Results 3721 - 3740 of 4232
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: kalos Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
3721 | How does God speak to us? | Heb 1:1 | kalos | 154297 | ||
This I can tell you: A "theocratic" organization led by several men in Brooklyn, New York does not provide me with spiritual food. Therefore, it is NOT how God speaks to me. | ||||||
3722 | How does God speak to us? | Heb 1:1 | kalos | 154314 | ||
No hyper-individualistic understanding As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him. (NASB) 1 John 2:27 Many hold to the strange notion that: The best way to interpret the Bible is to read the text and whatever comes to mind first must automatically be the right interpretation. '"You have no need for anyone to teach you." Both "you's" are plural and refer to the believing community as a whole; there is no ground here for a hyper-individualistic understanding of the Gospel wherein the views of other believers and the gathering of believers together are considered unimportant' (Jewish New Testament Commentary, David H. Stern, Jewish New Testament Publications, Inc., 1992). |
||||||
3723 | A Fundamental Question | Heb 1:1 | kalos | 178315 | ||
“Experiencing God” ____________________ "The greatest movement of God's Spirit in the last 1000 years was the Reformation. It was not started by a voice from God or by an assignment. It was started by a verse of Scripture: "The just shall live by faith." Martin Luther was simply listening to the only Word of God we are ever enjoined to hear, know, and obey -- the Bible." ____________________ IN MANY separate revelations [each of which set forth a portion of the Truth] and in different ways God spoke of old to [our] forefathers in and by the prophets, AMPLIFIED Hebrews 1:1 'A Fundamental Question 'Most people teaching error do not do so maliciously. Usually they have the best intentions, but having a good heart is not enough. Even someone who has a loyalty to truth can still undermine truth. 'Many of Henry Blackaby's ideas in Experiencing God are like that. I have addressed only a few of the serious problems with this work. There are more. 'I'll close with a fundamental question. Must I hear the voice of God and receive personalized direction–special assignments for my life–in order to experience an authentic love relationship with God? Blackaby answers "yes" (132, 137). The Bible answers "no." 'Experiencing God involves only three steps. First, it requires accurate information about God (true knowledge). Second, we must live according to that truth (active faith). Third, we experience the effects of truth as God transforms our lives and the lives of others we touch (sanctification and ministry). ____________________ “It is perilous to construct doctrine from historical material alone.” ____________________ 'Contrary to what is taught in Experiencing God, you are not substandard if you do not "hear God's voice." The Bible does not teach that receiving personal revelations from God is necessary, ordinary, or to be expected for optimal Christian living. Godly Christians can go their entire life without such and experience. There are dozens of verses about pursuing truth and sound doctrine, but none supporting hearing the voice of God in that sense. 'It is perilous to construct doctrine from historical material alone. However, this is largely Blackaby's approach. It is more sound to first develop one's theology from the less ambiguous material in the Epistles. Then one can look for applications of those principles in the historical texts like Acts, the Gospels, or the Old Testament. 'Blackaby can find no support for his doctrine of hearing the voice of God in the place where all essential disciplines of Christian living must appear: the Epistles. Search for verification in the writings of any disciple. You will find nothing but silence. Why are the Apostles unanimously reticent on a capability that is allegedly at the core of the Christian life? 'The Bible never teaches us to wait for an assignment before making decisions, nor did the disciples model this concept. Instead, the Scripture gives page after page of assignments. 'Yes, God gave special directions under certain circumstances, and He still can today. However, in the Bible such things are rare and generally happen with key leaders of God's people. Even then it is not through an internal "sense" of God's "leading," but by an unmistakable, supernatural revelation. 'The greatest movement of God's Spirit in the last 1000 years was the Reformation. It was not started by a voice from God or by an assignment. It was started by a verse of Scripture: "The just shall live by faith." Martin Luther was simply listening to the only Word of God we are ever enjoined to hear, know, and obey–the Bible.' ____________________ Source: www.str.org/free/solid_ground/SG9901.htm |
||||||
3724 | Holy Spirit and the nature of God? | Heb 1:2 | kalos | 7999 | ||
Hiram: Thank you for a good question, one in which many others are likely to have an interest. I dare not judge you concerning your salvation. I merely bring the following to your attention for your consideration: "To believe in Jesus Christ [for one's salvation] is to have a confident conviction that: "1) *He is who the Bible says He is* (emphasis added). "2) He will do what He promises. "3) Upon placing my trust in Him, I enter into a personal, eternal relationship with the Son of God." (Quoted from a sermon by Charles Stanley, In Touch Ministries) |
||||||
3725 | 'How does God speak to us?' | Heb 1:2 | kalos | 142176 | ||
