Revelation; Harlot Babylon (Pt2)- "Mother of Abominations"

reply to post by DISRAELI

This outline is thoroughly unbiblical.
There is a clear distinction in the New testament between the way that Christ is a Son, and the way that we are sons and daughters (except for those who have chosen not to become sons and daughters).
Christ is the one who is born into the family, as it were.
As I have pointed out already, he is the MONOGENES HUIOS- the only-begotten Son.
That word "only" means "unique", "singular" "unaccompanied", "solitary", "individual", (I own a copy of Roget's Thesaurus)
In short, there's only one of them.

It is completely Biblical. The only thing it doesn't agree with is you incorrect beliefs of what is biblical. Speaking of translations it is better translated as "unique" And Jesus/Joshua was certainly unique In that he was the first and on a higher level then us etc. Just like there is only one of you? Do you have children or brothers and sisters if so is the oldest unique? Is there only one of him/her? Christ had overcome all things and said we are to be as he is and our father in heaven is etc. so we are to be like him in his accomplishments so to speak but we are all brothers and sisters of the same family literally. If we are from God as the Bible teaches then how could we be anything but his sons and daughters?

1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead

Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

So Jeremiah was with God also before he came to earth oops I thought Jesus was the only one?

John 9:2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

So how could have this man sinned before he was born? Clearly the Disciples thought it possible and that he existed before he was born into the flesh? And Jesus did not correct them and say no man existed before he was born except me.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

So who were all these brethren predesitnated or in other words known before they came here if not us?
When the morning stars sang together, and all the SONS OF GOD shouted for joy?" Job 38:4~6.

Who are the "sons of God"? The scriptures give a clear answer. John the beloved said: "WE are the sons of God..." I John 3:2

It is only fitting that we should be called the "sons of God" for he is called the Father of our spirits in Heb 12:9 Paul also said: "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that WE are the children of God." Rom. 8:16

And there is nothing in the New Testament about Christ starting at our level and rising. On the contrary, in that very same gospel of John that you love to quote, he claims frequently that he comes "from above", that he was "sent" from God. The story told in the New Testament is that he starts at God's level, descends to our level, and then re-ascends, taking us with him.

The Bible teaches Christ descended below all things and over came all things so how is it he over came all things without experiencing all things? If he experienced all things ( that we experience) then where did he start? How could any one be qualified to be the judge of humanity had he not already experienced everything humanity does and will experience?

Look I didn't get in this thread necessarily to challenge your belief system only to offer my view. However it is clear you do not know the scriptures as well as you think you do so you cling to what you believe. I do understand because I once believed similarly. I know you don't believe it now however the day will come when you will question those beliefs and then a whole new horizon will open up to you.

(quoting me)The only thing you have exposed is your emotional attachment to your dogmatic beliefs and complete unwillingness to question those beliefs and consider anything outside of your traditions.

And this is somehow worse than your determination to push the opposite viewpoint?
At least I'm being obedient to the primary Biblical command, which is "You shall have no other gods than me".

Good for you I am glad you feel you are being true to your belief system. All we can do is follow the highest we know

If you can point me to a passage where God says "Go on, worship any god you like, I don't mind", I'll obey that one instead.

This of course is a straw man because I never said any thing intimating that. However since you brought it up the old Testament God whom who was angry and vengeful and killed many people and contradicted himself many times is quite different then the New testament loving God called the prince of peace who came to save all men but this seems quite lost on most Christians. :0

You remarked in a different post that I had "condemned without reading" the books on that list.
Well, to be exact, I identified them as books associated with non-Christian religions. And I can do that without reading them if the titles themselves give it away, especially when the titles are so notorious. Do you need to read Mein Kampf to identify it as a book which is not encouraging Communism? No, not if you've got any knowledge of history.

Ever heard the saying "don't judge a book by its cover"? Ask yourself why you fear studying anything you think might challenge your belief system? Why is your interpretation of the biblical texts any more correct then mine or anyone else? There really is no reason God gave us reason and logic to use not to ignore. That couple with the spirit or inner voice or holy spirit if you will is the key to finding the truth!

Originally posted by hawkiye
Speaking of translations it is better translated as "unique" ... Just like there is only one of you? Do you have children or brothers and sisters if so is the oldest unique? Is there only one of him/her?

This analogy brings out a very important point, but you aren't really attending to it.
The point is that there are different kinds of uniqueness.
Barak Obama is unique as a person, just as we all are, but he is not unique as a President (because there are many Presidents in the world), but he is unique as "current President of the United States".
I have a younger brother, so I am unique as a person, but I am not unique as a son to my father.
The whole point of the phrase MONOGENES UIOS is that Christ was not just unique as a person, but as a Son to the Father.

