Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

To Mrs. Pennell,
It appears that theologians spend so much time trying to study God that they never have the time to get to know Him. Very sad really! Do you want to know what God is like? Just read how Jesus dealt with the various people that He ministered to. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.
Forget the theologians and simply read the Bible with an open mind. It is the most reasonable book ever written!

---

Your statement about theologians intrigues me. Which theologians do you have in mind when you say that theologians never have the time to get to know Him? Your statement implies that no theologian ever knew or does know God, which is an extraordinary thing to say unless you have insight into the mind and faith of every theologian that ever was and who now is.

What is your objection to theologians, presumably also to theology, and how is it that you do not know of one theologian who has an active fervent and living faith in God?

I know many theologians who would be affronted by the impudence of your suggestion that because they are theologians they cannot know God, and by the implication that neither do they know the Bible.

What is the basis for and justification of your false judgement?



M:)RGANITE

OK Morganite,
Maybe it is only the "liberal", "progressive" theologians who get the press. How many times have I read that this or that theologian has shown how certan parts of the Bible are incorrect, that history "proves" that various accounts could not have happened? Was not "higher criticism" used as an excuse to delete the miracles from the Bible? (The Egyptian army could not have drowned in the [Reed] Sea, as it was very shallow, Jesus did not feed a multitude from a sack lunch, etc.) Please excuse me if I don't have a lot of confidence in theologians in general. I concede that there are likely some who are sincere followers of Jesus Christ, but I'm not going to trust theologians just because they say they are theologians. Were not Wescott and Hort theologians? I have major problems with the results of their meddling with Scripture.
I apologize if I have offended any followers of Jesus Christ who happen to be theologians. I still stand by my statement that if you want to know what the Bible says, just read it for yourself. If read in an attitude of prayer, you will gain understanding.
Isa 28:10
10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
(KJV)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

OK Morganite,
Maybe it is only the "liberal", "progressive" theologians who get the press. How many times have I read that this or that theologian has shown how certan parts of the Bible are incorrect, that history "proves" that various accounts could not have happened? Was not "higher criticism" used as an excuse to delete the miracles from the Bible? (The Egyptian army could not have drowned in the [Reed] Sea, as it was very shallow, Jesus did not feed a multitude from a sack lunch, etc.) Please excuse me if I don't have a lot of confidence in theologians in general. I concede that there are likely some who are sincere followers of Jesus Christ, but I'm not going to trust theologians just because they say they are theologians. Were not Wescott and Hort theologians? I have major problems with the results of their meddling with Scripture.
I apologize if I have offended any followers of Jesus Christ who happen to be theologians. I still stand by my statement that if you want to know what the Bible says, just read it for yourself. If read in an attitude of prayer, you will gain understanding.
Isa 28:10
10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
(KJV)

---

Just recently on TV, theologians were invited to comment on Bible-based films Jesus of Nazareth during intermissions. I was expecting a commentary that would increase my appreciation for the biblical account. After all, why else would theologians be invited to comment on such a film? Unfortunately all they did was challenge the historicity, of the account, the identity of the authors of the account, and the veracity of what was said in the account concerning Jesus' life. The existence of even Jesus himself was challenged. Whether those who invited these scholars knew what their intentions were when they accepted the invitation I don't know. I do know that the interviewer seemed bewildered at first at their commentary and later his bewilderment seemed to turn into silent disgust.

Starman,
There are theologians and there are theologians. Most are Scripture supporters but unfortunately there are many who are Scripture detractors or attackers.
I'll listen to the first group from whom I like learn something more about my Christian faith. Regarding the second group I either ignore them, or walk away from them, or give them the old fashion raspberry, or try to sift them out like straw and trash from the wheat.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starman

just recently on TV, theologians were invited to comment on Bible-based films Jesus of Nazareth during intermissions.

I was expecting a commentary that would increase my appreciation for the biblical account.

After all, why else would theologians be invited to comment on such a film?

Unfortunately all they did was challenge the historicity, of the account, the identity of the authors of the account, and the veracity of what was said in the account concerning Jesus' life.

The existence of even Jesus himself was challenged.

Whether or not those who invited these scholars knew what their intentions were when they accepted the invitation I don't know.

I do know that the interviewer seemed bewildered at first at their commentary and later his bewilderment seemed to turn into silent disgust.

---

Just recently on TV, theologians were invited to comment on Bible-based films Jesus of Nazareth during intermissions.

