You asked this about the Apocrypha: "So if it wasn't "God inspired," how did it manage to remain between the Testaments for 270+ years?" Why the Apocrypha was included in the KJV until 1885 is a kind of mystery but it shouldn't be a cause to believe in this book as Holy Ghost inspired. What matters is this book contains some very serious false doctrines which proves it is not Holy Ghost inspired.
In 2nd Maccabees 12: 40-43 it gives credence in giving prayers and alms so that the dead can be forgiven and eventually go to heaven. After a major battle during the preparation for burial of soldiers who had died, it was discovered that each of them was wearing amulets of devotion to pagan gods under their clothes which was sin: "Then under the tunic of each one of the dead, they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. And it became clear to all that this was the reason these men had fallen. So they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous Judge, who reveals the things that are hidden; and they turned to supplication, praying that the sin that had been committed might be wholly blotted out,"
In Baruch 3:4 it teaches that the dead can pray for themselves to eventually go to heaven. "O Lord Almighty, thou God of Israel, hear now the prayers of the dead Israelites, and of their children, which have sinned before thee, and not hearkened unto the voice of thee their God: for the which cause these plagues cleave unto us.
In Tobit 9:12 it claims that alms can purge away sin. "For alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin. Those that exercise alms and righteousness shall be filled with life:"
So whether we can give a precise reason why God allowed the Apocrypha to be included in the KJB for a time or not, it is a book to be avoided by true believers. God Bless :)
When I consider that the righteousness of Jesus is the righteousness of God lived out in the incarnation of His Son, then I am awed by how great must be the pure and holy way Jesus lived on this earth in His lifetime here. He must have stood out among all other people because NO ONE could lay any charge against Him of wrongdoing or ill-will or disobedience to God or offense against any man. he was completely and divinely pure and holy, without any taint of sin, no corruption of soul, no part of his human nature in rebellion against His Father or divine nature. In Him was perfect harmony of God and man without any conflict or dissonance. He as altogether righteous and because He was God in the flesh, His righteousness was infinitely immense enough to cover the sins of every person who every lived or will live.
We can know that all of our own sin can be covered by His righteousness and that His perfect sacrifice was infinitely sufficient to save my from my sins, death, hell, and the devil. His righteousness provides me with justification before God and awards me salvation and eternal life with him and the Father and the Holy Spirit forever. What a priceless treasure and gift God has given us. he gave us Himself. Hallelujah!
Mt. 1:23 quotes Is 7:14 as being fulfilled in Jesus. He is "Emmanuel, God with us"
John 20:28 Thomas calls Jesus, "My Lord and my God" and Jesus did not tell Thomas that that was NOT true.
1Peter 1:1 says our righteousness comes from God, and it comes to us in Jesus our Savior. The righteousness
of Jesus is the righteousness of God because He is God.
Is. 9:6 says that Jesus is the "Mighty God"
Rev.1: Jesus says that He is the "Almighty"
Col. 2:9-10 says that in Jesus the fulness of the Godhead dwelled bodily. He is Emmanuel, God with us. God revealed bodily.
Jesus is worshipped by believers (only God is to be worshipped) and Jesus accepted this worship.
Mt. 2:1-2 (by the magi)
Mt. 28:8-9, 17 (by the apostles)
In Rev.5:13 we read of the worship of God in heaven. Both the Father and the Lamb (Jesus) are given worship and it is said that this worship is to be given to both forever.
it is important for us to realize that only God is righteous enough to be our Redeemer, and that He became man in order that his holy blood could be shed for us as a sacrifice. No other blood would cleanse but the blood of God the Son. In His divinity, God has no blood because the divine nature is Spirit, but in His humanity as God in the flesh, He had divine blood to shed.
Jesus is the most unique person in all of creation and in God's transcendent realm, being both God and man in one person.
I have heard this quote often, don't know the author, but it is worth pondering (this is not a direct quote)
If Jesus is not God, then there is no Christianity and those who worship Jesus are nothing but idolaters. But if He is God, then those who deny He is God are blasphemers in the worst sense of the word, because they believe in another Jesus than what Scripture presents to us.
God's Word is truth. He revealed Himself to mankind in Scriptures so that we can know the truth about Him: what He is in His divine nature and who He is in His Persons.
It is thus approaching the Bible with out the aid of the Spirit heresies have come unrestrained. John's epistle speaks of those who have the Son has also the Father. Jesus defended his disciples "And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn."
Under the provision of the Covenant the seven days refer to the MOU and the Word is ultimate authority not to be confused by legal terms of the ungodly world. Holiness of God cannot deny himself.
So on Day 6 God blessed man in the Man component.(Ge.1:28)
"And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made." God allowed the Man to fulfill according what they covenanted in the triune godhead.
"Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre./Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows."(Ps.45:6-7)
Luke and Matthew also give the context and the quote, "And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath."( Luke 6:5;12:8) The everlasting covenant is between two equals so the eternal word is the Law backed by the kingdom of the Father. In case of faith we have the basis of these two worlds (He.11:3) which we shall leave aside for the moment. What are the equal entities here? They are Power on the part of God Wisdom on the part of Man. St Paul separates Man as the Lord of heaven, from man who is the earthy. "The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven."(1 Co.15:47-48)
When Jesus was born of woman his deity was never in jeopardy since he is the Word become flesh and sent with the divine Mandate. ( John 3:16)
When Jesus spoke "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work" it is this Word was God it refers.( John 1:1; 5:17-23)
Speaking of the context Mark 2:24 we have the Pharisees questioning "For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him."
Next point of Sabbath is that the day Seven. God has decree the day which touches his Alpha Omega aspect. " I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee./Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession."(Ps.2:7-8) There is no sanctity for observing Sabbath without the Son element incorporated in our lives. This heresy has arisen because the Christians interpret the word of God literally and assume it is the seventh day of a week. It is an error. It is thus approaching the Bible with out the aid of the Spirit. John's epistle speaks of those who have the Son has also the Father.
OK getting back to my postings about God's attributes:
"R" GOD IS RIGHTEOUS
He always does what is good and right. He never deviates from being sinless. He always thinks, says, and does everything righteously from pure and holy motives. There is no shadow of "darkness" in Him as to evil. His righteousness is far above whatever righteousness man can perform because even our righteousness is tainted by sin.
Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" In all of history, there has never been and strictly human person who is sinless. so, there has never been a strictly human person who is able to save himself from the condemnation of sin let alone anyone else.
Because of the complete and utter fallenness of mankind, there can be no redeemer from among humanity. There is no one whose righteousness is so pure and complete to be efficacious for the removal of God's judgment upon ALL of mankind.
It takes the righteousness of God to save mankind and God determined that his righteousness would come to save mankind by His divine Son becoming a man, righteous in every way, since He is God and cannot be unrighteous, and dying as our sacrifice.
The divine Son of God was incarnated, as John says in John 1:1, 14, ad became man for our sake. As God said in the OT, it is God alone who is Savior (Is 43:1, 11; 45;21; Hos 13:4) therefore, Jesus is God who is our Savior. If He is not God, then He is not our Savior because no strictly human man can save anyone. It is God who saves, who, though God the Son, took on human flesh and nature to be the only Kinsmen Redeemer who can take a way our sin, be a perfect, worthy, and more than sufficient sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, and to be able to bear the complete wrath of God for mankind for all their sins. No mere human can do that,
In Titus 2:13 Jesus is called our "Great God and Savior"
Yes, Ronald, your explanations to my questions have helped me understand your viewpoint very well. Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions seriously and respectfully. Be blessed today.
Scripture is clear Jesus had no sin, Hebrews 4:151 Peter 2:221 John 3:5Romans 5:12-15.
Do you believe that the Father and the Son are one as Jesus said in Jn. 17 or that He and the Father are "in" one another and if they see Jesus, they see the Father?
Both, Jesus said I and my Father are one John 10:30 and in other places, one means unity. Jesus was one with the Father not because Jesus was God but because He was filled with the Spirit and God dwelt in him, John 14:10, as we see God was in Christ 2 Corinthians 5:19
God dwelt in Jesus and empowered Him by His Spirit that gave Jesus the power and authority like Matthew 11:27 All things are delivered to Jesus of His Father, Jesus did not have it, all was given to Him. God was manifest in Jesus, John 12:49John 14:10. This is why Jesus said if you have seen me, you have seen the Father, John 14:9.