'How does God speak to us?' Acts and the Voice of God by Gregory Koukl ____________________ 'I am a bit distressed even talking about this issue because my comments are meant to try to rein Christians in a little bit, to keep them off of the fringe. I'll be talking about the fringe more next week when I talk about how to keep from becoming spiritually weird, and some of it relates to this kind of material.' ____________________ 'to many of us, the thing that we cherish the most is this idea that we have a personal hotline to God and we ought to expect Him to speak to us about our decisions' ____________________ 'Learning to hear the voice of God is not taught as a Christian discipline that we must learn in order to live the optimal Christian life' ____________________ 'prophetic words only come through those people who have the gift of prophecy, it's not the kind of thing we all have to cultivate, to learn to do.' ____________________ (Conclusion) 'The suggestion was made that this (Acts) was only one book in the entire New Testament, one of twenty-seven. If this was meant to suggest that there are many more references in the New Testament, then the suggestion was mistaken. Yes, it's only one book, the book of Acts, but that is significant for two reasons. The book of Acts is an historical account which tells us what happened, usually without giving editorial comments about its applicability for us. I would counsel you to be careful what you infer from these passages. Philip was not only spoken to by the Spirit, he was also snatched away from the Gaza Road by the Spirit. He just disappeared from in front of the Ethiopian eunuch and found himself at Azotes, the text says. Talk about flying the friendly skies! But are we to infer that such a Spirit super-shuttle should be a regular replacement for Fords and Chevies or the RTD? Even if it happened ten different times in the Bible, do you think we are justified in concluding that this is a normal and expected form of missionary transportation? I doubt it. 'So you must ask yourself the question, is it reasonable to suggest that much of what happened in the book of Acts was unique and was the special working of God for a particular purpose? I think that's fair, especially given my second point: Though the book of Acts is only one book of twenty-seven in the New Testament, it is virtually the only one that gives evidence of this kind of thing. And the writings that doctrinally explain the kinds of things we see in Acts give no instruction on these kinds of supernatural revelations. Why not? It seems to me because, in this kind of thing, God finds us–we don't need to find Him. 'Are these Christian skills and disciplines being modeled for us, as my friend suggests? I think not. Instead, virtually every example cited fits into the model that I described in which special revelation happens. But when it does, it is unique. It is clear. It is unsought. And it is often the outworking of a spiritual gift of prophecy, nothing like the so-called voice of God that we're encouraged by some to seek. 'The New Testament records nothing like a still, small voice that whispers gently in our spiritual ear. Nor does the Old Testament, as far as I can tell. Instead, we focus on the only Word of God that we are commanded to seek, that we are commanded to understand, and that we are commanded to obey. That is stated in II Timothy 2:15: "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth." 'So, on this issue, though I thank my friend for the verses, I don't think they make the point. I hold my ground.' ____________________ To read the entire article go to: (http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/theology/actsvoic.htm) --Kalos |
||||||
3726 | 'How does God speak to us?' | Heb 1:2 | kalos | 142177 | ||
God doesn't "try" and not get heard. Does God Try? Some hold that God can be trying to speak to someone, but some human limitation gets in His way. 'God doesn't try. He is all-powerful. God doesn't attempt. He knows everything. Whatever He intends to accomplish He does, in fact, accomplish. 'Now I've got another question. What about this sense in many evangelical circles, especially in charismatic ones, that God is working hard to speak to individuals, but they don't "hear His voice" because they simply aren't listening? What of the notion that the ability to hear the voice of God requires we simply quiet ourselves and get in tune? 'Many have bought the idea that optimal Christian living involves "experiencing God" in a special manner: hearing His voice and getting special directives or assignments from Him. For those who say, "I don't hear God," the rejoinder is often, "He's been trying to talk to you, but you weren't listening." ( . . . ) 'I know of no place in the Bible, ladies and gentlemen, where God attempted to speak and He wasn't heard. Frequently, He wasn't obeyed, true enough. Certainly, people hardened their hearts against the revelation–which itself was clear–and refused to believe that which was spoken. But I know of no case where God was speaking and He just couldn't get through because people were not listening. 'For goodness sake, we're talking about special revelation. Paul's says in Romans 1 that even general revelation is so obvious and so forceful that people must actively suppress the truth in unrighteousness in order to ignore it. 'As far as I can tell, the Bible knows of no such thing as God trying to speak, but is incapable of being heard because fallen men and women have somehow closed Him off, denied His ability, and so can't hear Him or are just simply too busy to hear the still, small voice of God. 'This is simply a matter of consistent reasoning. It seems to me that if we hold that God can be trying to speak to someone, but some human limitation gets in His way, then we have to accept as valid the same objection against the authority of Scripture and surrender our confidence that God could guarantee the outcome of the writing of the Bible. 'If, however, we say that God is big enough to overcome any human limitations so He can guarantee the word-for-word accuracy of the Scripture, then the same sovereign power is available to God to speak to any individual when He so chooses. God doesn't "try" to speak and not get heard. 'Now, if that's true, then we don't have to spend any time quieting our lives to hear the voice of God as He "tries" to penetrate all the clamor. Instead, we can simply turn our gaze upon the only voice of God we are ever commanded to hear, to know, and to obey. That is the written, fully inspired, fully accurate Word of God: the Bible.' (www.str.org/free/commentaries/theology/doesgodt.htm) --Kalos |
