60 replies to this topic

[He-man]

seanbam, on Mar 30 2006, 12:42 AM, said:

I don't care about the trinity any more because I have given up on God since he treats me like just like this system does. At least with the devil I know where he stands and where I stand with him unlike God.

But I had a thought perhaps there is similarity between Cain not offering his first fruits and God sacrificing his firstborn/only begotten?

Don't give up, give in to what the Spirit is telling you.

The only similar thing is Cain's rebellion and that is not relative to the sacrifice except that you must give in to the sacrifice yourself or be like Cain and rebel.

[Adanac]

Colter, on Mar 27 2006, 11:46 AM, said:

"There is a way that seems right to a man, but the end thereof is death."

Im sorry Adanac, I wish I could be Mr. agreeable with you but this is a great tragedy that you have put forth and demonstrated the core apostasy of Christadelphianism.

Maybe you could ask God in prayer why it was that Athanasius won. Do it, ask him!

Instead of these vague comments I'd appreciate you actually dealing with the verses and commentary that I supplied in this thread.

[Adanac]

Simpleton, on Mar 28 2006, 11:13 AM, said:

nsr, on Mar 28 2006, 11:24 AM, said:

Simpleton,

Can I just ask - did you actually read anything that Adanac wrote?

Bits and pieces; enough to see it does not fully agree with the word of God.

How about the verses I cited in my last post. The theology that Adanac has presented must exempt those verses. But since God's word is true, it is the theology of man that has to be corrected to agree with God.

The verses you quoted fall perfectly in harmony with what I wrote.

Your commentary on those verses is what is at fault, Simpleton.

I am fed up of this. You write a long article on something and you get nonsense and vague comments in return instead of someone objectively opening their Bible and offering constructive feedback and discussion. I don't know why I bothered.

[Colter]

Quote

The ramifications of this are tremendous, especially when we compare it with the Trinitarian idea that Jesus, by virtue of being begotten of God, is therefore God. What Jesus says here is that believers – normal men and women who believe the gospel – they are begotten of spirit and therefore are spirit! Moreover we have the words of John chapter 1:


(John 1)
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Not only are believers in the Lord Jesus Christ begotten of spirit but they are also begotten (the same word gennao is used here) of God! Now if like begets like and that which is born of spirit is spirit then it follows that which is born of God is God.

But how can this be? Are we really to assume that believers, by virtue of being born of God, somehow become God, become spirit beings? Nobody would suggest such a notion yet Jesus says “that which is born of spirit is spirit” and they are begotten of God. Far from Jesus uniquely being “begotten of God” we are told that all believers are. Therefore if Trinitarian logic is right logic dictates that the Godhead is made up of believers.

YES! We become the spirit children of the spirit father, that is why we shall not taste death just as Jesus spirit did not die but returned. Our spirit will not taste death and will be resurrected in the place that Jesus went to prepair for us.

Quote

But how can this be?

When I was born of the spirit (something which I did not previously know anything about) all the words of Jesus became "alive" and now I understand them.

Adanac it is a gift of grace not an accomplishment. Should you receive God into your heart by this grace gift you will have what Paul had and Peter and every other person born of the spirit gift. The reason that you do not understand theses things is because you are filtering them through your mind as opposed to spirit perception, "the language of the heart."

The whole difference is what happened to make Saul into Paul. It was not intellectual enlightenment.

Jesus implied that that his enemies were the children of the Devil, the children of this world . One of the great truths-revelations to man from Jesus was that we are ALL in reality the children of God. The faith realization of this very fact and subsequent spirit birth rescues us from the clutches of this material world and the Satan that had usurped authority and tried to make himself God of this world.

So those of us born into the faith sons and daughters of Christ co-exist with the walking dead, people of this world. Here and now we live in the 4th dimension of spiritual existence, the " Kingdom of Heaven."

By manifesting the fruits of the kingdom, of Love, we hope to draw the dead to the light that they might have eternal life and have it more abundantly.

The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God...
Romans 8:16




Colter

Edited by Colter, 30 March 2006 - 08:12 PM.

[Adanac]

Colter, I am quite aware of the meaning of the conversion of Saul - it is one of my favourite studies. The problem is that a lot of what you say contradicts what the Bible says and you don't even believe the Bible is the Word of God so how can you possibly offer anything meaningful to the conversation?

[Adanac]

Colter, on Mar 30 2006, 11:20 AM, said:

When I was born of the spirit

How do you even know you are born of the spirit? The phrase is a Biblical one and you don't believe the Bible is the word of God.

[nsr]

Colter, how much of that did you just make up?

[Adanac]

It is the word of Colter, nsr. He only believes what he wants to believe, what he feels is right and he has no authority but his own heart.

[nsr]

And yet he sees fit to criticise our reading of the Scriptures?

[Adanac]

I know. He has exalted himself into the position of the Son of God, raising his own prophesying above that of the revealed word of God. Colter's word is more important than Scripture, so it seems. If he was the Son of God I'd listen to him but he isn't.

[nsr]

What I don't understand is why he believes in God at all if he doesn't trust the Bible

[Colter]

Edited by Colter, 30 March 2006 - 08:49 PM.