Jesus in His prayer asked the Father that we may be one, as He and His Father are one through the words of the disciples, John 17:20-23. God and Jesus will dwell in us and we in them, 1 John 4:13-161 John 3:23-24.
How is it that Jesus AND the Father send the Holy Spirit if there is only one person as God?
Jesus said He would pray to the Father to give another comforter, John 14:16, we see in John 14:26 the Father will send in Jesus's name. In John 15:26 Jesus said I will send but this is from the Father and the Spirit of truth that proceedeth from the Father. This is not a person it is the Spirit of God.
Please don't take this wrong, in the Trinity there is one God who eternally exists as three distinct Persons: The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each Person is fully God, coequal, coeternal, and consubstantial. I'm sorry my understanding, is Scripture does not support that, Scripture is clear the Father is above all.
Thank you, GiGi, I hope this is what you wanted I am not the best at this.
Do you believe that the will of the Father and the will of the Son are always the same or different?
Jesus was obedient to the Father, Jesus said many times it is not His will but the will of the Father who sent Him, the same as we are to do, John 4:34John 5:30Mark 3:35.
Do you believe that a human being can truly save all men from sin and death by a perfect life in their own will?
First, I will have to say it was the will of the Father, Jesus at the end even asked His father if there was another way but not Jesus's will but the will of His Father, Matthew 26:39Luke 22:42. We are told this is the foundation of our faith, Jesus' sacrificial death. God cannot die God is Spirit He has no blood to shed for sin it had to be a man, His Son, born of a woman.
John 3:16 God gave His Son not Himself 1 John 2:221 John 4:32 John 1:7Romans 5:82 Corinthians 5:21, God cannot be made sin, 1 Corinthians 15:17 Jesus died, and God raised Him from the dead, the first man to live a perfect life, the first fruits of those who sleep in death. 1 Corinthians 15:14 as said if Jesus was not a man who lived a perfect life and died and was raised from the dead all is vain.
The first Adam was the first man Jesus was the last Adam and the second man, 1 Corinthians 15:45-47. 1 Corinthians 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. The law had to be fulfilled by a man.
How would a human being know that they are the Messiah from birth and thus know not to ever sin?
As we see Luke 2:51-52 Jesus grew up increasing in wisdom and stature in favor with God and man. Jesus was twelve years old and He knew His father was God, but it doesn't say Jesus knew then He was to be the Messiah. God also said He would raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, Deuteronomy 18:15, Isaiah 11:1-5Isaiah 61:1-2 confirmed in Luke 4:18-21. Romans 1:1-42 Timothy 2:8.
New wine in new bottles refer to the new creation. "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new."(2 Co.5:17). Abiding in Christ is new altogether because it is fruits of the Spirit we are discussing. "I am the true vine" Jesus said and new vine refers to the newness of the palate. When Jesus promised to sup with a believer it is a reference to drinking new in the kingdom of his Father. "But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom."(Matt.26:29;Re.3:20)
Luke 5:38-39
"But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved." Jesus assured us "Without me you can do nothing"( John 15:3) Jesus as the Word become flesh promised to drink with us in his Father's kingdom. We are new and in our spiritual bodies we are the new bottles referred in this quote. The wine is of vintage quality that is same yesterday, today and forever. In v.39 it is 'the old'.
Unlike other two gospels St Luke extends the meaning of the parable further.
39 No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.
"No man also seweth a piece of new cloth on an old garment: else the new piece that filled it up taketh away from the old, and the rent is made worse./ And no man putteth new wine into old bottles: else the new wine doth burst the bottles, and the wine is spilled, and the bottles will be marred: but new wine must be put into new bottles."
The saying of Jesus is mentioned in both versions of Matthew and Luke.
We shall examine it from the specific, in the resistance of the Jews to him. They judged him from their holier-than-thou attitude as the people of the Law. What had the Law of Moses become? It was a treatise collated from the everlasting covenant, which before the advent of the Son in the fulness of time was given to the nation of Israel as the path to righteousness. Garment as in the Parable of the Wedding Guest refers to righteousness. So when Jesus spoke the parable it was in condemnation of what had come up as tradition. It was as unexpected as tares from the Parable. "An enmy hath done this'. From the manner the scribes and the Pharisees held on to the traditions of their fathers which only allowed them to fill up to the measure of their fathers. In his woe to ye tirade he faulted them,"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith, these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone."(Matt.23:23). Their hypocritical observation of paying tithes and worship rather to be seen of men than any real change in their old selves was new. This mix and match of old with new did not sit well.
In Luke we have " But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved./No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better."(5:38-39)
New wine in new bottles refer to the new creation.
What is the meaning of created? Does it mean something that is made out of nothing? I would have to say no, Jesus is the Son of God who was conceived in the womb of Mary, Matthew 1:20Luke 1:35, I do not think I would say He was created.
If so, when did He come into existence?
In God's plan before anything and physically when He was conceived in Mary's womb.
Do you believe that the Son is only human in nature?
Jesus is the Son of God fully human but without sin same as the first Adam, Scripture is clear when Jesus was baptized, He was anointed with the Holy Ghost/Spirit without measure, John 3:34. All the works of Jesus were done by the Spirit of God, Matthew 4:16Matthew 12:28Acts 10:38.
Do you believe that Jesus became "the Christ" during His lifetime (Adoptionism)?
I had never heard of Adoptionism until now, I had to look it up, it's false. Christ and Messiah are the same; Jesus was anointed by the Spirit of God after He was baptized by John, He then was made the Messiah/Christ fulfilling the prophecy in Daniel 9:25. Jesus is the Son of God conceived in the womb of Mary by the Holy Ghost/Spirit.
Do you believe Jesus ever aquired a divine nature in His earthly life?
If you mean a divine nature is to have all the attributes that make God who He is I would have to say no. If so, Jesus could not sin or be tempted, Matthew 4:1Hebrews 4:15. If so, Jesus living a perfect life without sin is meaningless. Jesus could not have died; Jesus was given the power of the Holy Spirit when He was anointed the Messiah. After He rose from the dead God gave Jesus all power in heaven and on earth, Matthew 28:18. God raised and placed Jesus on His right side, Ephesians 1:21-23. Jesus did not return to where He was before, God the Father placed everything under Jesus God's only begotten Son's feet and Jesus will reign until the last enemy is destroyed, 1 Corinthians 15:24-28.
"When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."
Jesus as the Son of God knew what was in the mind of man. But he did not make it a point to separate man according to his profession or morals before he condescended to sit with him or sup in any convivial company. But when he say faith among them he responded. It was thus at the house he came to heal the man with palsy what struck him was the faith of four who took trouble to bring him to the fore. "When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee."(2:5).He understood man was sinful so how sinful the matter of degrees did not interest him. The word of his Father was sent out calling all unto repentance. It was potent enough to enthuse the good to hear the call and make peace with God. For example St Luke speaks of Simeon of Jerusalem who was just and devout,"waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him./And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ./ And he came by the Spirit into the temple."( Luke 2:25-27). God let him see his heart's desire before he died. Then there was Anna the prophetess. It is of them Jesus meant when he referred the righteous. They were led by the Spirit of Christ and the anointing of the Holy Ghost would come only after hid resurrection.
But sinners whom came as in the case of Levi or the man with palsy did not came across him by coincidence,- but the call had gone forth before the worlds began and went to the ends of the world; it was their faith in exercising completed the calling and election sure. vv.15-16 The house of Levi was a microcosm of the world. So many were saved as there were many who went away as they came in because of their disbelief.
It is hard not to feel an impetus to prod on this subject. I am well aware that I don't have a spiritual gift of service and helps.
There are always needs and we can't live our lives in a vacuum; and that goes for church as well as in the rest of our lives. Perhaps it is doing what is needed rather than endless activities that also matters. I don't personally find it comfortable having a "Game night" at church nor have I been a social "butterfly" in general but these events when accompanied with prayer (and not with sinful activities that so often come about) these events can be edifying. As I stated previously discussions on world events often deviate toward speculation; there are times when scriptures can be discussed; and can be edifying when these discussions go into detail of Bible truths.
