was God, John 1:1).

[4] Mark called Immanuel "The Lord" (Mark 16:19).

[5] (Luke) called Him the "Right Hand of God" (Acts 7:55).

37818
07-07-2014, 07:29 PM
They are the same God, indeed.

[1] Timothy called Christ "God our Saviour" (II Tim 2:3).Yes, but the Jesus' humanity is not mixed with His deity. Two separate natures. One Person who is both now God and a man.


[2] Isaiah called Jesus "Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:6).Again, refers to this man's divine nature, being both God and a man.


[3] John called the Savior "The Word" (was God, John 1:1).Interestingly in John 1:1 and 2, the Word facing God, being someone other than God and at the same time being God (v.3). Two natures before the incarnation! It was the Word's nature facing God [with God] which changed, as in the incarnation (v.14). His deity [was God] never changed.


[4] Mark called Immanuel "The Lord" (Mark 16:19).Being called Lord there is not referring to His deity, but to His humanity, having bought us is placed over us all. Remember Thomas called Him both Lord and God.

" But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him." -- 1 Corinthians 8:6.
". . . One Lord, . . . One God and Father . . . ." -- Ephesians 4:5, 6.

In the NT the title "Lord" is often used to refer to Christ's humanity (Matthew 22:44). But also to refer to Christ's deity (Romans 10:13). See also Acts 4:12; Acts 10:43; Isaiah 43:11. Christ's deity is not in question.


[5] (Luke) called Him the "Right Hand of God" (Acts 7:55).I agree with that concept. But what translation are you referencing?
". . . Jesus standing on the right hand of God, . . ." - KJV
". . . Jesus standing on the right hand of God, . . . " - ASV
". . . Jesus standing at the right hand of God, . . . " -- John Darby translation.
". . . Jesus standing at the right side of God. . . . " - Good News Bible, American Bible Society.
". . . ιησουν εστωτα εκ δεξιων του θεου . . . " The New Testament Greek.

NoBibleEqualsSinner
07-08-2014, 05:32 AM
Yes, but the(p) Jesus' humanity(1) is not mixed with His deity. Two separate natures(2). One Person(3) who is both now [1] God and a(q) man.
Again, refers to this man's divine(4) nature(5), being both God and a(r) man.
Interestingly in John 1:1 and 2, the Word facing(6) God, being someone(7) other(8) than(9) God and at(10) the(11) same(12) time(13) being God (v.3). Two natures(14) before(15) the incarnation! It was the Word's nature(16) facing(17) God [with God(18)] which changed(19), as in the incarnation (v.14). His deity (20) [was God(21)] never(22) changed(23).
Being called Lord there is not(s) referring to His deity, but to His humanity(t), having(24) bought(25) us is placed over us all. Remember Thomas called Him both Lord(ex) and God(ex).

" But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him." -- 1 Corinthians 8:6.
". . . One Lord, . . . One God and Father . . . ." -- Ephesians 4:5, 6.(que')

In the NT the title "Lord" is often used to refer to Christ's humanity (Matthew 22:44)(GK1). But also to refer to Christ's deity (Romans 10:13). See also Acts 4:12; Acts 10:43; Isaiah 43:11. Christ's deity is not in question. (OE)

I agree with that concept. But what translation are you referencing? (BOTB)
". . . Jesus standing on the right hand of God, . . ." - KJV
". . . Jesus standing on the right hand of God, . . . " - ASV
". . . Jesus standing at the right hand of God, . . . " -- John Darby translation.
". . . Jesus standing at the right side of God. . . . " - Good News Bible, American Bible Society.
". . . ιησουν εστωτα εκ δεξιων του θεου . . . " The New Testament Greek.

(1-25) Based on your use of words/economy of words/vocabulary/commentary, the vagueness (to me) of your sources/influences, I have to ask what your theology is?
(p-t) I find your descriptions of Christ, very confusing. I am a scholar of the Old Testament (English). What makes you think that your understanding/explanation of Christ is right/logical?
(ex) God, and Lord, and Savior, and good Shepherd, and Right Arm... etc... etc... all mean the same thing to me, but why don't they mean the same thing to YOU? (Edit: Do they mean the same thing to you? If not, why?)
(que') Do you think the intent/purpose of God's Godhead is to encourage us to focus on the uni(fing) aspects/oneness/monotheistic aspects/togetherness of it, or the separateness/division/differences of it?
(GK1) Oh really. Can you back that up? (Remember, you speaking to someone who actually KNOWS the Bible). *
(GK2) I'm waiting for the proof.
(OE) I've read Acts and Isaiah. Isaiah is one of my favorite books. I'd like to know why you are using these passages to SUPPORT your theology?
(BOTB) The Original 1611. And, yes, I do know a little about Antioch and Alexandria; but not as much as I'd like to know about Siniaticus, Vaticanus, and Textus, etc. I have a question for you. How much of the History/philosophy of history/history of politics/history of nations/church history/history of authors/biographies/autobiographies/history of "progress" (corruption, crime syndicates, OC) surrounding these translations/editions do you know? (Edit: Sorry, the KJ, not the Original, but that's what I subscribe to.)

tabibito
07-08-2014, 05:52 AM
Paul said, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

Paul said: You have known since childhood .... every scripture inspired by God and useful etc.


20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world
προεγνωσμενου - not foreordained, but foreknown. known beforehand, as was Paul to his former associates at the temple prior to his becoming a Christian. No support in this verse for any decisions being made with regard to events.

FarEastBird
07-08-2014, 08:30 AM
........ No support in this verse for any decisions being made with regard to events.

Actually, you are hitting directly the issue of omniscience, my core purpose of the OP. As you can see in foudroyant's post, he muses/doubts that there is not even a "first." The case then seems would fall into that every part of time becomes part of reality. Every events in time was "not decided" and, or, that cannot actually be pointed to having a "beginning," except relating it to the existence of God itself. Perhaps God and creation is not the same, but as we muse of God's omniscience, the creation(or reality) is certainly a part of the existence of God. Our existence is not "decided," nor had a "first"; our existence is a part of God, to say the least.