[Colter]

gentlemen gentlemen, lets tone it down a bit

Using your rationale, the Law, the authority, and the OT scriptures you guys could have been standing around Steven with stones in your hands too, don't you understand that? The Sanhedrin used the same logic that you do??????? What mechanism do you have for believing in Jesus? This is the principle difference between Arius and Athanasius.

The apostles recognized Jesus and had faith in him long before their public confession that he was the son of God and before he asked them. What mechanism did they use to identify Christ if not by their hearts?

Was it scripture? No! they were a bit lax in that area considering Jesus called them on the carpet several times for not knowing the scripture or more importantly the spiritual lessons contained within them.

Maybe that's why he chose common working men and not proud intellectuals blinded by over much learning, do ya think????? Why not 12 scribes???

nsr, I have never ever criticized you for reading the scripture, I simply have drawn attention to the human imperfection within them.

Edited by Colter, 31 March 2006 - 12:00 AM.

[Colter]

Adanac, on Mar 30 2006, 08:14 PM, said:

Colter, on Mar 30 2006, 11:20 AM, said:

When I was born of the spirit

How do you even know you are born of the spirit? The phrase is a Biblical one and you don't believe the Bible is the word of God.

Because I'm not drunk, and I'm not on drugs, and I'm not in jail, and I'm not dead, an I have love for others............and I know the voice of the shephard.

Please don't ask me to turn water into wine.

[Adanac]

Colter: the apostle who used to be the persecutor Saul of Tarsus argued extensively from the Old Testament Scriptures to prove that Jesus is the Christ. So please don't play these games.

You can thrown the Bible out if you want but I think you had better listen to God instead.

[Colter]

Adanac, on Mar 31 2006, 12:03 AM, said:

Colter: the apostle who used to be the persecutor Saul of Tarsus argued extensively from the Old Testament Scriptures to prove that Jesus is the Christ. So please don't play these games.

You can thrown the Bible out if you want but I think you had better listen to God instead.

Adanac,

I'm not playing a game. Paul argued from the OT to the Jews which did nothing for them (see modern Israel) and only confused Christianity, that is why you and I are having this disagreement in the first place.

Edited by Colter, 31 March 2006 - 12:11 AM.

[Adanac]

How can you appeal to the conversion of Saul of Tarsus in one breath and then criticize his writings the next? You just pick and choose what you want to accept from Scripture where it suits your needs. You accuse us of misusing Scripture?

[Colter]

Adanac, on Mar 31 2006, 12:16 AM, said:

How can you appeal to the conversion of Saul of Tarsus in one breath and then criticize his writings the next? You just pick and choose what you want to accept from Scripture where it suits your needs. You accuse us of misusing Scripture?

Fair debate point.

Paul was a person Adanac, not a God. He was doing the best he could, maybe he did all that could be done under the circumstances. What about Moses, he did even greater things in my opinion but then gets whacked for making a mistake? He's in scripture but for Paul we had no post-Acts recap. Perhaps the Lord would have disapproved of Paul's version of the gospel as he tried to make it more acceptable to Israel. Don't you get my point?

Edited by Colter, 31 March 2006 - 12:30 AM.

[Adanac]

You have no point, Colter. Peter says that Paul's writings are Scripture that some wrest - probably people who don't understand them. And Paul's conversion is referred to throughout his writings. It left a profound affect on him - see Galatians and Philippians for examples.

If you can't see the glory of God shining through in letters like Ephesians then I pity you.

[Adanac]

Could some kind soul please split off all this extraneous stuff from this thread so we can actually discuss what I wrote. Thanks.

[Colter]

Adanac, on Mar 31 2006, 12:35 AM, said:

You have no point, Colter. Peter says that Paul's writings are Scripture that some wrest - probably people who don't understand them. And Paul's conversion is referred to throughout his writings. It left a profound affect on him - see Galatians and Philippians for examples.

If you can't see the glory of God shining through in letters like Ephesians then I pity you.

For any anonymous soul following these discusions I have never made any such characterizations in regaurds to the glory of God in Ephesians.

I'm done with this discusion so Mods you can throw it on the trsah heap rather then waste a new thread.

Thank you

Colter

[nsr]

Quote

What mechanism did they use to identify Christ if not by their hearts?

The disciples saw Jesus performing miracles on a fairly regular basis. We don't. But we do have Scripture. It is the only thing that can teach us about God and Jesus.

If we're just going to make up stuff and believe whatever we want, then how can we know who's right or wrong?

[Colter]

nsr, on Mar 31 2006, 10:48 AM, said:

Quote

What mechanism did they use to identify Christ if not by their hearts?

The disciples saw Jesus performing miracles on a fairly regular basis. We don't. But we do have Scripture. It is the only thing that can teach us about God and Jesus.

If we're just going to make up stuff and believe whatever we want, then how can we know who's right or wrong?

nsr,

Accusing me of just making up stuff and believing only what I want is getting old. As imperfectly as I can I surrender my will to the indwelling spirit of my Father in heaven as my guide. I'm also guided by those brothers and sisters around me who are attempting to do the same, this is the "kingdom of heaven." Believe it or not I have also learned things about the Father and about myself from people on this forum.

