Announcement

Collapse

Unorthodox Theology 201 Guidelines

Theists only.

This forum area is primarily for persons who would identify themselves as Christians whether or not their theology is recognized within the mainstream or as orthodox though other theists may participate with moderator permission. Therefore those that would be restricted from posting in Christianity 201 due to a disagreement with the enumerated doctrines, ie the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment may freely post here on any theological subject matter. In this case "unorthodox" is used in the strict sense of a person who denies what has been declared as universal essentials of the historic Christian faith. Examples would be adherents to Oneness, Full Preterists, Unitarian Universalist Christians, Gnostics, Liberal Christianity, Christian Science to name a few.

The second purpose will be for threads on subjects, which although the thread starter has no issue with the above doctrines, the subject matter is so very outside the bounds of normative Christian doctrine totally within the leadership's discretion that it is placed here. In so doing, no judgment or offense is intended to be placed on the belief of said person in the above-doctrines. In this case "unorthodox" is used in a much looser sense of "outside the norms" - Examples of such threads would be pro-polygamy, pro-drug use, proponents of gay Christian churches, proponents of abortion.

The third purpose is for persons who wish to have input from any and all who would claim the title of Christian even on subjects that would be considered "orthodox."

The philosophy behind this area was to recognize that there are persons who would identify themselves as Christian and thus seem out of place in the Comparative Religions Forum, but yet in keeping with our committment here to certain basic core Christian doctrines. Also, it allows threads to be started by those who would want to still be identified as Christian with a particular belief that while not denying an essential is of such a nature that the discussion on that issue belongs in this section or for threads by persons who wish such a non-restricted discussion.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Which came first, Faith, or God's plan in Jesus?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
    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.)
    Last edited by NoBibleEqualsSinner; 07-08-2014, 08:28 AM.

    Comment


    • #32
      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.
      1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
      .
      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
      Scripture before Tradition:
      but that won't prevent others from
      taking it upon themselves to deprive you
      of the right to call yourself Christian.

      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by tabibito View Post
        ........ 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.
        ...WISDOM giveth life to them that have it. (Ecclesiastes 7:12)
        ...the ISLES shall wait for his law (Isaiah 42:4)
        https://philippinesinprophecies.wordpress.com/

        Comment


        • #34
          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?
          1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
          .
          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
          Scripture before Tradition:
          but that won't prevent others from
          taking it upon themselves to deprive you
          of the right to call yourself Christian.

          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by tabibito View Post
            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.
            ...WISDOM giveth life to them that have it. (Ecclesiastes 7:12)
            ...the ISLES shall wait for his law (Isaiah 42:4)
            https://philippinesinprophecies.wordpress.com/

            Comment


            • #36
              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.
              1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
              .
              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
              Scripture before Tradition:
              but that won't prevent others from
              taking it upon themselves to deprive you
              of the right to call yourself Christian.

              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by NoBibleEqualsSinner View Post
                (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.
                Last edited by 37818; 07-10-2014, 12:02 AM.
                . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                  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.
                  Originally posted by FarEastBird View Post
                  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.
                  Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                  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?
                  Originally posted by FarEastBird View Post
                  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)

                  Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                  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)
                  Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                  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?
                  Last edited by NoBibleEqualsSinner; 07-10-2014, 10:15 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    ----
                    Last edited by NoBibleEqualsSinner; 07-10-2014, 09:30 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by NoBibleEqualsSinner
                      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?f...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.
                      Last edited by tabibito; 07-10-2014, 10:54 AM.
                      1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                      .
                      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                      Scripture before Tradition:
                      but that won't prevent others from
                      taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                      of the right to call yourself Christian.

                      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                        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.
                        ...WISDOM giveth life to them that have it. (Ecclesiastes 7:12)
                        ...the ISLES shall wait for his law (Isaiah 42:4)
                        https://philippinesinprophecies.wordpress.com/

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by NoBibleEqualsSinner View Post
                          (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?





                          Originally posted by NoBibleEqualsSinner View Post
                          (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.


                          Originally posted by NoBibleEqualsSinner View Post
                          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?
                          Last edited by FarEastBird; 07-10-2014, 11:18 PM.
                          ...WISDOM giveth life to them that have it. (Ecclesiastes 7:12)
                          ...the ISLES shall wait for his law (Isaiah 42:4)
                          https://philippinesinprophecies.wordpress.com/

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by NoBibleEqualsSinner View Post
                            (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...th%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.
                            Last edited by 37818; 07-10-2014, 11:30 PM.
                            . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                            . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                            Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by FarEastBird View Post
                              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.
                              1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                              .
                              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                              Scripture before Tradition:
                              but that won't prevent others from
                              taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                              of the right to call yourself Christian.

                              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                                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?f...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)
                                Originally posted by FarEastBird View Post
                                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)

                                Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                                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...th%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?
                                Last edited by NoBibleEqualsSinner; 07-11-2014, 09:24 AM.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X