I do not actually believe that we are part of God's being. I'm merely exploring the incoherence of some beliefs about God's omniscience. I believe if one delves deeper of God's omniscience, one would understand more the significance the event of the crucifixion, even of the Godhead as a whole.

tabibito
07-08-2014, 08:37 AM
It may be more beneficial to examine where the concept of omniscience originates... and whether the Bible supports the standard opinion of omniscience, or something a little different.
For example - assuming that God is in fact omniscient - would that mean he knows everything, or that he knows everything that can be known? Is there a material difference in the concepts, or could there perhaps be things that are inherently unknowable?

FarEastBird
07-08-2014, 10:30 AM
It may be more beneficial to examine where the concept of omniscience originates... and whether the Bible supports the standard opinion of omniscience, or something a little different.

I believe my OP is find, and to the point. Perhaps, people just don't want to delve further of their inconsistencies and would just brush things off into mysteries.


For example - assuming that God is in fact omniscient - would that mean he knows everything, or that he knows everything that can be known? Is there a material difference in the concepts, or could there perhaps be things that are inherently unknowable?
There is indeed big difference, and implications. I believe many gets into confusion as if there exist other than God! When we think that there is other thing that God "can know," it assumes that there is/are other beings/things that exists independent of God, i.e. my being with free will. Regardless, my being had a beginning in wise of time, nevertheless my existence had no beginning in terms of the reality. And this would posit a problem to our knowledge of truth.

If we would claim that God "knows everything," not only are we part of reality, but it will resolve reality into deism, or pantheism. Also, if God already knew the events tomorrow ahead of us, we are simply deluding ourselves to think that we will be responsible of what we would become of, neither should we account God responsible of what we become of; He simply just know what we would become of.

Somehow, thinking of God's knowledge in terms of the two above would posit a big problem in knowing the Godhead and reality, or perhaps that we are not knowing the truth. I don't agree that we should think of God's knowledge those ways above.

tabibito
07-08-2014, 11:21 AM
Also, if God already knew the events tomorrow ahead of us, we are simply deluding ourselves to think that we will be responsible of what we would become of, neither should we account God responsible of what we become of; He simply just know what we would become of.

Agreed. It would mean: Nothing that a person can do will change anything that happens. It is decided from the beginning of creation.

But the Bible declares: we can change what will happen.

37818
07-09-2014, 09:36 PM
(1-25) Based on your use of words/economy of words/vocabulary/commentary, the vagueness (to me) of your sources/influences, I have to ask what your theology is?The simple answer, the 66 book Bible. My sectarian view point is baptist. I hold that the sole apostolic authority is the Christian New Testament (New Covenant). Now saying this, I do not know if I answered your question,"what your theology is?" I hold to a trinity explanation of the godhead. One God who is three in Persons, the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit.
see: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/member.php?212-37818



(p-t) I find your descriptions of Christ, very confusing. I am a scholar of the Old Testament (English). What makes you think that your understanding/explanation of Christ is right/logical?The Bible teaches it. What specifically comes across to be confused by me to you?



(ex) God, and Lord, and Savior, and good Shepherd, and Right Arm... etc... etc... all mean the same thing to me, but why don't they mean the same thing to YOU? (Edit: Do they mean the same thing to you? If not, why?)The term Lord in the NT can refer to either God's Name referring to God. (Romans 10:13). Or can refer to the rulership role God gave His Son as the son of David (Matthew 22:44). see also Luke 1:43, refers to Christ's Lordship but not His deity. Yet Christ's lordship in His humanity is a proof of His deity (Isaiah 45:23). The Greek word for Lord can refer to either God's Name or Adoni meaning Lord. And can be interpreted to mean both (Romans 10:9). The deal with God's Son, certainly in His incarnation, He has two natures.

Thomas addressed Jesus as both Lord and God. ". . . My Lord and my God."





(que') Do you think the intent/purpose of God's Godhead is to encourage us to focus on the uni(fing) aspects/oneness/monotheistic aspects/togetherness of it, or the separateness/division/differences of it?
God, being the LORD, the oneness. But God as Father, Son of God and the Holy Spirit, subordination of persons and their purpose.

". . . the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." -- John 17:3.
". . . The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him." -- John 13:16.

Also it was the Son of God who died on the cross, not the Father. God cannot die. Yet Jesus the Son of God as the man died. Even being forsaken by the Father (Psalm 22:1, 6), He did not cease being God, Jesus in His soul having died on the cross (John 19:28; Isaiah 53:10, 12). And restored to His Father after that completion (John 19:30; Luke 23:46).



(GK1) Oh really. Can you back that up? (Remember, you speaking to someone who actually KNOWS the Bible). * "The LORD said unto my Lord, . . ." ". . . נאם יהוה לאדני . . . " ". . . ειπεν ο κυριος τω κυριω . . ."



(GK2) I'm waiting for the proof.Proof of what?


(OE) I've read Acts and Isaiah. Isaiah is one of my favorite books. I'd like to know why you are using these passages to SUPPORT your theology?Acts 4:(10), 12, ". . . by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, . . . Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Isaiah 43:11, God says, "I, [even] I, [am] the LORD; and beside me [there is] no saviour." And then Acts 10:43, referring to Jesus, "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." Jesus is identified to be the LORD of the OT.



(BOTB) The Original 1611. And, yes, I do know a little about Antioch and Alexandria; but not as much as I'd like to know about Siniaticus, Vaticanus, and Textus, etc. I have a question for you. How much of the History/philosophy of history/history of politics/history of nations/church history/history of authors/biographies/autobiographies/history of "progress" (corruption, crime syndicates, OC) surrounding these translations/editions do you know?
". . . Iesus standing on the right hand of God, . . ." -- Acts 7:55 1611 edition.

