Jesus

st_worm2 said:

But she did choose to tell everyone what her song is about, that's the point.


She appears to be a Roman Catholic from birth, not Rosicrucian (as she refers to her Catholic upbringing on her website, including the fact that she entered into the "Sacrament of Marriage" on the 33rd anniversary of her Baptism). Since Rosicrucianism denies that the Lord Jesus went to the Cross (along with most of the other important tenets of the Christian faith), it would seem more that a bit odd for her to write/sing songs about His Passion.

--David

Click to expand...

Who Me said:

An interesting selective quoting of scripture.
No reference to where God identifies Jesus as his Son, none to the bible identifying Jesus as equal to God.

Click to expand...

BB1956 said:

I have never read in scripture where Jesus said he was God. I do understand that there are imperfect human beings who interpret certain scriptures to make it seem the scriptures are saying Jesus is God in the flesh, but I don't follow imperfect human beings personal interpretations of scripture. That's because no one is going to convince me that God is so ignorant that it's impossible for him to inspire men to write down his thoughts accurately. So when a scripture says, "I and the Father are one" and imperfect humans interpret this scripture to mean that Jesus and God are the same person, I'm going to disagree. I can read no matter how many people say I can't read, and I can see for myself that people are taking this particular scripture out of context to prove there belief. I'm not going to agree when people taking scripture out of context to try to prove what they believe. Now I do understand that people have the right to believe their personal interpretations of scripture, or someone else's personal interpretations, they even have the right to take a scripture out of context but that doesn't mean I have to agree with them.

In scripture some Jews accused Jesus of making himself equal to God, Jesus replied: "Is it not written in your law, 'I said: "you are God's"'? If he called 'gods' those against whom the word God came, and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified, do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, 'You blaspheme,' because I said, I am God's Son?"(John 10:34-36) Here in this scripture Jesus wasn't saying he was equal to God or that he was God, simply because he said he was God's Son.

The scriptures show us that as a son, Jesus ascribed superior authority, knowledge and greatness to his Father. He stated: "This sitting down at my right hand and at my left hand is not mine to give, but it belongs to those for whom it has been prepared by my Father"(Matthew 20:23) "concerning that day or that hour nobody knows, neither that angels in heaven nor the Son, but the Father."(Mark 13:32) "The Father is greater than I am."(John 14:28) Jesus acknowledged his Father as his God. Just before his death Jesus cried out: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"(Matthew 27:46) Then after Jesus resurrection, he told Mary Magdalene: "I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God."(John 20:17)
Finally, in a revelation to the apostle John, Jesus Christ identified himself as the first of God's creations, saying: "These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God."(Revelation 3:14; John 1:14; Colossians 1:15.)

So the testimony of Jesus Christ respecting himself while on earth reveals that he was not just some wise man nor was he God in the flesh, but he was the perfect human Son of God. The record concerning Jesus words and deeds served to establish this truth. Wrote the apostle John: "Jesus performed many other signs also before the disciples, which are not written down in this scroll. But these have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that, because of believing, you may have life by means of his name."(John 20:30,31)

Click to expand...

donadams said:

What do Rosicrucians believe?
Was Luther a Rosicrucian?

Click to expand...

donadams said:

Perhaps like 1 Jn 5:7 these ain’t sacred scripture either?

John 17:21
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

I could understand how God can be with or in a man, not how a mere man can be in God!

John 10:30
I and my Father are one.

Click to expand...

st_worm2 said:

Hi Don, the earliest authentically Rosicrucianism writings come from the 17th century. Luther was born in the late 15th Century and, although he lived a relatively long life for someone who so many in power were trying to murder, he didn't live that long

As far as what Rosicrucians believe: The Rosicrucianism Order is syncretistic, meaning that it borrows ideas and beliefs from various other religions in an attempt to unify them under a central theme—wisdom about life after death has been preserved through the ages and is revealed only to the secret brotherhood (the Rosicrucians). There are strongly occultic teachings in Rosicrucianism, including ESP, clairvoyance, and spiritism. This goes right along with the secretive nature of Rosicrucianism because these activities are the playground of Satan and his demons, and Satan always shuns the light.

Regarding the principle Christian doctrines found in the Bible, the Rosicrucians believe the following:

Jesus Christ: According to Rosicrucianism, He was born of Gentile parents, did not die on the cross, did not ascend to heaven, and retired to the monastery in Carmel to carry on secret missions with His apostles.

Salvation: Rosicrucianism denies that a person must trust Christ as the only Savior.

Their system of salvation is one of ~self-effort~, their motto being “TRY.”

Finally, the secretive nature of Rosicrucianism is in direct contrast with the true faith, Christianity, which seeks to shout the message of Jesus Christ from the roof tops, as the Bible exhorts us to do.