Evangelism
I probably said sometime in the last few years of posts that prayer is also good accompanying evangelism for anyone genuinely seeking it. I am not into the "sinner's prayer" in initial conversations; once we get to know people and see a genuine conviction that is the time to seek if they are ready to commit their lives to the Lord. We are partially responsible for someone's fate (blood on our hands) if we don't warn people of taking a vow to God flippantly. We should warn that the more we know the more we are responsible for. We should give many warnings as Christ did about it being the "narrow" path not the broad road leading to destruction ( Matthew 7:13-14). We should also give caution on the trials; thorns and temptations that God uses to test us to see if we are true believers ( Matt. 13:22). Such exhortations may filter out some; but I am convinced will in the end have a greater percentage of committed believers who endure to the end. The song by David Meese "You've gotta count the cost if you want to be a believer" isn't exactly the lingo in today's Christian music "industry" and that is to it's shame.
Whole counsel of God: Reading the Bible and prayer
There is the old saying "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink." The same principle exists with the Word of God. Psalm 119 for instance is the longest chapter in all of scripture and incessantly talks about loving God's law. Hungering and thirsting for the Word is something said to characterize the last days ( Amos 8:11-12). This verse talks of a famine for God's word; but we also see Jesus talking about "hungering and thirsting for righteousness ( Matthew 5:6).
It seems counterintuitive or a "no brainer" to consider reading scripture and prayer as something a believer should do; but it has been my experience the enemy will use all sorts of tactics to dissuade believers from focusing on the Word and probably even more so on prayer. It is easy for the enemy to allow us with minimum distractions to read the Word of God because we can easily go into our own error in making it merely an intellectual exercise or feed off it to divert to the latest conspiracy theory or politics or whatever is trending. Prayer of course has it's own ways that it can deviate from scriptural standards; but from my experience it is the lack of prayer that seems to be a common denominator in many congregations. Yes; someone can try to use prayer as a means of spreading gossip or trying to get attention. It seems that too often there is a planned schedule for prayer and it is almost unheard of for it to extend any length of time beyond that planned timeslot even when nothing is pressing. Just to find one or two people who have an urge to pray before a service or for others when needs are expressed and can do it "on the fly" in my mind can literally mean the life or death of a local congregation. If we can't be as a weapon of warfare prepared at all times then we simply will in one way or another be compromised and heading for defeat in having any real impact on individuals or a local community.
It is said by Catholics that marriage is a sacrament that is only necessitated by the vow a man makes with a woman; and I agree with that view despite disagreeing with many other things in their belief system. The idea of a minister to oversee the event from what I can tell helps to involve two or three witnesses (usually along with parents) such as 2 Corinthians 13:1 states. There are other verses as well; none directly discuss a marriage or any other vow; but it does apply in the fact that should one or more parties violate the covenant church discipline can be used against them. I am not sure how things are in the big picture but it seems whenever marriages do occur it is often in another church that the family prefers and many times there is little sense of a whole congregation being involved at least like they used to in the past. Maybe I am off somewhat but that's how I see it.
Good counsel is helpful in that respect however; if anything to keep a healthy balance of older women guiding the youth and allowing for good interactions and support. This is something more favorable it seems today in the Reformed churches from my experiences. Such interactions of a church being a family of course should extend to foreign missionaries that are affiliated with a denomination. It is a shame when we think of missionaries being "out there" and we detach ourselves emotionally when we give financial support. Their marriages and family are components of their witness as much as their evangelism and one can't be separated from the other; although of course some are single individuals on the mission field.
Again; it is sad to say that from my viewpoint there is a tolerance for remarriage in these same sort of congregations (although many won't perform them). I would say that existing marriages have greater chance of longevity and less for divorce in the Reformed circles than others who have 50 percent divorce rates as all of society if they marry at all.
I was in a very odd situation with a former OPC church I attended where I was granted a sort of "partial" membership without ascribing to their stance on infant baptism. There are a couple other issues which would keep me out of a similar place in the future (that church shut down 6 or 7 years ago due to lack of attendance). I will say that it wasn't required that I believed in their stance on Postmillenialism; although I may have mentioned here in the past when it was brought up how foolish it was to believe in the Antichrist and Mark of the Beast in one of their sermons and I took them up on that they sort of backed down. It wasn't a requirement to adhere to their eschatology, although it was a rather cliquish sort of mentality at that place. I agreed to disagree with them without such banter so I thought it only fair; however of course it was their belief.
In any case; infant baptism has cast a rather nebulous picture in my mind as to explanations; somehow holding what children or infants were commemorated with when they become adults and rebel as if they had some sort of inherent partaking of a covenant; I suppose equivalent to the Israelites who were "baptized" by crossing the Red Sea. ( 1 Cor. 10:2). No one I know actually thinks someone is saved through infant baptism but nonetheless they seem in my mind to have carried on a Catholic tradition through the Reformers in the past. I also had a "rebaptism"; having argued beforehand the sprinkling of water should also be legitimate ( Ezekiel 36:25). In my case I had it done that way along with my wife at the time because she had a balance issue going totally underwater; but I rededicated myself to a commitment as a church member when I had an immersion at the founding of a church I used to attend at its inception almost 10 years ago. Seeing how quickly Philip baptized the eunuch in Acts 8; and the jailor with his family ( Acts 16:33) it should follow salvation quickly.
To continue on the subject I would consider attending someplace for at least a year to understand fully doctrines ascribed to as well as to how genuine the love for Christ is in the church. If we are seeing little opportunities to contribute (which can happen in a place where one Pastor seems to hold all the cards); or where there is a great deal of pettiness; family pride (like where founders of the church and their children have had control for a long time in decision making) it may be a situation best avoided in such a commitment. This situation is occurring where a friend of mine is a new Pastor in a rural church in the Midwest.
Communion rules
In taking communion; there are what is known as closed or open communion. I am convinced that anyone who is Born Again and not living in unrepentant sin is eligible for communion. Nevertheless; there should be some discussion with a person beforehand to make sure they are indeed in the faith if someone comes in as a stranger and I can certainly get why some churches want to see if someone regularly attends for a period of time first. Waiting months on end without being given permission is something I have experienced in the past and I think that is going overboard. We shouldn't have a double standard either assuming just because someone has attended church as a member for years that they are "good to go" either; but without any real suspicion I can see how in that case an "open communion" (i.e for all members) can be given. We need to attend to warnings in Corinthians about those dying who take communion unworthily ( 1 Cor. 11:27-34). Unity in the Body of Christ in the church is represented with Communion and His presence is there along with any other actions such as two or more praying together. This is why we are to clear things up with our brother first ( Matthew 5:23-24) it should be settled-this discusses a gift at the altar but seems fitting nonetheless
Did Jesus exist before creation? Did the Holy Spirit exist before creation?
Jesus existed in God's plan, Jesus is the beginning of creation Rev. 3:14 and by Him were all things created Col. 1:16 my understanding is Jesus, was the first in God's plan of creation and everything was created by God, in and through the plan and purpose of Jesus. My understanding Jesus did not physically exist until the fullness of time. Ephesians 1:10 He was born of Mary the Son of God. the seed of woman. Genesis 3:15Matthew 1:20
My understanding is the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God, not a person, Genesis 1:2. We see all the greetings are from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. Romans 1:71 Corinthians 1:32 Corinthians 1:2Galatians 1:3Ephesians 1:2Ephesians 6:23Philippians 1:2Colossians 1:2 and 6 more. The Holy Spirit not being included is a good clue the Holy Spirit was not considered a person by Paul and others at that time.
If so, who were they in relation to the Father?
I believe the above answers this.
How did the Father, the Son, and the Spirit all create all that is, seen or unseen?
My understanding is God the Father created all, Genesis 1:1Genesis 1:31Proverbs 16:4Isaiah 45:18Nehemiah 9:6.
Does Scripture teach that God is only one person who manifests in three forms, but all these manifestations are only one person?
Scripture does not support Modalism I have never considered this and do not know anything about it.
I wish I had a more direct answer, but I am not a Pastor. I read a book supporting the King James ONLY as God's true bible. (As opposed to the "modern translations.")
In the book, "The Preeminence of Christ," the Authors, John A. Ricci and Louis E. DeBoer point out that most of the early "translations" were done by Gnostics, who carried (what we would call today) significant baggage. For instance, they did NOT believe in the Resurrection of Christ.
They also frequently changed parts of the New Testament that they personally did not agree with.
Most of the "modern translations," are translations of Gnostic translations (unlike the King James which principally comes from the Textus Receptus).
The "modern translations" started around the time the Apocrypha was removed from the KJV. While I have no way of knowing, and I will not be dogmatic about it, I think a bunch of "modern translators" formed a group of "Bible scholars" and had it removed.
