John 17:2-3~ You granted Him authority over all people, so that He may give eternal life to all those You have given Him. Now this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, Whom You have sent.
As in the days of Noah... ALL flesh had CORRUPTED itself
- Thread starter PennEd
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
John 17:2-3~ You granted Him authority over all people, so that He may give eternal life to all those You have given Him. Now this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, Whom You have sent.
1 John 5:10
And this is that testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 1 John 5:11
Before I make any effort to address this post - I am wondering if you did in fact read the OP of this thread as I suggested earlier:
https://christianchat.com/bible-dis...of-god-word-father-son-and-the-trinity.72792/
Did you read all of it? With sincere interest? Did any of it make sense to you?
Yeah, JWs have their own translation which is in error to say the Word was a god.
Scripture plainly teaches that Jesus is God. See a plethora of proofs here (<= link).
1 John 5:20
Jesus' Words in John 8:23b plus 24b
I didn't mention the new world translation in my post, and the translations I did mention were translated before the new world translation came out. So like I said for centuries scholars and translators have debated and disagreed how John 1:1 is to be translated. You can blame and judge JW and their Bible all you want but as I said there have been Bibles that have translated John 1:1 differently than the way your Bible translates John 1:1 long before the new world translation came out. You and I disagree how John 1:1 is to be translated because I believe the Word is the only begotten Son of God and that it was the only begotten Son of God who became flesh/human and you believe that the Word is God and that it was God who became flesh/human
At John 8: 12-28 Jesus Christ himself didn't state he was God. He stated clearly that it was his Father who sent him. It looks to me that simply because you're quoting the fact that Jesus said, "unless you believe I am he," you believe he was saying he is the Father. But it's the Father who is God, and Jesus wasn't saying he was the Father, so Jesus wasn't saying he was God. Jesus himself says at John 20:17 after his resurrection from the dead, that he has a Father and a God that was his apostles and disciples Father and God. So Jesus clearly didn't say he was his apostles and disciples, Father and God. What Jesus meant at John 8:28B when he said, "unless you believe that I am he," was that if the Pharisees didn't believe Jesus was the Christ, or Messiah they would die in their sins. It's the only begotten Son of God that sent to mankind, so it's the only begotten Son of God who is the Christ or Messiah
I understand that at 1 John 5:20 there are those who believe the Greek pronoun, "this"(houtos) which is in 1 John 5:20 refers to its immediate antecedent, Jesus Christ, so they state that 1 John 5:20 is to be translated Jesus Christ is, " the true God and life everlasting." However, many scholars concerning this interpretation of 1 John 5:20 don't accept this and believe it to be in conflict with the rest of the scriptures that show clearly that Jesus is the Son of God. So again there are many authoritative scholars that disagree with your interpretation of 1 John 5:20. Cambridge University scholar B.F. Westcott wrote: "The most natural reference [of the pronoun houtos] is to the subject not locally nearest but dominant in the mind if the apostle." So going by what the scholar B. F. Westcott said, what the apostle John had in mind when he wrote 1 John 5:20 is Jesus Father. So its the Father of Jesus Christ who is the true God and life everlasting.
German theologian Erich Haupt wrote: “It has to be determined whether the [houtos] of the next proposition refers to the locally and immediately preceding subject . . . or to the more distant antecedent God. . . . A testimony to the one true God seems more in harmony with the final warning against idols than a demonstration of the divinity of Christ.” So there are theologians and scholars that state that the apostle John wasn't saying Jesus was God but that the Father of Jesus was God.
Was NWT an oversight on your part, or deliberately left off the list? The word "a" was added, in any case. So it
has nothing to do with me blaming and judging anything unless you call proper hermeneutics such. I would
call it discretion/discernment. To each their own, I suppose. You know what you re doing is against the rules.
If this is all you wish to discuss, you will not last long here. Surely there are other topics for you?
John also tells us that if he were to write all Jesus said and did there that not even the world itself would have space for the books that would be written. If you read John chapter 8 in context, which you obviously have not done, He is telling the religious leaders/scribes and Pharisees that He is God. Then He told them, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. That is why I told you that you would die in your sins. For unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” Do you suppose instead Jesus means He came from some other planet? Did you take a look at the thread I linked for you?