Have you read the "Identity of the New Testament Text" by Wilbur N. Pickering? You do know, I presume, that there is more that one view of NT textual criticism.


(Edit: Sorry, the KJ, not the Original, but that's what I subscribe to.)And what makes you think that I think it is? I believe in the verbal plenary word of God. And that God's word is inerrant. I do not believe in inerrant readers of His word. Not you, nor I. I do not believe in inerrant translations. I do not believe that there are any single OT or NT manuscripts which are inerrant. I believe God's word which gave them is. The variants do not make the whole not God's word.

NoBibleEqualsSinner
07-10-2014, 06:56 AM
Paul said: You have known since childhood .... every scripture inspired by God and useful etc.


προεγνωσμενου (32GRK1) - not foreordained, but foreknown. known beforehand, as was Paul to his former associates at the temple prior to his becoming a Christian. No support in this verse for any decisions being made with regard to events.

Actually, you are hitting directly the issue of omniscience, my core purpose of the OP. As you can see in foudroyant's post, he muses/doubts that there is not even a "first." The case then seems would fall into that every part of time becomes part of reality. Every events in time was "not decided" and, or, that cannot actually be pointed to having a "beginning," except relating it to the existence of God itself. (Perhaps God and creation is not the same)(33PGISM1), but as we muse of God's omniscience, the creation(or reality) is certainly a part of the existence of God. Our existence is not "decided," nor had a "first"; our existence is a part of God, to say the least.

(I do not actually believe that we are part of God's being)(33PGISM2). I'm merely exploring the incoherence of some beliefs about God's omniscience. I believe if one delves deeper of God's omniscience, (one would understand more the significance the event of the crucifixion)(33PGISM3), even of the Godhead as a whole.

It may be more beneficial to examine where the concept of omniscience originates... and whether the Bible supports the standard opinion of omniscience, or something a little different.
For example - assuming that God is in fact omniscient - would that mean he knows everything, or that he knows everything that can be known? (Is there a material difference in the concepts)(34PGISM3) , or could there perhaps be things that are inherently unknowable?


I believe my OP is find, and to the point. Perhaps, people just don't want to delve further of their inconsistencies and would just brush things off into mysteries.


There is indeed big difference, and implications. I believe many gets into confusion as if there exist other than God! When we think that there is other thing that God "can know," it assumes that there is/are other beings/things that exists independent of God, i.e. my being with free will. Regardless, my being had a beginning in wise of time, nevertheless my existence had no beginning in terms of the reality. And this would posit a problem to our knowledge of truth.

If we would claim that God "knows everything," not only are we part of reality, but it will resolve reality into deism, or pantheism(QUE1). Also, if God already knew the events tomorrow ahead of us, we are simply deluding ourselves to think that we will be responsible of what we would become of, neither should we account God responsible of what we become of; He simply just know what we would become of. (QUE2)

Somehow, thinking of God's knowledge in terms of the two above would posit a big problem in knowing the Godhead and reality, or perhaps that we are not knowing the truth. I don't agree that we should think of God's knowledge those ways above.(QUE3)



Agreed. It would mean: Nothing that a person can do will change anything that happens. It is decided from the beginning of creation.

But the Bible declares: we can change what will happen. (36)

The simple answer, the 66 book Bible. My sectarian view point is baptist. I hold that the sole apostolic authority is the Christian New Testament (New Covenant)(37SDU1). Now saying this, I do not know if I answered your question,"what your theology is?" I hold to a trinity explanation of the godhead. One God who is three in Persons, the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit. (37SDU1)
see: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/member.php?212-37818

The Bible teaches it. What specifically comes across to be confused by me to you? (37SDU2)

The term Lord in the NT can refer to either God's Name referring to God. (Romans 10:13). Or can refer to the rulership role God gave His Son as the son of David (Matthew 22:44). see also Luke 1:43, refers to Christ's Lordship but not His deity. Yet Christ's lordship in His humanity is a proof of His deity (Isaiah 45:23). The Greek word for Lord can refer to either God's Name or Adoni meaning Lord. And can be interpreted to mean both (Romans 10:9). The deal with God's Son, certainly in His incarnation, He has two natures.

Thomas addressed Jesus as both Lord and God. ". . . My Lord and my God." (37SDU3)




God, being the LORD, the oneness. But God as Father, Son of God and the Holy Spirit, subordination of persons and their purpose.

". . . the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." -- John 17:3.
". . . The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him." -- John 13:16.

Also it was the Son of God who died on the cross, not the Father. God cannot die. Yet Jesus the Son of God as the man died. Even being forsaken by the Father (Psalm 22:1, 6), He did not cease being God, Jesus in His soul having died on the cross (John 19:28; Isaiah 53:10, 12). And restored to His Father after that completion (John 19:30; Luke 23:46). (37SDU4)

"The LORD said unto my Lord, . . ." ". . . נאם יהוה לאדני . . . " ". . . ειπεν ο κυριος τω κυριω . . ." (37SDU5)

Proof of what?
Acts 4:(10), 12, ". . . by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, . . . Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Isaiah 43:11, God says, "I, [even] I, [am] the LORD; and beside me [there is] no saviour." And then Acts 10:43, referring to Jesus, "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." Jesus is identified to be the LORD of the OT. (37SDU7)


". . . Iesus standing on the right hand of God, . . ." -- Acts 7:55 1611 edition.

Have you read the "Identity of the New Testament Text" by Wilbur N. Pickering? You do know, I presume, that there is more that one view of NT textual criticism. (37SDU8)

And what makes you think that I think it is? I believe in the verbal plenary word of God. And that God's word is inerrant. I do not believe in inerrant readers of His word. Not you, nor I. I do not believe in inerrant translations. I do not believe that there are any single OT or NT manuscripts which are inerrant. I believe God's word which gave them is. The variants do not make the whole not God's word.