So in what sense can the rest of us be sons?
There is a difference, which you are studiously ignoring, between the natural Son and the adopted son.
I will go through the Galatians passage again, slowly.
Galatians ch4 v 6; "When the time had come, God sent forth his Son...to redeem those who were under the Law"
SENT FORTH- This is the imagery of "Sending down to rescue" which I mentioned before.
The object of the exercise is that, as part of the mechanism of redemption, "we might receive ADOPTION as sons"- v5
The first Son was "born" into the family- we are "adopted".
As part of the adoption process, we receive the Holy Spirit, which is also described as "the Spirit of his Son". -v6
We become sons by being taken under the umbrella, so to speak, of the original Son.
I don't know what the law is nowadays, but when I was a child, children did not need separate passports. If they were acompanying their parents, they simply travelled under their parents' passports. That is the analogy of the Christian teaching. Christ, the Son, is the one who has his own passport into heaven. The rest of us are entering under the Son's passport. "Halt! Who goes there?" "Jesus Christ" "OK, pass friend".
All the rest of the NT language about being sons and being re-born etc. needs to be understood in the light of this distinction.

How could anyone be qualified to be the judge of humanity if he had not already experienced everything humanity does and will experience?

Yes, Christian theology has got that point covered.
It is expressed in the New Testament as one of the reasons for the Incarnation, the act of becoming part of humanity.
Thus Philippians ch2 (vv6-7) outlines how Christ was "in the form of God" (EN MORPHE THEOU), but "emptied himself", in order to become human, taking on the "form of a servant" (MORPHEN DOULOU); that is, taking on humanity.
Similarly in Hebrews; The writer describes how the Son was the one "through whom" God created the world- ch1 v1.
Nevertheless, he was made human- "for a little while was made lower than the angels"- ch2 v9.
Why? Because the route to helping humanity lay through joining them;
"Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself partook of the same nature, that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death"- ch2 v14
One of the side-effects of this experience is that it puts him in a position to sympathise with human experience;
"For because he has suffered and been tempted, he is able to help those who are tempted"- ch2 v18
"For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathise with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin"- ch4 v15
All this deals with the point you raised, but it does not deal with it by saying, as you were suggesting, that he started at our level and rose.
The clear teaching in the New Testament is that he started at the higher level, came down to "collect us", as it were, and then took us back with him. Providing we were willing to accept the ride instead of trying to do it on our own.

1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead

Yes, but this coresponds to the same distinction I was making earlier.
The only kind of "begetting" that is available to us, as this verse indicates, is through, by means of the power of the resurection of Christ from the dead. The original "begetting" of the original "Son" was obviously not dependent on this. So there is implicit here the same distinction between the Son "belonging to the family" and the "adopted" sons.
Paul means exactly the same thing in the quotation from Romans ch8 about "first-born of many brethren". I've drawn your attention to what Paul said in Galatians, and he doesn't actually change his mind between the writing of Galatians and the writing of Romans.

Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
So Jeremiah was with God also before he came to earth oops I thought Jesus was the only one?

There is nothing here about Jeremiah existing before he was conceived.
This is about the timelessness of God's knowledge, which follows from the timelessness of God.
Hence also the timelessness of God's plans for Jeremiah.

John 9:2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?
So how could have this man sinned before he was born? Clearly the Disciples thought it possible and that he existed before he was born into the flesh? And Jesus did not correct them and say no man existed before he was born except me.

Yes, I will concede that all humans have an existence before they are born.
It is the condition known to medical science as "being in the womb".
That is what the disciples are talking about.
There is nothing here about the man existing before he was conceived.

old teatament god who is angry and vengeful is quite different from the new testament loving god

This is a common misunderstanding based on a very superficial knowledge of the Bible.
In the first place, Jesus and everybody else in the New Testament regarded them as the same God.
They all understood what God was doing in their own time as the continuation and completion of what he had been doing with Israel.
If you think that the "loving God" is absent from the Old Testament, go to a concordance and look up words like "mercy" and "lovingkindness".
And, on the other hand, the wrathful judgement of God is present in the New Testament as well. Apart from the scenes at the end of Revalation, one of the elements in Paul's teaching is that Jesus is one who delivers us "from the wrath to come"- 1 Thessalonians ch1 v10
Those two aspects of God are not contradictory at all, but necessarily belong together- but that's a massive subject in itself.

I do understand because I once believed similarly. I know you don't believe it now however the day will come when you will question those beliefs and then a whole new horizon will open up to you.

There is unconscious humour in that remark.
Question beliefs? "Been there, done that". Yes, I've been through the adolescent phase of giving up Christian beliefs. Forty years ago almost to the day (and I've got the detailed diaries to prove it) my college room-mate and I were up to four o'clock in the morning arguing about the relative merits of my atheism and his agnosticism. When I returned to Christianity,I did it with my eyes open.
So your patronising comments can be retorted back at you. I used to believe, like you, that traditional Christianity was nonsense. But the day may come when something gets past those blinkers, and then a whole new horizon will open up to you.

reply to post by DISRAELI

This analogy brings out a very important point, but you aren't really attending to it.
The point is that there are different kinds of uniqueness.
Barak Obama is unique as a person, just as we all are, but he is not unique as a President (because there are many Presidents in the world), but he is unique as "current President of the United States".

Indeed there are, your analogy speaks more to my case then yours Obama may not be unique as "a" president, however George Washington was unique as the "first" president who paved the way for the rest just As Christ was the "first" born of the Father who paved the way for the rest of us.