||||||
3727 | HEARING THE VOICE OF GOD | Heb 1:2 | kalos | 142255 | ||
HEARING THE VOICE OF GOD 'It seems like every couple of years a new fad comes down the pike promising a deeper, richer, fuller Christian life. If you've been around for a while you know what I mean. In my twenty years as a Christian we've had Power in praise; the "second blessing" as key to the powerful Christian life;...heavy-handed submission to church leadership; binding, loosing and rebuking of demons; name it and claim it, the School of the Prophets, HEARING THE VOICE OF GOD, power evangelism. These are all fads, ladies and gentlemen, evangelical joy-toys. They each may emphasize something that has biblical merit, but they do so in an unbalanced way, and each fails utterly as a panacea, as the one particular and principle thing that makes your Christian life "work."' ____________________ Quoted from "How to Keep from Getting Spiritually Weird" by Gregory Koukl. This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl. (Emphasis added.) For more information go to: www.str.org |
||||||
3728 | Jesus' Two Natures | Heb 1:3 | kalos | 181448 | ||
Jesus' Two Natures 'Jesus is God in human flesh. He is not half God and half man. He is fully God and fully man. At the incarnation He added to His divine nature the nature of man. Thus He has two natures: divine and human. He is both God and man at the same time. He is not merely a man who "had God within Him" nor is he a man who "manifested the God principle." He is God, second person of the Trinity. "The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word" (Heb. 1:3, NIV). Jesus' two natures are not "mixed together," nor are they combined into a new God-man nature. They are separate yet act as a unit. This is called the Hypostatic Union. (...) 'One of the most common errors that non-Christian cults make is not understanding the two natures of Christ. For example, the Jehovah's Witnesses focus on Jesus' humanity and ignore His divinity. The Christian Scientists, on the other hand, focus on the divine nature and ignore the human. 'For a proper understanding of Jesus and, therefore, all other doctrines that relate to Him, His two natures must be properly understood and defined. 'The Bible is about Jesus (John 5:39). The prophets prophesied about Him (Acts 10:43). The Father bore witness of Him (John 5:37; 8:18). The Holy Spirit bore witness of Him (John 15:26). The works Jesus did bore witness of Him (John 5:36; 10:25). The multitudes bore witness of Him (John 12:17). And, Jesus bore witness of Himself (John 14:6; 18:6). 'Other verses to consider when examining His deity are, John 1:1,14; 10:30-33; 20:28; Col. 2:9; Phil. 2:5-8; Heb. 1:6-8; and 2 Pet. 1:1. '1 Tim. 2:5 says, "For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." Right now, there is a man in heaven on the throne of God. He is our advocate with the Father (1 John 2:1). He is our Savior (Titus 2:13). He is our Lord (Rom. 10:9-10). He is Jesus' (www.carm.org/doctrine/2natures.htm). To read the entire article, go to: www.carm.org/doctrine/2natures.htm john11 |
||||||
3729 | Is the Father's heart humbe? | Heb 1:7 | kalos | 56622 | ||
In Heb. 1:7-9, I find neither the word "humble" nor any of its synonyms. Consider the following passages from Revelation. Rev. 1:12-17 (ESV) Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, [13] and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash around his chest. [14] The hairs of his head were white like wool, as white as snow. His eyes were like a flame of fire, [15] his feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace, and his voice was like the roar of many waters. [16] In his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth came a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength. [17] When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Which aspect of Christ's humility do you see in the above passage? Rev. 19:11-16 (ESV) Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. [12] His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. [13] He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. [14] And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. [15] From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. [16] On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords. Which aspect of Christ's humility do you see in the above passage? |
||||||
3730 | Is the Father's heart humbe? | Heb 1:7 | kalos | 56859 | ||