Which theologians, and from where? There is no such animal as a one-size-fits-all theologian, jkust as there is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all theology. You need to be particular if you are inviting comments on particular theologians, and should remember that the ones you saw cannot be taken as representative of all theologians.

I was expecting a commentary that would increase my appreciation for the biblical account.

Theologians are not commentary writers. Theologians consider the meanings of events and statements made by characters in the Bioble. What you were looking for were not theologians but exegetes, or perhaps even homileticists who wouod interpret the gospels in the same way that you approve. But iof you only want confirmation that your view is correct, why oisten to anyone else' view in the first place?

Did the program introduce them as 'theologians' or are you guessing that they were theologians?

After all, why else would theologians be invited to comment on such a film?

There are hundreds of reasons why theologians - if that is what they were - would be invited to comment on a film about Jesus of Nazareth. You can not talk about Jesus wiothout theology. He is central to that form of theology called Christology, so who better to provide their individual theological insights than theologians? Christian theology busies itself with finding out who Jesus was, what he did, and what his life and work mean. The mere fact that there are so many conflicting Christian theologies, denominations, and sects is a sure sign that the work of theologians is not finished.

Unfortunately all they did was challenge the historicity, of the account, the identity of the authors of the account, and the veracity of what was said in the account concerning Jesus' life.

What is unfortunate about perceptions being exposed to what you describe as challenging? Only those not sure of their ground are afraid of 'challenges' because it exposes thier weakness. If a theological position is weak then it needs to be challenged because a weak position can never be right. If your faith cannot withstand challenge' you might be in the wrong place, and challenges might help you find the right place.

The gospels challenge each other on historical matters, some of them are far apart, so what is wrong with dialogue that attempts to restore the proper historical background and context?

When disparate accounts of the same biography are put side by side is it not sensible to recognize that one or more of them is unaccurate? Is not the attnmpt to establish which, if any, is accurate to be lauded rather than brickbatted?

The existence of even Jesus himself was challenged.

As the person and life of Jesus is central to any film about the life of Jesus of Nazareth that claims to define his life, person, and mission, etc. why not deal honestly with what is known, what is believed, and what is hoped for? A complaint about theologians or exegetes doing their work is pathetic. That is what they do. Some of their findings tyou will agree with, but with some of their conclusions you will be at variance. That is how life unfolds.

There is no special of science for Christians that lets them escape the attention of researchers and thinkers. What Christian who thinks would even want his faith to be excluded from the probings of good minds. That is unless such Christian was afraid that his illusion would be shattered. True faith is not a position, not the product of an illusion, and will not be shaken unless it is shown to be false. Ony those who suspect their positions are weak will be upset by hearing disagreement. Those strong in faith will not be troubled.

Whether those who invited these scholars knew what their intentions were when they accepted the invitation I don't know.

If they did not know the positions of the invited 'theologians' then they should not be working for the TV program. They employ researchers to find out the backgrounds, qualifications, and perspectives of program guest panelists.

Unless you have some powerfully copelling evidence that their 'intentions' were other than to respond honestly and in line with their understandings, then you should tell us. Do you suggest that only those known to be in full agreement with the subject as presented should be invited? If so you reveal your fear about your beliefs.

I do know that the interviewer seemed bewildered at first at their commentary and later his bewilderment seemed to turn into silent disgust.

Either he was bewildered or he was not. How does one 'seem bewildered'? Did he say, "I am bewildered!" What DID he say before he became speechless that leads you to say he was bewildered?

How do you determine what a person if feeling if he does not speak? Mindreading?

Theologians serve a useful purpose. Without theologians there would be no Christianity. Jesus was a theologian, Paul was a theologian, and your pastor uses theology, but only the kind that agrees with him, and you use theology whether you know it or not, so, hey, quit knocking the theologians.

Thank them that they dare (despite the rack, stake, gallows, yellow press and opprobrium) speak their minds according to their consciences and share their thoughts and findings with the rest of the world and do so when they are criticised, their books burned, their lives taken, and life made unpleasant. That is what Jesus would have Christians do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

Actually, Arcura and Morganite are both right. Elohim, found in the first of Genesis is plural, (God said, "let us make man in OUR image".) But notice that the Apostle John tells us plainly that the Son is the actual Creator, and Jesus identifies Himself as the "I AM" who spoke to Moses out of the burning bush.

God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. I see no conflict.

---

Jesus identifies Himself as the "I AM" who spoke to Moses out of the burning bush.