To start; I used to have a similar understanding of the Trinity doctrine but over time it has changed, and I am still studying it. I do not consider myself part of any group or denomination other than a believer and follower of Jesus. I feel we should inspire each other to study in prayer for the truth and to be open to the Holy Spirit to unveil the truth as we know nothing.
With me, it started with two verses, 2 Corinthians 11:3-4, I contemplated these verses for a long time, it was like they stuck in my mind unanswered. In my study of the Trinity, I found out how it developed and how many deaths it caused even after the Reformation, and the questions I asked in Churches, many could not explain it and said it is a mystery that man cannot comprehend.
Is God and has He always been one solitary person?
Deut. 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD, Mark 12:29 and as said in 1 Cor. 8:6 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. My understanding is God the Father is eternal He has always been and will always be Psalms 90:2. God is Spirit, if a person means He has a will, emotions, the ability to speak, rationalize, self-awareness, to have a relationship with His creation, love, hate, etc. yes one person.
Before creation was, He always and only alone, without anyone to love?
What was before creation in Scripture we have no writings or information, Scripture tells us the hosts of heaven were before the creation of the earth and the galaxies, Job 38:4-7. How long before the physical world and universe we see we do not know. God's plan He declared the end from the beginning, Isaiah 46:9-10. I may be wrong, but God has never been alone inside Himself, time nor space cannot contain who He is, the beginning of His plan was Jesus.
Here is an issue that can leave us at times with more questions than answers. I may have stated in a past post about a friend of mine in a former church who gladly cleans bathrooms and does other "servile" actions. The definition of that word is interesting because it both encompasses someone who is exuberant about serving others as well as someone often looked down as a low class member of society. Food for thought...
At any event; this friend of mine along with a sizeable group in my current church more than meet the commitment of those who are considered "members" (in fact they seem to exceed them in many ways). In general their explanation of not being a member when I have inquired is that they feel no need to make a formal commitment to something that is a man made sort of concept. Here are a few summary bullet points.
WHY WE SHOULD BE A CHURCH MEMBER
WE MAKE A FORMAL DECLARATION AND ARE HELD TO THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF OUR COMMITMENTS TO SERVICE; PRAYER; SCRIPTURE READING; EVANGELISM AND WHATEVER ELSE IS IN A DENOMINATIONAL "STATEMENT OF FAITH"
WE ARE IN MANY CASES GIVEN ACCESS TO COMMINION AS WELL AS DECISIONS IN CONGREGATIONAL MEETINGS ON FINANCES AND VOTES FOR NEW LEADERSHIP
Now I am going to go through a couple reasons that we should be cautious about becoming a member. Most pressing in my situation is something I was concerned about before I was made a member; that is those who are taking communion unworthily (either in adultery or fornication in particular). I won't go into the subject again as to how I view remarriage when a spouse is still alive as being adultery. In general though if we are a church member we have a responsibility to hold leadership as well as other laypersons accountable which is often uncomfortable. Clearly we should expect our own conduct to be examined carefully as well; exhortation is said to be a spiritual gift but we rarely see it these days.
Perhaps Acts 20:27 about the whole will of God is closest to the concept in this title. I have found a growing issue of many who have aberrant doctrines (losing one's salvation; or "modalism" but who have a correct interpretation of certain specific issues. Specifically; I have been looking at those who preach what I consider correct doctrine on the permanence of a marriage covenant while a first spouse remains alive. I have mentioned previously churches where I have fellowshipped that are either "Post or Amillenial" which I disagree with but nonetheless felt that I would regard it as a "secondary" issue after seeing the conviction of faith in general. Therefore; the first thing we have to consider is if the errant doctrine is in our own church or in someplace we are either surfing online or perhaps occasionally attending such as a Bible Study. I have been to VERY liberal groups on occasion where I have had the opportunity to challenge leadership when I had some time alone as well as try to be a witness to those needing some further insights into the Bible. Clearly even in this setting; when someone else wants to teach and says that we only need Jesus not the Bible (such as happened with a friend of mine recently) it is time to pull the Kenny Rogers and know when to walk away or run if we can't convince leadership to stop someone like this (in this case it was the guy's best friend and hopefully he heeded the warning of my friend).
A big component related to this subject goes from the extreme of "hyper grace" individuals to overly legalistic. Again; some latitude needs to be considered as to a style of worship and more importantly the REASON certain procedures are followed along with the character of those in leadershiip. It is an honor to jealously guard the honor of a congregation from wolves and to use scripture to back all things up; but we shouldn't make the way more narrow than Jesus intends.
Hi Ronald: oops, misunderstood you again. What I meant was that the word for "God three in one" didn't appear in Christian dialog until about 400AD but the teaching has always been biblical but what you meant is that the teaching isn't biblical at all. Is that right?
Since I am new to this discussion would you be willing to explain what your belief is? I hesitate to ask because I know this is a repeat for you but I'd really like to know. If you'd rather not, I understand. Maybe we can go on to another discussion. I enjoy reading your comments and would like to continue in discussions with you.
1:22-24 "And there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; and he cried out,/ Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us?"
How come the Gospels are replete with the aspect of Trinity and yet man stumble over it? Devil has set him to coin outlandish concepts of 'accelerationalism' as though an historical imperative to bring down his own house. God is in charge and ungodly men cannot know the unclean spirit that spins his head to think of his home a charnel house. This is how the unclean spirit tore down the man in the synagogue of Capernaum.
Similarly when Jesus would heal the man with palsy, his detractors cried 'blasphemy'. Do we not see it in our own times, After kicking the dog what does man say, He howls, hasten his end,'hang him',
Jesus worked so he would say,"Mu Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
vv.10-12
"But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,)/I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house./And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all.
Mark 2:1-12 "We never saw it on this fashion" (1 of 2)
"And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion."
Authority of Jesus evidently came from the doctrine of his Father; and the word become flesh could say,"I am the truth". Unlike the scribes whose authority, as Jesus faulted them, reeked of hypocrisy (1:22) he walked the straight and narrow line. John testifies,"For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken./I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say."( John 12:49-50) Where did he learn from? He was in the bosom of his Father so what he said and did was defining the Father inside out.( John 1:18)
While healing the man with palsy, his response we read,"immediately" he arose. He proved "I and my Father are one" and Mark's delineation spares no pains to tell this relation. "He that has the Father has the Son as well. He that has the Son has the Father also' when Jesus made it possible 'inso much that they were all amazed." They glorified God.( 1 John 2:23)
In the previous chapter he was in a synagogue in Capernaum, the unclean spirit 'cried out,"I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God." In the world of the Spirit even unclean spirits know the Holy One of God" but they do not want to follow him. In what was the scribes and the Pharisees who did not live by what they preached? Their uncleanness arose from hypocrisy a spiritual malady. Mark here takes us again to Capernaum. In the domestic setting what does the scribes say," Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?"(2:7) He was indeed of God to see through them. The tag 'immediately' in v.8 "And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit", is an indication that his deity worked even when he emptied himself.
You did not offend me at all, this subject is hard, and feelings go deep, and many will not even discuss it because it has been a foundation of belief for so many years, and as Giannis said there are verses in the bible that can support different understandings. I am not one to say it is because the word Trinity is not in the Bible. I feel if someone says it is not true because the word Trinity is not in the Bible falls short and does not support why they do not believe in the Trinity.
Same as the rapture, another subject that has been discussed here before. I also do not believe in how it is taught but it is not because the word rapture is not in the Bible. In 1 Thessalonians 4:17, it is caught up from the Greek word harpazo meaning to seize, catch up, snatch away. This can be translated into English as rapture which has the same meaning as harpazo. It is not the word it is what is taught that will happen.
Sorry to hear about your nephew, the life we are born into, many are not as blessed with good parents and good upbringings and that puts a heavy toll on them, but not so heavy God cannot undo. You and your family are in my prayers, I do not post my prayers I feel funny doing that, Matt. 6:6. I hope to reply today to your questions, I am not the best at unfolding how and why, but I will do my best.
Hello Ronald: I want to apologize for the way I replied to your post about the Trinity. It was a little to straightforward. I know I implied you weren't saved and I am truly sorry about that. I have read some more of your postings now and understand a little better what you believe and I can see you love The Lord and are a brother.
