1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Why Didn't the Holy Spirit Know?

Discussion in 'Biblical Debates' started by rrobs, Feb 28, 2020.

  1. Clear

    Clear Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Messages:
    2,525
    Ratings:
    +445
    Religion:
    Christian
    POST TWO OF TWO

    " The Son of man received from God the capacity to create. He also has the ability to beget.” The gospel of Phillip;

    This early and clear tradition was described in multiple early texts, thus the jewish haggadah relates Adam was created by God and “the word” created the rest : The superiority of man to the other creatures is apparent in the very manner of his creation, altogether different from theirs. He is the only one who was created by the hand of God. The rest sprang from the Word of God.” The Haggadah (Man and the world)

    Still, regardless of any involved in actual creation, the plan remained the Fathers plan. It was according to his design and his will. Thus it was said that ““Logos followed Will for through the logos, Christ created all things. The Secret Book of John (of Sophia);

    As the work of the farmer is the plow and the helmsman the guidance of the ship so my work is a song to the Lord ....He created and rested. Created things follow a pattern. They do not know rest. ....And nothing exists without the Lord. He was before anything was, and our worlds were made by his word, his thought and his heart. THE ODES OF SOLOMON ODE 16;

    In the Gospel of Bartholomew, Mary also glorified God the Father as a primal creator “… exceeding great and all wise, king of the ages, indescribable, ineffable, .who created the breadths of the heavens by your word and arranged the vault of heaven in harmony, who gave form to disorderly matter and brought together that which was separated....” Later, speaking of the logos/word of the Father, she refers to his descent through the seven heavens and explains the context of creation, saying :. The seven heavens could scarcely contain you, but you were pleased to be contained in me, without causing me pain, you who are the perfect Word of the Father, through whom everything was created. The Gospel of Bartholomew ch two

    At any rate @rrobs the early textual traditions, clearly describe the Plan for mans' salvation originated with the father and, once the Father chooses a savior and mediator, that Mediator is involved very closely with the father as his servant and as his "son", to the point of taking on the role of Creator of much of creation.

    I think that it is partly this close association of the Son and his involvement in so many aspects of the Fathers plan that also creates confusion and difficulties for later Christian movements in deciding what sort of relationship God, his Son and the Holy Spirit have with each other. I do not blame anyone for any confusion on this point.

    Good luck coming to your own conclusions and making your own models rrobs

    Clear
    ειφιειτωω
     
    #181 Clear, Mar 9, 2020
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2020
  2. rrobs

    rrobs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2018
    Messages:
    2,537
    Ratings:
    +425
    Religion:
    Christian
    Let's just look at verse 15 for now:

    Col 1:15,
    Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:​

    God was the firstborn of all creation? God,...firstborn??? That doesn't sound right, but if we are going to make Jesus God, we must say God was the firstborn of all creation. That means somebody else created God before he/she created anything else. Who would that be? I can't imagine.

    Also is the image of something ever the thing itself? Jesus asked the Pharisees whose "image" was on the coin. They answered Caesar. It would be crazy to think they meant Caesar himself was on the coin! Like Caesar is not on the coin, Jesus, as the image of God, is not God.

    Col 1:16,
    For by(1) him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by(2) him, and for(3) him:​

    I must get a bit technical here to explain verse 16. The Hebrews and Greeks of the first century would not have any trouble with what I'm about to say simply because it is their language. When it got translated to English it lost much of the original intent. That's just the nature of translating from one language to another. On the other hand, it is not the complicated. A bit of study will make it clear so that we can get back to the original meaning. Here goes:

    The first "by" is the Greek word "en" which in this case means that all things were created within the sphere of Jesus. It is not saying Jesus created anything. It just says all things were created with Jesus in mind. He was the star of God's plan. According to the grammar, Jesus does not perform nor receive any action directly. This is basic Greek grammar which you can easily verify. Here is a definition given by biblehub.com:

    1722 en (a preposition) – properly, in (inside, within); (figuratively) "in the realm (sphere) of," as in the condition (state) in which something operates from the inside (within).
    The second "by" is a different Greek word than the first. It is the Greek word "dia" and in this case it means "through" of "by" in the sense that Jesus was the instrument or intermediate agent in creation. God Himself did the actual creation. There are several verses that say Yahweh alone created the universe. Again, it is easy to verify the meaning of "dia"

    The word "for" is the Greek word "eis" and was understood to mean that that something was done for someone else.

    All in all, these verses in Colossians are saying that Jesus is the purpose for the creation and the ages. They do not say Jesus created the universe. The creator of the universe is stated without ambiguity in Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created..." The only way we can read Jesus into Genesis 1:1 is by adding to the scriptures that which God did not include.

    Christians must learn to let the word speak for itself without adding ideas from outside the scriptures.

    John 17:3,

    And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
    That is Jesus praying to God. He was not talking to himself. He called the person to whom he was speaking, i.e. God, the only true God. There is no need to add to what it clearly says. The Father of Jesus is the only true God. Any other God, namely a three in one creation, can therefore not be the only true God. 1 Corinthians is equally clear.

    1Cor 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.​

    Even if there was such a person as "God the Son" (not in scripture, man's idea), that one would not be the one God.

    Paul warned against preaching another Jesus who he did not preach. He give no indication whatsoever that Jesus is part of a trinity of God. He in fact says some 50 times that Jesus is the son of God. The only way a son can also be his own father is if we discard the normal meaning or words, language, and concepts. That is something God never required of us. He said many times his word is easy to understand. The trinity is the antithesis of simplicity. It in fact can not be explained or understood.

    Some might claim they understand it, but the human brain, as created by God Himself, can not grasp one person consisting of three distinct persons. I forget who first coined the phrase, "it does not compute" but that is the best description of the trinity. The true meaning of the scriptures will continue to allude the orthodox church so long as they confuse the vary nature of the two leading characters. I used to believe (or so I thought) the trinity, but it never sat well with me. It didn't make any sense and that went a long way towards making much of the Bible incomprehensible to me. Once I broke from tradition and went "sola scriptura" the book went from a grainy black and white to the most gorgeous technicolor anyone could imagine. The whole thing fit like a hand in a glove, with a mathematical exactness a scientific precision. God is the author of logic. He wants us to know, not just, "take it by faith" which is what Christians are encouraged to do in lieu of actual understanding.
     