(32GRK1) May I ask, which greek text you use?
(33PGISM1-2) Not a fan of - I believe THEY call it - Panentheism/Pantheism/The Hindu Religion, that God is not just Everywhere (as the Apostles preached), but Everything (as the pagans responded), then?
(33PGISM3) In other words, the Crucifixion is a yardstick for truth?
(34PGISM3) Whose logic are you basing these concepts on?
(QUE1-3) Are you able to explain (a little more thoroughly) how exactly those ideas of (a) deism, (b) pantheism, and (c) people not being responsible for their actions (because God knows everything) come into being? Where do you get these ideas from?
(36) Do you have any other conclusions, that I might be able to comment on?

(37SDU1) You were making certain observations about Jesus' "humanity" a couple days ago. I'm asking what you base that single theology on.
(37SDU2) The words that you use. Which Bible/s do you use?
(37SDU3) Are you aware of the Title "Lord of Lords" and "prince of the Kings"?
(37SDU4) I wasn't talking about the works of Christ, that's not a dialog. I was asking you about the Godhead, whether you think Christians should focus more on the unity aspects of the Godhead, or the separating/different aspects of the Godhead?
(37SDU5) Which manuscript/s are you using for your translations? Also in 37SDU3?
(37SDU6) Sorry, that was a typo... - Do you support or reject Wescott and Hort's Greek, the latin Vulgate, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus? Do you believe these are credible texts?
(37SDU7) In the Spirit of the book of Revelations, what is your understanding of the word Lord? Also, what lexicons/dictionaries are you using to translate this word?
(37SDU8) Are you aware that Acts 7:55 is not the only verse in the Bible that talks about the Right Hand, and that the Right Hand is primarily an Old Testament teaching? Is the Wilbur N. Pickering's book public domain? Are you more in favor of Textual Criticism or Sola Scriptura/Inherency of Scripture?

NoBibleEqualsSinner
07-10-2014, 07:28 AM
----

tabibito
07-10-2014, 08:18 AM
Paul said: You have known since childhood .... every scripture inspired by God and useful etc.


προεγνωσμενου (32GRK1) - not foreordained, but foreknown. known beforehand, as was Paul to his former associates at the temple prior to his becoming a Christian. No support in this verse for any decisions being made with regard to events.

(32GRK1) May I ask, which greek text you use?
With regard to the first:
Every/All scripture is inspired by God. Technically correct though misleading: inspired by God {θεοπνευστος} is not a verb, but an adjective declined for nominative feminine; which means that it is describing or delimiting the word "scripture" (nominative feminine noun) and not declaring where scripture comes from.
"All scripture inspired by God is useful" would be more accurate, but still not wholly accurate. Where "is" has been inserted, "and" should be.
"All scripture is inspired by God" is interpreted correctly where it is understood to mean "Every inspired-by-God scripture."

No verbs are used in 2 Timothy 3:16 - the whole gives exposition of verse 15 https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=796040603748859&set=a.516736451679277.122192.425007244185532&type=3&theater.

προεγνωσμενου - foreknown (perfect, middle/passive) - is recorded in the Nestle GNT 1904, Westcott and Hort +1881+NA 27 variants, Byzantine Majority 2005, Greek Orthodox 1904, and the Textus Receptus. In the Tischendorf 8th edition foreknown is in the active indicative form προγινωσκω. In Acts 26:5 "foreknow" is conjugated as a present participle in the third person, προγινωσκοντες - they knowing before.

I primarily work from the Byzantine Majority Text, cross checking with the NU and marking any significant variations, as appropriate.

FarEastBird
07-10-2014, 05:55 PM
But the Bible declares: we can change what will happen.

That is the law of works which was contrary to the Truth, or grace.

Men, through grace and truth, obey the will of God because God had written His law in their hearts and mind.

FarEastBird
07-10-2014, 09:14 PM
(Perhaps God and creation is not the same)(33PGISM1)….

(I do not actually believe that we are part of God's being)(33PGISM2).
(33PGISM1-2) Not a fan of - I believe THEY call it - Panentheism/Pantheism/The Hindu Religion, that God is not just Everywhere (as the Apostles preached), but Everything (as the pagans responded), then?
My point was not really trying to agree with the Hindu Religion belief on the issue. Rather, I was trying to have their personal opinion(or understanding) on the consequence of what their belief of “eternal now” would lead to. I am a bit frustrated because I don’t get to hear some conclusions that seems obvious to me that thus should be concluded.

Moving forward in the discussion….. My thoughts about God’s existence is being illustrated in John 1:1-2.

The existence of God is very much like the mind. We can only know the mind through what it thinks/thought/plan. And nothing we can know of the existence of the mind except what it think/thought/plan. And so, it is not surprising that the beginning of God was when what His thought/plan, the Logos, existed; and thus was said in John: “the same was in the beginning with God.” The beginning of God begun when he begun to think of the Logos.

Now, there would be conflict if we think of God(or the mind) as omniscient having known all things. One thing, if everything that should be known is known, even of the future, then the mind would be stripped of its nature of undergoing the “thinking processing.” Or, of the nature of the mind to think of new things. Neither would we think of God to be even having free will. The mind of God would be much like that of the computer, it goes on processing/calculating, but such mind was directed in the deterministic sense.

There is also a problem when we think God is “foreknowing.” For then we will have to assume independent beings that are existing outside of God.

Do you understand where I am going in these?








(one would understand more the significance the event of the crucifixion)(33PGISM3),
33PGISM3) In other words, the Crucifixion is a yardstick for truth?
No, given my musings above, we would arrive unto a different evaluation of what the crucifixion is all about. We would be asking if the crucifixion a part of the Logos. For one, if everything is determined, as I was saying, we become part of God. We are part of the Logos, and thus become part of God. To add, note that the “logos” was “with” God since the beginning.