I believe the word "Trinity" to describe the teaching of God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Ghost as God three in one wasn't used until about 400AD but the teaching is bibical. Honest question, and you may have been asked this already, but it seems a big part of your belief is because the word Trinity isn't specifically spoken in the scriptures that you believe it isn't true but what about the word "rapture"? Do you believe in it? I'm not trying to deviate from this discussion. I'm just comparing what I believe in that the word Trinity may not be in the bible but, I believe, the teaching truly is. God Bless :)
You asked this about the Apocrypha: "So if it wasn't "God inspired," how did it manage to remain between the Testaments for 270+ years?" Why the Apocrypha was included in the KJV until 1885 is a kind of mystery but it shouldn't be a cause to believe in this book as Holy Ghost inspired. What matters is this book contains some very serious false doctrines which proves it is not Holy Ghost inspired.
In 2nd Maccabees 12: 40-43 it gives credence in giving prayers and alms so that the dead can be forgiven and eventually go to heaven. After a major battle during the preparation for burial of soldiers who had died, it was discovered that each of them was wearing amulets of devotion to pagan gods under their clothes which was sin: "Then under the tunic of each one of the dead, they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. And it became clear to all that this was the reason these men had fallen. So they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous Judge, who reveals the things that are hidden; and they turned to supplication, praying that the sin that had been committed might be wholly blotted out,"
In Baruch 3:4 it teaches that the dead can pray for themselves to eventually go to heaven. "O Lord Almighty, thou God of Israel, hear now the prayers of the dead Israelites, and of their children, which have sinned before thee, and not hearkened unto the voice of thee their God: for the which cause these plagues cleave unto us.
In Tobit 9:12 it claims that alms can purge away sin. "For alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin. Those that exercise alms and righteousness shall be filled with life:"
So whether we can give a precise reason why God allowed the Apocrypha to be included in the KJB for a time or not, it is a book to be avoided by true believers. God Bless :)
Part 3.
When I consider that the righteousness of Jesus is the righteousness of God lived out in the incarnation of His Son, then I am awed by how great must be the pure and holy way Jesus lived on this earth in His lifetime here. He must have stood out among all other people because NO ONE could lay any charge against Him of wrongdoing or ill-will or disobedience to God or offense against any man. he was completely and divinely pure and holy, without any taint of sin, no corruption of soul, no part of his human nature in rebellion against His Father or divine nature. In Him was perfect harmony of God and man without any conflict or dissonance. He as altogether righteous and because He was God in the flesh, His righteousness was infinitely immense enough to cover the sins of every person who every lived or will live.
We can know that all of our own sin can be covered by His righteousness and that His perfect sacrifice was infinitely sufficient to save my from my sins, death, hell, and the devil. His righteousness provides me with justification before God and awards me salvation and eternal life with him and the Father and the Holy Spirit forever. What a priceless treasure and gift God has given us. he gave us Himself. Hallelujah!
Pt. 2
Mt. 1:23 quotes Is 7:14 as being fulfilled in Jesus. He is "Emmanuel, God with us"
John 20:28 Thomas calls Jesus, "My Lord and my God" and Jesus did not tell Thomas that that was NOT true.
1Peter 1:1 says our righteousness comes from God, and it comes to us in Jesus our Savior. The righteousness
of Jesus is the righteousness of God because He is God.
Is. 9:6 says that Jesus is the "Mighty God"
Rev.1: Jesus says that He is the "Almighty"
Col. 2:9-10 says that in Jesus the fulness of the Godhead dwelled bodily. He is Emmanuel, God with us. God revealed bodily.
Jesus is worshipped by believers (only God is to be worshipped) and Jesus accepted this worship.
Mt. 2:1-2 (by the magi)
Mt. 28:8-9, 17 (by the apostles)
In Rev.5:13 we read of the worship of God in heaven. Both the Father and the Lamb (Jesus) are given worship and it is said that this worship is to be given to both forever.
it is important for us to realize that only God is righteous enough to be our Redeemer, and that He became man in order that his holy blood could be shed for us as a sacrifice. No other blood would cleanse but the blood of God the Son. In His divinity, God has no blood because the divine nature is Spirit, but in His humanity as God in the flesh, He had divine blood to shed.
Jesus is the most unique person in all of creation and in God's transcendent realm, being both God and man in one person.
I have heard this quote often, don't know the author, but it is worth pondering (this is not a direct quote)
If Jesus is not God, then there is no Christianity and those who worship Jesus are nothing but idolaters. But if He is God, then those who deny He is God are blasphemers in the worst sense of the word, because they believe in another Jesus than what Scripture presents to us.
God's Word is truth. He revealed Himself to mankind in Scriptures so that we can know the truth about Him: what He is in His divine nature and who He is in His Persons.
It is thus approaching the Bible with out the aid of the Spirit heresies have come unrestrained. John's epistle speaks of those who have the Son has also the Father. Jesus defended his disciples "And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn."
Under the provision of the Covenant the seven days refer to the MOU and the Word is ultimate authority not to be confused by legal terms of the ungodly world. Holiness of God cannot deny himself.
So on Day 6 God blessed man in the Man component.(Ge.1:28)
"And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made." God allowed the Man to fulfill according what they covenanted in the triune godhead.
"Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre./Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows."(Ps.45:6-7)
Luke and Matthew also give the context and the quote, "And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath."( Luke 6:5;12:8) The everlasting covenant is between two equals so the eternal word is the Law backed by the kingdom of the Father. In case of faith we have the basis of these two worlds (He.11:3) which we shall leave aside for the moment. What are the equal entities here? They are Power on the part of God Wisdom on the part of Man. St Paul separates Man as the Lord of heaven, from man who is the earthy. "The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven."(1 Co.15:47-48)
When Jesus was born of woman his deity was never in jeopardy since he is the Word become flesh and sent with the divine Mandate. ( John 3:16)
When Jesus spoke "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work" it is this Word was God it refers.( John 1:1; 5:17-23)
Speaking of the context Mark 2:24 we have the Pharisees questioning "For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him."
Next point of Sabbath is that the day Seven. God has decree the day which touches his Alpha Omega aspect. " I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee./Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession."(Ps.2:7-8) There is no sanctity for observing Sabbath without the Son element incorporated in our lives. This heresy has arisen because the Christians interpret the word of God literally and assume it is the seventh day of a week. It is an error. It is thus approaching the Bible with out the aid of the Spirit. John's epistle speaks of those who have the Son has also the Father.
"R" GOD IS RIGHTEOUS
He always does what is good and right. He never deviates from being sinless. He always thinks, says, and does everything righteously from pure and holy motives. There is no shadow of "darkness" in Him as to evil. His righteousness is far above whatever righteousness man can perform because even our righteousness is tainted by sin.
Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" In all of history, there has never been and strictly human person who is sinless. so, there has never been a strictly human person who is able to save himself from the condemnation of sin let alone anyone else.
Because of the complete and utter fallenness of mankind, there can be no redeemer from among humanity. There is no one whose righteousness is so pure and complete to be efficacious for the removal of God's judgment upon ALL of mankind.
It takes the righteousness of God to save mankind and God determined that his righteousness would come to save mankind by His divine Son becoming a man, righteous in every way, since He is God and cannot be unrighteous, and dying as our sacrifice.
The divine Son of God was incarnated, as John says in John 1:1, 14, ad became man for our sake. As God said in the OT, it is God alone who is Savior (Is 43:1, 11; 45;21; Hos 13:4) therefore, Jesus is God who is our Savior. If He is not God, then He is not our Savior because no strictly human man can save anyone. It is God who saves, who, though God the Son, took on human flesh and nature to be the only Kinsmen Redeemer who can take a way our sin, be a perfect, worthy, and more than sufficient sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, and to be able to bear the complete wrath of God for mankind for all their sins. No mere human can do that,
In Titus 2:13 Jesus is called our "Great God and Savior"
John 1:1 calls Jesus God:" the Word was God"
Part 5 and last Trinity discussion,
Do you believe that Jesus lived a sinless life?
Scripture is clear Jesus had no sin, Hebrews 4:15 1 Peter 2:22 1 John 3:5 Romans 5:12-15.
Do you believe that the Father and the Son are one as Jesus said in Jn. 17 or that He and the Father are "in" one another and if they see Jesus, they see the Father?
Both, Jesus said I and my Father are one John 10:30 and in other places, one means unity. Jesus was one with the Father not because Jesus was God but because He was filled with the Spirit and God dwelt in him, John 14:10, as we see God was in Christ 2 Corinthians 5:19
God dwelt in Jesus and empowered Him by His Spirit that gave Jesus the power and authority like Matthew 11:27 All things are delivered to Jesus of His Father, Jesus did not have it, all was given to Him. God was manifest in Jesus, John 12:49 John 14:10. This is why Jesus said if you have seen me, you have seen the Father, John 14:9.