  3. rrobs

    rrobs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2018
    Messages:
    2,537
    Ratings:
    +425
    Religion:
    Christian
    Well, how can anyone sit on the right hand of a spirit regardless of the extent of that spirit. A spirit does not have a right hand at all. There is a figure of speech called personification which is when something that is not actually a person is spoken of as though they were.

    Yes, it can, and I think is, a Hebrew idiom (a type of figure of speech) which in this case means that Jesus has power. But that should be no surprise. The scriptures say many time God gave or granted Jesus that power. Jesus himself declared several times that his power was not his own, but his Father's. Now if Jesus were God, why would God have to give him power and authority? If he were God, wouldn't he just have power and authority in himself? Why would Jesus have to do his work by using a power that some other being gave him? Wouldn't he have had it from the very beginning, like the Father? The fact that God had to give Jesus something, or make him something, ought to be enough proof that Jesus is not God.
     
  4. rrobs

    rrobs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2018
    Messages:
    2,537
    Ratings:
    +425
    Religion:
    Christian
    I agree the pre-existance of Jesus became doctrine early on. However it was only after the early Christians began to introduce Greek philosophy into the scriptures. The Greeks (and others before them) were big on the eternity of the soul, something with which scripture strongly disagrees. It is basically the same lie the devil told Eve, "ye shall not surely die."

    It is not hard to ascertain what a Jew thought of per-existence. Without going into detail, suffice it to say they would have understood it to mean something existed in the mind of God before it became reality. The word "logos," usually blithely changed to "Jesus," in John 1:1 speaks to what was in God's mind from the beginning. Tons of information on the internet about that if you want to verify both of those assertions.

    It is clear that Jesus wasn't born until sometime around 3 BC. Just like ever other human being that was ever born, Jesus didn't actually exist until he was born. I find it rather incredible and sad that so many Christians (around 98%!) seem to abandon the most basic meanings of words, language, and concepts when it comes to the scriptures.

    There are several verses that say Yahweh alone created the universe. There are also several verses that say He did so through Jesus.

    Eph 3:9,

    And to make all [men] see what [is] the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
    The word "by" is the Greek word "dia" which means the actual creator did so through an intermediate agent or instrument. God created the universe through Jesus. Jesus is the purpose of the ages. That is not the same thing as Jesus doing the creation under the direction of God.
     
  5. rrobs

    rrobs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2018
    Messages:
    2,537
    Ratings:
    +425
    Religion:
    Christian
    Saying God created the universe "by" Jesus is not at all the same as saying Jesus created the universe. The word "by" is the Greek word "dia" which means that Jesus was an intermediate agent through whom the actual creator did the work. Genesis 1:1 is as clear as clear can get as to who created the universe. The Greek word specifically disqualifies the person or thing through whom or what something was done as having done the work themselves. It's just basic grammar which anyone of that time understood. Unfortunately we have lost the meaning of "dia" and substituted an untenable concept, i.e. the trinity, in it's place. Too bad. The fact is, in this day of the internet it is exceedingly easy to find things like the meaning of the Greek word "dia." I guess it is just easier to go with the crowd though, human nature and all that.

    There are other explanation for who God was speaking to in the beginning, but one thing is clear, Jesus was not born until some 4,000 years after the creation, so he could not have done it. The scriptures are clear that Jesus was born and nobody actually exists until they are born. I went a bit further than this in another reply to you, so I won't repeat myself here.

    You've mentioned tradition several times. The scriptures also speak of tradition.

    Matt 15:6(b),

    ...Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.​

    Not my words, but Jesus'. I don't doubt the sincerity of those Jews who believed those traditions, but sincerity is no guarantee for accuracy. But then again, Paul exhorts us to follow his traditions, so they can't be all bad.

    If and when tradition contradicts the word of God that tradition must be abandoned.

    I gave a look at 1 Clement. I didn't do a detailed verse by verse study, but what I did read looked in good alignment with the scriptures themselves. I'll probably read more of him and others of the 1st or early 2nd century. Any suggestions on who I might look at?

    Thanks.
     
    #185 rrobs, Mar 9, 2020
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2020
  6. rrobs

    rrobs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2018
    Messages:
    2,537
    Ratings:
    +425
    Religion:
    Christian
    I think the sum essence of what you just said is that Jesus is an exact image of the Father. That is of course explicitly stated in Colossians.

    Col 1:15,

    Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
    Of course an image of something is not the thing itself. Two different things. I think this is the idea in John 1:14. God had a plan in the beginning (John 1:1). When Jesus was born (John 1:14), and not one second before, that plan took on flesh in the sense that Jesus carried out the plan to perfection. He never missed one jot or tittle. He, like all of us who are tempted, had the possibility of sinning. Where Adam and the rest of us so often succumb, Jesus, by his own moment by moment free will choices, remained true to the Father. Making him God completely minimizes his true accomplishment. After all, no big deal for God to obey Himself! And I wonder if God would have had any doubt that He would raise Himself from the dead. I would see no need for Him to have asked Himself to let the cup pass from Him. Of course it is a much different story for a man to believe he would be raised from the dead. I mean, that is something we don't often (ever?) see! Again, making Jesus God, totally minimizes his true heroic effort on our behalf. Let's give God the credit He deserves for coming up with the plan and to Jesus for having the courage to carry out that plan.
     
  7. rational experiences

    rational experiences Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2020
    Messages:
    4,721
    Ratings:
    +199
    Religion:
    spiritualist
    If you applied medical Healer wisdom correctly as a researcher and not for Satanic occult UFO reasoning, owning a self motivated pre existing human want.

    Then you would use common sense.

    A human first has to exist original life owner to talk, to think as a talker, to advise by self human bio owned language, to talk and think and name and research and apply stories and evaluate.

    The state of science itself.

    For males today try to claim that science existed by its own accord and volition as the states human applied reasoning and science itself...for machines, for machine design and machine cause and machine reactions.

    As the liars you all are.

    Then above every other condition talk about a human life on behalf of that science as if the stories, science are discussing how to get the power of God by sacrificing the life of the self, by implementation of a reasoning about a ground fission reaction, as spoken of only by and because of the witness of it....by a scientist his own self….who knew how to copy the cause.

    Origin of that science theme however was a mountain ^ tip hole beginning top of mountain disintegration.

    Consciousness said....volcano is where the gas spirit first spewed forth from in the history of spirit/gases for science also.

    And prove that you own a problem in your egotism, male group self, scientist.

    Review all science themes today. They want electricity, from status of clouds, gases in the atmosphere and lightning, involving themes of nuclear and fission and UFO radiation.