In light of the many other scriptures ( some of which I have already quoted) that refer to us as Sons and Daughters of God it is astonishing so many can see it any other way.

Yes, Christian theology has got that point covered.
It is expressed in the New Testament as one of the reasons for the Incarnation, the act of becoming part of humanity.

modern traditional Christian theology doesn't even begin to cover it. 30 or so years on the earth is hardly enough time to experience and overcome all things in order to be qualified to be the supreme judge of humanity. Christ tells us to become perfect as our father in heaven is perfect in Matthew 5:48. But the word perfect is translated from the Greek word Telios which would be better translated as "complete." I hardly think anyone on this earth has become complete as their father in heaven in just one short lifetime on this earth.

Now most Christians believe they are somehow magically transformed to this supposed perfection through the atonement but this is not true for their is no growth without experience and the atonement takes away guilt but not cause and effect and so they can move on not paralyzed by their guilt of their sins and work out their salvation so to speak as Paul said in Philippians 2:12-13. As an example If one gets drunk and drives and injures someone who loses a limb and is forgiven by Christ that does not replace the limb lost by the one they injured. Justice cannot rob mercy and the one who caused the injury will pay for it eventually. As Christ says in Matthew 5:26 no one gets out until they have paid the utter most farthing. It takes more then one life to work out our salvation.

Yes, but this coresponds to the same distinction I was making earlier.
The only kind of "begetting" that is available to us, as this verse indicates, is through, by means of the power of the resurection of Christ from the dead. The original "begetting" of the original "Son" was obviously not dependent on this.

Really? Well Christ says he can do nothing but what he sees the father do so the father must have over come all things, died and been resurrected etc. on another earth for the son to witness it and copy it.

John 5:19  Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

There is nothing here about Jeremiah existing before he was conceived.
This is about the timelessness of God's knowledge, which follows from the timelessness of God.
Hence also the timelessness of God's plans for Jeremiah.

Wow just wow! That has to be one of the most blatant acts of denial I have ever heard. So how is it God knew Jeremiah sanctified and ordained him BEFORE he was formed in the belly if he did not exist?

John 9:2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

(quoting me)So how could have this man sinned before he was born? Clearly the Disciples thought it possible and that he existed before he was born into the flesh? And Jesus did not correct them and say no man existed before he was born except me.)

Yes, I will concede that all humans have an existence before they are born.
It is the condition known to medical science as "being in the womb".
That is what the disciples are talking about.
There is nothing here about the man existing before he was conceived.

Wow and wow again so how is it possible to sin in the womb if there was no life before then? And I am sure you know what the disciples were talking about ... Wow wow wow! How is God the father of our spirits if we did not pre-exist being born? This makes no sense at all my friend. I have quoted a number of scriptures testifying we are sons and daughters of God and there are more , for heaven sake man open your mind a little and at least consider the possibility...

This is a common misunderstanding based on a very superficial knowledge of the Bible.
In the first place, Jesus and everybody else in the New Testament regarded them as the same God.

You mean this same God who says thou shalt not kill... Oh except all those Cananites over over there even their women and children and animals and several other races. And thou shalt not worship any graven image... oh except look upon the brazen serpent to live... etc. etc. etc... And then the so called Prince of Peace who is supposed to show up as some sort of military conquerer and kill 9/10's of his brethren on this earth so a bunch of self righteous Christians can sit around and play harps all day singing praises to his name. Hardly a fitting action for a PRINCE OF PEACE DON'T YOU THINK? The bible is replete with contradictions like this.

There is unconscious humour in that remark.
Question beliefs? "Been there, done that". Yes, I've been through the adolescent phase of giving up Christian beliefs. Forty years ago almost to the day (and I've got the detailed diaries to prove it) my college room-mate and I were up to four o'clock in the morning arguing about the relative merits of my atheism and his agnosticism. When I returned to Christianity,I did it with my eyes open.
So your patronising comments can be retorted back at you. I used to believe, like you, that traditional Christianity was nonsense. But the day may come when something gets past those blinkers, and then a whole new horizon will open up to you.

Well I am glad you feel you have it all figured out. I have found in my travels that the more I learn the more I realize how little we really know about God and spiritual matters. Yes I found your remarks humorous also since I was never an atheist so your comparison doesn't quite fit since you have never seriously even considered what I am suggesting here much less studied it and asked the spirit if it were true.

I am sure you questioned your so called Christian beliefs but I suspect you knew even less then, then you know now. I have studied Christian history and theology and many esoteric writings and faiths and disciplines like few others have over 30 years however it has been many years since I have had a discussion like this so I admit I am a bit rusty.

I just didn't decide traditional Christianity as taught over some pulpit or fed to me by parents was non-sense as most professing Christians would do . I studied it till I knew more then those professing to be my teachers and when they could not answer my questions and got angry with me for even asking and I discovered their ignorance and attachment to non-nonsensical dogma it was then I decided traditional Christianity was non-sense mainly because it was not biblical but centered on a few pet scriptures out of context and mostly dogma.