Jesus in His prayer asked the Father that we may be one, as He and His Father are one through the words of the disciples, John 17:20-23. God and Jesus will dwell in us and we in them, 1 John 4:13-16 1 John 3:23-24.
How is it that Jesus AND the Father send the Holy Spirit if there is only one person as God?
Jesus said He would pray to the Father to give another comforter, John 14:16, we see in John 14:26 the Father will send in Jesus's name. In John 15:26 Jesus said I will send but this is from the Father and the Spirit of truth that proceedeth from the Father. This is not a person it is the Spirit of God.
Please don't take this wrong, in the Trinity there is one God who eternally exists as three distinct Persons: The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each Person is fully God, coequal, coeternal, and consubstantial. I'm sorry my understanding, is Scripture does not support that, Scripture is clear the Father is above all.
Thank you, GiGi, I hope this is what you wanted I am not the best at this.
God bless,
RLW
Part 4 Trinity discussion.
Do you believe that the will of the Father and the will of the Son are always the same or different?
Jesus was obedient to the Father, Jesus said many times it is not His will but the will of the Father who sent Him, the same as we are to do, John 4:34 John 5:30 Mark 3:35.
Do you believe that a human being can truly save all men from sin and death by a perfect life in their own will?
First, I will have to say it was the will of the Father, Jesus at the end even asked His father if there was another way but not Jesus's will but the will of His Father, Matthew 26:39 Luke 22:42. We are told this is the foundation of our faith, Jesus' sacrificial death. God cannot die God is Spirit He has no blood to shed for sin it had to be a man, His Son, born of a woman.
John 3:16 God gave His Son not Himself 1 John 2:22 1 John 4:3 2 John 1:7 Romans 5:8 2 Corinthians 5:21, God cannot be made sin, 1 Corinthians 15:17 Jesus died, and God raised Him from the dead, the first man to live a perfect life, the first fruits of those who sleep in death. 1 Corinthians 15:14 as said if Jesus was not a man who lived a perfect life and died and was raised from the dead all is vain.
The first Adam was the first man Jesus was the last Adam and the second man, 1 Corinthians 15:45-47. 1 Corinthians 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. The law had to be fulfilled by a man.
How would a human being know that they are the Messiah from birth and thus know not to ever sin?
As we see Luke 2:51-52 Jesus grew up increasing in wisdom and stature in favor with God and man. Jesus was twelve years old and He knew His father was God, but it doesn't say Jesus knew then He was to be the Messiah. God also said He would raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, Deuteronomy 18:15, Isaiah 11:1-5 Isaiah 61:1-2 confirmed in Luke 4:18-21. Romans 1:1-4 2 Timothy 2:8.
See part 5
New wine in new bottles refer to the new creation. "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new."(2 Co.5:17). Abiding in Christ is new altogether because it is fruits of the Spirit we are discussing. "I am the true vine" Jesus said and new vine refers to the newness of the palate. When Jesus promised to sup with a believer it is a reference to drinking new in the kingdom of his Father. "But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom."(Matt.26:29;Re.3:20)
Luke 5:38-39
"But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved." Jesus assured us "Without me you can do nothing"( John 15:3) Jesus as the Word become flesh promised to drink with us in his Father's kingdom. We are new and in our spiritual bodies we are the new bottles referred in this quote. The wine is of vintage quality that is same yesterday, today and forever. In v.39 it is 'the old'.
Unlike other two gospels St Luke extends the meaning of the parable further.
39 No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.
"No man also seweth a piece of new cloth on an old garment: else the new piece that filled it up taketh away from the old, and the rent is made worse./ And no man putteth new wine into old bottles: else the new wine doth burst the bottles, and the wine is spilled, and the bottles will be marred: but new wine must be put into new bottles."
The saying of Jesus is mentioned in both versions of Matthew and Luke.
We shall examine it from the specific, in the resistance of the Jews to him. They judged him from their holier-than-thou attitude as the people of the Law. What had the Law of Moses become? It was a treatise collated from the everlasting covenant, which before the advent of the Son in the fulness of time was given to the nation of Israel as the path to righteousness. Garment as in the Parable of the Wedding Guest refers to righteousness. So when Jesus spoke the parable it was in condemnation of what had come up as tradition. It was as unexpected as tares from the Parable. "An enmy hath done this'. From the manner the scribes and the Pharisees held on to the traditions of their fathers which only allowed them to fill up to the measure of their fathers. In his woe to ye tirade he faulted them,"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith, these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone."(Matt.23:23). Their hypocritical observation of paying tithes and worship rather to be seen of men than any real change in their old selves was new. This mix and match of old with new did not sit well.
In Luke we have " But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved./No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better."(5:38-39)
New wine in new bottles refer to the new creation.
Part 3 Trinity discussion,
Do you believe the Son is a created being?
What is the meaning of created? Does it mean something that is made out of nothing? I would have to say no, Jesus is the Son of God who was conceived in the womb of Mary, Matthew 1:20 Luke 1:35, I do not think I would say He was created.
If so, when did He come into existence?
In God's plan before anything and physically when He was conceived in Mary's womb.
Do you believe that the Son is only human in nature?
Jesus is the Son of God fully human but without sin same as the first Adam, Scripture is clear when Jesus was baptized, He was anointed with the Holy Ghost/Spirit without measure, John 3:34. All the works of Jesus were done by the Spirit of God, Matthew 4:16 Matthew 12:28 Acts 10:38.
Do you believe that Jesus became "the Christ" during His lifetime (Adoptionism)?
I had never heard of Adoptionism until now, I had to look it up, it's false. Christ and Messiah are the same; Jesus was anointed by the Spirit of God after He was baptized by John, He then was made the Messiah/Christ fulfilling the prophecy in Daniel 9:25. Jesus is the Son of God conceived in the womb of Mary by the Holy Ghost/Spirit.
Do you believe Jesus ever aquired a divine nature in His earthly life?
If you mean a divine nature is to have all the attributes that make God who He is I would have to say no. If so, Jesus could not sin or be tempted, Matthew 4:1 Hebrews 4:15. If so, Jesus living a perfect life without sin is meaningless. Jesus could not have died; Jesus was given the power of the Holy Spirit when He was anointed the Messiah. After He rose from the dead God gave Jesus all power in heaven and on earth, Matthew 28:18. God raised and placed Jesus on His right side, Ephesians 1:21-23. Jesus did not return to where He was before, God the Father placed everything under Jesus God's only begotten Son's feet and Jesus will reign until the last enemy is destroyed, 1 Corinthians 15:24-28.
See part 4.
"When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."
Jesus as the Son of God knew what was in the mind of man. But he did not make it a point to separate man according to his profession or morals before he condescended to sit with him or sup in any convivial company. But when he say faith among them he responded. It was thus at the house he came to heal the man with palsy what struck him was the faith of four who took trouble to bring him to the fore. "When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee."(2:5).He understood man was sinful so how sinful the matter of degrees did not interest him. The word of his Father was sent out calling all unto repentance. It was potent enough to enthuse the good to hear the call and make peace with God. For example St Luke speaks of Simeon of Jerusalem who was just and devout,"waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him./And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ./ And he came by the Spirit into the temple."( Luke 2:25-27). God let him see his heart's desire before he died. Then there was Anna the prophetess. It is of them Jesus meant when he referred the righteous. They were led by the Spirit of Christ and the anointing of the Holy Ghost would come only after hid resurrection.
But sinners whom came as in the case of Levi or the man with palsy did not came across him by coincidence,- but the call had gone forth before the worlds began and went to the ends of the world; it was their faith in exercising completed the calling and election sure. vv.15-16 The house of Levi was a microcosm of the world. So many were saved as there were many who went away as they came in because of their disbelief.
It is hard not to feel an impetus to prod on this subject. I am well aware that I don't have a spiritual gift of service and helps.
There are always needs and we can't live our lives in a vacuum; and that goes for church as well as in the rest of our lives. Perhaps it is doing what is needed rather than endless activities that also matters. I don't personally find it comfortable having a "Game night" at church nor have I been a social "butterfly" in general but these events when accompanied with prayer (and not with sinful activities that so often come about) these events can be edifying. As I stated previously discussions on world events often deviate toward speculation; there are times when scriptures can be discussed; and can be edifying when these discussions go into detail of Bible truths.