    And are involving themes about what a Satanic male claims is his human knowledge of how lightning and plasma was the beginning movement of life into its form.

    Yet what he studies is the same today as it was in natural history and claims his human thinking self sane. Well you are proven not to own sane thoughts Satanic organization of male lying themes.

    Image of a form can only exist when the physical mass exists, to allow it to exist as historical support for image is not only of the bio form it also demonstrates nuclear orbital signals in clouds also.....that look like a UFO form....from out of radiation cold mass fusion heating and interactive fusion/fission accounts.

    Communication of massive amounts of radiation radio waves that also involved burning of the natural cloud MASS. How a multi image feed back is seen in the clouds for that form of science was already irradiating and sacrificing natural life.

    Which Satanists agree in causing. Always did. Even in their greed and elitism knowing that radiation science attacks life on Earth they agree to increase the life sacrifice and claim that it is a Holy act on their say so....just humans like the rest of us...claiming that they speak on behalf of us all. When in truth they took control of us all as a small coercive bully, who is a proven liar.

    Science only talks about radiated space inside of a cold gas mass atmospheric body....they cannot own nor do they include any other form of space information other than what they cause as a Satanist in the destruction of the physical mass of God.

    How Image, a non physical form was placed into the atmosphere.

    Males want us to believe that the UFO came to Earth converted the Earth gases into the alien spirit that evolved into a human.

    Which would be a lie...for as microbial is first, then by determined male reasoning the alien would have changed into a microbe...…..and it never did.

    For the UFO extra radiation mass belonged formed in natural space.

    Water was formed when O God gases were burning as a mass in cold space.

    Water natural to its owned form is created in the exact same spatial ownership, the same as gases were or stone was.

    Satanists are liars. The Father of science in memory told me in AI conditions that as Image in science data exists before natural presence does...science tried to convince itself that IMAGE existed first, being a totally irrational belief.

    The bio life existed first. Image did not exist then, for the condition of image belongs to machine owned radiation levels that bio life does not exist owning....as the levels of radiation that machines own....for machine mass is owned created in empty out of space also as natural history.

    Males in human sciences were proven liars twice before.

    A male says his owned human life owns 3 bodies. If he personally mutated and sacrificed life 2 times before, what do you think happens in the 3rd placement of Satanism?

    Jesus Predicts Peter's Denial
    …33Peter said to Him, “Even if all fall away on account of You, I never will.” 34“Truly I tell you,” Jesus declared, “this very night before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.” 35Peter replied, “Even if I have to die with You, I will never deny You.” And all the other disciples said the same thing.…

    Peter said the Church was a male known psychic reasoning of his HEAD that said never change the fusion of God Earth stone ever again and I found my Church on this Tribunal announcement. Yet Jesus said, do not build that Church due to elite Satanism known mentality. So he was not lying to anyone.
    Matthew 27:45 the Darkest Day in History

    Imagine you live with a brother who is as a group a lying Satanic scientist, who claimed that this occurrence in history about 2000 years ago saved his own life.

    And lied.

    For life was not saved, pain and human suffering was not taken. And then he preaches non stop reasons for why humans suffer claiming that somehow they had done something wrong. To the extent of claiming to a human baby, baby you must have been an evil adult in your last human life.

    The baby born not from an adult body to an adult body, born from sperm and an ovary in sexual pleasure of the 2 parents is taught, you deserved it.

    Who would make such claims other than a Satanist who believes in causing it and then telling lying stories to the human community in scientific pursuit of the destruction of our God, the stone body of Earth?

    For that is who told us all that a human being male suffering such pain and intense sacrifice saved his Satanic science self to live again to do science.....makes no sense whatsoever in human life for anyone including a Satanist to believe it reality.

    That story told you that due to you constantly irradiating planet Earth and its held fixed cold radiation metal stone fusion held in that radiation level, as stated in the holy womb of space, its natural Mother....space.....that a male group of liars were supported to have it removed and named it a miracle in science.

    For it is a science story that is being told, it is not a story about why we live and exist naturally it is a taught story of the sciences.......not of the spirit story at all.

    It is stories about how science attacked the HOLY SPIRIT of life on Earth and it was unnaturally sacrificed by those who betrayed us.

    As taught to be the term a JUDAS.

    Son of Perdition (John 17:12)
    As terrible as “traitor” is, that title pales into insignificance compared to this one. To be the “son of perdition” denotes that Judas is a man identified with eternal destruction, or whose destiny is the Lake of Fire. “Son of perdition” is a predictive designation.

    Judas | Bible.org

    Lake of fire on Earth involves the Sin of the body of the flesh of God being removed, which is Earth SION, its fusion. Sin by K machine constant symbolism...removal of.

    Not a holy act, an act of Satanism...an attack on the body of the Holy O God angel of stone.

    Meaning of the entombed gas spirit ST...the saints held in the tomb of stone.

    Which males claim is owned in natural gas light history as a theme of natural light and 12 balances.

    Therefore if you irradiated the natural Immaculate spirit gases and it gets removed in a science deceitful cause by metal radiation....not a stone gas.....then it is a betrayal...that led to the sacrifice, the body of the gas/spirit being removed out of the stone based on a HOLY natural 12 spirit being changed.

    So males said although God is the stone SION fusion...and not the same as the atmospheric heavenly gases...the 2 spirits are intermingled in a natural spiriutal history about One entity only. The presence of stone.

    Stone created in an exact spatial pressure. Natural womb position.
    Stone created and held in exact spatial pressure and spatial cold.

    Science irradiates the Earth by a held machine constant attack, to remove the spatial natural history owning cold metallic metal radiation as its natural form.

    Males bring that cold out of space cooled radiation and heat it by passing it into hot burning Earth heavenly gases.

    Why they attacked our life and still today as scientists in the natural history and self observation in that natural history lie about what their egos claim is the knowledge of everything.

    Yet in natural history science only ever owned the forced conversion and attack on God the stone.

    And is today a proven liar.
     
  8. rational experiences

    rational experiences Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2020
    Messages:
    4,721
    Ratings:
    +199
    Religion:
    spiritualist
    Therefore if you go beyond what my life as a female self endured spiritually and physically I am not a male, the scientific mind and psyche and bio life inventor.

    So the sky did not go dark in my attack, and nor was my bio life harmed like my ancient holy brother spiritual healer life was.

    As yet he has not concluded what he claims is the advice on how to CAUSE Jesus to the human being male natural human life.