Greetings, Estelle! Good to hear from you. I welcome your question and I will do my best to give a Scriptural answer. You write: "If the Son is God and the Son is humble, then God is also humble." If by this you mean to say that God the Father is humble, then this is a false syllogism. If one said, ""If the Son is the Father and the Son is humble, then the Father is also humble," this, too, would be a false syllogism. The Son is NOT the Father. First of all, the Son is not the same as the Father. It is true that both the Son and the Father are God; yet it is also true that the Son IS NOT the Father. Neither is the Father the Son. These are two separate PERSONS. Using the above logic one could say: The Son took upon Himself a body of flesh and came to earth as the suffering servant. Therefore, the Father took upon Himself a body of flesh and came to earth as the suffering servant. This is not so. I do not find any Scripture that depicts God the Father as humble, or possessing humility. Humble is defined as: ": reflecting, expressing, or offered in a spirit of deference or submission [a humble apology]. ": ranking low in a hierarchy or scale" (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary) Where in Scripture is the Father depicted as being in submission or as ranking low in a hierarchy? To whom is the Father in submission? Please cite Scripture reference, if you can. God the Father, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the Creator of the universe, does not rank low in any hierarchy or scale. Where does it say otherwise in Scripture? Let me emphasize, I said I do not find any such Scripture. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means that if it does exist, I am not aware of it. :-) The humility of God the Father is a subject and a doctrine that I am totally unfamiliar with. I write this with all respect and no ill will. I am merely giving the most honest answer I can give. I welcome your postings and replies to me. Grace to you, kalos |
||||||
3731 | Is the Father's heart humbe? | Heb 1:7 | kalos | 56957 | ||
Estelle: Nothing I say here should be construed as argumentative. I am merely addressing the questions you asked me. You write:"If I follow your reasoning correctly, couldn't one also say that God isn't love since the passages quoted seemingly describe the exact opposite?" You also ask: "I noticed you did not respond to my point about God being love, though. What are your thoughts of my example? I always figured God and Jesus to be the same Being, not two separate Beings in and of Themselves." My answers: One cannot say that God isn't love. The reason: the Scriptures plainly say that God *is* love (1 John 4:8,16). Also consider this: When God is being wrathful toward sin, he is being just. The fact that God is just does not mean he isn't love. Is there a conflict between justice and love? We need to see love as God sees it and remember that love is more than mere warm, affectionate "feelings" toward someone. Also, God has other attributes besides love, attributes such as holiness and justice. Properly understood, all of God's attributes are in harmony with each other and with God's nature. I did not say the Son and the Father are two "beings". What I said is the Son and the Father are two "persons". I'm no theologian -- not by any means. I am just stating my understanding of what the Bible says on the subject and I am doing so as clearly as I can. Grace to you, kalos |
||||||
3732 | is God and Jesus are one person? | Heb 1:8 | kalos | 40623 | ||
You write: 'If they really equal Jesus will not mentioned that word that "Father is Greater than I am"' If Jesus is God, then why did He say the Father was greater than He? "You heard that I said to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I'" (John 14:28). Jesus said the Father was greater than He not because Jesus is not God, but because Jesus was also a man and as a man he was in a lower position. He was ". . . made for a little while lower than the angels . . ." (Heb. 2:9). Also in Phil. 2:5-8, it says that Jesus "emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men . . ." Jesus has two natures. Jesus was not denying that He was God. He was merely acknowledging the fact that He was also a man. Jesus is both God and man. As a man, he was in a lesser position than the Father. He had added to Himself human nature (Col. 2:9). He became a man to die for people. A comparison can be found in the marriage relationship. Biblically, a husband is greater in position and authority than his wife. But, he is no different in nature and he is not better than she. They share the same nature, being human, and they work together by love. So, Jesus was not denying that He was God. He was simply acknowledging that He was also a man and as a man, he was subject to the laws of God so that He might redeem those who were under the law; namely, sinners (Gal. 4:4-5). For further reading please see the two natures of Jesus. (../doctrine/2natures.htm) SCRIPTURES QUOTED: Phil. 2:5-8, "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross." Col. 2:9, "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form," Gal. 4:4-5, "But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, in order that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons." Heb. 2:9, "But we do see Him who has been made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone." (www.carm.org/witnesses.htm) |
||||||
3733 | is God and Jesus are one person? | Heb 1:8 | kalos | 40933 | ||