If we would claim that God "knows everything," not only are we part of reality, but it will resolve reality into deism, or pantheism(QUE1). Also, if God already knew the events tomorrow ahead of us, we are simply deluding ourselves to think that we will be responsible of what we would become of, neither should we account God responsible of what we become of; He simply just know what we would become of. (QUE2)

Somehow, thinking of God's knowledge in terms of the two above would posit a big problem in knowing the Godhead and reality, or perhaps that we are not knowing the truth. I don't agree that we should think of God's knowledge those ways above.(QUE3)
(QUE1-3) Are you able to explain (a little more thoroughly) how exactly those ideas of (a) deism, (b) pantheism, and (c) people not being responsible for their actions (because God knows everything) come into being? Where do you get these ideas from?

Before I answer this, please answer my proceeding question first: Were you able to follow what I was saying above?

37818
07-10-2014, 09:25 PM
(37SDU1) You were making certain observations about Jesus' "humanity" a couple days ago. I'm asking what you base that single theology on.He preexisted both "with God" and "was God" (John 1:1-3). He became human (John 1:14). He was always the revelator of God (John 1:18; John 14:6). He is a descendant from Adam through Mary (Luke 3:23-38; Genesis 3:15). He was really a man, but was sinless because He was also really God (Luke 18:19; John 1:1,14; Hebrews 4:15; 1 John 3:5).


(37SDU2) The words that you use. Which Bible/s do you use? I typically use the KJV. But will use other translations when so needed.

(37SDU3) Are you aware of the Title "Lord of Lords" and "prince of the Kings"? Yup (Deuteronomy 10:17; Revelation 19:16; Revelation 1:5).

(37SDU4) I wasn't talking about the works of Christ, that's not a dialog. I was asking you about the Godhead, whether you think Christians should focus more on the unity aspects of the Godhead, or the separating/different aspects of the Godhead?Both. Why do you think one should be emphasized over the other? It is the heresies which deny one truth over another. (Modalism, Tritheism, Arianism, Unitarianism.)

(37SDU5) Which manuscript/s are you using for your translations? Also in 37SDU3? The Hebrew Masoretic text and TR in the case of the KJV and the NKJV. In the case of the NT I favor the textual family now known as f35. It is the Majority text represented by all the other text types. The other translations I reference from time to time, NKJV, ASV, NASB, John Darby translation, and the NIV for its foot notes (not so much for its translation). I may reference other translations as well. Nestle-Aland for its Greek text apparatus.

(37SDU6) Sorry, that was a typo... - Do you support or reject Wescott and Hort's Greek, the latin Vulgate, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus? Do you believe these are credible texts?I reject Wescott and Hort's text, also reject the United Bible Society Greek text as well as the Nestle-Aland text. Which NASB and NIV follow.

(37SDU7) In the Spirit of the book of Revelations, what is your understanding of the word Lord? Also, what lexicons/dictionaries are you using to translate this word?Strong's Greek Dictionary. I have others. In the case of the word translated Lord. The Hebrew for God's Name is in the NT translated by that word and the Greek word translated God - where the Hebrew is text is cited in the NT. Deuteronomy 8:3 - Matthew 4:4, God. Joel 2:32 - Romans 10:13, Lord. Revelation - Deuteronomy 10:17 - Revelation 19:16, Lord as Lord. Genesis 28:13 - Revelation 11:17, God's Name as Lord.

(37SDU8) Are you aware that Acts 7:55 is not the only verse in the Bible that talks about the Right Hand, and that the Right Hand is primarily an Old Testament teaching?Well, the term "right hand" as it occurs in the OT in relationship to God, occurs twice, Psalm 48:10 and Isaiah 41:10. In the NT it refers to our Mediator's place with God, eleven times. And once as, "Him hath God exalted with his right hand [to be] a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. " -- Acts 5:31. But Jesus being called "the Right Hand of God," not to be found. But He is that (Genesis 1:1; John 1:3; Colossians 1:16, 17).

Is the Wilbur N. Pickering's book public domain?No. But its fourth edition is a freedown load as a PDF. http://www.walkinhiscommandments.com/Pickering/Miscellaneous/Pickering%20-%20Identity%20of%20the%20NT%204th%20edit..pdf

Are you more in favor of Textual Criticism or Sola Scriptura/Inherency of Scripture?Textual criticism is to evaluate texts. Known variates of a text, are not each one the word of God. The words as God originally gave it is. I hold to the inerrancy of God's word. I believe God verbally and fully gave His word to His prophets and apostles. And we know it as our 66 book Bible. I hold the written word of God, our Bible to be the sole authority for all matters of faith and practice.

tabibito
07-10-2014, 09:47 PM
That is the law of works which was contrary to the Truth, or grace.

Men, through grace and truth, obey the will of God because God had written His law in their hearts and mind.

"The law of works" (so termed) is by no means contrary to grace and even less so to truth.

NoBibleEqualsSinner
07-11-2014, 02:32 AM
With regard to the first:
Every/All scripture is inspired by God. Technically correct though misleading: inspired by God {θεοπνευστος} is not a verb, but an adjective declined for nominative feminine; which means that it is describing or delimiting the word "scripture" (nominative feminine noun)(401) and not declaring where scripture comes from. (402)
"All scripture inspired by God is useful" would be more accurate, but still not wholly accurate. Where "is" has been inserted, "and" should be.
"All scripture is inspired by God" is interpreted correctly where it is understood to mean "Every inspired-by-God scripture." (403)

No verbs are used in 2 Timothy 3:16 - the whole gives exposition of verse 15 https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=796040603748859&set=a.516736451679277.122192.425007244185532&type=3&theater. (403)

προεγνωσμενου - foreknown (perfect, middle/passive) - is recorded in the Nestle GNT 1904(404), Westcott and Hort +1881+NA 27 variants(405), Byzantine Majority 2005(406), Greek Orthodox 1904(407), and the Textus Receptus(408). In the Tischendorf(409) 8th edition foreknown is in the active indicative form προγινωσκω. In Acts 26:5 "foreknow" is conjugated as a present participle in the third person, προγινωσκοντες - they knowing before. (404)

I primarily work from the Byzantine Majority Text(410), cross checking with the NU(411) and marking any significant variations, as appropriate.(412)


My point was not really (421) trying to agree with the Hindu Religion belief on the issue. Rather, I was trying to have their personal opinion(or understanding) on the consequence of what their belief of “eternal now” would lead to. I am a bit frustrated because I don’t get to hear some conclusions that seems obvious to me that thus should be concluded.