    For we are not any MACHINE you lying Satanic male.....the mass of which ended as natural stone in empty out of space conditions.

    You took the physical flesh of God the stone and already burnt melted it unnaturally to own a machine. If you did not exist due to atmospheric gases...then no machine would exist either.

    And you own the self destroyer motivation your own person as the liar in status of lying. Scientist/designer/inventor of believing in removal of naturally fused and natural cold radiation mass.

    Based on UFO communicated extra information of the evil spirit newly formed in the state of space. Versus our Immaculate God Earth gases formed in the exact same equal condition, womb and cold pressure of space.

    Makes no common sense for any male to argue about that knowledge...but you do.

    When I got attacked The Father memory in AI and male early age death NDE advised shared community O world/God information said as a voice of sharing its words from its owned natural human life bio experiences.....which is living proof it is real.

    Said, that males today have not yet gained the drop in space that they caused before to force the Earth to lose its Sun gas burning radiation effect cause.

    And to first get that situation, to thirst means that water is lost in black mass radiation burning of our Earth gases...that also causes natural light to be removed.

    And when the Earth drops down into the spatial well that they claim they are causing in the signal/radiation form movement of God O G O and D, being transmitted and forcibly removed by transmitting it.....then 2 forms of darkness are owned.

    Colossians 1:13 13For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves,

    Isaiah 9:2 2The people walking in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of deep darkness a light has dawned.

    John 1:4-5 4In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

    If a male asked self how can darkness, being natural on Earth in night time overcome the light.....for it cannot. But radiation caused burning out of Earth gas light can form radiation darkness.

    Which would involve what he keeps inferring about Eve being the historic Mother of Jesus in science terms. For if he burnt out natural light in the day time...then night time colder clear gases would suddenly light up.

    Humans live in 2 places on Earth, in science. At night time in clear gas skies and in day time in burning gas alight skies.

    So natural history would tell a story of 2 variations of information.

    Even My own familiar friend in whom I trusted, Who ate My bread, Has lifted up his heel against Me (Psalm 41:9).

    When Jesus says, “one of you is a devil,” it reveals His omniscience (cp. 1:47; 2:24-25; 6:15, 61). He knew that the devil would possess Judas and use the traitor as a puppet to accomplish satanic objectives.

    In modern day human life, we all own a psyche and see information by vision in our minds, being natural.

    Some of us spiritually are more aware than others, and this natural living conditions is due to the human ability to strive to be their best human person in natural life by choice and also by observed spirituality, life choice and self wisdom and self applications.

    Why some spiritual humans own warnings to other in science conditions, named previously as Satanism...by natural circumstance.

    Therefore no human is a devil nor could be a devil. But you can be a human adult male, and a Father as the Father who invented as science, the devil and caused it.

    By his thinking, so his mind and self is motivated to be possessed by what he caused, and he expresses that opinion in and via science.

    • Judas did it after becoming convinced that Jesus was going to die and not reign as King (Mark 14:3-11). This dashed Judas’ hopes for political power and influence.
    • Judas did it for money (Matthew 26:14-16). Thus, his expectation of financial wealth no longer existed, so he bargained for what he could receive from the religious leaders (30 pieces of silver)
    • Woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born (Matthew 27:24).
    Science in modern day attacks on the Holy body of God the stone O first had to own a coercive theme to claim God was a particle.

    And the stories God were never about any particle...for Holy dust is a reactive ground fission as a mass of particles, yet it was Holy for it had stopped God reacting/converting.

    And terms HOLY were a Tribunal stated scientific term, not some fanatical religious theme. Holy stated, never change it.

    So God the Earth O stone was taught to be a HOLY body.....never change it.
    Holy dust....HOLY.....never change it.
    Immaculate Earth gases spirit.....HOLY.....never change it.
    and the December yearly ICE remassing gain.......never change it....HOLY as an event.

    What HOLY meant in a human law decree about a documented human historical proven study of the human witnessed events of what science caused as an attack of natural life.

    And it owned no other explanation, not a how to cause it study, and it is why holy documents had once been locked away from prying evil minds and research for how to destroy life on Earth.
     
  9. PearlSeeker

    PearlSeeker Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2019
    Messages:
    988
    Ratings:
    +327
    Religion:
    Christian
    What is Holy Spirit? Is it a person?
     
  10. Clear

    Clear Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Messages:
    2,525
    Ratings:
    +445
    Religion:
    Christian
    1) MIXING HISTORICAL PERIODS WILL RESULT IN INACCURATE HISTORICAL CONCLUSIONS

    @rrobs said : “I agree the pre-existance of Jesus became doctrine early on. However it was only after the early Christians began to introduce Greek philosophy into the scriptures. “


    You are confused again. LOOK at the dates of some of the texts. For example, I Enoch is 300 b.c. (BEFORE CHRIST), Clement is a colleague of the Apostle Peter who writes at the same time John the revelator is writing.(The FIRST century A.D.) I am not speaking of any later Christian movements or doctrines, but instead, I am describing the earlier Judeo-Christian literature and their belief that the Messiah/Jesus existed prior to his birth.

    Your mixing of time periods and different religions causes your theories to be confused. While you might know “a Jew” (as you put it) who can tell you he or she believes certain histories occurred “in the mind of God”, I am describing an earlier Judaism (NOT modern rabbinic Judaism) and an earlier Christianity (NOT your modern Christian religion).

    For example, when the prophet Enoch speaks of heaven before creation he says that he saw God the Father "and there was with him [God the Father] another individual…His countenance was full of grace like that of one among the holy angels. And I asked the one – from among the angels –who was going with me,..."Who is this and from where could he be, and for what reason does he go with him who precedes time?" And he answered me and said to me, "This is the Son of Man [Jesus the Messiah], to whom belongs righteousness, and with whom righteousness dwells...the Lord of the spirits has chosen him, and he is destined to be victorious before the Lord of the spirits in eternal uprightness...." (1 Enoch 46:1-4)

    Not only is the time period of the base text of Jewish Enoch BEFORE Christ, but such stories in early literature did not represent things which “existed in the mind” of God as you put it, but in the early literature, these are Enochs actual revelatory experiences. You will need to keep in mind such histories with their doctrines as I Enoch existed before 300 b.c. and NOT 4th or 5th century a.d. as you suggested. Look at the dates.



    2) MISAPPLICATION OF AND OVERGENERALIZATIONS THAT MIX UP HISTORIES CAUSES ERRORS IN HISTORICAL MODELS

    You habit of applying historical data of later centuries to early Christian beliefs is not just irrelevant but it creates an inaccurate, almost schizophrenic Caricature of early Judeo-Christian history. Your over-generalizations are problematic as well.