If Jesus is God, then why did He not know the time of His return? You write: "If they really equal, why Jesus Christ did not know the time of second coming:" In Matt. 24:35-36 (../kjv/Matt/matt_24.htm) Jesus said, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall not pass away. "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah." If Jesus is God in flesh, then shouldn't He know what the day and hour of his return would be? After all, God knows all things. Therefore, if Jesus doesn't know all things, then He cannot be God. This objection is most often raised by the Jehovah's Witnesses (../witnesses.htm) but is also echoed by the Christadelphians (../christadelphian.htm). It is a good question. Jesus was both God and man. He had two natures. He was divine and human at the same time. This teaching is known as the hypostatic union (../dictionary/dic_g-h.htm); that is, the coming-together of two natures in one person. In Heb. 2:9 (../kjv/Heb/Heb_2.htm) that Jesus was ". . . made for a little while lower than the angels . . ." Also in Phil. 2:5-8 (../kjv/Phil/phil_2.htm), it says that Jesus "emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men . . ." Col. 2:9 (../kjv/Col/col_2.htm) says, "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form." Jesus was both God and man at the same time. As a man, Jesus cooperated with the limitations of being a man. That is why we have verses like Luke 2:52 (../kjv/Luke/luke_2.htm) that says "Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men." Therefore, at this point in his ministry he could say He did not know the day nor hour of His return. It is not a denial of His being God, but a confirmation of Him being man. Also, the logic that Jesus could not be God because He did not know all things works both ways. If we could find a scripture where Jesus does know all things, then that would prove that He was God, wouldn't it? He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You." Jesus *said to him, "Tend My sheep" (John 21:17 (../kjv/John/john_21.htm) - NASB). Jesus did not correct Peter and say, "Hold on Peter, I do not know all things." He let Peter continue on with his statement that Jesus knew all things. Therefore, it must be true. But, if we have a verse that says that Jesus did not know all things and another that says he did know all things, then isn't that a contradiction? No. It is not. Before Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection He said the Father alone knew the day and hour of His return. It wasn't until after Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection that omniscience is attributed to Jesus. As I said before, Jesus was cooperating with the limitations of being a man and completed His ministry on this earth. He was then glorified in His resurrection. Yet, He was still a man (cf. Col. 2:9; 1 Tim. 2:5. After Jesus' resurrection, He was able to appear and disappear at will. This is not the normal ability of a man. But, it is, apparently, the normal ability of a resurrected and glorified man. Jesus was different after the resurrection. There had been a change. He was still a man and He knew all things. For further reading please see the two natures of Jesus. (../doctrine/2natures.htm) (www.carm.org/witnesses.htm) Other websites on the Jehovah's Witnesses: Out of Darkness (http://www.outofdarkness.org/) Watchers of the Watchtower World (http://www.freeminds.org/) |
||||||
3734 | is God and Jesus are one person? | Heb 1:8 | kalos | 119178 | ||
'To say "God is your throne" doesn't make sense...God alone is on His throne and He isn't a throne for anyone else.' 'The Watchtower organization denies that Jesus is God. Therefore, it cannot permit any verses in the Bible to even hint that Jesus is God. That is why they choose a translation that does not best fit the context or overall theology of the Bible.' ____________________ '"But with reference to the Son: 'God is your throne forever and ever, and [the] scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness'" The New World Translation. 'In this particularly interesting verse, God is addressing the Son. The Greek construction of Hebrews 1:8 allows the text to be translated in two legitimate ways: '"God is your throne forever and ever.... and '"Thy Throne, O God, is forever and ever..." 'But because of the Watchtower presupposition that Jesus is not God, they choose the first version, otherwise, the Father would be calling Jesus God and that goes against Jehovah's Witness theology. Yet, most Bibles do not translate it the way the New World Translation does. They choose the other way. Why? Two reasons. 'First, Heb. 1:8 is a quote from Psalm 45:6, which says, '"Thy Throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Thy Kingdom" (All Bible quotes are from the NASB). 'In fact, the ASV, KJV, NIV, and NKJV all translated it as "Your throne, O God..." The RSV translates it as "Your divine throne endures for ever and ever," "but this is a highly unlikely translation because it requires understanding the Hebrew noun for "throne" in construct state, something extremely unusual when a noun has a pronomial suffix, as this one does...The KJV, NIV, and NASB all take the verse in its plain, straightforward sense, as do the ancient translations..."[1] 'When we look at the Hebrew, we see that there is no grammatical requirement for this translation, though it is considered to be the best translation by most translators. In and of itself, this is not conclusive because the context of this verse in Psalm 45 is dealing with a king, which would make one wonder why he would be addressed as God. But, it is not uncommon for NT writers to take a verse in the OT that seemingly deals with one subject and apply it to another. They knew something we didn't. In fact, in Ezekiel 28:12-17 is a section that deals with the fall of the devil. Verse 13 says describes how he was in the garden of Eden. Verse 14 says he was the anointed cherub, (v. 15), etc. But the context of this section begins with an address to the king of Tyre (v. 12). Yet, right after Ezekiel is told to write to the King of Tyre, he then goes on to describe what the great majority of theologians agree with is a description of the devil's fall. So, we need to look at the context that the writer of Hebrews put Psalm 45:6 into. He addressed it to Jesus. Therefore, Psalm 45 is a Messianic Psalm and must be in interpreted in light of the NT, not the other way around. 