Jesus said, 'before Abraham was I am.' He does not mention Moses or the Burning Bush. The verb to be 'I am' is 'eimi' and means, to be, to exist, to happen, or to be present. While some English versions of this text transform eimi into I AM, the text itself does not support this emendation. It has Jesus saying that he WAS, that he existed, before the time of Abraham, and any extension of his statement could prove unsafe. The form of 'am' used by Jesus indicates that he was pre-existent as John suggests in John 1.1.

The Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.

I agree with fredg, Jesus is the Son of God. Mary his mother and God his Father. He hung on the cross and asked his "Father to forgive them for they know not what they do".
When one speaks of God, it is generally the Father who is referred to; that is Elohim. All mankind are his children. Jehovah in the Old Testament time, and who is usually identified in the Old Testament as Lord, is the Son, known as Jesus Christ, and who is also a God. Jesus works under the direction of the Father and is in complete harmony with him. Thus the scripture says that "God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen 1:1), but we know that it was actually the Lord (Jesus) who was the creator(John 1:3,10) or as Paul said God created all things by Christ Jesus (Eph.3:9)

Jesus said "I and the Father ARE one" he did not say, "I and the Father AM one." And that reflects the separation of the persons of the Father and the Son. He did not say, "The Father? I AM the Father!" or anything like unto it.

Does the Bible agree with those who teach or believe that Father and the Son are not separate and distinct individuals?

Without even having any sort of knowledge on this subject, the idea of Jesus and God being the same doesn't add up... this would mean that God himself would have had to come down to the earth and be born, grow up for 33 years and die on a torture stake... and if its more scriptures you're looking for here are some...

Matthew 26:29, RS, "Going a little farther he (Jesus Christ) fell on his face and prayed, 'My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thout wilt.'" (If the Father and the Son were not distinct individuals, such a prayer would have been meaningless. Jesus would have been praying to himself, and his will would of necessity have been the Fathers will.)

John 8:17, 18, Rs: "[Jesus answered the Jewish Pharisees:] In your law it is written that he testimony of two men is true; I bear witness to myself and the Father who sent me bears witness to me." (So, Jesus definitely spoke of himself as being an individual separate and destinct from the Father or God.)

John 17:3, RS: "[Jesus prayed to his Father:] This is eternal life , that they know thee the only true God ["who alone art truely God", NE], and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." (Notice that Jesus referred not to himself but to his Father in heaven as "the only true God.")

John 20:17, RS: "Jesus said to her [Mary Magdeline], 'Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'" (So to the ressurected Jesus, the Father was God, just as the Father was God to Mary Magdalene. Interestingly, not once in Scripture do we find teh Father addressing the Son as "my God.")

There are many more but if I did them all, it would take up probably a few pages... lol so

I have dug deep and long and a winding road it has been but I have found the answer to this and many other religious questions that have befuddled mankind since the beginning of recorded history. It is rumored that even the Pope has been diligently studying these lost scriptures and is now prepared to issue a church decree that the truth is at hand. Take this brother, may it serve you well:

I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together.
See how they run like pigs from a gun, see how they fly.
I'm crying.

Sitting on a cornflake, waiting for the van to come.
Corporation tee-shirt, stupid bloody Tuesday.
Man, you been a naughty boy, you let your face grow long.
I am the eggman, they are the eggmen.
I am the walrus, goo goo g'joob.

Mister City Policeman sitting
Pretty little policemen in a row.
See how they fly like Lucy in the Sky, see how they run.
I'm crying, I'm crying.
I'm crying, I'm crying.

Yellow matter custard, dripping from a dead dog's eye.
Crabalocker fishwife, pornographic priestess,
Boy, you been a naughty girl you let your knickers down.
I am the eggman, they are the eggmen.
I am the walrus, goo goo g'joob.

Sitting in an English garden waiting for the sun.
If the sun don't come, you get a tan
From standing in the English rain.
I am the eggman, they are the eggmen.
I am the walrus, goo goo g'joob g'goo goo g'joob.

Expert textpert choking smokers,
Don't you thing the joker laughs at you?
See how they smile like pigs in a sty,
See how they snied.
I'm crying.

Semolina pilchard, climbing up the Eiffel Tower.
Elementary penguin singing Hari Krishna.
Man, you should have seen them kicking Edgar Allan Poe.
I am the eggman, they are the eggmen.
I am the walrus, goo goo g'joob g'goo goo g'joob.
Goo goo g'joob g'goo goo g'joob g'goo.