Then I studied many other esoteric writings also and sought the holy spirit within and it has led me to many truths many so called Christians won't even consider. You see I am not one who thinks their is no truth in the Bible. But I also do not believe it has a corner on the truth so I do not limit myself to just it. There are truths and falsehoods in it and any other spiritual writings and the inner voice is needed to discern the difference. Your dark night of the soul will come and wake you from your sleep eventually and it will come more then once as we often step outside our box only to find we are just in a bigger box. I wish you well on your journey...

reply to post by necramericanomicon


What you saying is pretty inexact, furthermore, it seems you are doing this "intentionaly" which is not good

Originally posted by hawkiye
Indeed there are, your analogy speaks more to my case then yours Obama may not be unique as "a" president, however George Washington was unique as the "first" president who paved the way for the rest just As Christ was the "first" born of the Father who paved the way for the rest of us.

Not so, because my wording of the analogy fits the text better.
I say that Christ was unique as a Son, as an only-born Son.
You say that he was unique only as a first-born son
But the text describing his uniqueness actually says "Son", not "firstborn".
The text agrees with me.
What you're doing is bringing in a theory from elsewhere, and fudging the Biblical text to make it fit your personal theory, which really sums up your whole approach to the Bible.
.

Wow just wow! That has to be one of the most blatant acts of denial I have ever heard. So how is it God knew Jeremiah sanctified and ordained him BEFORE he was formed in the belly if he did not exist?

I've already answered this question in the words you quoted just above it.
Michael Cecil would probably say *Sigh* at this point.
I will start again from the beginning.
There is nothing here about Jeremiah before he was conceived. Nobody has ever understood it in that way, and it was never meant to be understood in that way. God's statement is about when God knew, not when Jeremiah existed.
As I said ("*sigh*"), this is about the timelessness of God's knowledge, which follows from the timelessness of God.
Time is part of the structure of the physical universe.
If God is not part of the physical universe, then he stands aside from time as well as from the other dimensions.
From his viewpoint, the whole extent of human history can be simultaneous.
That is what makes it possible for him to "see" the whole extent of Jeremiah's life, and make plans for it, from a perspective which, from the more limited human viewpoint, can best be understood as "before".

Wow and wow again so how is it possible to sin in the womb if there was no life before then? And I am sure you know what the disciples were talking about ...

Where did I say that it was possible to sin in the womb? I said that the disciples were enquiring about the possibility; it does not follow, in the least, that their thoughts were on the right track.
Any more than Nicodemus was on the right track when he enquired whether it were possible for a man to go back into his mother's womb.
The disciples are puzzled. They have an implicit assumption that each misfortune must be the direct consequence of a previous sin. But if a man is born with a misfortune, the possible options seem to be that he is being punished for a sin in the womb, or that he is being punished for the sin of his parents. They're probably not really happy with either of these answers, for different reasons, and they ask Jesus to choose between them.
I think the real answer to the theoretical question is that the original assumption is at fault. There is not necessarily a one-to-one relationship between misfortune and sin.
The response of Jesus amounts to the practical- "Never mind that; let's get on with healing him".

I can be confident that they were not thinking about "life before conception" for two reasons.
a) "Life before conception" is not part of the standard teaching which they would have learned from the Old Testament, so the concept would not have been in their minds.
b) If the concept of "life before conception" had been in their minds, they would have not have bothered asking the question on the first place. Think about it. They see a man with a misfortune, which they assume must be the consequence of sin; they wonder when it happened. If the concept of "he sinned in a previous existence before conception" had been available to their minds, it would have been such an obvious solution to the puzzle that it would have satisfied them, and the question would not have been raised out loud. So if they were capable of thinking along those lines, the incident would not have happened.

Wow wow wow! How is God the father of our spirits if we did not pre-exist being born?

What's the connection supposed to be? Why should God being "the father of our spirits" require pre-existence?

Finally I come to the point where you get so confused about the direction the discussion is taking that you manage to prove my side of the argument instead of yours.
Just to recap; You had asserted that "The angry God of the Old Testament is different from the loving God of the New Testament"
I responded by pointing out that both aspects of God were mixed in the two Testaments, that there was Love expressed in the Old and Wrath expressed in the New.
So what is your answer?

You mean this same God who says thou shalt not kill... Oh except all those Cananites over over there even their women and children and animals and several other races. ..contradictions like this...

This is where you point out that expressions of Love are mixed with the Wrath in the Old Testament.
Which is what I said.

And then the so called Prince of Peace who is supposed to show up as some sort of military conquerer and kill 9/10's of his brethren on this earth so a bunch of self righteous Christians can sit around and play harps all day singing praises to his name.

And this military imagery, against which you take offence, comes from Revelation, which is a New Testament book.
So this is where you point out that expressions of Wrath are mixed with the Love in the New Testament.
Which is what I said.
So your comments have very effectively proved my own case, thank you very much.
You've suffered a little mishap in the gunnery control department, with the result that your cannon have blown one of your own ships out of the water.
As I said, love him or hate him, the God described in the Old Testament and the God described in the New Testament are the same God.

reply to post by DISRAELI

What you're doing is bringing in a theory from elsewhere, and fudging the Biblical text to make it fit your personal theory, which really sums up your whole approach to the Bible.