If you'd care to read the rest of the article, go here: https://www.gotquestions.org/Rosicrucianism.html

--David

Click to expand...

Who Me said:

Do read the post I was replying to.

Click to expand...

donadams said:

That part about not dying on the cross, Luther also rejected the holy sacrifice of Christ!

Click to expand...

Hello again Don, I'm confused by your statement. Are you saying of Luther that he did not believe that Christ was crucified? If so, what reason(s)/evidence do you have for believing that?

Thanks

--David

​

st_worm2 said:

Hello again Don, I'm confused by your statement. Are you saying of Luther that he did not believe that Christ was crucified? If so, what reason(s)/evidence do you have for believing that?

Thanks

--David

View attachment 16164​

Click to expand...

donadams said:

Just as He says the cross alone, not the eternal sacrifice of Christ!
Thks

Click to expand...

Hmmm, you said (that Luther said) that Jesus didn't die on the Cross. You also mentioned that Luther rejected the "holy sacrifice" of Christ. Finally, you seem to be contrasting the Lord's death on the Cross with the "eternal sacrifice" of Christ

Please elaborate, because I don't understand the point or points that you are trying to make.

Thanks!

--David
p.s. - it would help to see what Luther actually said. Perhaps you could post a quote of two of his that shows us the problem that you are having with his theology. Thanks again

donadams said:

Just as He says the cross alone, not the eternal sacrifice of Christ!
Thks

Click to expand...

st_worm2 said:

Hmmm, you said (that Luther said) that Jesus didn't die on the Cross. You also mentioned that Luther rejected the "holy sacrifice" of Christ. Finally, you seem to be contrasting the Lord's death on the Cross with the "eternal sacrifice" of Christ Please elaborate, because I don't understand the point or points that you are trying to make. Thanks! --David p.s. - it would help to see what Luther actually said. Perhaps you could post a quote of two of his that shows us the problem that you are having with his theology. Thanks again

Click to expand...

st_worm2 said:

Hmmm, you said (that Luther said) that Jesus didn't die on the Cross. You also mentioned that Luther rejected the "holy sacrifice" of Christ. Finally, you seem to be contrasting the Lord's death on the Cross with the "eternal sacrifice" of Christ

Please elaborate, because I don't understand the point or points that you are trying to make.

Thanks!

--David
p.s. - it would help to see what Luther actually said. Perhaps you could post a quote of two of his that shows us the problem that you are having with his theology. Thanks again

Click to expand...

Josef said:

Hey All,
The effects of Jesus ' sacrifice are eternal. But the actual physical sacrifice ended before Jesus died. In fact, He said, "It is finished."
Don't Catholics teach that Jesus dying on the cross is enough to save a person? I know you include baptism, so I am not asking about that. But are you saying that more is necessary for salvation?
Because I am pretty sure the emphasis is that salvation is through Jesus alone. Jesus said that about Himself.

Also, a few posts up, Mr Adams, you wrote:
"That part about not dying on the cross, Luther also rejected the holy sacrifice of Christ!" Quote from donadams

I don't have the 95 treatises in front of me. Which one was that? What about Jesus' sacrifice did Luther reject?

Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz

Click to expand...

BB1956 said:

for_his_glory said,
"Scriptures that reference Jesus being referred to as God:
John 1:1-14; John 10:30; Colossians 2:9 [/QUOTE\]

I know that there are those that believe John 1:1-14 is referring to Jesus as being God. But the first part of John 1:1 says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God." Since the first part of John 1:1 says the Word was with God, I don't see how the Word can be God. Because the first part of John 1:1 says, "the Word was with God," then to say the Word is God is contradicting the first part of John 1:1 that says the Word was with God. I don't believe that a person(The Word) who is “with” another person(the God) can at the same time be that person(the God) that the Word was with. I believe the Word is the only begotten Son of God. So I believe John 1:1, is saying, the only begotten Son if God(The Word) was with God in the beginning. So I believe John 1:1 being translated as, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god," is an accurate translation of John 1:1 even though there are those who disagree.

John 10:30, is often cited to support that Jesus and God are the same person. But Jesus himself showed what he meant by his being “one” with the Father. At John 17:21, 22, he prayed to God that his disciples “may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us. Jesus wasn't praying that all his disciples would become a single entity. Obviously Jesus was praying that they would be united in thought and purpose, as he and God were.

At 1 Corinthians 3:6, 8, Paul says: “I planted, Apollos watered . . . He that plants and he that waters are one.” Paul did not mean that he and Apollos were two persons in one; he meant that they were unified in purpose. The Greek word that Paul used here for “one” (hen) is neuter, literally “one (thing),” indicating oneness in cooperation. It is the same word that Jesus used at John 10:30 to describe his relationship with his Father. It is also the same word that Jesus used at John 17:21, 22. So when he used the word “one” (hen) in these cases, he was talking about unity of thought and purpose.

