Jesus is God?... or not? When & how did you first find

[Imagican]

+JMJ+

Imagician,

Are you under the impression that Scripture is somehow flawed?

You misunderstood my post. What I stated was in partial agreement with Brads statement. For I KNOW that words HAVE been altered in order to lean in a 'Catholic direction'. BUT, it has NOT been altered in ANY way that can HIDE the 'truth'.

I hope, Fulton, that YOU realize that interpretation is a matter of 'personal' interpretation when it comes to words that CANNOT be accruately translated from one language to another. It's up to the individual DOING the interpretation sometimes as to WHICH of a number of similar words is chosen for the translation. With this in mind, there is NO DOUBT that one that was interpreting a particular document WOULD impose 'their' understanding upon the FINAL document. That 'their understanding' would have an influence on what words they chose to represent 'their view' into ANY final manuscript.

But, the Bible IS the inspired Word of God regardless of possible attempts of men to alter it in one direction or another.

 

[thessalonian]

They have ONLY made it easier to 'fool' those that listen to them rather than read it for themselves.

One has to be able to read in order to be saved is what he is telling us. Tell me magic, how much of the Bible must one read to be saved. Oh the poor ignorant of the world, condemned to hell because they could not read the bible for themselves so they can make up their own doctrines and false teachings

 

[Imagican]

NO Thess, if anything I offer the opposite. That if I were to opt to 'pick and choose', I could manipulate those that listened to me in ANY direction that I may choose. Therefore, if there ARE words that have been chosen in their interpretation for this purpose it is ALL the easier to manipulate others. Since this is exactly WHAT the Catholic Church did for hundreds of years before they 'wrote' the Bible, there is little doubt in the minds and hearts of most, that they would have certainly tried to manipulate it too when it was written for the masses.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to usurp the authority of God, however, so no matter what attempts that have been made to 'alter' the Word, it still remains intact to them that read and follow it in Spirit. There is NO salvation without a 'personal relationship' with the Father through the Son. Not according to my understanding. This is NOT to say that God is limited to ANYTHING but the truth, so suffice is to say that what has been revealed is that God saves those of HIS choosing NOT ours.

The Word WAS offered to the masses FOR a purpose. It was stated by Christ Himself that the Word would be published throughout ALL the nations of this planet before His return. It is YOU Thess that make 'conditions' as far as Salvation is concerned NOT I. I have my understanding and offer it freely. But I will NOT state as FACT what one must or must NOT do in order to KNOW God through His Son. Please don't alter what I say. I say it plainly on most occasions and if you misunderstand my posts, just ask and i will break it down to a simpler context.

MEC

 

[Sothenes]

This is MY SON in whom I am well pleased. Please explain to me how Jesus COULD POSSIBLY be the Son of God without God 'creating' Him.

I think that if you used a dictionary like Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, you would see why your definitions differ from the overall Biblical context. You could look up "word" and find "Logos" and you could look up "Son" and find different definitions but you are trying to make the Greek definitions fit a 20th century definition of "Father" and "Son" and using the words in a whole different sense. I know of some people who don't read the English anymore but they sit with their Greek or Hebrew Bible open in Church and read from that.

Page 585 of Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words says in relation to the term of "The Son of God" that "In this title the word 'Son' is used sometimes (a) of relationship, sometimes (b) of the expression of character.

The word "son" or huios is used in relation to moral characteristics. "The Apostle John does not use huios,'son,' of the believer, he reserves that title for the Lord". So when you compare us being a son of God just like Jesus being a son of God because you wanted me to compare the difference between Christ being in us and us being in Christ the same way that God was in Christ and Christ was in God, this is evidence that you are comparing apples with oranges and using English definitions that aren't squarely based on the Greek to confuse people because Christ's nature and our nature are entirely different. You are damaging yourself and others with that kind of thinking.

It is interesting to read W.E. Vine on page 683 in reference to the definition of "word" that in verse 18,"consummates the identification 'the only-begotten Son (RV marg., many ancient authorities read 'God only begotten,'), which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him,' thus fulfilling the significance of the title 'Logos,' the 'Word,' the personal manifestation, not a part of the divine nature, but the whole deity (see IMAGE)."

"The title is used also in 1 John 1,'the Word of life' combining the two declarations in John 1:1 and 4 and Rev. 19:13 (for 1 John 5:7 see THREE)."

There is so much more that I and anyone can post on the subject in comparison to what you wrote but I'm telling you that you should re-evaluate what you are doing because you aren't being honest with yourself and the text.

 

[Imagican]

There is so much more that I and anyone can post on the subject in comparison to what you wrote but I'm telling you that you should re-evaluate what you are doing because you aren't being honest with yourself and the text.

How am I being dishonest in the least. I ask a simple question. The scripture states clearly. It would be another reading 'something else' into what is plainly stated.

 

[Klee shay]

Imagican, I enjoyed reading your testimony. Keep true to the message of life and offer it as bread to those who hunger for salvation too. You cannot really hunger for salvation until you've totally and utterly realised that you're not worthy of it.

If I die for my false doctrine and burn in hell for all eternity, I'll know that this was the punishment I deserved and thank God for giving me the memory of Jesus etched into my heart to comfort me. You see, I realise that I deserve to burn for all eternity - there is no righteous in me. I can only pray that Jesus will see something worth saving; and retain that part for heaven.

I pity those who believe they do not deserve to burn in hell; for there is no fear of God in them. If I am saved it will be through fire and every burn a righteous wound. The decision is still up to Jesus though; and this is why I always point to him when I am sharing the Word. If Jesus said he was the "Son" of God and God declared Him begotten, then who am I to call Jesus, the Almighty God?

God is still one God, but Jesus was the only Son of Man worthy to open the door by which we can reach his love...and baptism of the Holy Spirit the only means of understanding their relationship. This is not to say anyone who follows Trinity is not baptised in the Holy Spirit...but there are some things we cannot see until we choose to listen to the Spirit by subduing the voice of mankind more.

This will come across a babble to some; but to others it will mean something else. I'm not interested in being called righteous, for I know I am not that. I'm only interested in sharing the Words of Jesus for his righteousness to reach those it was meant to.

Praise God for his subtly that astounds the intellectual mind. I say this as a continual fool in awe of His greatness. :fadein: