As in the days of Noah... ALL flesh had CORRUPTED itself

[GaryA]

I don't let other imperfect humans dictate to me what translation of the Bible I'm going to use. Other humans are imperfect humans like me and can be wrong about what they believe the correct translation is.

And, they are more likely to be wrong if they search for a bible version that seems to support what they want it to say...

 

[GaryA]

So I let others choose what they choose to believe, and I don't judge them. I may not agree with them on how they view the scriptures, but I don't judge them because they disagree with me.

Same here - I believe everyone has the right to believe what they will...

However - try not to confuse warnings from others who believe you to be in error as being "judgment" by/from them.

 

[BEB1956]

And, they are more likely to be wrong if they search for a bible version that seems to support what they want it to say...

I go by a Bible that's in the modern English language of today. That means I use not just one English version of the Bible. I also used the king James version when I was growing up. I agree that I didn't agree with some interpretations they have for some scriptures that imperfect men said I had to believe in.
I grew up believing it was the only begotten Son of God that God sent to mankind, that it was the only begotten Son of God that died for mankind, that it was the only begotten Son of God that the True God resurrected three days after his death. I will continue to believe that. I don't believe God sent himself to mankind. I have faith that the True God actually does have a only begotten Son that he sent to mankind as a human, that this person who is the True God's only begotten Son died for mankind, and that the True God actually did resurrect this person who is God's only begotten Son.

 

[Kroogz]

I go by a Bible that's in the modern English language of today. That means I use not just one English version of the Bible. I also used the king James version when I was growing up. I agree that I didn't agree with some interpretations they have for some scriptures that imperfect men said I had to believe in.
I grew up believing it was the only begotten Son of God that God sent to mankind, that it was the only begotten Son of God that died for mankind, that it was the only begotten Son of God that the True God resurrected three days after his death. I will continue to believe that. I don't believe God sent himself to mankind. I have faith that the True God actually does have a only begotten Son that he sent to mankind as a human, that this person who is the True God's only begotten Son died for mankind, and that the True God actually did resurrect this person who is God's only begotten Son.

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Isaiah 9:6
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

John 10:30
I and the Father are one.”

Colossians 2:9
For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,

Hebrews 1:8
But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.


John 20:28
Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”

 

[BEB1956]

Same here - I believe everyone has the right to believe what they will...

However - try not to confuse warnings from others who believe you to be in error as being "judgment" by/from them.

As I said I have no problem with someone disagreeing with me, that's their right, no person should be judged or persecuted for disagreeing with someone. I don't give people warnings, either, because too many people are judging people with what they say is a warning, but actually isn't. I just let people know that I disagree with them, if they say something about a certain scripture that I honestly don't agree with, I just simply say, I disagree. I don't say they're going to be destroyed or that they belong to the devil because they disagree with me.

 

[BEB1956]

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

There are other translations that translates the last part John 1:1 differently, like:

The New testament in an improved version of 1808 upon the basis of Archbishop Newcome's new translation: with a corrected text, the last part of John 1:1 is translated, "and the word was a god."

The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson of 1864 says at the last part of John 1:1, "and a god was the word."

The la Bible du Centenaire, L'Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel of 1928 the last part of John 1:1 is translated, "and the Word was a divine being."



Kroogz posted
John 10:30, I and the Father are one

Jesus himself showed what he meant by his being "one" with his Father. At John 17:21, 22, Jesus prayed to God that his disciples "may be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you.... that they may be one just as we are one." I don't think that Jesus was praying that all his disciples become one entity! Jesus was obviously praying that they would be united in thought and purpose, as he and God were. This agrees with 1 Corinthians 1:10 which God inspired Paul to write that Christians should be one in the same mind and line of thought.

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

John Calvin, who was a Trinitarian said about John 10:30 in his book, commentary on the Gospel According to John: " The ancients made a wrong use of this passive to prove that Christ is....of the same essence with the Father. For Christ does not argue about the unity box substance, but about the agreement which he has with the Father."

Right in the context of the verses after John 10:30, at John 10:31-36 Jesus forcefully argued that his words were not a claim to be God. He asked the Jews who wrongly drew that conclusion and wanted to stone him: "Why do you charge me with blasphemy because I, consecrated and sent into the world by the Father, said, 'I am God's son?" Jesus didn't claim that he was God, but said he was the Son of God.

 

[BEB1956]

Kroogz said
Colossians 2:9
For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily

In the Scriptures certain words derived from theos (god) appear and relate to that which is divine. The related words are theios, theiotes, and theotes, and occur at Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20, and Colossians 2:9.

At Acts 17:29, Paul, when in Athens, showed that it was illogical for humans to imagine that “the Divine Being [to theion, which is a form of theios] is like gold or silver or stone.” Many translators here use terms such as “the Godhead,” “the Deity,” or “the divinity” (AV, AS, Dy, ED, JB, RS), However E. J. Goodspeed’s translation says, “the divine nature.” (AT) Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon (p. 628) shows that the phrase to theiʹon was used by ancient Greek writers to mean “the divine Being or Essence, the Deity.” According to ancient Greek usage, then, this word can be translated by words indicating divine personality or by terms indicating divine qualities or attributes, and this is true of the other words like (theiotes and theotes) mentioned earlier. Obviously, then, the context and sense of what is stated must guide the translator in his choice of words.

At Romans 1:20 the apostle refers to the undeniable visible evidence of God’s “invisible qualities,” in particular his “eternal power and Godship [theiotes].” Other translations read “Godhead,” “deity,” or “divinity,” while Goodspeed’s translation says “divine character.” Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament (Vol. III, p. 16), in commenting on this text, states “[Theiotes] is godhood, not godhead. It signifies the sum-total of the divine attributes.”

Then, at Colossians 2:9 the apostle Paul says of Christ: “It is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality [form of theotes] dwells bodily.” Here, again, some translators lean toward attributing personality to the word theotes, rendering it as “Godhead” or “Deity.” E. J. Goodspeed’s translation, however, says, “It is in him that all the fulness of God’s nature lives embodied.” (see Weymouth) Lexicographers Liddell and Scott also allow for the meaning of “divine nature” here, and Robinson's Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament (p. 334) gives as one meaning of the word “the divine nature and perfections,” referring to Colossians 2:9 as an example.

Kroogz said
Hebrews 1:8
But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.

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

Secondly, it should be noted that Hebrews 1:8, 9 is a quotation from Psalm 45:6, 7, which originally was addressed to a human king of Israel. Surely the writer of this psalm did not think that this human king was Almighty God and neither did the writer of Hebrews think that Jesus was Almighty God. Commenting on this, scholar B. F. Westcott said: “It is scarcely possible that אלוהים [‘Elo·himʹ, “God”] in the original can be addressed to the king. . . . Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: God is Thy throne(or, Thy throne is God) that is ‘Thy kingdom is founded upon God.’”

 

[PennEd]

As I said I have no problem with someone disagreeing with me, that's their right, no person should be judged or persecuted for disagreeing with someone. I don't give people warnings, either, because too many people are judging people with what they say is a warning, but actually isn't. I just let people know that I disagree with them, if they say something about a certain scripture that I honestly don't agree with, I just simply say, I disagree. I don't say they're going to be destroyed or that they belong to the devil because they disagree with me.

The “warning” he’s talking about is it is against the sites rules to deny that Jesus is God.

 

[BEB1956]

The “warning” he’s talking about is it is against the sites rules to deny that Jesus is God.[/QUOTE\]

Ok I didn't know that was true, but since that's true I will leave I don't want stay with a site that only wants me to blindly believe them and not keep to the scriptures.

 

[Moses_Young]

You can judge other imperfect people of whatever religion you like, that's your right I guess. However, I know that what you mean when you say, "just read the Bible for what it says," you mean as long as when I do read the Bible for what it says, that I agree with you and those like you who believe as you do. I don't believe any human or group of humans are infallible. So I let others choose what they choose to believe, and I don't judge them. I may not agree with them on how they view the scriptures, but I don't judge them because they disagree with me.

No, I mean when God says that angels were sent to places such as Tartarus, don't you go and insert your beliefs that such places are mythical or imaginary.

 

[PennEd]

Ok I didn't know that was true, but since that's true I will leave I don't want stay with a site that only wants me to blindly believe them and not keep to the scriptures.

Well, you do what you like.

But it is certainly YOU that are not believing the Scriptures if you preach that Jesus isn't God.

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

I believe that we must harmonize Jesus words with other scripture. Numerous scriptures show that Jesus didn't raise himself from the dead, but that he was resurrected by YHWH God his Father.(Romans 8:11; 1 Corinthians 15:15; Ephesians 1:20)

So how I would view John 2:19 is by examining the context of John 2:13-18 which show that Jesus had cleansed the literal temple at Jerusalem, routing from it those who were making it a place of merchanised, and as a result Jesus had been confronted with this question from the Jews: "What sign have you to show us, since you are doing these things?" Then at John 2:19 Jesus told them the sign which is the basis of the question the Jews asked. The Jews continued at John 2:20-22 saying: "This temple was built in forty six years, and will you raise it up in three days?' But he was talking about the temple of his body. When, though, he was raised up from the dead, his disciples called to mind that he used to say this."
This setting shows that Jesus wasn't talking about his physical body, but "he was talking about the temple of his body." The temple in Jerusalem that Jesus cleansed represented not Jesus alone but also the body-members over which Jesus is head. Just as the temple in Jerusalem was not made up of one stone, but many stones, so "the temple of Jesus body" has many stones, with Jesus as the foundation cornerstone: "You yourself also as living stones are being built up a spiritual house for the purpose of a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ."1 Peter 2:4-7. After the Jewish religionists rejected Christ the living stone and broke him down by death, on the third day thereafter YHWH God raised him up to become the chief cornerstone of the temple of living stones then under preparation. Jesus immediately appeared to his disciples and lifted them out of their despondency, built them up spiritually so that they could "offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God." That this building of "the temple of Jesus body" started then and continued through the years that followed is shown by Peter's use of the present tense when years afterward Peter said Christ's followers "are being built up a spiritual house."

Now with this broadened view of matters I return to the consideration of Jesus’ words, “In three days I will raise it up.” I can see from scripture how Jesus did start giving attention to the building up of the temple of living stones after his resurrection on the third day of his death. Yet it can be argued with some force, that since Jesus was to be the chief cornerstone and he was the firstfruits of the resurrection, the first one to be built up for use in the construction of the spiritual house or temple, we cannot eliminate Jesus entirely from this building work and apply the expressions concerning it to his followers only. Yet we cannot say that Jesus raised himself up from the dead, because he was dead, and I know myself from research and study of the scriptures the trinity doctrine, has been proved false by so many scriptures, and so it cannot be appealed to as a basis for saying he was dead only as Christ but alive as God, and so could, as God, raise himself up. Besides, as I have previously noted, John 2:22 specifically states that “he was raised up from the dead”, not that he raised himself. Is there any way, then, that we can understand and harmonize in a reasonable way Jesus’ statement that “in three days I will raise it up”, having it embrace his own resurrection as chief cornerstone as well as the building up of his followers as living stones?

There seems to be a reasonable explanation. When Jesus said, “Break down this temple, and in three days I will raise it up,” he was speaking in a predictive sense; not that he would raise himself up, but that he predicted that three days after he was broken in death by his enemies the temple of God would begin to be raised up, beginning with him as the head member of it. There are examples of this predictive use of a term elsewhere in the Bible, where an individual says he will do something, but he actually does not do it at all. It comes about only as a result of his action.

For instance, at Isaiah 6:9, 10, where YHWH God appears to Isaiah and says, “Go, and tell this people.” And then what does he say? He says: “Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.” God didn't mean for Isaiah to actually go and fatten their hearts and stop up their ears and close their eyes to forestall any repentance; but he was predicting that that would be the effect of the message that Isaiah had been commanded to go tell the people, that the people themselves would show closed eyes and unhearing ears and fatty hearts, that they would not repent and turn to YHWH God for healing spiritually.

A similar usage is found at Ezekiel 43:3 where Ezekiel sees the vision of Jehovah coming to the temple, and says it was “according to the vision that I saw when I came to destroy the city”. But Ezekiel did not come to destroy Jerusalem; he came only to predict the destruction of the city by the Babylonians. Yet he spoke of himself as doing it. So in the same predictive sense Jesus could speak as though he was going to raise himself, yet actually he would be resurrected by YHWH God.

Then we also have that controversial text where it says YHWH God hardened the heart of Pharaoh. He said: “I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt. But Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you.” (Exodus 7:3, 4) Now, YHWH God didn't harden the heart of Pharaoh, but he was predicting that Pharaoh’s heart would be hardened as a result of the message sent to him by Moses and Aaron, and that the repeated extension of God’s mercy to him would not soften him but would cause his heart to harden even more. It is not unusual for wicked men to interpret YHWH God's long-suffering as a sign of weakness and so become more set in their evil ways, thinking the time of reckoning will never come. This is shown by Ecclesiastes 8:11: “Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.”

There are a number of other Scriptures where one person is spoken of as doing a thing, not because he actually does it, but because he predicts it or it results from some action of his. So it is at John 2:19. Jesus’ words, “In three days I will raise it up,” were merely predicting that the temple would be raised up on the third day after his death on the torture stake, and YHWH God was the one who raised up the temple by first raising up the head member of it, the Lord Jesus Christ, and from then on, from that third day on, God used him to raise up all the other members of the temple class. (Zechariah 6:12) So through the Roman military the Jews broke down the chief and initial member of God’s spiritual temple, but on the third day YHWH God raised him as a spirit creature and chief cornerstone of the spiritual temple.

John is an account of Jesus own words. The others are not the words of Jesus but their own understanding. Jesus said it and then it happened. And if we want to get into specifics. The prophesy of the coming Messiah in the Old Testament on several written occasions called the coming Messiah the "Everlasting Father." Jesus is therefore the Everlasting Father and raised His Own Self from the dead.

Interesting that you use Peter for an example when Peter writes that Jesus is God. Paul wrote that Jesus is "our Great God," in reference to waiting for His Second Coming.

 

[GaryA]

I grew up believing it was the only begotten Son of God that God sent to mankind, that it was the only begotten Son of God that died for mankind, that it was the only begotten Son of God that the True God resurrected three days after his death. I will continue to believe that. I don't believe God sent himself to mankind. I have faith that the True God actually does have a only begotten Son that he sent to mankind as a human, that this person who is the True God's only begotten Son died for mankind, and that the True God actually did resurrect this person who is God's only begotten Son.

Please describe the particular nature of how Jesus was 'begotten' - in heaven - before-and-outside of the virgin-birth scenario.

Please also post the supporting scripture.

 

[GaryA]

The “warning” he’s talking about is it is against the sites rules to deny that Jesus is God.

Well - in all honesty - no - that was not specifically what I meant. However, it is certainly a worthwhile "warning" that has no-doubt been given many times on CC in the past...

 

[Moses_Young]

Well - in all honesty - no - that was not specifically what I meant. However, it is certainly a worthwhile "warning" that has no-doubt been given many times on CC in the past...

I think when he said "he", he meant me! But I'm flattered that you might confuse us.

 

[GaryA]

I think when he said "he", he meant me! But I'm flattered that you might confuse us.

Whatever is true and honest works for me...

 

[BEB1956]

Please describe the particular nature of how Jesus was 'begotten' - in heaven - before-and-outside of the virgin-birth scenario.

Please also post the supporting scripture.

I've already mentioned this, at least I thought I had, and many disagreed with it. That is there right and choice of course. But maybe I'm wrong and I didn't mention it before as I thought. So in case I'm wrong and I haven't mentioned this before, I'll state it again.

The apostle John repeatedly, describes the Lord Jesus Christ as the only begotten Son of God, with such scriptures as John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9 to name a few. But from my research and study of the scriptures I don't see this is in reference to his human birth or to him as just the man Jesus. At John 1:1 John says in the first part of this scripture, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God." Many try to convince me that here at the first part of John 1:1 John was teaching, in the beginning was God, and God was with God. Those who try to convince me of this, is because they believe John is teaching the Word is God. I don't agree with those who believe and teach that, and I don't agree that John was teaching that. When John says in the first part of John 1:1 "in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God," I honestly don't believe John was saying that the Word was God and that God was with God. Since the first part of John 1:1: says, "the Word was with God" then someone who is with another person can't be the same as the other person. The Journal of Biblical Literature, edited by Jesuit Joseph A. Fitzmyer, notes that if the latter part of John 1:1 was interpreted to mean "the" God, meaning the last part of John 1:1 being translated as, "and the Word was God" that would then contradict with the clause of John 1:1 which says, in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God.
So I disagree with those who claim John was teaching that Jesus was God, because they believe the Word is God. I agree that John 1:1 highlights the quality of the Word, meaning that the Word who is the only begotten Son of God was "divine," "godlike," "a god," but not Almighty God, and this harmonizes with the rest of the Bible. Also there are other translations that translate the last part of John 1:1 differently such as,

1808 "and the word was a god," The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected text.

1864 "and a god was the Word." The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.

1928 "and the Word was a divine being." La Bible du Centenaire, Lee anti or demon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.

1935 "and the Word was divine." The Bible, An American Translation, by J.M. Smith and E.J. Goodspeed.

1946 "and of a divine kind was the Word." Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme.


Let's take first that popular rendering by the Authorized Version or Douay Version which is translated: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.”
Here a few lines deserve to be quoted from the book, The Four Gospels Harmonized and Translated, by Count Leo Tolstoy, page 30, paragraph 2, as follows:

If it says that in the beginning was the comprehension, or word, and that the word was to God, or with God, or for God, it is impossible to go on and say that it was God. If it was God, it could stand in no relation to God


So I disagree that the apostle John was so unreasonable as to say that someone, meaning, "the Word" was with some other individual (“God”) and at the same time was that other individual (“God”).

So John proves that the Word who was with God “was made flesh” and that Jesus Christ was “the Son of God.” So it would be proper to say that the Word was the Son of God. I disagree that the Word was God, “the only true God,” because it would be contrary to what the apostle John proves by the rest of his writings. Like at John 20:30, 31 where it says that everything that john wrote, which includes John 1:1 was written down to teach people that Jesus is the son of God. At Revelation 19:13 John calls him “The Word of God,” saying: “And his name is called The Word of God.” Note that his name is not called “God the Word,” but is called “The Word of God,” or God’s Word.

 

[GRACE_ambassador]

I agree that John 1:1 highlights the quality of the Word, meaning that the Word who is the only begotten Son of God was "divine," "godlike," "a god," but not Almighty God

Precious friend, you do realize, of course, that God Would not allow a
Misrepresentation of one Misunderstood verse to nullify His Multitude
Of Plain And Clear Passages, eh?"

160 Reasons The LORD Jesus Christ Is God!

Amen.

 

[BEB1956]

Precious friend, you do realize, of course, that God Would not allow a
Misrepresentation of one Misunderstood verse to nullify His Multitude
Of Plain And Clear Passages, eh?"

160 Reasons The LORD Jesus Christ Is God!

Amen.

What I realize is that people make their choices what they're going to believe. I've stated several times that I know there are translations of the Bible that translate John 1:1 as, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. But I've also said in such as in post #737 that there are translations of the Bible that translates John 1:1 differently, like they translate John 1:1 as, In the beginning was the word and the Word was with God and the word was a god, or they translate the last part of John 1:1 as the word was divine, or godlike, was a divine being, etc. The plain simple fact is that for centuries John 1:1 has been debated upon how John 1:1 should be translated

 

[Magenta]

What I realize is that people make their choices what they're going to believe. I've stated several times that I know there are translations of the Bible that translate John 1:1 as, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. But I've also said in such as in post #737 that there are translations of the Bible that translates John 1:1 differently, like they translate John 1:1 as, In the beginning was the word and the Word was with God and the word was a god, or they translate the last part of John 1:1 as the word was divine, or godlike, was a divine being, etc. The plain simple fact is that for centuries John 1:1 has been debated upon how John 1:1 should be translated

Yeah, JWs have their own translation which is in error to say the Word was a god.

Scripture plainly teaches that Jesus is God. See a plethora of proofs here (<= link).

1 John 5:20

Jesus' Words in John 8:23b plus 24b