The idea that the corrupted flesh would have prevented Jesus from being born arose out of Gnosticism: the belief that flesh, itself was evil.
Gnostics, or people who believe they have special knowledge of God, have, perhaps, always existed. They certainly were alive when the Bible was written.
Paul, an apostle and given, as a grace from God, real understanding of mysteries, wrote this:
"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory."
He wrote this just after writing instructions to Timothy about the conduct of believers. The whole passage reads like...
"Bishops are to conduct themselves this way..
husbands this way...
deacons this way...
wives this way...
Then Paul drops a bomb: "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory."
This is the passage that frames the whole chapter: "God was manifested in the flesh..." This is counter to the teaching that the flesh is evil. In truth, the flesh gains nothing in the Spirit, it is merely the vessel in which the Spirit resides. This i why Adam and Eve did not think of themselves as "naked", they were spirits clothed in flesh. It is the lust of the flesh that corrupts the flesh, this is the starting point of all men: lost to the lusts of their flesh.
So, when God was manifested in the flesh as Jesus, He was residing in the frame of corruptible flesh YET He never succumbed to those lusts. He was sinless. He was sinless by His choice to be obedient to God NOT because He was given a more specialized vessel in which to dwell.
This is why God "manifested in the flesh" is so controversial especially to Jews and all their washings: Jesus showed them a cup that was clean on the inside living outward to the world but the Jews were obsessed with their appearance and cleanliness. The flesh submits to the Spirit of God.
So, now that His Spirit is within us who believe, the standard for us is the same standard as God: we are to live by the Spirit not by the flesh. Paul's instruction to Timothy can be summarized like so "The Spirit of God lived in the flesh of Jesus the man. This Spirit also lives in you. Believe that He will lead you in righteousness as He led Him in righteousness. Your corrupted flesh is not an impediment for the Spirit to live through you"
Gnostics, or people who believe they have special knowledge of God, have, perhaps, always existed. They certainly were alive when the Bible was written.
Paul, an apostle and given, as a grace from God, real understanding of mysteries, wrote this:
"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory."
He wrote this just after writing instructions to Timothy about the conduct of believers. The whole passage reads like...
"Bishops are to conduct themselves this way..
husbands this way...
deacons this way...
wives this way...
Then Paul drops a bomb: "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory."
This is the passage that frames the whole chapter: "God was manifested in the flesh..." This is counter to the teaching that the flesh is evil. In truth, the flesh gains nothing in the Spirit, it is merely the vessel in which the Spirit resides. This i why Adam and Eve did not think of themselves as "naked", they were spirits clothed in flesh. It is the lust of the flesh that corrupts the flesh, this is the starting point of all men: lost to the lusts of their flesh.
So, when God was manifested in the flesh as Jesus, He was residing in the frame of corruptible flesh YET He never succumbed to those lusts. He was sinless. He was sinless by His choice to be obedient to God NOT because He was given a more specialized vessel in which to dwell.
This is why God "manifested in the flesh" is so controversial especially to Jews and all their washings: Jesus showed them a cup that was clean on the inside living outward to the world but the Jews were obsessed with their appearance and cleanliness. The flesh submits to the Spirit of God.
So, now that His Spirit is within us who believe, the standard for us is the same standard as God: we are to live by the Spirit not by the flesh. Paul's instruction to Timothy can be summarized like so "The Spirit of God lived in the flesh of Jesus the man. This Spirit also lives in you. Believe that He will lead you in righteousness as He led Him in righteousness. Your corrupted flesh is not an impediment for the Spirit to live through you"
magenta said,
Was NWT an oversight on your part, or deliberately left off the list? The word "a" was added, in any case. So it
has nothing to do with me blaming and judging anything unless you call proper hermeneutics such. I would
call it discretion/discernment. To each their own, I suppose. You know what you re doing is against the rules.
If this is all you wish to discuss, you will not last long here. Surely there are other topics for you?
Was NWT an oversight on your part, or deliberately left off the list? The word "a" was added, in any case. So it
has nothing to do with me blaming and judging anything unless you call proper hermeneutics such. I would
call it discretion/discernment. To each their own, I suppose. You know what you re doing is against the rules.