Not at all. What I am doing is reading it in context and in spirit. He was uniques as the first born and in terms of accomplishment in overcoming all things and showing us the way.

There is nothing here about Jeremiah before he was conceived. Nobody has ever understood it in that way, and it was never meant to be understood in that way. God's statement is about when God knew, not when Jeremiah existed.

LOL that is completely absurd. What part of "BEFORE he was formed in the womb" do you not understand? Also the statement "Nobody has ever understood it in that way," is also absurd. Many people and scholars understand it that way because that is what it says and means despite you trying to deny it. and the word BEFORE especially seals the deal. ...Sigh indeed!

If God is not part of the physical universe, then he stands aside from time as well as from the other dimensions.
From his viewpoint, the whole extent of human history can be simultaneous. That is what makes it possible for him to "see" the whole extent of Jeremiah's life, and make plans for it, from a perspective which, from the more limited human viewpoint, can best be understood as "before"

LOL speaking of non biblical do pray tell tell where in the bible it says that?

Where did I say that it was possible to sin in the womb? I said that the disciples were enquiring about the possibility; it does not follow, in the least, that their thoughts were on the right track.

You conceded all humanity existed before they were born but only in the womb. The apostles were not enquiring of the possibility of sin before birth they were speaking of it as a given for they knew already of mans existence before he was born.. The proof is in Jesus not correcting them if they were enquiring of it. They were simply asking was it him or his parents who sinned seamlessly knowing he existed before he was born into his present life.

What's the connection supposed to be? Why should God being "the father of our spirits" require pre-existence? .

Many scriptures testify of it but you will not hear them so I see no point in quoting more, search your soul my friend, calm yourself and be still and hear the holy spirit within and hear the truth of all things.

And this military imagery, against which you take offence, comes from Revelation, which is a New Testament book... So your comments have very effectively proved my own case, thank you very much.

This is where you are wrong my friend. The military imagery is the misinterpretation of the modern Christian. The ancient Jews wrote in a very metaphoric style common to the times. Modern traditional Christians project their own cultural bias into the scriptures and miss the mark quite often. For instance the scriptures that say the Lord will burn the wicked with fire. Most Christians think this means he will kill them however fire is a metaphor for the spirit or holy ghost. And other scriptures say he will smite them with the breath of his lips or mouth. And Christians thinks this means again he will kill them but this indicates preaching. Then of course the scripture say the wicked will be destroyed and he will come in great power and glory and Christians again think he will kill the wicked when in fact he will come preaching in the spirit and convert the wicked thus destroying them as there will be no more wicked once they are converted.

Interestingly enough and Ironically the Jews thought the scriptures meant he would come as a military conqueror also and so they rejected him because of their preconceived notions. But he still came in great power and glory teaching and preaching with the fire of the spirit healing the sick raising the dead making the lame walk etc. It doesn't get any more powerful and glorious then that! And he says he will come again in the same manner as before. Yet Christians are waiting for him to come as a great conqueror killing most of the inhabitants of the earth just like the Jews did. So which version do you think fits a Prince of Peace better? Massive death and destruction? Or preaching in the fire of the spirit and converting millions?

Most of Revelations is metaphor for what is supposed to happen on the inside of the seeker not literal destruction of the planet.

Originally posted by hawkiye
Not at all. What I am doing is reading it in context and in spirit.

All right then, old son, let's look at the context.
We're talking about John ch1 v18, so the context is the whole first portion of John ch1.

In the first verse, we find "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God""
This is describing a unique situation (to be with God and to be God), anfd the development of the rest of the passage identifies that situation with Christ.
So this is part of the context, and it is describing the uniquness of Christ- in origin.

We are then told that "all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made".
This is, again, a unique situation, because the rest of us were not involved in, made instruments of, the Creation of the world. The development of the rest of the passage identifies that situation with Christ.
So this is part of the context, and it is describing the uniqueness of Christ- in origin.

We are then told that life was "in him", which connects with the other passages in John indicating him as the source of life to others.This life itself is described as "the light of men". This, again, is unique; there is nothing in the passage or in the rest of John suggesting that other people can generate or give out the same kind of light. They are expected, instead, to move towards the unique source of light, the Word.
The development of the rest of the passage identifies that Word with Christ.
So this is part of the context, and it is describing the uniqueness of Christ, in origin and power.