Regarding John 10:30, John Calvin (who was a Trinitarian) said in the book Commentary on the Gospel According to John: “The ancients made a wrong use of this passage to prove that Christ is . . . of the same essence with the Father. For Christ does not argue about the unity of substanlce, but about the agreement which he has with the Father.”

Right in the context of the verses after John 10:30, Jesus forcefully argued that his words were not a claim to be God. He asked the Jews who wrongly drew that conclusion and wanted to stone him: “Why do you charge me with blasphemy because I, consecrated and sent into the world by the Father, said, ‘I am God’s son’?” (John 10:31-36, NE) No, Jesus claimed that he was, not God the Son, but the Son of God.

At Colossians 2:9 the Greek word that some Bibles translates as Godhead is, "theotes." When it comes to this Greek word, "theotes" people who believe in the Trinity will translate the Greek word theotes with words like Deity,” “Divinity” or “Godhead” and so attribute personality to them, and those who don't believe in the Trinity will translate the Greek word theotes as “Divine Nature,” “divine quality,” “Godship,” and have them denote qualities.
That the Greek word "theotes" being translated as "divine nature" is perfectly ok is seen from what Greek authorities have to say about it. Parkhurst’s A Greek and English Lexicon (1845) defines the greek word theotes as “Deity, godhead, divine nature” (page 264). Note the definition “divine nature” as well as “Godhead.”
Liddell and Scott’s A Greek-English Lexicon, in its new ninth edition, completed in 1940 and reprinted in 1948, Volume I, defines the Greek word theotes as, “divinity, divine nature,” and then cites as an example Colossians 2:9.
Translating the Greek word theotes as divine quality instead of Godhead at Colossians 2:9 is fully justified to show that Christ has in him all the fullness, not of God himself, the Deity, or the Godhead, but of the divine quality dwelling bodily, and this in behalf of the spiritual body of Christ, so that this body of Christ’s followers is possessed of a fullness by means of him: “It is in [Christ] that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily. And so you [Christians] are possessed of a fullness by means of him, who is the head of all government and authority.”—Col. 2:9, 10.

So I disagree these scriptures are referring Jesus to be God.

Click to expand...

BB1956 said:

for_his_glory said Hebrews 1:8, 9 refers Jesus as being God. But the weight of the evidence indicates that it is YHWH God.
However believers of the Trinity believe that Jesus is shown to be the same as Almighty God at Hebrews 1:8. I don't believe this to be correct.

First, we have to note the context. In many translations, either in the main text or in the margin, Hebrews 1:9 reads, “God, your God, anointed you.” This makes it clear that the one addressed at Hebrews 1:8 is not God, but one who worships God and is anointed by him.

Secondly, it should be noted that Hebrews 1:8, 9 is a quotation from Psalm 45:6, 7, which originally was addressed to a human king of Israel. Surely the writer of this psalm did not think that this human king was Almighty God so I don't believe the writer of Hebrews thought that Jesus was Almighty God.

Commenting on this, scholar B. F. Westcott said: “It is scarcely possible that Elohim,(God]) in the original can be addressed to the king. . . . Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: God is Thy throne (or, Thy throne is God), that is ‘Thy kingdom is founded upon God.’”

So I disagree that Hebrews 1:8,9 refers Jesus as being Almighty God.

for_his_glory said that 1 John 5:20 refers to Jesus being God.
1 John 5:20 says, "But we know that the Son of God has come, and he has given us insight so that we may gain the knowledge of the one who is true. And we are in union with the one who is true, by means of his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and life everlasting.

Believers in the Trinity doctrine hold that the demonstrative pronoun “this” (houtos) refers to its immediate antecedent, Jesus Christ. They assert that Jesus is “the true God and life everlasting.” I believe this interpretation, however, is in conflict with the rest of the Scriptures. And many authoritative scholars do not accept this Trinitarian view. Cambridge University scholar B. F. Westcott wrote: “The most natural reference [of the pronoun houtos] is to the subject not locally nearest but dominant in the mind of the apostle.” So, the apostle John had in mind Jesus Christ Father. German theologian Erich Haupt wrote: “It has to be determined whether the [houtos] of the next proposition refers to the locally and immediately preceding subject . . . or to the more distant antecedent God. A testimony to the one true God seems more in harmony with the final warning against idols than a demonstration of the divinity of Christ.”