If this is all you wish to discuss, you will not last long here. Surely there are other topics for you?
BEB1956
“I understand that since there are translations of the Bible that translates John 1:1 differently, that not all Bibles translate John 1:1 the same, so obviously scholars and theologians seem to disagree what's proper hermeneutics.
As far as the word "a" was added to John 1:1, I understand that the koine Greek language had the definite artice, "the"(ton), but it doesn't have a indefinite article such as, "a" or "an." So when a predicate noun is not preceded by the definite article, it may be indefinite, depending on the context.
The Journal of Biblical Literature says, that expressions "with an anarthrous (no article) predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning." As the journal notes, this indicates that the logos can be likened to a god. It also says of John 1:1: "The qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun (theos) cannot be regarded as definite.
There are many other Bible verses in which almost all translators in other languages consistently insert the word " a" when translating Greek sentences with the same structure as John 1:1. For example, at Mark 6:49, when the disciples saw Jesus walking on the water, the King James Version says: "They supposed it had been a spirit." In the koine Greek language, there is no "a" before "spirit." But almost all translations in other languages add an "a" in order to make the rendering fit the context. In the same way, since John 1:1 shows that the Word was with God, he could not be God but was "a god," or "divine."
Joseph Henry Thayer, a theologian and scholar who worked on the American Standard Version, stated simply: "The Logos was divine, not the divine being himself." And Jesuit John L. McKenzie wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: "John 1:1 should rigorously be translated.....'the word was a divine being."'
Yes some claim that John 1:1 being translated as, " In the beginning was the word and the Word was with God and the word was a god."violate a rule of koine Greek grammar. E.C. Colwell said that in Greek a predicate noun "has the [definite] article when it precedes the verb." By this he meant that a predicate noun preceding the verb should be understood as though it did have the definite article(the) in front of it. At John 1:1 the second noun(theos) the predicate, precedes the verb-"and[theos] was the Word." So, Colwell claimed, John 1:1 should be translated, "and [the] God was the Word.
But two examples found at John 8:44 should be consider, regarding this rule. There Jesus says of the Devil: "That one was a manslayer" and "he is a liar." Just as at John 1:1, the predicate nouns ("manslayer" and "liar) precede the verbs ("was" and "is") in the Greek. There is no indefinite article in front of either noun because there was no indefinite article in koine Greek. But most translations, including the King James translation insert the word "a" because Greek grammar and the context require it. There are other scriptures such as Mark 11:32; John 4:19; 6:70; 9:17; 10:1; 12:2 that are grammatically structure as John 1:1 that many translations use the word "a."
Colwell had to acknowledge this regarding the predicate noun, for he said: "It is indefinite ["a" or "an"] in this position only when the context demands it." So even Colwell admits that when the context requires it, translators may insert an indefinite article("a" or "an") in front of the noun(theos) in this type of sentence structure.
So does the context require an indefinite article ("a") at John 1:1? I say yes, for the testimony of the entire Bible is that Jesus is not Almighty God, but the only begotten Son of God. So, it's not Coldwell questionable rule of grammar, but context should guide the translator in such scriptures like John 1:1. So its apparent to me from the many translations that insert the indefinite article "a" at John 1:1 and in many other scriptures in the Bible that are of the same grammatical structure as John 1:1 that many scholars disagree with such an article rule, and so does God's Word.”
Are you aware that the primary translator for the NWT was taken to court and asked under oath his credentials for translating Scripture? It’s public record and should be an embarrassment to anyone claiming an iota of credibility to this mistranslation.
“I understand that since there are translations of the Bible that translates John 1:1 differently, that not all Bibles translate John 1:1 the same, so obviously scholars and theologians seem to disagree what's proper hermeneutics.
As far as the word "a" was added to John 1:1, I understand that the koine Greek language had the definite artice, "the"(ton), but it doesn't have a indefinite article such as, "a" or "an." So when a predicate noun is not preceded by the definite article, it may be indefinite, depending on the context.
The Journal of Biblical Literature says, that expressions "with an anarthrous (no article) predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning." As the journal notes, this indicates that the logos can be likened to a god. It also says of John 1:1: "The qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun (theos) cannot be regarded as definite.