We will never agree on this one so for GOD'S sake, please let it go! Let your own belief on this one be your truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

Morganite, that is three person in one God just like you are a trinity of mind, spirit and body all in one being.

xeurobebex, perhaps you had better re-read the original post again. Jesus did say that he and the father are one being, that is God.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

---

Jesus never said that he was God the father. He distanced himself from the Father several times, so there can be no mistake. On no occasion did Jesus say that he and the father were one being.

There is no model of the trinity that works, and body, mind, spirit no more represents the godhead than does the trefoil. Why not stay with what the Bible actually says? It sdoes not support trinity, but shows God and Jesus as individuals separate and distinct, and with one clearly submissive to the other. The Filoque is a further matter for resolution that cannot be reconciled to the trinity teaching. It just is not there.



M:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickJ

This is precicely why many who are in the know about ancient texts (including non-Christians) consider the writings of the NT more reliable than other ancient texts that have come down to us.

Nowhere in this period do we find other copies of ancient works dated so close to the time the work was originally written.

---

Thew ritings of the NT are no more rleiable than other documents of the same period. There are no extant actual texts dating from the NT period, and extremelym few fragments in the following few centuries.

I recommend you to type 'rylands fragment' into your serch engine to be directed to the John Ryland Library and Manchester, England, to a page where the fragment - and it is only a fragment - of John is displayed front and back. You will see for yourself - evenif you are inable to read it - that its use to establish the authenticity of any copy ancient or modern of the Gospel of John is severely limited.

There are more than 2,400 differing versions or variations of the gospel of Mark. Establishing the original text is a task that no one has yet accomplished, and it might be too late to ever do it.


M:)RGANITE

Well said beautifuldiva! You are very right. There are so many references of the Son and his Father in Heaven. It is only common sense. "God so loved this world that he gave his only begotton son." God loves us so much that he sent his son to this earth to be our Savior. We needed a Savior and an atonement, and what a beautiful gift he gave us.

Exactly acoltrin! Lol I see we are on the same page here. Not only does it not make sense to believe in a Trinity... it would have been meaningless and everything else in the Bible would have been for no reason. Jehovah did not have to send his Son to save us. He chose to do so because as the verse reads he loved the world so much.. imagine the pain he could have avoided if all he had to do was undo it all himself. Why not just destroy it all and forget it? Or start over? Because he believed in us and knew we needed salvation so he chose the only way for that salvation. =)

John 14: 8. Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us."
9. Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, `Show us the Father'?
Jesus is the incarnate WORD made flesh of God the father.
It is THE Word that created heaven and earth; THE WORD that latter came to be know on earth a Jesus Christ.
Jesus and the Bible sat si si that is what I believe.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

My conclusion about theologians isn't based on that incident alone. If it were based on that incident alone I'd be guilty of generalization based on scanty evidence wouldn't I? How a person feels about negative commentaries concerning something the person considers sacred is no mystery. Why you find it so unusual ois a bit weird. Were the apostles theologians? I never said they weren't. But if they were they weren't the products of so-called higher learning which produces theologians who are brainwashed into trashing the Bible without fully understanding what it is they are trashing. How does one know what a person might be thinking without the person speaking? Ever hear of overt body language? Animals don't speak and you know when one is about to rip your head off-right? About honesty, I never questioned their honesty so that's irrelevant. Do I suggest that only those who will not attack the Bible be invited to a biblical film to comment on it? Personally I would suggest it just as evolutionists would suggest that a group of creationist not be invited to a film documenting the life of Darwin and his idea. Or do you suggest the opposite?

My faith being shaken was not the issue though you imply that it was.
My aversion to having such commentaries during three or four separate intermissions is based on the fact that I view the commentators as spoiling my enjoyment of the film with their bias. Anything beyond that is totally your opinion.


BTW
Comparing Jesus and his apostles with present-day theologians is like comparing a lamb with a wolf.

I'm kind of glad that this discussion has touched on theologians. I asked on another thread what a theologian believes, and the consesus seems to be that theologians do not agree on anything. Therefore, I am comforted to know that my redneck opinion is worth every bit as much as that of a theologian. Anyone can read the Bible and make enough sense out of it to find eternal life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

John 14: 8. Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us."
9. Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, `Show us the Father'?
Jesus is the incarnate WORD made flesh of God the father.
It is THE Word that created heaven and earth; THE WORD that latter came to be know on earth a Jesus Christ.