Evangelism
I probably said sometime in the last few years of posts that prayer is also good accompanying evangelism for anyone genuinely seeking it. I am not into the "sinner's prayer" in initial conversations; once we get to know people and see a genuine conviction that is the time to seek if they are ready to commit their lives to the Lord. We are partially responsible for someone's fate (blood on our hands) if we don't warn people of taking a vow to God flippantly. We should warn that the more we know the more we are responsible for. We should give many warnings as Christ did about it being the "narrow" path not the broad road leading to destruction ( Matthew 7:13-14). We should also give caution on the trials; thorns and temptations that God uses to test us to see if we are true believers ( Matt. 13:22). Such exhortations may filter out some; but I am convinced will in the end have a greater percentage of committed believers who endure to the end. The song by David Meese "You've gotta count the cost if you want to be a believer" isn't exactly the lingo in today's Christian music "industry" and that is to it's shame.
There is the old saying "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink." The same principle exists with the Word of God. Psalm 119 for instance is the longest chapter in all of scripture and incessantly talks about loving God's law. Hungering and thirsting for the Word is something said to characterize the last days ( Amos 8:11-12). This verse talks of a famine for God's word; but we also see Jesus talking about "hungering and thirsting for righteousness ( Matthew 5:6).
It seems counterintuitive or a "no brainer" to consider reading scripture and prayer as something a believer should do; but it has been my experience the enemy will use all sorts of tactics to dissuade believers from focusing on the Word and probably even more so on prayer. It is easy for the enemy to allow us with minimum distractions to read the Word of God because we can easily go into our own error in making it merely an intellectual exercise or feed off it to divert to the latest conspiracy theory or politics or whatever is trending. Prayer of course has it's own ways that it can deviate from scriptural standards; but from my experience it is the lack of prayer that seems to be a common denominator in many congregations. Yes; someone can try to use prayer as a means of spreading gossip or trying to get attention. It seems that too often there is a planned schedule for prayer and it is almost unheard of for it to extend any length of time beyond that planned timeslot even when nothing is pressing. Just to find one or two people who have an urge to pray before a service or for others when needs are expressed and can do it "on the fly" in my mind can literally mean the life or death of a local congregation. If we can't be as a weapon of warfare prepared at all times then we simply will in one way or another be compromised and heading for defeat in having any real impact on individuals or a local community.
It is said by Catholics that marriage is a sacrament that is only necessitated by the vow a man makes with a woman; and I agree with that view despite disagreeing with many other things in their belief system. The idea of a minister to oversee the event from what I can tell helps to involve two or three witnesses (usually along with parents) such as 2 Corinthians 13:1 states. There are other verses as well; none directly discuss a marriage or any other vow; but it does apply in the fact that should one or more parties violate the covenant church discipline can be used against them. I am not sure how things are in the big picture but it seems whenever marriages do occur it is often in another church that the family prefers and many times there is little sense of a whole congregation being involved at least like they used to in the past. Maybe I am off somewhat but that's how I see it.
Good counsel is helpful in that respect however; if anything to keep a healthy balance of older women guiding the youth and allowing for good interactions and support. This is something more favorable it seems today in the Reformed churches from my experiences. Such interactions of a church being a family of course should extend to foreign missionaries that are affiliated with a denomination. It is a shame when we think of missionaries being "out there" and we detach ourselves emotionally when we give financial support. Their marriages and family are components of their witness as much as their evangelism and one can't be separated from the other; although of course some are single individuals on the mission field.
Again; it is sad to say that from my viewpoint there is a tolerance for remarriage in these same sort of congregations (although many won't perform them). I would say that existing marriages have greater chance of longevity and less for divorce in the Reformed circles than others who have 50 percent divorce rates as all of society if they marry at all.
I was in a very odd situation with a former OPC church I attended where I was granted a sort of "partial" membership without ascribing to their stance on infant baptism. There are a couple other issues which would keep me out of a similar place in the future (that church shut down 6 or 7 years ago due to lack of attendance). I will say that it wasn't required that I believed in their stance on Postmillenialism; although I may have mentioned here in the past when it was brought up how foolish it was to believe in the Antichrist and Mark of the Beast in one of their sermons and I took them up on that they sort of backed down. It wasn't a requirement to adhere to their eschatology, although it was a rather cliquish sort of mentality at that place. I agreed to disagree with them without such banter so I thought it only fair; however of course it was their belief.
In any case; infant baptism has cast a rather nebulous picture in my mind as to explanations; somehow holding what children or infants were commemorated with when they become adults and rebel as if they had some sort of inherent partaking of a covenant; I suppose equivalent to the Israelites who were "baptized" by crossing the Red Sea. ( 1 Cor. 10:2). No one I know actually thinks someone is saved through infant baptism but nonetheless they seem in my mind to have carried on a Catholic tradition through the Reformers in the past. I also had a "rebaptism"; having argued beforehand the sprinkling of water should also be legitimate ( Ezekiel 36:25). In my case I had it done that way along with my wife at the time because she had a balance issue going totally underwater; but I rededicated myself to a commitment as a church member when I had an immersion at the founding of a church I used to attend at its inception almost 10 years ago. Seeing how quickly Philip baptized the eunuch in Acts 8; and the jailor with his family ( Acts 16:33) it should follow salvation quickly.
To continue on the subject I would consider attending someplace for at least a year to understand fully doctrines ascribed to as well as to how genuine the love for Christ is in the church. If we are seeing little opportunities to contribute (which can happen in a place where one Pastor seems to hold all the cards); or where there is a great deal of pettiness; family pride (like where founders of the church and their children have had control for a long time in decision making) it may be a situation best avoided in such a commitment. This situation is occurring where a friend of mine is a new Pastor in a rural church in the Midwest.
Communion rules
In taking communion; there are what is known as closed or open communion. I am convinced that anyone who is Born Again and not living in unrepentant sin is eligible for communion. Nevertheless; there should be some discussion with a person beforehand to make sure they are indeed in the faith if someone comes in as a stranger and I can certainly get why some churches want to see if someone regularly attends for a period of time first. Waiting months on end without being given permission is something I have experienced in the past and I think that is going overboard. We shouldn't have a double standard either assuming just because someone has attended church as a member for years that they are "good to go" either; but without any real suspicion I can see how in that case an "open communion" (i.e for all members) can be given. We need to attend to warnings in Corinthians about those dying who take communion unworthily ( 1 Cor. 11:27-34). Unity in the Body of Christ in the church is represented with Communion and His presence is there along with any other actions such as two or more praying together. This is why we are to clear things up with our brother first ( Matthew 5:23-24) it should be settled-this discusses a gift at the altar but seems fitting nonetheless
Part 2 Trinity discussion
Did Jesus exist before creation? Did the Holy Spirit exist before creation?
Jesus existed in God's plan, Jesus is the beginning of creation Rev. 3:14 and by Him were all things created Col. 1:16 my understanding is Jesus, was the first in God's plan of creation and everything was created by God, in and through the plan and purpose of Jesus. My understanding Jesus did not physically exist until the fullness of time. Ephesians 1:10 He was born of Mary the Son of God. the seed of woman. Genesis 3:15 Matthew 1:20
My understanding is the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God, not a person, Genesis 1:2. We see all the greetings are from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. Romans 1:7 1 Corinthians 1:3 2 Corinthians 1:2 Galatians 1:3 Ephesians 1:2 Ephesians 6:23 Philippians 1:2 Colossians 1:2 and 6 more. The Holy Spirit not being included is a good clue the Holy Spirit was not considered a person by Paul and others at that time.
If so, who were they in relation to the Father?
I believe the above answers this.
How did the Father, the Son, and the Spirit all create all that is, seen or unseen?
My understanding is God the Father created all, Genesis 1:1 Genesis 1:31 Proverbs 16:4 Isaiah 45:18 Nehemiah 9:6.
Does Scripture teach that God is only one person who manifests in three forms, but all these manifestations are only one person?
Scripture does not support Modalism I have never considered this and do not know anything about it.
See part 3.
In the book, "The Preeminence of Christ," the Authors, John A. Ricci and Louis E. DeBoer point out that most of the early "translations" were done by Gnostics, who carried (what we would call today) significant baggage. For instance, they did NOT believe in the Resurrection of Christ.
They also frequently changed parts of the New Testament that they personally did not agree with.
Most of the "modern translations," are translations of Gnostic translations (unlike the King James which principally comes from the Textus Receptus).