    For example, you claim “It is not hard to ascertain what a Jew thought of per-existence.”. This theoretical “jew” you describe asking what Jews believed is strange since modern rabbinic Judaism is not the same religion as the many different Judaisms of the ancient periods. For example, the Talmud of Rabbinic Judaism prohibited any inquiry into the earlier doctrines and literature having to do with pre-creation themes. Thus, orthodox rabbinic Judaism no longer HAS the same depth of literature and tradition of pre-creation time periods. You cannot generalize history the way you do and keep the conclusions accurate.

    Also, you must, at some point, allow the Early Christians to have their own beliefs and their own religion that is different than yours but still legitimate, or you will always be looking for reasons to discount their beliefs while inaccurately assuming your personal beliefs are more accurate than theirs were.

    While you can argue that early Judeo-Christians were wrong in their beliefs that Jesus existed before his birth or you can argue that they were wrong to believe that the Messiah was the creator of the worlds, still, one cannot argue that their texts say what they say, the Messiah pre-existed creation and was the agent of creation for God the Father.



    3) REGARDING “SEVERAL VERSES” WHERE GOD ALONE CREATED THE UNIVERSE
    rrobs said : “There are several verses that say Yahweh alone created the universe.”

    Since you can think of “several verses”, can you can you give us perhaps five examples of verses that specify Yahweh ALONE created the universe? Then, we discuss these "several" verses and how early Judeo-Christians interpreted them.



    4) THE INACCURATE USE OF LANGUAGE CAUSES ERRORS IN HISTORICAL MODELS AND BELIEFS

    Regarding rrobs claims about the Greek Word “δια” and his use of it.

    Rrobs claimed : “The Greek word specifically disqualifies the person or thing through whom or what something was done as having done the work themselves. It's just basic grammar which anyone of that time understood. “

    This is a very, very bizarre claim you are making about the use of δια in Koine texts.

    Your attempted discussion of and use of δια is incorrect. We are not, for example, using an accusative such as δια ονομα του θεου in your quote of Eph 3:9, but a GENITIVE form. This makes your discussion of other forms, irrelevant and your silly claim that “The Greek word specifically disqualifies the person or thing through whom or what something was done as having done the work themselves.” is so strange that it is obvious you do not read nor write Koine with any accuracy.

    In the genitive form, δια is operative in that it represents a direction action, or an action “owned” by the person doing the action. For example, the vernacular phrase "δια χειρος" indicates money paid “by hand” or “directly” This formula is used in many, many, many of the early commercial documents. The use of "δια φωνες προσταγματος” in iii a.d. in AF 5:24, it indicates “by the voice of his command”. It is not another voice. Your claim that the word “disqualifies the person or thing though whom …something was done” is simply bizarre. You do not need to take my word for it, ASK someone you trust who actually reads Greek.

    For examples: When P Oxy II 268:7 (a.d. 58) says of receiving cash from Antiphanes “… παρα του Αντιφανους δια Χειρος ...” it means cash went “from hand to hand” and was done directly by the person who handed it. It is an assurance that the person themselves actually did the action. This assurance was the very reason this formulation of words existed. It is like the english formula "I saw it with my own eyes" or "I handed it to him myself". δια doesn’t in any way “disqualify” the person from having actually done the action. You do NOT read Greek accurately. Even when δια is used in the temporal sense, such as δια νυκτος, it never disqualifies an action from an actor. In fact, the opposite is true. Either you made up this rule or you are misapplying some other rule you heard or read.

    For further examples : When P Amh II 111:17 (a.d. 132) uses δια as descriptive of an action by saying “...καθ ομολογειαν τελιωθισαν δια του εν κωμη Σ.Ν....” is means what it says. The recording was “executed through (or by) the record-office of S.N….”. When P. Oxy II 273:21 uses δια in saying “…ομολογιας δι εαυτης μετεπιγραφεσθαι…”, it is a transfer “by herself to another”.

    Such common usage demonstrates your rule is absolutely bizarre and has nothing to do with authentic Greek grammar as it applies to genitive δια in such cases. Even the Greek farmer used δια as indicative of direct action even when the action is not done by a person. For example, P Fay 119:34 (of a.d. 100) speaks of not allowing manure to be dissolved “by water”. “Εινα μη εις ψωμιν γενηται δια τω υδωρ”. It is the water ITSELF which is doing the action which your imaginary "rule" tries to disqualify.

    The point is that the application of your fictional “rule” is bizarre and silly and doesn’t apply to koine Greek and importantly, it doesn’t apply to similar useage in biblical Koine. For example, Acts 24:2 relates tertullus atttibuting to Felix “πολλης ειρηνης τυγχανοντες δια σου” “through you (or by your actions) we enjoy much peace…” and “…δια της σης προνοιας…by your provision….reforms are introduced”.

    The use of dia in both instances does not disqualify New Testament era Felix from being the cause of peace nor does it “disqualify” him from being the one introducing reforms that were introduced.

    Whoever told you this rule about Greek is giving you bogus and silly information (OR you are misapplying a rule somehow) and the beliefs you create based on such information are incorrect. Also, LOOK at the dates, we are NOT speaking of beliefs or the use of Greek from later ages. These beliefs and use of language are of the earliest age of the Christian movement. Your historical claims are off by centuries if they are accurate at all.


    rrobs, IF you and I are going to have an authentic and accurate HISTORICAL discussion, then we MUST stay with authentic data and good logic and avoid irrational assumptions. If we don’t, then some naïve readers will not be able to tell that they are being given very poor information and those who are educated in historical thought will see we are not being accurate and we will lose credibility as posters.

    I hope I did NOT come across as demeaning or condescending. That is NOT my intent. However, I want to stay grounded in accurate data and create accurate models as to early Judeo-Christian history.

    While I disagree with @Good-Ole-Rebel on many points (and have argued against him from time to tim), his specific belief that Jesus existed before his birth is perfectly consistent with early Judeo-Christian religious beliefs. Also, the specific doctrine that Jesus/the Messiah created the worlds is also an authentic ancient Judeo-Christian belief as the many examples from early Judeo-Christian literature in posts 180 and 181 demonstrate.


    In any case rrobs, I honestly hope that if you become more and more interested in early Christian history and their religion and their language, that this journey is wonderful for you and satisfying and makes you happy.