Moving forward in the discussion….. My thoughts about God’s existence is being illustrated in John 1:1-2. (422)

The existence of God is very much like the mind. We can only know the mind through what it thinks/thought/plan. And nothing we can know of the existence of the mind except what it think/thought/plan. And so, it is not surprising that the beginning of God was when what His thought/plan, the Logos, existed; and thus was said in John: “the same was in the beginning with God.” The beginning of God begun when he begun to think of the Logos.(423)

Now, there would be conflict if we think of God(or the mind) as omniscient having known all things. (424) One thing, if everything that should be known is known, even of the future, then the mind would be stripped of its nature of undergoing the “thinking processing.” ( Or, of the nature of the mind to think of new things. Neither would we think of God to be even having free will. The mind of God would be much like that of the computer, it goes on processing/calculating, but such mind was directed in the deterministic sense.(425)

There is also a problem when we think God is “foreknowing.” For then we will have to assume independent beings that are existing outside of God.(426)

Do you understand where I am going in these?(427)

No (428), given my musings above, we would arrive unto a different evaluation of what the crucifixion is all about. We would be asking if the crucifixion a part of the Logos. For one, if everything is determined, as I was saying, we become part of God. We are part of the Logos, and thus become part of God. To add, note that the “logos” was “with” God since the beginning.

Before I answer this, please answer my proceeding question first: Were you able to follow what I was saying above?(429)



He preexisted both "with God" and "was God" (John 1:1-3). He became(431) human (John 1:14). He was always the revelator of God (John 1:18; John 14:6). He is a descendant from Adam through Mary (Luke 3:23-38; Genesis 3:15). He was really a man, but was sinless because He was also really God (Luke 18:19; John 1:1,14; Hebrews 4:15; 1 John 3:5).
I typically use the KJV. But will use other translations when so needed. (432)
Yup (Deuteronomy 10:17; Revelation 19:16; Revelation 1:5).(433)
Both. Why do you think one should be emphasized over the other? It is the heresies which deny one truth over another. (Modalism, Tritheism, Arianism, Unitarianism.)(434)
The Hebrew Masoretic text (435) and TR in the case of the KJV and the NKJV(436). In the case of the NT I favor the textual family now known as f35(437). It is the Majority text represented by all the other text types. The other translations I reference from time to time, (NKJV, ASV, NASB, John Darby translation, and the NIV for its foot notes (not so much for its translation))(438). I may reference other translations as well. Nestle-Aland for its Greek text apparatus(439).
I reject Wescott and Hort's text, also reject the United Bible Society Greek text as well as the Nestle-Aland text. Which NASB and NIV follow.(43a)
Strong's Greek Dictionary. I have others. In the case of the word translated Lord. The Hebrew for God's Name is in the NT translated by that word and the Greek word translated God - where the Hebrew is text is cited in the NT. Deuteronomy 8:3 - Matthew 4:4, God. Joel 2:32 - Romans 10:13, Lord. Revelation - Deuteronomy 10:17 - Revelation 19:16, Lord as Lord. Genesis 28:13 - Revelation 11:17, God's Name as Lord. (43b)
Well, the term "right hand" as it occurs in the OT in relationship to God, occurs twice, Psalm 48:10 and Isaiah 41:10. In the NT it refers to our Mediator's place with God, eleven times. And once as, "Him hath God exalted with his right hand [to be] a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. " -- Acts 5:31. But Jesus being called "the Right Hand of God," not to be found. But He is that (Genesis 1:1; John 1:3; Colossians 1:16, 17). (43c)
No. But its fourth edition is a freedown load as a PDF. http://www.walkinhiscommandments.com/Pickering/Miscellaneous/Pickering%20-%20Identity%20of%20the%20NT%204th%20edit..pdf (43d)
Textual criticism is to evaluate texts. Known variates of a text, are not each one the word of God. The words as God originally gave it is. I hold to the inerrancy of God's word. I believe God verbally and fully gave His word to His prophets and apostles. And we know it as our 66 book Bible. I hold the written word of God, our Bible to be the sole authority for all matters of faith and practice.(43e)

(401) What exactly are you supposing to achieve by translating the word 'scripture' into feminine case?
(402,403) Which text/lexicon, exactly, did you use for that translation, or are you using all the ones you just stated?
(404) Are you aware that Nestle used the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Wescott and Hort's texts, which are all catholic texts?
(405) Do you have any comments on Westcott and Hort's devotion/worship towards Mary, loyalty to the catholic papacy, and their rejection of Protestantism?
(409) Do you think Tischendorf's use of the catholic Sinaiticus and Vaticanus texts add credit to him?
(406,407,408,410,411) These texts that you are using - who wrote them, when did they write them?
(412) Any comments on the post-reformation and counter-reformation efforts of the papal inquiry to destroy all protestant literature (along with all Protestants), such as the Old Latin Waldensian Bible? Do you think it was a good or a bad thing that Mathurin-Léonard, a general under Napoleon, along with roman catholic clergymen, had Pope Pius VI deposed, to separate civil authority from the papacy? In other words, do you think that the papacy should be allowed to interfere with any matters of Bible Publication at all/ should it have any say at all in how the Bible is written?

