Saved - Past, Present, Future

Originally posted by sonship

[b]Indeed it is a different Jesus,

Yes, a different Jesus of a heretical teaching - a Jesus that you yourself do not know.

one created by God,

God did create man. But the Word WAS God. So the uncreated eternal life [b]"became flesh and tabernacled among us "(John 1:14)

Man is an item of God's creation ...[text shortened]... it is rejected again by the Christian brothers today who can see through its antichrist nature.[/b]

the word was not God and you know it, or at least you should know that the translation is erroneous for a whole host of reasons,

firstly it is nor possible to be God and be with God at the same time,
secondly the very context states that no one has seen God at any time this cannot be the case with Jesus,
thirdly the error is in translation, the term theos, in the phrase theós en ho lógos, the term theos is mistranslated as God and is a mistranslation for theos is a predicate noun describing a quality about the Word and if John had wanted it to be translated as God, he would have used the Greek ho to indicate that it was the definite article, but he did not and your translators while acknowledging this in the case of the Word, ignore it in the case of theos and produce a biased and inaccurate translation.

The pagan origin of the trinity is well known and i will discuss the blasphemous doctrine no further, it is you who do not know Christ nor can you ever get to know him, for the dogma and traditions of your forefathers has made the word of God invalid.

(Matthew 15:6-9) And so you have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition. you hypocrites, Isaiah aptly prophesied about you, when he said, ‘This people honors me with their lips, yet their heart is far removed from me. It is in vain that they keep worshiping me, because they teach commands of men as doctrines.

Amen

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the word was not God and you know it, or at least you should know that the translation is erroneous for a whole host of reasons,

firstly it is nor possible to be God and be with God at the same time,
secondly the very context states that no one has seen God at any time this cannot be the case with Jesus,
thirdly the error is in translation, t ...[text shortened]... s in vain that they keep worshiping me, because they teach commands of men as doctrines.

Amen

hey Rob, could you type here from your bible what John writes in his opening lines. The Gospel of John, 1:1-5. I'm just curios. thanks, pudge

Just a thought, do we humans know God so well that we can say, "it is not possible to be God and be with God at the same time". Certainly not logical to us, and many who cannot grasp it. Yet the Jews made a word up for the God they believed in. A word that cannot be translated into English. The word is a noun, singular plural. It roughly is translated to mean "I's". You can find the word where God says to Moses, "I am who am." (I's am who am)

the word was not God and you know it, or at least you should know that the translation is erroneous for a whole host of reasons,

I KNOW that the Word was with God and the Word WAS GOD. And I know that the rest of the Gospel of John reiterates this revelation in so many other ways of expressing it. Jesus Christ, sent from God, was God coming.

That is what I know. That prologue of John's Gospel is the underlining truth which the Evangelist seeks to communicate. The man Jesus was God. The man Jesus IS God.

firstly it is nor possible to be God and be with God at the same time,

Is ANYTHING TOO HARD FOR JEHOVAH ? . (Gen. 18:14)

secondly the very context states that no one has seen God at any time this cannot be the case with Jesus,

You did not complete the thought of the passage -

"No one has ever seen God; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him." (v.18)

John knew the implications of what he was writing. He is saying that the appearances of God to Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, are all superseded now. The incarnation of the Word as flesh has surpassed all the appearings of God to the Old Testament saints.

The living, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ has DECLARED God in a away surpassing all the seeings of God in the Old Testament. And that to the point that John insists - "No one has ever seen God; the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him."

Jesus is the definition of God.
Jesus is the declaring of God.
Jesus is the manifestation of God.
Jesus in all His life, death, and resurrection is the explanation of God.

thirdly the error is in translation, the term theos, in the phrase theós en ho lógos, the term theos is mistranslated as God and is a mistranslation for theos is a predicate noun describing a quality about the Word and if John had wanted it to be translated as God, he would have used the Greek ho to indicate that it was the definite article, but he did not and your translators while acknowledging this in the case of the Word, ignore it in the case of theos and produce a biased and inaccurate translation.