'Nevertheless, the context of this verse follows: '"For to which of the angels did He ever say, "Thou art My son, Today I have begotten Thee"? And again, "I will be a Father to Him, and He shall be a Son to Me"? 6And when he again brings the first-born into the world, He says, "And let all the angels of God worship Him." 7And of the angels He says "Who makes His angels winds, and His ministers a flame of fire." 8But of the Son He says, "Thy Throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom, 9Thou hast loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy companions. 10And, "Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of Thy hands; 11They will perish, but though remainest..." (Heb. 1:5-11). 'To say "God is your throne" doesn't make sense. What does it mean to say, "But to which of the angels did he say, God is your throne"? What would that mean? Is God, Jesus' throne? God alone is on His throne and He isn't a throne for anyone else. (...) 'The Watchtower organization denies that Jesus is God. Therefore, it cannot permit any verses in the Bible to even hint that Jesus is God. That is why they choose a translation that does not best fit the context or overall theology of the Bible.' Footnote 1. Grudem, Wayne, Systematic Theology, Intervarsity Press, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1994, page 227. ________________ (www.carm.org/jw/heb1_8.htm) |
||||||
3735 | is God and Jesus are one person? | Heb 1:8 | kalos | 119195 | ||
'To say "God is your throne" doesn't make sense...God alone is on His throne and He isn't a throne for anyone else.' Before we proceed any further, are there any questions or comments about my previous note and its main point regarding Hebrews 1:8? ____________________ bstudent: I have nothing against you, but I will not be led on a merry chase in which I reply to a question and then the subject is changed. I have no intention of jumping from one subject to another to another. Your note (to which this is a reply) doesn't address my previous note in which I was discussing Hebrews 1:8. If you choose not to reply directly to my comments regarding Hebrews 1:8, then I'm finished here. --kalos ******************** '"But with reference to the Son: 'God is your throne forever and ever, and [the] scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness'" The New World Translation. 'In this particularly interesting verse, God is addressing the Son. The Greek construction of Hebrews 1:8 allows the text to be translated in two legitimate ways: '"God is your throne forever and ever.... and '"Thy Throne, O God, is forever and ever..." 'But because of the Watchtower presupposition that Jesus is not God, they choose the first version, otherwise, the Father would be calling Jesus God and that goes against Jehovah's Witness theology. Yet, most Bibles do not translate it the way the New World Translation does. They choose the other way. Why? Two reasons. 'First, Heb. 1:8 is a quote from Psalm 45:6, which says, '"Thy Throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Thy Kingdom" (All Bible quotes are from the NASB). 'In fact, the ASV, KJV, NIV, and NKJV all translated it as "Your throne, O God..." The RSV translates it as "Your divine throne endures for ever and ever," "but this is a highly unlikely translation because it requires understanding the Hebrew noun for "throne" in construct state, something extremely unusual when a noun has a pronomial suffix, as this one does...The KJV, NIV, and NASB all take the verse in its plain, straightforward sense, as do the ancient translations..."[1] 'When we look at the Hebrew, we see that there is no grammatical requirement for this translation, though it is considered to be the best translation by most translators. In and of itself, this is not conclusive because the context of this verse in Psalm 45 is dealing with a king, which would make one wonder why he would be addressed as God. But, it is not uncommon for NT writers to take a verse in the OT that seemingly deals with one subject and apply it to another. They knew something we didn't. In fact, in Ezekiel 28:12-17 is a section that deals with the fall of the devil. Verse 13 says describes how he was in the garden of Eden. Verse 14 says he was the anointed cherub, (v. 15), etc. But the context of this section begins with an address to the king of Tyre (v. 12). Yet, right after Ezekiel is told to write to the King of Tyre, he then goes on to describe what the great majority of theologians agree with is a description of the devil's fall. So, we need to look at the context that the writer of Hebrews put Psalm 45:6 into. He addressed it to Jesus. Therefore, Psalm 45 is a Messianic Psalm and must be in interpreted in light of the NT, not the other way around. 'Nevertheless, the context of this verse follows: '"For to which of the angels did He ever say, "Thou art My son, Today I have begotten Thee"? And again, "I will be a Father to Him, and He shall be a Son to Me"? 6And when he again brings the first-born into the world, He says, "And let all the angels of God worship Him." 7And of the angels He says "Who makes His angels winds, and His ministers a flame of fire." 8But of the Son He says, "Thy Throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom, 9Thou hast loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy companions. 10And, "Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of Thy hands; 11They will perish, but though remainest..." (Heb. 1:5-11). 'To say "God is your throne" doesn't make sense. What does it mean to say, "But to which of the angels did he say, God is your throne"? What would that mean? Is God, Jesus' throne? God alone is on His throne and He isn't a throne for anyone else. (...) 'The Watchtower organization denies that Jesus is God. Therefore, it cannot permit any verses in the Bible to even hint that Jesus is God. That is why they choose a translation that does not best fit the context or overall theology of the Bible.' Footnote 1. Grudem, Wayne, Systematic Theology, Intervarsity Press, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1994, page 227. ________________ (www.carm.org/jw/heb1_8.htm) |