The "modern translations" started around the time the Apocrypha was removed from the KJV. While I have no way of knowing, and I will not be dogmatic about it, I think a bunch of "modern translators" formed a group of "Bible scholars" and had it removed.
Part 1 Trinity discussion
To start; I used to have a similar understanding of the Trinity doctrine but over time it has changed, and I am still studying it. I do not consider myself part of any group or denomination other than a believer and follower of Jesus. I feel we should inspire each other to study in prayer for the truth and to be open to the Holy Spirit to unveil the truth as we know nothing.
With me, it started with two verses, 2 Corinthians 11:3-4, I contemplated these verses for a long time, it was like they stuck in my mind unanswered. In my study of the Trinity, I found out how it developed and how many deaths it caused even after the Reformation, and the questions I asked in Churches, many could not explain it and said it is a mystery that man cannot comprehend.
Is God and has He always been one solitary person?
Deut. 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD, Mark 12:29 and as said in 1 Cor. 8:6 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. My understanding is God the Father is eternal He has always been and will always be Psalms 90:2. God is Spirit, if a person means He has a will, emotions, the ability to speak, rationalize, self-awareness, to have a relationship with His creation, love, hate, etc. yes one person.
Before creation was, He always and only alone, without anyone to love?
What was before creation in Scripture we have no writings or information, Scripture tells us the hosts of heaven were before the creation of the earth and the galaxies, Job 38:4-7. How long before the physical world and universe we see we do not know. God's plan He declared the end from the beginning, Isaiah 46:9-10. I may be wrong, but God has never been alone inside Himself, time nor space cannot contain who He is, the beginning of His plan was Jesus.
See part 2
Here is an issue that can leave us at times with more questions than answers. I may have stated in a past post about a friend of mine in a former church who gladly cleans bathrooms and does other "servile" actions. The definition of that word is interesting because it both encompasses someone who is exuberant about serving others as well as someone often looked down as a low class member of society. Food for thought...
At any event; this friend of mine along with a sizeable group in my current church more than meet the commitment of those who are considered "members" (in fact they seem to exceed them in many ways). In general their explanation of not being a member when I have inquired is that they feel no need to make a formal commitment to something that is a man made sort of concept. Here are a few summary bullet points.
WHY WE SHOULD BE A CHURCH MEMBER
WE MAKE A FORMAL DECLARATION AND ARE HELD TO THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF OUR COMMITMENTS TO SERVICE; PRAYER; SCRIPTURE READING; EVANGELISM AND WHATEVER ELSE IS IN A DENOMINATIONAL "STATEMENT OF FAITH"
WE ARE IN MANY CASES GIVEN ACCESS TO COMMINION AS WELL AS DECISIONS IN CONGREGATIONAL MEETINGS ON FINANCES AND VOTES FOR NEW LEADERSHIP
Now I am going to go through a couple reasons that we should be cautious about becoming a member. Most pressing in my situation is something I was concerned about before I was made a member; that is those who are taking communion unworthily (either in adultery or fornication in particular). I won't go into the subject again as to how I view remarriage when a spouse is still alive as being adultery. In general though if we are a church member we have a responsibility to hold leadership as well as other laypersons accountable which is often uncomfortable. Clearly we should expect our own conduct to be examined carefully as well; exhortation is said to be a spiritual gift but we rarely see it these days.
Perhaps Acts 20:27 about the whole will of God is closest to the concept in this title. I have found a growing issue of many who have aberrant doctrines (losing one's salvation; or "modalism" but who have a correct interpretation of certain specific issues. Specifically; I have been looking at those who preach what I consider correct doctrine on the permanence of a marriage covenant while a first spouse remains alive. I have mentioned previously churches where I have fellowshipped that are either "Post or Amillenial" which I disagree with but nonetheless felt that I would regard it as a "secondary" issue after seeing the conviction of faith in general. Therefore; the first thing we have to consider is if the errant doctrine is in our own church or in someplace we are either surfing online or perhaps occasionally attending such as a Bible Study. I have been to VERY liberal groups on occasion where I have had the opportunity to challenge leadership when I had some time alone as well as try to be a witness to those needing some further insights into the Bible. Clearly even in this setting; when someone else wants to teach and says that we only need Jesus not the Bible (such as happened with a friend of mine recently) it is time to pull the Kenny Rogers and know when to walk away or run if we can't convince leadership to stop someone like this (in this case it was the guy's best friend and hopefully he heeded the warning of my friend).
A big component related to this subject goes from the extreme of "hyper grace" individuals to overly legalistic. Again; some latitude needs to be considered as to a style of worship and more importantly the REASON certain procedures are followed along with the character of those in leadershiip. It is an honor to jealously guard the honor of a congregation from wolves and to use scripture to back all things up; but we shouldn't make the way more narrow than Jesus intends.
Since I am new to this discussion would you be willing to explain what your belief is? I hesitate to ask because I know this is a repeat for you but I'd really like to know. If you'd rather not, I understand. Maybe we can go on to another discussion. I enjoy reading your comments and would like to continue in discussions with you.
God Bless :)
1:22-24 "And there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; and he cried out,/ Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us?"
How come the Gospels are replete with the aspect of Trinity and yet man stumble over it? Devil has set him to coin outlandish concepts of 'accelerationalism' as though an historical imperative to bring down his own house. God is in charge and ungodly men cannot know the unclean spirit that spins his head to think of his home a charnel house. This is how the unclean spirit tore down the man in the synagogue of Capernaum.
Similarly when Jesus would heal the man with palsy, his detractors cried 'blasphemy'. Do we not see it in our own times, After kicking the dog what does man say, He howls, hasten his end,'hang him',
Jesus worked so he would say,"Mu Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
vv.10-12
"But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,)/I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house./And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all.
"And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion."
Authority of Jesus evidently came from the doctrine of his Father; and the word become flesh could say,"I am the truth". Unlike the scribes whose authority, as Jesus faulted them, reeked of hypocrisy (1:22) he walked the straight and narrow line. John testifies,"For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken./I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say."( John 12:49-50) Where did he learn from? He was in the bosom of his Father so what he said and did was defining the Father inside out.( John 1:18)
While healing the man with palsy, his response we read,"immediately" he arose. He proved "I and my Father are one" and Mark's delineation spares no pains to tell this relation. "He that has the Father has the Son as well. He that has the Son has the Father also' when Jesus made it possible 'inso much that they were all amazed." They glorified God.( 1 John 2:23)
In the previous chapter he was in a synagogue in Capernaum, the unclean spirit 'cried out,"I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God." In the world of the Spirit even unclean spirits know the Holy One of God" but they do not want to follow him. In what was the scribes and the Pharisees who did not live by what they preached? Their uncleanness arose from hypocrisy a spiritual malady. Mark here takes us again to Capernaum. In the domestic setting what does the scribes say," Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?"(2:7) He was indeed of God to see through them. The tag 'immediately' in v.8 "And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit", is an indication that his deity worked even when he emptied himself.
You did not offend me at all, this subject is hard, and feelings go deep, and many will not even discuss it because it has been a foundation of belief for so many years, and as Giannis said there are verses in the bible that can support different understandings. I am not one to say it is because the word Trinity is not in the Bible. I feel if someone says it is not true because the word Trinity is not in the Bible falls short and does not support why they do not believe in the Trinity.
Same as the rapture, another subject that has been discussed here before. I also do not believe in how it is taught but it is not because the word rapture is not in the Bible. In 1 Thessalonians 4:17, it is caught up from the Greek word harpazo meaning to seize, catch up, snatch away. This can be translated into English as rapture which has the same meaning as harpazo. It is not the word it is what is taught that will happen.
Thank you and God bless,
RLW
Sorry to hear about your nephew, the life we are born into, many are not as blessed with good parents and good upbringings and that puts a heavy toll on them, but not so heavy God cannot undo. You and your family are in my prayers, I do not post my prayers I feel funny doing that, Matt. 6:6. I hope to reply today to your questions, I am not the best at unfolding how and why, but I will do my best.
God bless,
RLW
I believe the word "Trinity" to describe the teaching of God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Ghost as God three in one wasn't used until about 400AD but the teaching is bibical. Honest question, and you may have been asked this already, but it seems a big part of your belief is because the word Trinity isn't specifically spoken in the scriptures that you believe it isn't true but what about the word "rapture"? Do you believe in it? I'm not trying to deviate from this discussion. I'm just comparing what I believe in that the word Trinity may not be in the bible but, I believe, the teaching truly is. God Bless :)