A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament, published by Rome’s Pontifical Biblical Institute, states: “[Houtos]: as a climax to 1 John 5 [verses] 18-20 the ref[erence] is almost certainly to God the real, the true, [in] opp[osition to] paganism (v. 21 1Jo 5:21).”
So I don't agree that 1 John 5:20 refers to Jesus as being God.
In 1 John 5:7,8 the words “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one” do not appear in the oldest Greek manuscripts. So the most modern Bible translations omit those words, the Bible edition by the Roman Catholic Episcopal Committee of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine putting the words in brackets along with an explanatory footnote, as follows: “The Holy See reserves to itself the right to pass finally on the origin of the present reading.”

The oldest Greek manuscript of the Christian Scriptures is, in the judgment of many, the Vatican Manuscript No. 1209, written in the first half of the fourth century. In our own copy of this Greek manuscript as edited by Cardinal Angelus Maius in 1859, he inserted the Greek words into the Manuscript copy but added a sign of a footnote at the end of the preceding verse. The footnote is in Latin and, translated, reads:

From here on in the most ancient Vatican codex, which we reproduce in this edition, the reading is as follows: “For there are three that give testimony, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three are for one. If the testimony” etc. there is therefore lacking the celebrated testimony of John concerning the divine three persons, which fact was already long known to critics.

Click to expand...

BB1956 said:

for_his_glory said Hebrews 1:8, 9 refers Jesus as being God. But the weight of the evidence indicates that it is YHWH God.
However believers of the Trinity believe that Jesus is shown to be the same as Almighty God at Hebrews 1:8. I don't believe this to be correct.

First, we have to note the context. In many translations, either in the main text or in the margin, Hebrews 1:9 reads, “God, your God, anointed you.” This makes it clear that the one addressed at Hebrews 1:8 is not God, but one who worships God and is anointed by him.

Secondly, it should be noted that Hebrews 1:8, 9 is a quotation from Psalm 45:6, 7, which originally was addressed to a human king of Israel. Surely the writer of this psalm did not think that this human king was Almighty God so I don't believe the writer of Hebrews thought that Jesus was Almighty God.

Commenting on this, scholar B. F. Westcott said: “It is scarcely possible that Elohim,(God]) in the original can be addressed to the king. . . . Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: God is Thy throne (or, Thy throne is God), that is ‘Thy kingdom is founded upon God.’”

So I disagree that Hebrews 1:8,9 refers Jesus as being Almighty God.

for_his_glory said that 1 John 5:20 refers to Jesus being God.
1 John 5:20 says, "But we know that the Son of God has come, and he has given us insight so that we may gain the knowledge of the one who is true. And we are in union with the one who is true, by means of his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and life everlasting.

Believers in the Trinity doctrine hold that the demonstrative pronoun “this” (houtos) refers to its immediate antecedent, Jesus Christ. They assert that Jesus is “the true God and life everlasting.” I believe this interpretation, however, is in conflict with the rest of the Scriptures. And many authoritative scholars do not accept this Trinitarian view. Cambridge University scholar B. F. Westcott wrote: “The most natural reference [of the pronoun houtos] is to the subject not locally nearest but dominant in the mind of the apostle.” So, the apostle John had in mind Jesus Christ Father. German theologian Erich Haupt wrote: “It has to be determined whether the [houtos] of the next proposition refers to the locally and immediately preceding subject . . . or to the more distant antecedent God. A testimony to the one true God seems more in harmony with the final warning against idols than a demonstration of the divinity of Christ.”

A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament, published by Rome’s Pontifical Biblical Institute, states: “[Houtos]: as a climax to 1 John 5 [verses] 18-20 the ref[erence] is almost certainly to God the real, the true, [in] opp[osition to] paganism (v. 21 1Jo 5:21).”
So I don't agree that 1 John 5:20 refers to Jesus as being God.
In 1 John 5:7,8 the words “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one” do not appear in the oldest Greek manuscripts. So the most modern Bible translations omit those words, the Bible edition by the Roman Catholic Episcopal Committee of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine putting the words in brackets along with an explanatory footnote, as follows: “The Holy See reserves to itself the right to pass finally on the origin of the present reading.”

The oldest Greek manuscript of the Christian Scriptures is, in the judgment of many, the Vatican Manuscript No. 1209, written in the first half of the fourth century. In our own copy of this Greek manuscript as edited by Cardinal Angelus Maius in 1859, he inserted the Greek words into the Manuscript copy but added a sign of a footnote at the end of the preceding verse. The footnote is in Latin and, translated, reads:

From here on in the most ancient Vatican codex, which we reproduce in this edition, the reading is as follows: “For there are three that give testimony, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three are for one. If the testimony” etc. there is therefore lacking the celebrated testimony of John concerning the divine three persons, which fact was already long known to critics.

Click to expand...