||||||
3736 | is God and Jesus are one person? | Heb 1:8 | kalos | 119197 | ||
1 John 5:7-8 NET Bible For there are three that testify, the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three are in agreement. Question: "I'm interested to know how you respond to the spurious verse in the KJ at 1 John 5:7...?" Answer: An honest question deserves an honest answer. The Bible doctrine of one God in three Persons does not stand or fall on one verse in one translation. --kalos Notes from the NET Bible: "("in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that testify on earth"). This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence--both external and internal--is decidedly against its authenticity... "Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence. This longer reading is found only in eight late MSS, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these MSS...originate from the 16th century; the earliest MS,...(10th century), includes the reading in a marginal note, added sometime after the original composition. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek MS until the 1500's; each such reading was apparently composed after Erasmus' Greek NT was published in 1517. "Indeed, the reading appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either MS, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until A.D. 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant, since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity. "The reading seems to have arisen in a 4th century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church. The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus' Greek NT because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared, there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek MSS that included it... "Modern advocates of the Textus Receptus and KJV generally argue for the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum on the basis of heretical motivation by scribes who did not include it...In reality, the issue is history, not heresy: How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum did not appear until the 16th century in any Greek MSS and yet goes back to the original text? "Such a stance does not do justice to the gospel: faith must be rooted in history...But the KJV translators, basing their work principally on Theodore Beza's 10th edition of the Greek NT (1598)...popularized the Comma for the English-speaking world. Thus, the Comma Johanneum has been a battleground for English-speaking Christians more than for others." |
||||||
3737 | YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER | Heb 1:8 | kalos | 181854 | ||
'To say "God is your throne" doesn't make sense.' 'The Watchtower organization denies that Jesus is God. Therefore, it cannot permit any verses in the Bible to even hint that Jesus is God. That is why they choose a translation that does not best fit the context or overall theology of the Bible.' ____________________ '"But with reference to the Son: 'God is your throne forever and ever, and [the] scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness'" The New World Translation. 'In this particularly interesting verse, God is addressing the Son. The Greek construction of Hebrews 1:8 allows the text to be translated in two legitimate ways: '"God is your throne forever and ever.... and '"Thy Throne O God, is forever and ever..." 'But because of the Watchtower presupposition that Jesus is not God, they choose the first version, otherwise, the Father would be calling Jesus God and that goes against Jehovah's Witness theology. Yet, most Bibles do not translate it the way the New World Translation does. They choose the other way. Why? Two reasons. 'First, Heb. 1:8 is a quote from Psalm 45:6, which says, '"Thy Throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Thy Kingdom" (All Bible quotes are from the NASB). 'In fact, the ASV, KJV, NIV, and NKJV all translated it as "Your throne, O God..." The RSV translates it as "Your divine throne endures for ever and ever," "but this is a highly unlikely translation because it requires understanding the Hebrew noun for "thrown" in construct state, something extremely unusual when a noun has a pronomial suffix, as this one does...The KJV, NIV, and NASB all take the verse in its plain, straightforward sense, as do the ancient translations..."1 'When we look at the Hebrew, we see that there is no grammatical requirement for this translation, though it is considered to be the best translation by most translators. In and of itself, this is not conclusive because the context of this verse in Psalm 45 is dealing with a king which would make one wonder why he would be addressed as God. But, it is not uncommon for NT writers to take a verse in the OT that seemingly deals with one subject and apply it to another. They knew something we didn't. In fact, in Ezekiel 28:12-17 is a section that deals with the fall of the devil. Verse 13 says describes how he was in the garden of Eden. Verse 14 says he was the anointed cherub, (v. 15), etc. But the context of this section begins with an address to the king of Tyre (v. 12). Yet, right after Ezekiel is told to write to the King of Tyre he then goes on to describe what the great majority of theologians agree with is a description of the devil's fall. So, we need to look at the context that the writer of Hebrews put Psalm 45:6 into. He addressed it to Jesus. Therefore, Psalm 45 is a Messianic Psalm and must in interpreted in light of the NT, not the other way around. 