This technicality I will not debate with you here. But pseudo scholarship has been trying for many years to fabricate these reasons. The last Greek teacher I sat under, Eugene Van Ness Goetchius, author of "The Language of the New Testament" a book on New Testament Greek grammar, told us of the Arian exceedingly unlikely renderings of John 1:1.

He taught Greek and Hebrew at the Episcopal Divinity School associated with Harvard.

I didn't read the rest of your post at this time. You'll get no further with this Christian than you have been ever able to hoodwink me in the last, I don't know how many years.

Originally posted by sonship

the word was not God and you know it, or at least you should know that the translation is erroneous for a whole host of reasons,

I KNOW that the Word was with God and the Word WAS GOD. And I know that the rest of the Gospel of John reiterates this revelation in so many other ways of expressing it. Jesus Christ, sent from God, was God comi ...[text shortened]... Christian than you have been ever able to hoodwink me in the last, I don't know how many years.

The term, theos is a predicate noun which tells us something about the Word, your translators bias is easy to demonstrate because in one part of the verse they recognise the Greek idiom ho logos, THE word and ignore theos and indefinte predicate noun which because its an indefinite predicate noun should be translated as 'a god', as is found in the sahidic coptic text which predates anything you or your corrupt translators have to offer. The facts,

“[It] is clear that in the translation “the Word was God,” the term God is being used to denote his nature or essence, and not his person. But in normal English usage “God” is a proper noun, referring to the person of the Father or corporately to the three persons of the Godhead. Moreover, “the Word was God” suggests that “the Word” and “God” are convertible terms, that the proposition is reciprocating. But the Word is neither the Father nor the Trinity… The rendering cannot stand without explanation.”[4] Translations by James Moffatt, Hugh J. Schonfield and Edgar Goodspeed render part of the verse as "...and the Word was divine."

An Orthodox Bible Commentary notes: "This second theos could also be translated ‘divine’ as the construction indicates "a qualitative sense for theos". The Word is not God in the sense that he is the same person as the theos mentioned in 1:1a; he is not God the Father (God absolutely as in common NT usage) or the Trinity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_1:1

Your scam is up, no more trinitarian dogma shall be imposed upon scripture, everyone knows that the word is not god but is of a divine nature, now you can suck it up or continue to perpetrate the lie, either way, the path is clear.

Originally posted by sonship

the word was not God and you know it, or at least you should know that the translation is erroneous for a whole host of reasons,

I KNOW that the Word was with God and the Word WAS GOD. And I know that the rest of the Gospel of John reiterates this revelation in so many other ways of expressing it. Jesus Christ, sent from God, was God comi ...[text shortened]... Christian than you have been ever able to hoodwink me in the last, I don't know how many years.

pseudo scholarship? yeah because James Moffat, Schonfield and Goodspeed are pseudo scholars, more lies and no one is trying to hoodwink anyone, you are blind because of your dogma and you have made as is evidenced here some of the most ludicrous assertions to date on the basis of your dogma,

(Matthew 15:14) Let them be. Blind guides is what they are. If, then, a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit

I didn't read the rest of your post at this time

why? let me answer that, if you please with a scripture

(John 3:19-21) But he that does what is true comes to the light, in order that his works may be made manifest as having been worked in harmony with God.”

Originally posted by RJHinds
We are not saying to forget about doing good works. Obviously God wants us to do good works if we can. But the most important part is to acknowledge and confess your sins and realize that you are deserving of punishment and death and turn from sin and believe and have faith in Christ Jesus to save your soul from hell so you can be with Him in paradise too, like the thief beside Jesus on the cross.

Isn't the part of doing as Jesus commanded his followers to do and that is to do the preaching and teaching work he and all his followers did daily in all the cities and countries they could go to, important?
Isn't teaching ones who do not know about Jesus and what he did spiritually for ALL humans and how that will affect their future life's important? That always seems to be missed.........

Matt 24th & 28th chapters.....