---

It is interesting that you bring this scripture up. However, if you read a little further up starting in verse 5 Thomas had asked the lord how they would know the way following Jesus. In verse 6 Jesus replies to him "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7. If YOU men had known me, you would have known my Father also.; from this moment on you know him and have seen him." (Would it make sense to have to go through Jesus to get to the Father if Jesus was the Father?)

Then to continue with the verses you mentioned where Jesus says "He who has seen me has seen the Father." Again, Jesus' following explanation shows that this was so becuause he faithfully and perfectly represented his Father, spoke the Father's words and did the Father's works. (John 14:10, 11; compare John 12: 28, 44-49) That is why Jesus could say "He who has seen me has seen the Father also." It was on this same occasion, the night of his death, that Jesus said to these very disciples: "The Father is greater than I am." - John 14:28 (If Jesus was equal or the same as the Father why would he refer to the Father as being greater than He was?)

It is also interesting how you refer to Jesus as The Word.. which is correct he is called the Word but is entirely separate from God the Almighty.. however that is another subject and if you wish I will provide my insight on that as well :)

Beautifuldiva-I was thinking all of that and you put all my thoughts down very nicely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

:confused: Did he ever identify himself as God? According to the Bible...absolutely! [...] Do you believe what the bibles says about Jesus being God?:confused:

---

:) I hope you will not be miffed if I raise a dissenting voice, and offer a different view according to the scriptures. :)

The Word created heaven and earth. It takes God to do that and Scripture make it clear that Jesus Christ is THE Word/
Saint Thomas, said to Jesus, My Lord and My God.
Jesus did not refute that. The reason is that God cannot lie.
Jesus Christ Is God the Son. As was mentioned in many Bible passages before.
No theologians are necessary now or were then because the Holy Word of God was inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

Also, I see theologians analyzing the Bible, whereas as a pastor with the gift of prophecy can interpret for us what God is saying in each passage that is read.
It's movement of the Holy Spirit.
I think what matters most here is that one believes IN Jesus, the Son of God, as in John 3:16. How much clout one wants to give to God or Jesus is personal & depends on what a person's satisfied with or comfortable with.

31Pumpkin,
You said. "How much clout one wants to give to God or Jesus is personal & depends on what a person's satisfied with or comfortable with."
I agree!!
Peace and kindness,
Fred

You have much knowledge on this subject, yet I am still unsure of your position... do you feel that the Bible teaches that Jesus and God are one being?

"The Word" is a title given to Jesus translated in Greek "ho Lo'gos" Regaurding the Son's prehuman existence, John says: "In the beginning the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." (John 1:1 New World Translation) the King James version and the Douay Version read: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was god." This would make it appear that the Word was identical with Almighty God, while the former reading, the New World Translation, indicates that the Word is not the God, Almighty God, but is a mighty one, a god. (Even the judges of ancient Israel, who wielded great power in the nation, were called "gods." [Ps 82:6; John 10:34, 35]) Actually, in the Greek text, the definite article ho, "the", appears before the second.

Other translations aid in getting the proper view. The interlinear word-for-word reading of the Greek translation in the Empahtic Diaglott reads: "In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word." The accompanying text of the Diaglott usus capital and small letters for the God, and initial capital and lowercase letters for the second appearance of "God" in the sentence: "In the Beginning was the LOGOS, and the LOGOS was with GOD, and the LOGOS was God."

These renderings would support the fact that Jesus, being the Son of God and the one USED BY GOD in creating all other things (Col 1:15-20), is indeed a "god," a mighty one, and has the quality of mightiness, but is NOT the Almighty God.

As regards to Thomas's statement at John 20:28 (My Lord and my God) does it prove that Jesus is truly God?

There is no objection to referring to Jesus as "God," if this is what Thomas had in mind. Such would be in harmony with Jesus' own quotation from the Pslams in which powerful men, judges, were addressed as "gods." Of course, Christ occupies a position far higher then such men. Because of the uniquiness of his position in relation to Jehovah, at John 1:18 Jesus is referred to as the "only begotten god." All of this is in harmony with Jesus' being described as "a god" or "divine"

The context helps us to draw the right conclusion from this. Shortly before Jesus' death, Thomas had heard Jesus' prayer in which he addressed his Father as "the only true God." (John 17:3) AFter Jesus' resurrection Jesus had sent a message to his apostles, including Thomas, in which he had said: "I am ascending..... to my god and your God." After recording what Thomas had said when he actually saw and touched the resurrected Christ, the apostle John stated: "These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may bave life in this name." (John 20:31)

So, if anyone has concluded from Thomas' exclamation that Jesus is himself the "the only true God" or that Jesus is a Trinitarian "God the Son," he needs to look again at what Jesus himself said (vs. 17) and at the conclusion that is clearly stated by the apostle John (vs. 31).