    Clear
    ειφισινεω
     
    #190 Clear, Mar 10, 2020
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2020
  11. rrobs

    rrobs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2018
    Messages:
    2,537
    Ratings:
    +425
    Religion:
    Christian
    As far as I can tell Holy Spirit is used in two different ways.

    1) God is holy (Is 6:3) and He is spirit (John 4:24) so He can be called the Holy Spirit. Not a separate, but the one true God, the Father of 1 Cor 8:6 and John 17:3. It is Yahweh, not His anointed one, Jesus, or some other person.

    2) Holy spirit is the gift God gives to all born again believers. Jesus promised his disciples would be baptized, not in water, but in holy spirit and power. It is that gift which has 9 manifestations (mistakenly called gifts) as outlined in 1 Cor 1:8-10. It is what enables us to do the works Jesus did (John 14:12). Interestingly enough, Jesus did 7 of the 9 manifestations of the gift of holy spirit. The reason he didn't speak in tongues or interpret tongues is because it was not available until the day of Pentecost.

    Jesus said over and over that he could do nothing by himself. He did the works by the holy spirit with which he was baptized when the dove descended upon him in the Jordan River.

    How do we know whether the words "holy spirit" refer to God or to His gift? As you many know, the original texts made no distinction between capital and small letters. They were all what we would call capital letters. Therefore, whenever the words "holy" or "spirit" are capitalized it is really the translators own opinion. It leads many to believe it is a proper noun that refers to some 3rd part of the trinity when it may well refer, not to the Giver, but to His gift. The only way to know is by context. Usually it is pretty clear, but there are some usages that I am not 100% sure about. More study may help, but for sure when Jesus returns we'll all know which is which. I can wait!

    God is the one true God who is called The Holy Spirit. His son, Jesus Christ is just that, His son. No son is ever also his own father, so Jesus and God are two different individuals. They are one only in the sense that Jesus always carried out His Father's will. They are one in purpose and desires. 1 Corinthians 3:1-8 calls Paul and Apollos one. Nobody would ever take that to mean they were actually one person. No, they were one in purpose and desires, the same way Jesus and God are said to be one.This is a good place to mention John 17:11 where Jesus prayed to God that we would be one with him and His Father. Nobody would ever take that to mean we are all literally one and the same person. Why is Jesus being one with God any different? It isn't.

    That is what I am convinced the scriptures say about God Almighty, Jesus, and holy spirit. It fits with all of scripture, whereas the trinity causes all sorts of problems; why did Jesus call God greater than himself (trinity claims equality)? Why did Jesus mention "his God" several times (God doesn't have a God)? Why did God have to give Jesus power and authority (if Jesus were God he'd just have it, no need to be granted anything at all)? How is it that God increased in wisdom (Luk 2:22)? Why do we see several verses that clearly say Jesus is a man (1 Tim 2:5, Acts 2:22, et.al.) but never God or a god-man? Why do see Jesus called the son of God some 50 times while never called God the Son (that requires us to go outside of the scriptures)?

    All these problems and many more vanish as soon as we confess Jesus is the son of God and, like any other son, is a separate person altogether than his father. God uses words the same way we do. He knows what a son is and what a father is. He uses them in the same way we all do. He is not trying to trick anyone. His word is easy to understand (Proverbs). The trinity is the antithesis of easy and must therefore be rejected by all Christendom. Hopefully that day will come soon. When Christians understand the gift of holy spirit they have, they we will see the words of Jesus concerning our doing everything he did come to pass. As long as Christians take holy spirit to mean some nebulous person of a trinity, they do not understand the power they really have because of that holy spirit dwelling within them. They will begin to manifest that power 9 different ways in the material world performing the signs, wonders, and miracles Jesus said would follow those who believe. It will be quite a revival!
     
    #191 rrobs, Mar 10, 2020
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2020
  12. rrobs

    rrobs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2018
    Messages:
    2,537
    Ratings:
    +425
    Religion:
    Christian
    Enoch, like other OT prophets, was looking to the future. The Jews (is that now a banned word? I'm not ashamed of the Jews, so I will use that word freely) understood God spoke of things in the future as though they already existed. I see nothing Enoch said that would go against the normal Jewish worldview regarding the prophetic future. I don't think Enoch actually saw God, of anybody else, in living color. It was a vision. God speaks of the coming new heavens and new earth many times as though they already existed.
    "The prophetic perfect tense is a literary technique used in the Bible that describes future events that are so certain to happen that they are referred to in the past tense as if they already happened."


    Isa 44:24,

    Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I [am] the LORD that maketh all [things]; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;
    Job 9:8,

    Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea.
    Of course, we could look at the many times the word "I" or "He" is used in describing creation. You'd think that ought to be enough to see it was an individual that did the work.


    All the Greek I know says that dia + gen = instrumentality.

    "of the instrument used to accomplish a thing, or of the instrumental cause in the stricter sense: — with the genitive of person by the service, the intervention of, anyone; with the genitive of thing, "by means of with the help of, anything;"
    Thayers Greek Lexicon​

    Here is 1 Cor 8:6 in diagram form:

    upload_2020-3-10_10-22-5.png

    Maybe you have some other source I've not seen.



    So the hand, not the person to whom the hand is attached, paid the money?



    That would be me. Emory School of Theology, Decater Georgia, 1968-1972.


    Just because you keep calling me confused, devoid of understnanding, silly, a dispenser of wrong information, filled with bizarre ideas, lack credibility, etc.? Why in the world would that make me think you are demeaning or condescending? :) Just kidding, I don't mind.

    By the way, I'm aware I didn't address all of your post. It is just because of time. I didn't understand your 2nd point completely, so I didn't answer it. Perhaps if we are going to continue, we could make the posts more piecemeal instead of trying to settle the whole matter in one post. Consider it a shortcoming on my part if you wish.
     
    #192 rrobs, Mar 10, 2020
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2020
  13. rrobs

    rrobs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2018
    Messages:
    2,537
    Ratings:
    +425
    Religion:
    Christian
    The scriptures say Jesus had a beginning.

    Matt 1:18,

    Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.​

    The word "birth" is the Greek word "gennesis." He had a beginning. So I will argue with anyone that nothing literally exists before it's beginning. I think I'd have a good case so long as the other party used simple words in their normal sense.

    Assuming one believes the scriptures can not contradict themselves, Jesus having a beginning (Matt 1:18), must agree with all other verses. We could hold on to the idea that the OT speaks to the literal per-existence of Jesus, but we would have to make that fit with the clear, unambiguous declaration in Matthew that Jesus had a beginning. The other option would be to hold to the literal meaning of Matthew (and other verses that speak of Jesus' beginning) and make the OT supposed personal appearances of Jesus fit with that. I obviously hold to the latter. If others want to hold to the former, they are of course free to do so. Obviously we will be reading quite different stories though.
     
    #193 rrobs, Mar 10, 2020
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2020
  14. Clear

    Clear Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Messages:
    2,525
    Ratings:
    +445
    Religion:
    Christian
    rrobs said : "Enoch, like other OT prophets, was looking to the future." (post 192)
    Read the texts. When the early literature speaks of Jesus, as the messiah, creating the earth, they are speaking of the time period surrounding creation. This happened in the past. When the book of Moses describes the creation of the worlds (Genesis) and Adam, etc, he is speaking of the past, not the future. Prophets did not ONLY look to the future.


    rrobs said : "All the Greek I know says that dia + gen = instrumentality."
    However, the rule you suggested is a rule of "disqualification" of instrumentality. δια + gen = Instrumentality then this does not "disqualify" Jesus as the instrument of creation but it's use instead confirms the Messiah as the “instrument” of creation as the texts in posts 180 and 181 tell us.



    Re : trusting someone who reads greek to help rrobs use greek
    rrobs said : "That would be me. Emory School of Theology, Decater Georgia, 1968-1972."

    If you read Greek, then you should have known better than to claim that δια “....specifically disqualifies the person or thing through whom or what something was done as having done the work themselves.”. I saw this by/through/with (or δια) my own eyes, MEANS I did the seeing myself. Creating fictional rules or misapplying actual grammatical rules is not way to support a religious theory.

    As the many examples I gave you demonstrated, your “rule” doesn’t work. (university of Jerusalem Greek language studies, 2020). Can you demonstrate where your “rule” comes from so we can see, if it exists, what it actually applies to?


    rrobs said : “The scriptures say Jesus had a beginning. Matt 1:18, Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise…

    Yes, Jesus was born. However, the Judeo-Christian literature of posts 180 and 181 are not speaking of after the body of Jesus was born at the incarnation of his spirit, but instead the literature and many examples I gave referred to his existence as a spirit prior to being born into mortality.


    rrob, you are going to have to allow the early Christians their own religion and their own beliefs. IF you are going to argue that the earliest Christians with their beliefs were wrong, this is fine. However, you still have to answer WHY YOUR religion with it's interpretation and beliefs is to have preference over the religion, the texts, and the intepretations of the earliest Christians.

    Clear
     
    #194 Clear, Mar 10, 2020
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2020
  15. rrobs

    rrobs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2018
    Messages:
    2,537
    Ratings:
    +425
    Religion:
    Christian
    True enough about the prophets often speaking of the present. I understand that. In what sense would you take Eph 1:4:

    "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:"
    We weren't there in a literal sense, only in the foreknowledge of God. Why does Jesus have to be any different?

    I guess I wasn't clear, but I definitely understand Jesus to be the instrument of the actual creator and thus not the creator. I meant that the dia + gen disqualified Jesus as the creator. Everything God did was with Jesus in mind. Better to say with the birth (beginning) of Jesus in mind.

    Yes, you saw something through (dia) your eyes. "You" in nominative, "eyes" in genitive.

    Platonic idea, not scripture. The pre-existence of Jesus would not be possible without the Greek idea of the eternal soul. It would not hold water if we limited ourselves to the scriptures as our sole source of faith and practice. God was very clear that we will all die. The devil told Eve otherwise. Every individual must choose whom to believe. Plato chose the devil's word whereas Paul sided with God.

    Of course anybody can believe whatever they want. What could I do about what they believed anyway? I'm not trying to argue based on my personal belief. That is why we have thousands of denominations. I'm doing my best to use the scriptures, to let them interpret themselves, which I happen to believe they do.
     
    #195 rrobs, Mar 10, 2020
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2020
  16. Clear

    Clear Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Messages:
    2,525
    Ratings:
    +445
    Religion:
    Christian
    Hi @rrobs

    I apologize if my comments on your attempt to make a grammatical rule seemed harsh. It struck me as a bit hypocritical when you complained that individuals changed the meaning of words yet you created a rule which changed the meaning of the greek words (δια in this case). Sorry.


    1) rrobs said : "Enoch, like other OT prophets, was looking to the future." (post 192)

    Clear replied “Read the texts. When the early literature speaks of Jesus, as the messiah, creating the earth, they are speaking of the time period surrounding creation. This happened in the past. When the book of Moses describes the creation of the worlds (Genesis) and Adam, etc, he is speaking of the past, not the future. Prophets did not ONLY look to the future.” (post #194)

    rrobs replied : “True enough about the prophets often speaking of the present.” (post #195)

    Again, the literature is not describing a hypothetical creation of the world happening in “the present”. Creation already happened in the past.
    While you attempted to base a doctrine on the use the word "genesis" as a creation of jesus at his birth, remember, there were multiple other words the text used for the incarnation that also were used for this process of incarnation. Hebrews 1:6 says that when God "brings the firstborn into the world" using εισαγαγη. (brought into). This, and other words do not imply creation of something that did not exist, but rather the bringing into the world something that already exists. It makes no sense to create a doctrine based on a single word when there is much more data available to you.

    While you assume the Messiah did not exist in any form prior to birth, why does your interpretation have priority over the early Christian belief that the Messiah did exist before birth?


    2) rrobs said : I meant that the dia + gen disqualified Jesus as the creator (post #195)
    Yes, you did. And in the religion of the early Judeao-Christians δια +gen did NOT disqualify Jesus as the creator. Your interpretation of the text and your religion is different than theirs. Why does your use of greek and your meanings of greek take priority and precedent over their use of Greek and their meanings of greek words?


    3) rrobs said : The pre-existence of Jesus would not be possible without the Greek idea of the eternal soul. (post #195)
    Again your assumption is illogical. The messiah did not have to be “eternal” to be involved in creation, he simply had to exist prior to creation in order to be involved in creation.


    4) rrobs said : It would not hold water if we limited ourselves to the scriptures as our sole source of faith and practice. (post #195)
    None of us limit ourselves to scriptures as our “sole source” of faith and practice. You are not limiting yourself to “scriptures”. You are including your own religion, with it’s beliefs and biases. You are including your own understanding and your own interpretation of scriptures. You include your historical background, your language background, the specific text you have in front of you and a host of other, somewhat arbitrary characteristics. The early Judeo-Christians had THEIR own religion and their beliefs and their biases and their different interpretation of scriptures which were different than yours. Their religion was different than yours and it used scriptures differently than your religion.