There are many other Bible verses in which almost all translators in other languages consistently insert the word " a" when translating Greek sentences with the same structure as John 1:1. For example, at Mark 6:49, when the disciples saw Jesus walking on the water, the King James Version says: "They supposed it had been a spirit." In the koine Greek language, there is no "a" before "spirit." But almost all translations in other languages add an "a" in order to make the rendering fit the context. In the same way, since John 1:1 shows that the Word was with God, he could not be God but was "a god," or "divine."
Joseph Henry Thayer, a theologian and scholar who worked on the American Standard Version, stated simply: "The Logos was divine, not the divine being himself." And Jesuit John L. McKenzie wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: "John 1:1 should rigorously be translated.....'the word was a divine being."'
Yes some claim that John 1:1 being translated as, " In the beginning was the word and the Word was with God and the word was a god."violate a rule of koine Greek grammar. E.C. Colwell said that in Greek a predicate noun "has the [definite] article when it precedes the verb." By this he meant that a predicate noun preceding the verb should be understood as though it did have the definite article(the) in front of it. At John 1:1 the second noun(theos) the predicate, precedes the verb-"and[theos] was the Word." So, Colwell claimed, John 1:1 should be translated, "and [the] God was the Word.
But two examples found at John 8:44 should be consider, regarding this rule. There Jesus says of the Devil: "That one was a manslayer" and "he is a liar." Just as at John 1:1, the predicate nouns ("manslayer" and "liar) precede the verbs ("was" and "is") in the Greek. There is no indefinite article in front of either noun because there was no indefinite article in koine Greek. But most translations, including the King James translation insert the word "a" because Greek grammar and the context require it. There are other scriptures such as Mark 11:32; John 4:19; 6:70; 9:17; 10:1; 12:2 that are grammatically structure as John 1:1 that many translations use the word "a."
Colwell had to acknowledge this regarding the predicate noun, for he said: "It is indefinite ["a" or "an"] in this position only when the context demands it." So even Colwell admits that when the context requires it, translators may insert an indefinite article("a" or "an") in front of the noun(theos) in this type of sentence structure.
So does the context require an indefinite article ("a") at John 1:1? I say yes, for the testimony of the entire Bible is that Jesus is not Almighty God, but the only begotten Son of God. So, it's not Coldwell questionable rule of grammar, but context should guide the translator in such scriptures like John 1:1. So its apparent to me from the many translations that insert the indefinite article "a" at John 1:1 and in many other scriptures in the Bible that are of the same grammatical structure as John 1:1 that many scholars disagree with such an article rule, and so does God's Word.”
Are you aware that the primary translator for the NWT was taken to court and asked under oath his credentials for translating Scripture? It’s public record and should be an embarrassment to anyone claiming an iota of credibility to this mistranslation.
I have to agree my brother. Of the things I believe this may be the biggest eyebrow raise by fellow believers........LOL Truth is I also believe in possession which I would say most of us do. So which is crazier a spirit taking on flesh and having relations with flesh. Or a spirit entering into a man's body and taking over complete control. So that it has control of his motor functions as well so that it would do what is contrary to one's own self preservation. Cast a man into fire opposite his own will. Also able to take over a man's speech and use his mouth to speak. When I weigh the two possession seems to be the crazier of what I believe...........LOL
However, it is my belief in possession and the way that Christ presents it and even his use of the word demon that makes the case for fallen angels procreating with women. In the Greco-Roman world possession is unique and there is a unique belief system behind it. The Greeks used the word daemon and the Romans the word genie. Which ironically we do as well today and most have no idea.
When someone was possessed to Roman's they would call them what we continue to do so today. The Romans would call them a genius. As the Romans and Greeks also believed that some could be possessed by a spirt that brought favor as they did not see it as always malevolent. They considered Caesar a genius because they considered him charmed. His history of how he arose and the wins he garnered in battle's against the odds. They believed he was possessed by a genie that brought him good fortune.
The Greeks believed as well that possession could also be favorable. These spirits where unique as they had a specific origin. During the times of the golden age. When the titans created the gods. The god's being created by the titans rebelled and overthrew them. In this war the dead folks became trapped and remained. They became spirits that having no body they would then inhabit or possess the body's of men.