*gaaaaaaassssspp* :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 31pumpkin

Yes, I see that reference, but aren't these "authors" just Scholars & Theorists?

My preference of credible sources comes from Theologians with several degrees in Theology.

---

Theologians with 'several degrees in theology' remain scholars and theorists. Theology is not science. There are no ;scientific' experiments that can be repeated over and over yielding the same result each time. Theologians take what is known of mankind's religious experience and try to make sense of it, God, the universe, life, and man's relationship to Deity.

What makes any theologian a 'credible source'? Multiplying degrees is no guarantee that one theologian is more credible than theologians with fewer degrees. I am at a loss to follow your thinking here. The first Christian theologian was Saint Paul who had a grand total of no degrees.

M:)

Morganite-
I only said(at the very beginnining of this thread that I consider a theologian (any # of degrees but best if in different religions) more credible if they are a Minister also of that Faith. This shows me that they practice what they preach in service to the community. The pastors I tend to listen to or read their books have both a degree & are or were Ministers. This suggests to me that they have faith in their belief & that they know it works.
It was regarding the "Jesus Seminar" that one poster mentioned. I thought it was shallow since the participants were theologians & not ministers. They seemed so "off" with the Bible even compared to the average Christian.
That's all I remember right now. You can read that Jesus Seminar link & judge for yourself.

Time and Time again Jesus has stated he is doing the work of his father... Jesus is not the creator of himself... but the creator's helper... along with the holy spirit..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 31pumpkin

Morganite-
I only said at the very beginnining of this thread that I consider a theologian (any # of degrees but best if in different religions) more credible if they are a Minister also of that Faith. This shows me that they practice what they preach in service to the community. The pastors I tend to listen to or read their books have both a degree & are or were Ministers. This suggests to me that they have faith in their belief & that they know it works.
It was regarding the "Jesus Seminar" that one poster mentioned. I thought it was shallow since the participants were theologians & not ministers. They seemed so "off" with the Bible even compared to the average Christian.
That's all I remember right now. You can read that Jesus Seminar link & judge for yourself.

---

Thank you for the clarification. I know of the Jesus Seminar people, and my impression of them is that they signal a departure from much that is traditionally considered Christian. Their own website carries the following statement:


Until a few years ago, essential knowledge about biblical and religious traditions was hidden in the windowless studies of universities and seminaries—away from the general public. Such research was considered too controversial or too complicated for lay persons to understand. Many scholars, fearing open conflict or even reprisal, talked only to one another. The churches often decided what information their constituents were "ready" to hear.



That passage alone is replete with errors that a five year-old child would not make. For example:

1. I have yet to see a windowless study in either university or religious seminary.
2. Theologians and Bible scholars publish their findings and their publications are on sale to anyone sufficiently interested.
3. Most of the controversial matter has been in the public arena for centuries. There is no 'hidden' work.
4. Theologians tend to speak in language peculiar to their discipline, as do scholars in any field. However, anyone with a dictionary can discover what the hard words mean.
5. I do not accept that theologians are such a pusillanimous group that they fear criticism, conflict, or reprisal.
6. Theologians do not limit their 'talk' to other theologians. They are a talkative lot and talk to cats and dogs if there are no other persons present!
7. I have never met a theologian who was other than readily accessible to all, whether another theologian, a lay person, clergy, or student.
8. Theology is about ideas, and ideas do not develop in vacuums, but in crucibles of debate, often passionate, partisan, and wide-ranging.
9. Churches have no machinery to keep any kind of information from their constituents (an interesting political term, where one would expect to find 'congregations,' or 'members.')

It is beyond dispute - and no theologian would dispute it - that theology and related subjects is by and large highly specialized, but that does not mean that it is inaccessible to non-specialists. Anyone with sufficient interest in the subject can unlock what might appear to be its 'secrets,' but which, in reality, are no more secret or arcane than are Home Owner's Association manuals.

Theology is a subject that probably has a longer history than any other scholastic discipline, and to appreciate the development of theological and christological thought does take some effort, because there is no shortcut to obtaining a reasonable knowledge of any subject. If one is capable of learning the rules of, say football, or baseball, etc. then one is capable of getting to grips with theological terminology and expressions of the human religious experience, and of getting on terms with theological thinkers old and new.