(421,423) So you agree with Hindu pantheism? Panentheism? And you use the Greeco-roman logic, I think therefore I am, to prove existence? So whatever you think, exists?
(422) Which Bible/s/Commentary/ies are you using?
(424) I can understand why you might feel conflicted on the omniscience of God. That would mean everything in His Bible is true, and going to happen. What do you think of the book of Revelations?
(425) Well, for a start, a computer can't create the Heavens and the Earth, unless you believe that whatever you think is true. Are you able to create the Heavens and the Earth, again, a second one?
(426) Following your logic, everything that exists, is the product of thought, and applies in the material world. I agree with that, but I do not see the logic behind applying the same logic to a being that is eternal. That is counter logic to my mind. More of a maxim. Talking about maxims is logical. Not all maxims are logical. Eternity is mentioned in the Bible and in Mathematics, but eternity being created is not. You'd only find teachings such as these in things like Gnosticism. I take it that's basically your theology? (Sorry, I think the word might be Axiom. Basically, where a system of belief, or logic, or said morals starts..... the first principles. You can prove them, and disprove them with logic, but you can't really use them to prove other things, unless they are well substantiated with logic. Logic has to agree. Logic is not something that you have to establish, but universally understood, despite what many anti-logicians say, where their goal is generally to just separate morals from logic, which cannot be done. Logic without morals, both universal principles, cannot exist separately. Some people's ideas of logic, however, are very, very obscure. The idea that an eternity being is created makes no sense, at all. It's kind of like saying the floor is green, therefore it is blue... and just because; because I say so. If you disagree with me you are wrong. I think therefore I am right. Not saying that you have a very obscure view of life, because I am not quite sure what you believe, but I am saying that views of life that attempt to deny human beings access to morals and logic are generally the propaganda of evil people.)
(427) Well, for a start, do you believe morals and logic should be separated?
(428) That's quite an important statement that you just made, you realize that? The Crucifixion is basically the yardstick of the truth, not just in this world, but with understanding the Bible. Without the crucifixion, which embodies the teachings of Christ, we have no reassurance that the Levitical Death Penalty Laws are over, but with a denial of the Crucifixion as a yardstick for truth, basically, you can legalize the death penalty (if you are a Christian nation, and perpetuate death, sin and hatred, and the wars shall never end). It boils down to that: thou shalt not kill. By denying the Crucifixion/Resurrection as the absolute marker for testing truth, you open all sorts of doorways, to all sorts of evils, that have very harsh repercussions in society. But, because of Christ's death and resurrection, Protestantism has had a very long lasting effect on society, even spreading to Bangladesh, India, Turkey and Pakistan, by and through showing those people's that killing people is wrong, and all other people's of the world, everywhere else. But, interestingly, some of the disciples of the first and second century actually went and witnessed in India. Were killed, unfortunately, but, nevertheless, spread the Gospel. Unfortunately, the persecution against Christians in Bangladesh, India and the other Hindustans is very severe. You might understand why, according to the fruits of those trees of that religion, one might reject the Hindu Philosophy, and want to adopt something more peaceful?
(429) Well, you can't use a maxim to prove something. You start with a maxim, but it seems like you use your maxim to prove everything. So, your belief that Christians are allowed to do whatever they want, makes no sense at all, sorry. You might as well just say that you don't believe in Biblical Predestination, you believe in Hindu Pantheism. Am I following what you saying?

(431) Any comments on the phrase, He was, and is, and is to come? Or, I am the Alpha and Omega?
(432) Such as... ?
(433) Any comments?
(434) Well, I haven't read up enough on those theologies to comment; but I do know that almost 2000 years ago the Apostles were accused of heresy (Acts 24:14). Heretic or heresy or heresies are generally words used derogatorily to refer to Christians who just follow the Bible, and reject the Pontiff. I accept both the unity of Christ with the Godhead, and the difference of the Father, the Son, the Spirit. The only problem, I often see, is people try to use this to degrade Jesus, replace Him with Mary. Jesus told Mary to get lost (not in those words). But I do remember Him telling Joseph and Mary to take a hike. And also calling Peter, satan. My point is, not to emphasis one point more than another, because precept should be upon precept, line upon line, right? But, as Paul says, not letting the letter kill, either. Then you get certain people who try to attack the Holy Spirit. As we know, there is only one sin that will not be forgiven in this life.
(435,437) Which versions of these texts do you use?
(436) I take it you know that the NKJV is not based on the KJV or the TR?
(438,439) So you use those catholic texts, to understand their errors?
(43a) So, it's safe to say that you're not a Preterist? Emphasis on safe.
(43b) What do you reckon are some good Latin, Greek and Hebrew manuscripts? (The best).
(43c) What about the part where God asks Moses if he is doubting His outstretched hand? (I don't think the word Right is used, but I think that it might be assumed.) - Do you know where to get a good public domain KJV-style Concordance (not lexicon/dictionary), something that cross-references verses?
(43d) Will see what can be done.
(43e) Fan of the 1611 then?

tabibito
07-11-2014, 02:54 AM
What exactly are you supposing to achieve by translating the word 'scripture' into feminine case?Feminine case doesn't exist. Scripture is in Koine Greek, a feminine noun, the case is nominative. It was necessary to show that the adjective "god breathed" is associated with "scripture".

Which text/lexicon, exactly, did you use for that translation, or are you using all the ones you just stated?I use the Byzantine Majority Text. But in this case that is irrelevant - All except the Tischendorf show the same wording.

Any comments on the post-reformation and counter-reformation efforts of the papal inquiry to destroy all protestant literature (along with all Protestants), such as the Old Latin Waldensian Bible? Do you think it was a good or a bad thing that Mathurin-Léonard, a general under Napoleon, along with roman catholic clergymen, had Pope Pius VI deposed, to separate civil authority from the papacy? In other words, do you think that the papacy should be allowed to interfere with any matters of Bible Publication at all/ should it have any say at all in how the Bible is written? Claim and counter claim abound. Overall it is irrelevant. Protestant translated Bibles are tainted with Calvinistic precepts just as thoroughly as the Roman Bibles are tainted with Rome's precepts and the Orthodox group's with theirs. However, the published copies of the Koine manuscripts are true copies, in so far as I can determine ... so what translators play with when they translate becomes a non-issue.