Christ using the word demon and even his words of them being spirits that wondered around looking for a body. Or what he called a home. He said that when a house is cleaned that spirit goes and gets more worse than him and comes back and the end is worse than the start. The man delivered by Christ said he was legion. A Roman legion is 4800. 4800 inside a man and possessing him again believing a spirit became flesh and had relations is not a crazy to me. How do you fit 4800 inside one man......LOL
So while what Greeks and Romans believed does not match up one for one. I do believe that when the bible says that the giants were the men of renown. Those of legend and tales that is what renown is.
Christ set it straight and removed the religious belief part of the Greco-Roman world. However, his disciples living in that world and aware of those Greco-Roman beliefs they where able to separate truth from fiction. Why we see Peter use the word Tartarus as he understood what they believed what was correct and what was error in the general as what they believed was a false religion. However, he knew the difference.
All of what I said can be checked by just searching the mythology. Google lets one search demons and genies and the golden age and war of the titans and gods.
So anyway for me at least this is what I believe and how I arrived at it by Christ use of demon and his explanation of them. As it lines up with Greco-Roman mythology broadly. So why when I believe in possession I also believe that angels came down and had intercourse and the men of legend were born in the physical sense and when destroyed in the flood these hybrid of flesh and spirit.
Their body was destroyed in the flood but the spirit half remained. So that their spirit would possess a man for his flesh or for them once again to have a house. To once again be able to walk in the physical as they once had. Which of course the biggest difference also being Christ called them evil which is opposite the Greco-Roman belief that some could be good and favorable in their possession.
Anyway I tried to keep this as short as I could.......LOL However, this is how I came to believe in the Gen 6 incursion by believing in possession as they are related and work in unison and presented to us as such. Christ just removed the error and what is false and pointed out what they truly were and the evil they are.
Since these proclamations were made they come from literal manuscripts. Would you copy/paste or provide a link so I can see the age of these manuscripts? I ask because we factually have 2nd Century manuscripts on file. So for your versions to be true they must be "older" than 2nd Century.
Racing toward the days of Noah:
Scientists Working to Create Human Embryos with DNA from Two Men
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/03/scientists-working-create-human-embryos-dna-two-men/
Scientists Working to Create Human Embryos with DNA from Two Men
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/03/scientists-working-create-human-embryos-dna-two-men/
Yes, but if they're talking about it, they've likely already done it.
Whoa are you saying we aren't racing towards those days but we have already arrived!
Which would mean that we are already at the days of Noah, the world is filled with Hamas (violence) and the mingling of the DNA of humans with angels is the other basis for the judgement.
Hat Tip to Cv5.
"If those days weren't shortened, no (100% human) flesh would be saved"....
https://x.com/WallStreetApes/status/1823094318124708348
"If those days weren't shortened, no (100% human) flesh would be saved"....
https://x.com/WallStreetApes/status/1823094318124708348
Another way of looking at chapter 6 is to see that the previous chapter shows two lines of ancestry from Adam, Seth's and Cain's. The sons of God in Job could be the good angels with one bad "apple," Satan, as well. Anyway, I think that the mixing of the lines from believing Seth and unbelieving Cain is the best interpretation based on the context, but yours is possible.
No. Not really.
Fallen angels took a downgrade. We get an upgrade.
2Co 5:2
For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house G3613 which is from heaven:
Jde 1:6
And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, G3613 he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
Outline of Biblical Usage
- a dwelling place, habitation
- of the body as a dwelling place for the spirit
Furthermore, you need to understand what was REALLY going on in Sodom, Judges 19, Jericho and the land of Caanan, and who were these characters:
https://christianchat.com/threads/there-will-be-no-rapture.212356/post-5345503
"All of this confirms that indeed Gol of Gath was a type of the seed of the serpent, a satan-man (like the AC will be), an inhuman Nephilim. As were the many other Nephilim giants in the Levant such as Og of Bashan, Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, the descendants of Anak. Sihon the Amorite was also a giant.
It also catalogues and infers what was REALLY going on in the land of Caanan, and why God had to execute such severe judgments upon it.
So much for the Sethite Genesis 6 theory."
I think there will be a revival like never seen before… but it will be during the Tribulation period when people realise we were right all along.