Theology itself has never been difficult to understand. It is the introduction of abstract philosophical concepts into what began as a fairly concrete system that put the cat among the pigeons, but ultimately it is a matter of how much a person really wants to understand theology in its many manifestations.

Here endeth the lesson.


M:)RGANITE

Has anyone mentioned this passage yet?

Isa 9:6
6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
(KJV)

I suspect that in spite of our best honest efforts, we will continue to have difficulty in understanding the Creator in every aspect. We can know Him in a very personal sense through the Holy Spirit, thankfully!

Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?
Which means:
My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?

Many people are confused about this, and unfortunately false prophets makes matters even worse. It's a prophecy friend:)




It's a very good questions that you ask. For the most part, people don't understand why he said such words, people don't understand it's a prophecy. Mormons stick to that one verse to kill people spiritually by saying that Jesus was not the Messiah. The Answer is found in the bible, let's see:)

Jesus Christ was supposed to fulfill the prophecy of King David.

In Is 9:6-7 it describes Jesus sitting on King David's throne. But king David had died 300 years before then. At this point most people will say "The bible contradicts itself" No, the bible is perfect. It means He will become a spiritual King David.

King David was baptized when he was 30 years old

2 Samuel 5:4
"David was thirty years old when he became king....."

When do you think Jesus was baptized?

Luke 3:21-23

"When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."
23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry."




So far everything makes sense right? Now the answer to your questions..

King David said before he died:
Psalm 22:1
"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

What do you think Jesus said just before he died, when he was on the cross? You've got it:)

Mark 15:34

"And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"—which means, "—which means, "

Because of this, people think he is not God. But he's true God who came in the flesh. If you have any questions, please feel free to email me.

[email protected]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will144

Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?
Which means:
My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?

Many people are confused about this, and unfortunately false prophets makes matters even worse. It's a prophecy friend:)




It's a very good questions that you ask. For the most part, people don't understand why he said such words, people don't understand it's a prophecy. Mormons stick to that one verse to kill people spiritually by saying that Jesus was not the Messiah. The Answer is found in the bible, let's see:)

Jesus Christ was supposed to fulfill the prophecy of King David.

In Is 9:6-7 it describes Jesus sitting on King David's throne. But king David had died 300 years before then. At this point most people will say "The bible contradicts itself" No, the bible is perfect. It means He will become a spiritual King David.

King David was baptized when he was 30 years old

2 Samuel 5:4
"David was thirty years old when he became king....."

When do you think Jesus was baptized?

Luke 3:21-23

"When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."
23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry."




So far everything makes sense right? Now the answer to your questions..

King David said before he died:
Psalm 22:1
"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

What do you think Jesus said just before he died, when he was on the cross? You've got it:)

Mark 15:34

"And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

Because of this, people think he is not God. But he's true God who came in the flesh. If you have any questions, please feel free to email me.

[email protected]

---

Interesting. Can you give a reference to where Mormons say Jesus was not the messiah? I have heard that they do. Could you be confusing them with another denomination?

M:)RGANITE

The Mormons I know believe Jesus is the Messiah.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will144

Mormons stick to that one verse to kill people spiritually by saying that Jesus was not the Messiah.

---

I am Morman and never say that. We know Jesus is the Messiah. Emma

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EmmaWells

I am Morman and never say that. We know Jesus is the Messiah. Emma

---

I apologize for that. I didn't mean to say mormons, I meant to say Jehova's Witnesses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morganite

Interesting. Can you give a reference to where Mormons say Jesus was not the messiah? I have heard that they do. Could you be confusing them with another denomination?

M:)RGANITE

---

LoL, it's not interesting. It's amazing. Nobody out there knows this truth though. Even though there are more than 850 different denominations, how come no one teaches about these things? In the last days we have to look for the Spiritual King David, Jesus Christ will come again among the clouds (Which means flesh) as the root of David and will restore all the truths. Specially of the New Covenant, which is the Passover, not the Lord's Supper or Last Supper, but The Passover. Friends, if you have any questions please contact me. I can assure you my church is the only church IN THE WORLD which has the truth. Zion has been restored by King David (Spiritual) and the law is currently going out from Zion and the Word from Jerusalem (Not the present city of Jerusalem but Gal 4:26).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will144

Friends, if you have any questions please contact me. I can assure you my church is the only church IN THE WORLD which has the truth.

---

I do have a question. Does your church teach humility as a virtue?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

I do have a question. Does your church teach humility as a virtue?