37818
07-11-2014, 09:02 PM
(432) Such as... ?Sometimes when a fellow believer is using a particular translation. In reply I might use that translation also.

For an another reason, an example [Exodus 12:6] for clarity of a true meaning of a text:
KJV- ". . . And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening."

John Darby translation, ". . . And ye shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month; and the whole congregation of the assembly of Israel shall kill it between the two evenings."

The Jewish Tanakh, ". . . And you shall keep it for inspection until the fourteenth day of this month, and the entire congregation of the community of Israel shall slaughter it in the afternoon."


(433) Any comments?Sure, those NT passages identify Christ as God. Not just merely the Lord.


(434) Well, I haven't read up enough on those theologies to comment; but I do know that almost 2000 years ago the Apostles were accused of heresy (Acts 24:14). Heretic or heresy or heresies are generally words used derogatorily to refer to Christians who just follow the Bible, and reject the Pontiff. I accept both the unity of Christ with the Godhead, and the difference of the Father, the Son, the Spirit. The only problem, I often see, is people try to use this to degrade Jesus, replace Him with Mary.Well, that is effectively what they are doing. But you do realize they do not see it in that way. It has got to be pointed out that God can only be accessed through Christ alone (2 Timothy 2:5; John 14:6).

Jesus told Mary to get lost (not in those words). But I do remember Him telling Joseph and Mary to take a hike.I'm not sure which passage you are referring to. The passage which comes to mind, his step father was not mentioned being with them. ". . . While he yet talked to the people, behold, [his] mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. . . . But he answered . . . , Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!" -- Matthew 12:46-49. His mother for example, was a disciple. It is likely Joseph had since passed away - but we are not told this. Now if you have another passage you were thinking of?



And also calling Peter, satan. Peter did not yet understand the gospel, ". . . began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, . . . Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. . . . and said unto Peter, . . . for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." -- Matthew 16:21 - 23.



My point is, not to emphasis one point more than another, because precept should be upon precept, line upon line, right?Well, to the unbelievers, ". . . But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, [and] there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken." -- Isaiah 28:13.




But, as Paul says, not letting the letter kill, either. Paul was referring to the vain keeping of Law. ". . . But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which [vail] is done away in Christ." -- 2 Corinthians 3:(6 . . . )-14.


Then you get certain people who try to attack the Holy Spirit. As we know, there is only one sin that will not be forgiven in this life. The writer Mark gives this explanation, ". . . the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, . . . by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils. . . . Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit." -- Mark 3:22 - 29.


(435,437) Which versions of these texts do you use? Generally I use the translation as found in our KJV. For example most, but not all, copies of the Hebrew text for Psalm 22:16 have what is translated as ". . . like a lion, . . ." where as the KJV, NKJV, NASB and NIV, I believe, correctly have ". . . they pierced . . . ." In the NT, for example, Revelation 15:3, the KJV has, ". . . thou King of saints," should, I believe, read, "thou King of the nations." It should be noted that the KJV (TR) is mostly in agreement with f35 manuscript family. The KJV, NKJV differs only in a few places where the modern versions differ in many places. The NKJV foot notes, M, NU show this to be true.

(436) I take it you know that the NKJV is not based on the KJV or the TR?That is not true. The NKJV follows the TR, and notes where the TR does not follow M the Majority text or NU, the Nestle-Aland or United Bible society Greek texts.

(438,439) So you use those catholic texts, to understand their errors?Ah, no. You used the correct text to understand what is correct. The other translations are of interest only where they agree with the correct text or they support the majority text against some of the very few errors attached to the TR.

(43a) So, it's safe to say that you're not a Preterist? Emphasis on safe.Yes. I am a premallennial post-trib futurist. (After reading John F. Walvoord's book, "The Rapture Question." He is pre-trib, BTW.)


(43b) What do you reckon are some good Latin, Greek and Hebrew manuscripts? (The best). I would not recommend any one manuscript, but the family of readings, in the case of the NT, f35. And the Hebrew readings where the NT cites the reading a certain way. Which would differ from what we have in our OT. For example, Acts 7:14, ". . . threescore and fifteen souls." The in Exodus 1:5, the common Hebrew reads 70. The Dead Sea Scrolls, also being the older copy of the Hebrew, and the Greek LXX in Exodus 1:5 reads 75.

I would recommend for reference, Nestle-Aland for its notes on the known variant reading of most all the Greek manuscripts. (It was my Nestle Greek NT, which foot notes convinced me the KJV NT was better.) Otherwise use the NKJV, NU and M foot notes in English. The Latin Vulgate with apparatus for the Latin. For the Hebrew check this out: http://www.academic-bible.com/en/home/scholarly-editions/hebrew-bible/ (My copy is in a box some where. Off the top of my head, I do not remember which one I have. Most of my books are not yet unpacked from my move.)




(43c) What about the part where God asks Moses if he is doubting His outstretched hand? (I don't think the word Right is used, but I think that it might be assumed.) Five times it is recorded in Exodus, Exodus 7:19; Exodus 10:12; Exodus 10:21; Exodus 14:16 and Exodus 14:26. I do not see that it is relevant, even if we happen to correctly assume that it was the right hand. Again nowhere does the holy scripture call Jesus God's right hand.


- Do you know where to get a good public domain KJV-style Concordance (not lexicon/dictionary), something that cross-references verses?I have used the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance for this purpose for the past 46 years. check this out: https://archive.org/details/exhaustiveconcor1890stro



(43e) Fan of the 1611 then?I have three hard copy reprints of the 1611 KJV edition. Again, I do not believe in inerrant translation. I believe God's word is inerrant. The KJV happens to be, I believe, over all, a more reliable translation of the Bible. The Bible being God's inerrant written word. For those who do not understand 1769 English, use the NKJV.