The short passage about John the Baptist tells us that his purpose was to "bear witness" to the light. But "he was not the light". There is no suggestion whatever that he had any light of his own, or that any other human individual could have any light of their own. Light is only available from "the true light".
The development of the rest of the passage identifies that true light with Christ.
So this is part of the context, and it is describing the uniqueness of Christ, in origin and power.

v10 repeats- "the world was made through him". This is true of nobody else.
We're told that he gave EXOUSIA (power, or authority], to those who received him and believed in his name, to become children of God (but the word is TEKNON, not HUIOS).
This is key, because it is not about imitating him. It is about receiving something from him, from his power, something which we could not manage in our own strength (this is the whole point of the gospel, and therefore the whole point of the New Testament).
It is like, as I said, Jane Brown marrying John Smith and becoming Mrs John Smith.
It is like travelling under the protection of somebody else's passport or identity card.
It is about accepting a lift, instead of saying "No thanks, I can see what your car looks like, so I'm going to sit here on the grass verge and manufacture my own".
This is about a uniquness of power, and the next verse is going to identify it with Christ.
So this is part of the context, and it is describing the uniqueness of Christ, in power.

v14 "the Word became flesh". That is the statement which identifies the uniqueness of the Word with the person of Jesus Christ.
This is part of the context, and it is describing the uniqueness of Christ- in origin
.
His glory is that of an only-born Son of the Father (MONOGENOUS PARA PATROS)- that is, the only Son in that sense that the Father has ever produced.
This is part of the context, and it is describing the uniqueness of Christ- in origin.

Finally, we're told in v18 that no man has ever seen the Father. But the "only-begotten Son", the MONOGENES HUIOS, the one that we are talking about, is the one who has "made him known".
This is part of the context, and it is really about the uniquness of Christ in origin.

As an interesting, and perhaps revealing, footnote; that phrase is found in some MSS as THEOS MONOGENES, i.e as "only-begotten GOD". I like Westcott's comment here, that the variation of reading "makes no difference to the sense of the passage". His point is that the usual "only-begotten Son" actually "carries with it the idea of identity of essence", and therefore comes to the same thing as describing him as God.

How then, can you say that you are reading the phrase "in context", when, as far as I can tell, you are systematically ignoring what the context is saying?

Concerning Jeremiah, I repeat that God;'s comment is about his own knowledge, not about Jeremiah's existence.
It is called "foreknowledge".

You conceded all humanity existed before they were born but only in the womb.

I'm a little puzzled to know why you think this concession is worth quoting, because I don't understand how you're trying to use it.
Let's establish a few landmarks, because that's the only way we're going to avoid confusion.
1) One point in time is the event of birth, when people leave their mother's wombs.
2) Another point in time is the moment of conception.
3) The Christian teaching about the "pre-existence" of Christ refers to an even earlier period, the time before earthly conception.
My concession was that all humans have an existence between point 1 and point 2.
And this helps your argument how, exactly?
If you're trying to argue that all humans have a pre-existence similar to that of Christ, which is what I thought you were doing, then my concession is no good to you, because it doesn't take you as far back as you need to go.
If, on the other hand, your belief about "pre-existence" is actually limited to what I conceded, ie that human life includes the period between conception and birth, then we are in agreement; but that agreement gets you absolutely nowhere in establishing similarity between humans in general and Christ, whose pre-existence goes back before that time. So that's no good to you either.
So if you think that my "concession" helps you in any way- there's got to be some confusion of thought going on.

reply to post by DISRAELI


Revelations 3
20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

Here again he talks about coming into us, that's inside not outside.

21To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, EVEN AS I ALSO OVERCAME, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

Here he tells us he had to do what we are now doing to overcome and achieve what he and the father have achieved. For the son can only do that which he sees the father do and we have to do the same.

22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

Here he tells us to hear by the spirit, and what spirit is that? Why the spirit of all truth! If you will not hear then there is nothing more I can do to help you. Seek the spirit my friend and ask if your ideas are all there is. If you wont even consider that there may be deeper meaning then the spirit cannot speak to you on the matter until you are open to the possibility. All scripture has at least 3 levels of meaning and in most cases 7 or more.

reply to post by hawkiye
"Revelations 3
20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

Here again he talks about coming into us, that's inside not outside."

My understanding of this verse applies to the Church which is en gaged in some luke warm faith ...It is Christ knocking at the heart of his bride while it is him dooing the knocking, on the outside .Christ wants a relationship but the door to the heart is closed ....peace .ps good talk going on.

Originally posted by hawkiye

Once again you present my side of the argument very effectively, by putting forward the very same quotations which make my case.

Revelations 3
20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

This one, for example. This is the very same image I was using myself, back on page 2, the image of the guest in the house.

Tell me, do people ever visit you at home?
If someone who is not a member of your family comes to visit you, that guest is simultaneously WITHIN you house, but also EXTERNAL to it, in the sense of having an EXTERNAL origin.

The point was that the power of the kingdom is within us because, and only because, it has come to us from outside. It has a place within us now, but the origin is external.

Here again he talks about coming into us, that's inside not outside.

For heaven's sake, do try to visualise this image that you're quoting.
A man knocks at the front door. You open the door. Before anything else happens, look at this image and visualise where this man is. He is standing OUTSIDE the door, yes?
Once you have grasped the concept of "man standing outside", you may step aside from the door and allow him to come in.
At the end of that little drama, he is within your house.
But at the beginning of the drama, he was outside it.
It is simply not possible for someone to ENTER a house unless they are outside it in the first place.
Can you really not see that?

This picture of "Jesus entering" is depicting the very same point that I've been making all along, that the power we need is not native to us but comes to us from an EXTERNAL source. It comes in at the door, so to speak.