'Nevertheless, the context of this verse follows: '"For to which of the angels did He ever say, "Thou are My son, Today I have begotten Thee"? And again, "I will be a Father to Him, and He shall be a Son to Me"? 6And when he again brings the first-born into the world, He says, "And let all the angels of God worship Him." 7And of the angels He says "Who makes His angels winds, and His ministers a flame of fire." 8But of the Son He says, "Thy Throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom, 9Thou hast loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy companions. 10And, "Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of Thy hands; 11They will perish, but though remainest...." (Heb. 1:5-11). 'To say "God is your throne" doesn't make sense. What does it mean to say, "But to which of the angels did he say, God is your throne." What would that mean? Is God, Jesus' throne? God alone is on His throne and He isn't a throne for anyone else. (. . . ) 'The Watchtower organization denies that Jesus is God. Therefore, it cannot permit any verses in the Bible to even hint that Jesus is God. That is why they choose a translation that does not best fit the context or overall theology of the Bible.' ________________ 1. Grudem, Wayne, Systematic Theology, Intervarsity Press, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1994, page 227. (www.carm.org/jw/heb1_8.htm) |
||||||
3738 | Dreans, and Angels? | Heb 1:14 | kalos | 55171 | ||
The Last Days In Acts 2:17 the phrase "'last days' refers to the present era of redemptive history from the first coming of Christ (Heb 1:2; 1 Pet 1:20; 1 John 2:18) to his return." (p. 1636, MacArthur Study Bible, Word Publishing, 1997). "LAST DAYS. In the passage quoted from Joel the Hebrew has 'after this' and the Septuagint 'after these things.' Peter interprets the passage as referring specifically to the latter days of the new covenant in contrast to the former days of the old covenant." At the time of Acts chapter 2, "the age of Messianic fulfillment" had "arrived." (p. 1575, Zondervan NASB Study Bible, edited by Kenneth Barker, Zondervan, 1999) "Last Day(s), Latter Days, Last Times. There are problems with the terminology of 'the latter days' in that, for example, the King James Version quite often refers to 'the latter days,' an expression not found in modern translations. Further, it is not always clear whether 'the latter days' means a somewhat later period than that of the writer or the latest times of all, the end of the world. There are also expressions that locate the day being discussed in the time of the speaker. Care is needed as we approach the passages that use these terms." (pp. 464-465, Baker Theological Dictionary of the Bible, Walter A. Elwell, editor, Baker Books, 1996) |
||||||
3739 | Note. Why did Jesus say Father greater | Heb 2:9 | kalos | 38330 | ||
If Jesus is God, then why did He say the Father was greater than He? "You heard that I said to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I'" (John 14:28). Jesus said the Father was greater than He not because Jesus is not God, but because Jesus was also a man and as a man he was in a lower position. He was ". . . made for a little while lower than the angels . . ." (Heb. 2:9). Also in Phil. 2:5-8, it says that Jesus "emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men . . ." Jesus has two natures. Jesus was not denying that He was God. He was merely acknowledging the fact that He was also a man. Jesus is both God and man. As a man, he was in a lesser position than the Father. He had added to Himself human nature (Col. 2:9). He became a man to die for people. A comparison can be found in the marriage relationship. Biblically, a husband is greater in position and authority than his wife. But, he is no different in nature and he is not better than she. They share the same nature, being human, and they work together by love. So, Jesus was not denying that He was God. He was simply acknowledging that He was also a man and as a man, he was subject to the laws of God so that He might redeem those who were under the law; namely, sinners (Gal. 4:4-5). For further reading please see the two natures of Jesus. (../doctrine/2natures.htm) SCRIPTURES QUOTED: Phil. 2:5-8, "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross." Col. 2:9, "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form," Gal. 4:4-5, "But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, in order that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons." Heb. 2:9, "But we do see Him who has been made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone." (www.carm.org/witnesses.htm) Other websites on the Jehovah's Witnesses Out of Darkness (http://www.outofdarkness.org/) Watchers of the Watchtower World (http://www.freeminds.org/) |
||||||
3740 | GOD'S TIMING - Today if you hear... | Heb 3:13 | kalos | 163240 | ||
GOD'S TIMING Heb 3:13 But encourage one another day after day, as long as it is still called "Today," so that none of you will be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. Heb 3:15 while it is said, "TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE, DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS, AS WHEN THEY PROVOKED ME." Heb 4:7 He again fixes a certain day, "Today," saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before, "TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE, DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS." (Scripture quotes are from the New American Standard Bible.) |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 ] Next > Last [212] >> |