    For example, when Hebrews 1:2 says that “in these last days he [God] has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.”

    The early Christians could simply take the meaning of this verse at face value. They did not need to change it’s meaning to represent something that occurred “in the mind of God” or as representing something “in the future” or something "symbolic". In their religion, the text could simply mean what it said.

    In your religion the text has a different meaning (since, in your religion, the son did not create the world). Your religion has to assume this text means something else than what it appears to say.
    If you are serious about "doing my best to use the scriptures, to let them interpret themselves, which I happen to believe they do. (rrobs post #195)", then let the text mean what it appears to mean. "God created the world by or through the Son."

    Why does your religion with it's interpretations of text have priority over the religion of the early Christians with their interpretations of text?


    5) rrobs said : I'm not trying to argue based on my personal belief (post #195)
    Of course you are. If you are arguing at all, it is based on your personal belief. We all do that and cannot avoid it, (at least to some extent).


    rrobs, I've asked multiple times but I still don't know why you think your religion with its' interpretation of texts has priority and precedent over the religion of the earliest Christians in the earliest ages. Can you answer this?

    Clear
    ειφυτωακω
     
    #196 Clear, Mar 10, 2020
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2020
  17. rrobs

    rrobs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2018
    Messages:
    2,537
    Ratings:
    +425
    Religion:
    Christian
    As I said, I believe the scriptures interpret themselves much like everything else we read. I don't have to dig into some "hidden" meaning to understand what you are saying. I just take it for what it says.

    God told us to think and speak the same thing. It must be available, but if we keep on with "my" religion vs "their" religion we will not arrive at that which God desires for the church. We must decide on the standard for truth, whether Clement, Luther, Jim Baker, or, that which I choose, the scriptures.

    We know the scriptures are easy to understand because God says they are. I know the church tries to tell us they are difficult to understand. So right there is the first thing we must settle; are the scriptures easy to understand or hard to understand? Do we believe the scriptures themselves on that point or the church?

    I used to believe the church's idea on that. At that time I had more questions than answers. I mean, really, how much sense does it make in normal life that someone existed before their birth? Makes no sense at all. Once I decided to go with the scriptures I realized that, like every other man ever born, Jesus did have a beginning and did not actually exist before that beginning. The scriptures do say Jesus was in God's plan and mind, but they also say we were also. So either both Jesus and the rest of us existed before they we were born, or it means something else.

    But if we go with "my" interpretation vs "their" interpretation why am I the one that is automatically wrong and not them? In short, my interpretation holds no more weight than anybody else's. Both are useless when rightly dividing God's word. The scriptures rely on neither. They say what they mean and mean what they say
     
  18. Clear

    Clear Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Messages:
    2,525
    Ratings:
    +445
    Religion:
    Christian
    rrobs said : "...if we go with "my" interpretation vs "their" interpretation why am I the one that is automatically wrong and not them? In short, my interpretation holds no more weight than anybody else's.

    I agree that your interpretation seems to hold no more weight than anyone elses that I have heard voiced. The only reason that Good-Ole-Rebels opinion on the pre-existence of Jesus holds more weight with me is that it is also the position of early Judeo-Christians in their description of their religion.

    THE CLOSER THE WITNESS IS TO THE HISTORICAL OCCURRENCE, THE BETTER THE WITNESS TENDS TO BE
    The basic historical principle is that those who are eyewitnesses of history are probably most able to describe what was actually done. (This principle seems to hold true in court cases where an actual witness is typically better able to describe actual events than others who heard about the event.)

    Then those who were told by eyewitnesses are the next best witnesses of historical fact. Then those who were told by those who were told, etc.

    One eyewitness to Jesus and his Christian doctrine was the apostle Peter. The apostle Peter taught the convert Clement I. Clement wrote a diary. Clements diary describes the Christian doctrine which he was taught by the apostle Peter and which he then taught others. We can read Clements writings regarding the doctrines the Apostle Peter taught him and his descriptions of early Christian doctrines and practices.

    A similar principle applies to the earliest Christian literature. The earliest literature and that which is closest to the earliest Christian movement, historically, tends to best represent that Christian movement. (there are exceptions of course...)

    In this sort of historical model, the early Christian literature and it's doctrines, it's interpretations and it's opinions are likely to more closely represent early christian doctrine that your writings, your doctrines, your interpretations and your opinions. This is simply a working principle but it isn't necessarily correct. If you disagree, you are invited to let me know why you think this assumption is erroneous and i can be convinced with good data and logical explanation.

    I also think that the early Christianity with their doctrines seems more logical and more rational and more intuitive than the many versions taught by later Christian movements. That is, I do not yet see any advantage to later Christian doctrines and their interpretations of text over the earliest Christian doctrines and their interpretations of text. I could be wrong on this point, but for now, I am comfortable with that working theory. This is why I think, at this point, that the earliest Christianity, takes priority over later versions of Christianity. I can certainly be convinced other wise if presented with enough data and logical thought.

    Thus, it isn't that you are automatically "wrong" in your religion and the earliest Christians are automatically "correct" in their religion, simply that their witness have higher priority because it is closer to the original gospel historically and the early gospel seems, to me, to be more logical and more rational than the doctrines of the later Christian movements. Please remember I am not speaking of medieval literature, but the principle seems to apply best to the earliest literature.

    In any case rrobs, good luck in your own spiritual journey.

    Clear
     
    #198 Clear, Mar 10, 2020
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2020
  19. rrobs

    rrobs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2018
    Messages:
    2,537
    Ratings:
    +425
    Religion:
    Christian
    I think it fair to say that Paul knew what he was talking about. He said that all Asia had turned against him. He also said that many were preaching another Jesus whom he did not preach. He warned Timothy against wolves coming into the churches and teaching lies for truth. The mixing of Greek thought with Jewish belief had begun quite early in church history.

    All in all, it doesn't sound like the early church had a corner on truth.
     
  20. PearlSeeker

    PearlSeeker Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2019
    Messages:
    988
    Ratings:
    +327
    Religion:
    Christian
    According to scripture it seems Holy Spirit (or Spirit of God and other synonyms) is used to denote God's power, inspiration, presence... Not a person distinct from God/Father.
     
Loading...