---

Yes, and beyond. For it is more blessed to serve others than to be served. We follow the Lamb everywhere the Lamb goes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will144

LoL, it's not interesting. It's amazing. Nobody out there knows this truth though. Even though there are more than 850 different denominations, how come no one teaches about these things? In the last days we have to look for the Spiritual King David, Jesus Christ will come again among the clouds (Which means flesh) as the root of David and will restore all the truths. Specially of the New Covenant, which is the Passover, not the Lord's Supper or Last Supper, but The Passover. Friends, if you have any questions please contact me. I can assure you my church is the only church IN THE WORLD which has the truth. Zion has been restored by King David (Spiritual) and the law is currently going out from Zion and the Word from Jerusalem (Not the present city of Jerusalem but Gal 4:26).

---

Does this mean that you don't expect Jesus to descend from above (as He left) and set foot on Mt. Olive, and then establish the visible Kingdom of God upon this Earth?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will144

LoL, it's not interesting. It's amazing. Nobody out there knows this truth though. Even though there are more than 850 different denominations, how come no one teaches about these things? In the last days we have to look for the Spiritual King David, Jesus Christ will come again among the clouds (Which means flesh) as the root of David and will restore all the truths. Specially of the New Covenant, which is the Passover, not the Lord's Supper or Last Supper, but The Passover. Friends, if you have any questions please contact me. I can assure you my church is the only church IN THE WORLD which has the truth. Zion has been restored by King David (Spiritual) and the law is currently going out from Zion and the Word from Jerusalem (Not the present city of Jerusalem but Gal 4:26).

---

There are more than 2,000 discrete denominations and more being added continually. I have not come across any that believe as you do. I note your assurance that you alone have the truth (hardly a novel idea), but would prefer explanation instead of assurances. How do you arrive at your conclusion that the ancient Israelitish pesach is the New Covenant, and when did this enlightenment reach the earth and by whom was it received?

When you say 'nobody out there knows this truth' do you mean to infer that you and you alone know what the rest of Christianity do not know?


M:)RGANITE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morganite

There are more than 2,000 discrete denominations and more being added continually. I have not come across any that believe as you do. I note your assurance that you alone have the truth (hardly a novel idea), but would prefer explanation instead of assurances. How do you arrive at your conclusion that the ancient Israelitish pesach is the New Covenant, and when did this enlightenment reach the earth and by whom was it received?

When you say 'nobody out there knows this truth' do you mean to infer that you and you alone know what the rest of Christianity do not know?


M:)RGANITE

---

Discrete. No need for "discrete" when you have the bible. I do not have the truth, God knows the truth. I myself have no truth,in fact, no men has the truth; but I follow the truth because it has been given to me freely, therefore freely I have to deliver it. I preach the truth because it is God's will that we deliver if we find the truth. The Church that Jesus Christ established 2,000 years ago which has been raised up again by God's will has the truth. And this church has the very truth. Specially the truth of the New Covenant (The Passover) .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will144

LoL, it's not interesting. It's amazing. Nobody out there knows this truth though. Even though there are more than 850 different denominations, how come no one teaches about these things? In the last days we have to look for the Spiritual King David, Jesus Christ will come again among the clouds (Which means flesh) as the root of David and will restore all the truths. Specially of the New Covenant, which is the Passover, not the Lord's Supper or Last Supper, but The Passover. Friends, if you have any questions please contact me. I can assure you my church is the only church IN THE WORLD which has the truth. Zion has been restored by King David (Spiritual) and the law is currently going out from Zion and the Word from Jerusalem (Not the present city of Jerusalem but Gal 4:26).

---

You did not answer my question, although I note that you corrected your false information in another response.

What, exactly, is the name of your church and what is its history? What is the status of david the murderer?

M:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will144

discrete. No need for "discrete" when you have the bible. I do not have the truth, God knows the truth. I myself have no truth,in fact, no men has the truth; but I follow the truth because it has been given to me freely, therefore freely i have to deliver it. I preach the truth because it is God's will that we deliver if we find the truth. The Church that Jesus Christ established 2,000 years ago which has been raised up again by God's will has the truth. And this church has the very truth. Specially the truth of the New Covenant (The Passover) .

---

Discrete means separate and distinct.

I am pleased that you have the Bible, but then so have I, and so have millions of others. That still leaves my question to you unanswered. What did Jesus mean when he said, "Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." If you do not have the truth, how are you (or anyone) free from error and false belief?

M:)