21To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne,

This, too, makes the point that the power is not native to us, but comes to us from outside.
If the power had been native to us, the text would have read;
"He that overcomes will be able to sit on a throne of his own, just like me".
But the text does not say that. There are two important differences.
Firstly, Jesus says "I will grant", rather than "he will be able to do it for himself". The power comes from Jesus, the source, and not from ourselves.
Secondly, Jesus says "MY throne". We cannot attain to thrones of our own, but we're allowed to squeeze ourselves onto the throne that belongs to somebody else.

Your version of Jesus sounds like the kind of driver who stops by a hitch-hiker, winds down the window to shout "You work hard enough, son, and one day you'll be able to afford a car like mine", and then drives off again.
My version of Jesus is the kind of driver who offers the lad a lift.
You're presenting yourself as the kind of hitch-hiker who stubbornly keeps walking.

Here he tells us to hear by the spirit, and what spirit is that? Why the spirit of all truth!

Yes, indeed, and I believe I'm doing that.
The difference between us is that I'm expecting the guidance to come from outside myself, from the Holy Spirit of God. "The Wisdom that comes from above", as James calls it in his epistle.
You're expecting the guidance to come from within yourself.
It has been said that a stream does not rise higher than its source.
If your wisdom comes only from within yourself, it's not going to rise much higher than that.

If you will not hear then there is nothing more I can do to help you.

I believe I know where I can find a more effective source of help.

reply to post by DISRAELI



I see you conveniently left out the part "EVEN AS I ALSO OVERCAME" and then imposed your own wrong interpretation... Sigh.

We must overcome as he overcame could not be more clear, he had to do what we are doing and he says it right there. No one is more blind then him who refuses to see.

Oh and God is not external to us any more then you are external to your kidneys. The scriptures are replete with this teaching but those who refuse to see and hear cling to thier dogma. God being external is illusion of the worlds of form, we are not separate we are all one, all part of the one great life of the body of God. Many have experienced and know this oneness and the illusion has fallen away. One day you will too when you are open to the truth. Until then we are like little children unable to understand see or hear the greater truth so we are given fairy tales so to speak with hints of the greater truth.

Christianity is still stuck on the past clinging to it's fairy tales because they are comfortable and familiar, to many who have lived many life times in those past ages are clinging to those tales still today. It is time to wake up and many are and the the fear based religions are being rejected by many, yet still many walk in darkness at noon day lost in illusion and emotional dogma. The Muslims are perhaps the worst many of them still seem to be stuck in the 7th century some killing people for supposed errant beliefs. Christians are a little father ahead but still seem stuck in the 19th century for the most part at least they aren't killing folks anymore for supposed errant beliefs.

Anyway I think we have gone about as far as we can with this discussion.

Originally posted by hawkiye
Oh and God is not external to us any more then you are external to your kidneys.

I have already given my response to this analogy on a previous page.
"I'm not external to my kidneys, but I don't have a personal relationship with them either."
The "relationship" aspect of Biblical teaching is one of the indicators pointing towards an "external" God.

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Originally posted by hawkiye
Oh and God is not external to us any more then you are external to your kidneys.

I have already given my response to this analogy on a previous page.
"I'm not external to my kidneys, but I don't have a personal relationship with them either."
The "relationship" aspect of Biblical teaching is one of the indicators pointing towards an "external" God.

Really so your kidneys are separate from you? LOL! Shakes head...

reply to post by hawkiye

No. You've missed the point, as usual.
My point is that the relation between myself and God is NOT like the relation between kidneys and body.
Your jibe would only work if they were the SAME relation.

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by hawkiye

 

No. You've missed the point, as usual.
My point is that the relation between myself and God is NOT like the relation between kidneys and body.
Your jibe would only work if they were the SAME relation.

edit on 22-11-2010 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)

Or perhaps you have missed the point my friend:

Acts 17:28-29
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring

29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

Hmmm so IN HIM WE LIVE AND MOVE AND HAVE OUR BEING... Sort of rules out external don't you agree.... and we are HIS OFFSPRING literally sons and daughters of the father Just like our big brother Christ... oops there goes the whole adoption theory like we were orphans or something he found in some ghetto galaxy... But if we wanted to become like our big brother and do the things he has done we had to go to the same school he went to and be adopted into the alumni so to speak...

Originally posted by hawkiye
Hmmm so IN HIM WE LIVE AND MOVE AND HAVE OUR BEING... Sort of rules out external don't you agree....

and we are HIS OFFSPRING literally sons and daughters of the father Just like our big brother Christ... oops there goes the whole adoption theory like we were orphans or something he found in some ghetto galaxy.

Hello, you're back? I thought you had decided that we had gone as far as we could with this discussion?
Have another go at beating the old Christian into submission, eh?

You can't rule out the "adoption" concept of sonship, because it is firmly there in the New Testament.
It is there in the quotation from Galatians, which you want to sweep under the carpet.
There is Christ, the Son of the family, and there are those who can be adopted because, and only because, of what Christ has done.
Then there is a third kind of "childhood", mentioned in that speech from Acts, relating to the fact that we are all part of the world he created. But this kind of "childhood" does not relate to the Son at all (as far as his divinity is concerned), because the Son, in that sense, was not created. He was, himself, the agent of the work of Creation, as described in the first chapter of John. I've already typed out my comments on that. I'm not going to type them out again. Why not go and read them this time?