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
pseudo scholarship? yeah because James Moffat, Schonfield and Goodspeed are pseudo scholars, more lies and no one is trying to hoodwink anyone, you are blind because of your dogma and you have made as is evidenced here some of the most ludicrous assertions to date on the basis of your dogma,

(Matthew 15:14) Let them be. Blind guides is what they are. If, then, a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit

Okay, they are competent scholars who could also be simply be incorrect about something. They may not be incorrect about all things which they studied. They could be wrong on some things.

Originally posted by sonship

[b]Indeed it is a different Jesus,

Yes, a different Jesus of a heretical teaching - a Jesus that you yourself do not know.

one created by God,

God did create man. But the Word WAS God. So the uncreated eternal life [b]"became flesh and tabernacled among us "(John 1:14)

Man is an item of God's creation ...[text shortened]... it is rejected again by the Christian brothers today who can see through its antichrist nature.[/b]

Also we could conclude that since He comes "with the trumpet of God" that He is God, right?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the word was not God and you know it, or at least you should know that the translation is erroneous for a whole host of reasons,

firstly it is nor possible to be God and be with God at the same time,
secondly the very context states that no one has seen God at any time this cannot be the case with Jesus,
thirdly the error is in translation, t ...[text shortened]... s in vain that they keep worshiping me, because they teach commands of men as doctrines.

Amen

I already explained the Greek translation for you before, but apparently you had your hands over your eyes and your head throughly stuck up your posterior.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I didn't read the rest of your post at this time

why? let me answer that, if you please with a scripture

(John 3:19-21) But he that does what is true comes to the light, in order that his works may be made manifest as having been worked in harmony with God.”

James Moffatt was a professor at Union Theological Seminary, one of the most radical liberal institutions. He regards the miracles of the Bible, such as Jesus' virgin birth and His raising of the dead, as mere myth or legend. He believed portions of the Bible were badly edited and arranged, so he tried to improve on them. He rearranged entire chapters to suit himself.

Schonfield, author of "The Passover Plot", makes Jesus into a charlatan, and doesn't even believe in the deity of God the Father. Schonfield was an advocate of the "swoon theory" and is quoted by the Muslims in support of their view that Jesus didn't actually die on the cross.

Goodspeed was a highly reguarded but criticized liberal Baptist theologian. Baptists believe in the Trinity, so I suppose he also believed in the trinity, but I can't say for sure. I don't really know what he believed.

Originally posted by sonship
Okay, they are competent scholars who could also be simply be incorrect about something. They may not be incorrect about all things which they studied. They could be wrong on some things.

Yes, I believe that to be the case.

Notice how in speaking of Christian experience uses the following terms interchangeably.

"But you are not in the flesh but in the spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Yet if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not of Him. But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin the spirit is life because of rigtheousness. And if the Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who indwells you." (Romans 8:9-11)

1.) Paul is speaking of the enjoyment and experience of God rather than systematic theology.

2.) The Spirit of God is the same Person as the Spirit of Christ - (verse 9)

" ... if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Yet if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ ..."

3.) The Spirit of Christ is the same Person as Christ Himself (verse 9,10)

"Yet is anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ he is not of Him. But if Christ dwells in you ..."

4.) Christ Himself is also the Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead . (verse 10,11)

" ... and if Christ dwells in you ... if the Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you ..."

5.) The One Who raised Jesus from the dead will give life to the Christians mortal bodies through His Spirit.

"He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life ... through His Spirit who indwells you." (v.11)

So Who indwells the believers ?
Who is the One who lives in the believers for their experience ?

The Spirit of God who is also "the Spirit of Christ" who is also "Christ" Himself who is also "the Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead" who is also "He who raised Jesus from the dead" who is also "His Spirit who indwells you".

God is triune. And in the experience of the genuine Christians we can detect no difference between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Furthermore, in the same chapter not only is the Spirit of God = the Spirit of Christ = Christ Himself but Christ is located in two places.

1.) Christ is IN the Christians - "But if Christ is in you ..." (v.10)

2.) Christ is at the right hand of God interceding for us - "It is Christ who died, and rather was raised, who is also at the right hand of God, who intercedes for us." (v.34)

So Jesus Christ is located today in heaven at the right hand of God and also within the believers as "Christ ... in you".

God is a Trinity.