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Originally posted by hawkiye
Hmmm so IN HIM WE LIVE AND MOVE AND HAVE OUR BEING... Sort of rules out external don't you agree....

and we are HIS OFFSPRING literally sons and daughters of the father Just like our big brother Christ... oops there goes the whole adoption theory like we were orphans or something he found in some ghetto galaxy.

Hello, you're back? I thought you had decided that we had gone as far as we could with this discussion.?
Have another go at beating the old Christian into submission, eh?

You can't rule out the "adoption" concept of sonship, because it is firmly there in the New Testament.
It is there in the quotation from Galatians, which you want to sweep under the carpet.
There is Christ, the Son of the family, and there are those who can be adopted because, and only because, of what Christ has done.
Then there is a third kind of "childhood", mentioned in that speech from Acts, relating to the fact that we are all part of the world he created. But this kind of "childhood" does not relate to the Son at all (as far as his divinity is concerned), because the Son, in that sense, was not created. He was, himself, the agent of the work of Creation, as described in the first chapter of John. I've already typed out my comments on that. I'm not going to type them out again. Why not go and read them this time?

Wow so you feel i am trying to beat you into submission... aaah poor baby....

So being the offspring of God does not relate to being part of the family? Wow, is not Christ also the offspring of God? If it does not relate to the son as far as his divinity then why did he say we would do greater things then him?

I didn't ignore your quoting of Galations I explained what adoption means in my previous post which part you ignored.

My explanation reconciles the scriptures an Acts with those in Galations otherwise they contradict each other. where as yours is quite a stretch of gymnastics to justify your dogma.

So we see you are the one my friend who conveniently ignores anything that challenges your emotional attachment to your dogmatic beliefs... So there take another lash in my systematic beating of another Christian into submission

Oh and by the way didn't say I was necessarily leaving the thread only that I had gone as far as I could with you. I know their may be others reading who may consider what I say and benefit from it as I know you dismissed it long ago and are not open to it or I would have bowed out long ago. I know a brick wall when I hit one....

response to hawkiye

So in what sense can the rest of us be sons?
There is a difference, which you are studiously ignoring, between the natural Son and the adopted son.
I will go through the Galatians passage again, slowly.
Galatians ch4 v 6; "When the time had come, God sent forth his Son...to redeem those who were under the Law"
SENT FORTH- This is the imagery of "Sending down to rescue" which I mentioned before.
The object of the exercise is that, as part of the mechanism of redemption, "we might receive ADOPTION as sons"- v5
The first Son was "born" into the family- we are "adopted".
As part of the adoption process, we receive the Holy Spirit, which is also described as "the Spirit of his Son". -v6
We become sons by being taken under the umbrella, so to speak, of the original Son.
I don't know what the law is nowadays, but when I was a child, children did not need separate passports. If they were acompanying their parents, they simply travelled under their parents' passports. That is the analogy of the Christian teaching. Christ, the Son, is the one who has his own passport into heaven. The rest of us are entering under the Son's passport. "Halt! Who goes there?" "Jesus Christ" "OK, pass friend".
All the rest of the NT language about being sons and being re-born etc. needs to be understood in the light of this distinction.

reply to post by DISRAELI


Friend repeating dogma over and over doesn't make it so. being the Offspring of God most assuredly denotes we are sons and daughters God and nothing else there is no different kind of children as you construct. Christ being the first born achieved what he saw the father achieve and showed us the way. He says we must overcome as he overcame and he did what he saw the father do. So once we do that we are adopted into that fraternity of that achievement so to speak even though we are already members of the family.

It is like having a family of doctors and the oldest son is the first to make it through med school and tells the younger children who are at various stages of thier education when you learn and achieve the things me and Dad have then you can become doctors like us. They are all family and of the same father just some are father ahead then others in thier progress. The oldest has been there and done that and he paved the way for the rest and guides them etc.

Now lets take a different approach of you will. Tell my why my interpretation is any less valid then yours? It is reasonable and plausible and there is no reason it is not valid.. On the other hand your interpretation makes the scriptures contradict each other. If you are adopted then you are not an offspring you come from someone else. So the one makes sense and reconciles the seemingly contradictory scriptures but the other emphasises the contradiction and makes no sense. Couple this with the confirmation of the Holy Spirit within and one can know the truth.

Originally posted by hawkiye
It is like having a family of doctors and the oldest son is the first to make it through med school and tells the younger children who are at various stages of thier education when you learn and achieve the things me and Dad have then you can become doctors like us.

Repeating the dogma becomes necessary because of your evasiveness in dealing with it.
The flaw in your analogy is that this is not what the New Testament says.
In particular, it is not what the first chapter of John says; the first chapter of John states clearly how the Son came4 from outside the family circle, in the first place, and that this is the source of his power to become his adopted brethren.

I now invite you to go through the passages in Galatians ch4 vv1-4, and John ch1 vv1-18, and take them stage by stage, as I have done, and we will compare interpretations.