Thanks for honing in on the critical question which to me goes to the heart of the debate between Arius and Athanasius.

History is proof positive that belief in miracles is really insufficient to bring about the spiritual rebirth. There was something more to the faith that the apostles had in Jesus. Consider Thomas for example or Judas as a striking display of how the human heart can distort reality, ignore wisdom and grow cold in the presence of such love as Jesus had for him. The religious authorities could only deduce that Jesus performed such miracles by the power of Satan.

Colter

[nsr]

Colter, on Mar 31 2006, 12:39 PM, said:

Accusing me of just making up stuff and believing only what I want is getting old.

Still true though eh?

My problem is that most of the points you try to make aren't based on Scripture, simply on your own opinion. We need to see something along the lines of evidence before we can consider your viewpoint.

[Colter]

nsr, on Mar 31 2006, 11:43 AM, said:

Colter, on Mar 31 2006, 12:39 PM, said:

Accusing me of just making up stuff and believing only what I want is getting old.

Still true though eh?

My problem is that most of the points you try to make aren't based on Scripture, simply on your own opinion. We need to see something along the lines of evidence before we can consider your viewpoint.

Matthew 7:21-23, "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

Hebrews 8:6-13, "But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away."

Ephesians 2:19-22, "Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit."

Romans 7:4
So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God.

Galatians 2:21
I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"

Edited by Colter, 31 March 2006 - 02:56 PM.

[Adanac]

Colter, on Mar 31 2006, 03:39 AM, said:

Thanks for honing in on the critical question which to me goes to the heart of the debate between Arius and Athanasius.

The point being that Jesus and the Apostles prophesied many times of coming apostasy, and the victory of Athanasius was another rung up that apostate ladder.

[Colter]

Adanac, on Mar 31 2006, 02:18 PM, said:

Colter, on Mar 31 2006, 03:39 AM, said:

Thanks for honing in on the critical question which to me goes to the heart of the debate between Arius and Athanasius.

The point being that Jesus and the Apostles prophesied many times of coming apostasy, and the victory of Athanasius was another rung up that apostate ladder.

Athanasius heard the voice of the shephard

John 5:25
I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live.

Arius could not accept him because he could neither see or know him.

15"If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— 17the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him.

But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you

18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

19Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live.

20On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. [size=3]

21Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him[b] and show myself to him."


Colter

Edited by Colter, 31 March 2006 - 03:55 PM.

[Anastasis]

I am quit curious about the position of the Christadelphians on the canon. You are ultra-fundamentalists in your own right. Despite your unusual doctrines, you do take the position of the fundamentalistic protestants today; the Bible dropped down from heaven. You do not claim Holy Spirit possesitions, so all you can use to determine whether the canon and all the verses in it are right, are your intuition or the intuition of those you let decide for you. You claim the canon handed down from Luther and Calvin are the word of God from a to z. They had doubts about several of the books, just as the early rcc and concentrated their energies on the remaning books. So how can you know that the Bible you have is correct from page 1 to the end? You stress the letter so much, various Christadelphian movements have ceased fellowship from other Christadelphian due to a few verses, a few verses here and there must be highlighted or ignored to make mandatory doctrines to create seperation from other believers etc etc, so you are not in it for the fun for it. It seems to be you base it all on faith in the one thing that God somehow kept the books and verses intact for your. That's not something you can look up and find in the Bible.

[He-man]

Colter, on Mar 31 2006, 07:23 AM, said:

nsr, on Mar 31 2006, 11:43 AM, said:

Colter, on Mar 31 2006, 12:39 PM, said:

Accusing me of just making up stuff and believing only what I want is getting old.

Still true though eh?

My problem is that most of the points you try to make aren't based on Scripture, simply on your own opinion. We need to see something along the lines of evidence before we can consider your viewpoint.

Matthew 7:21-23, "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

Hebrews 8:6-13, "But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away."

Ephesians 2:19-22, "Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit."

Romans 7:4
So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God.

Galatians 2:21
I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"

Yes, Christ is the new covenant and the first of his commandments was:
De 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
Mr 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
Ga 3:20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

And the rest of the story is.....
Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
Heb 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

Heb 11:39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:

Eph 3:6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

[Jesse2W]

Adanac, on 24 March 2006 - 07:43 PM, said:

Here is an excerpt from the Nicene Creed:

part of the Nicean Creed said:

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.

I have underlined the most relevant section for the purposes of this study. The controversy surrounding the nature of Christ centres around the word "begotten" and the idea that "true God from true God" means that God only begets God.

Here is part of a later creed that formulates the doctrine known as the Trinity:

part of the Athanasian Creed said:

- Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
- For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man;
- God, of the Substance [Essence] of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Substance [Essence] of his Mother, born in the world;
- Perfect God and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting;
- Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father, as touching his Manhood.

Again notice the use of words like incarnation and begotten – bringing with it the idea that Jesus shares in the essential physical nature of God and therefore is God.

Therefore central to the debate is the idea that Jesus is the only begotten son of God. I have debated with several Trinitarians over this very thing in which they will say that since Jesus is the son of God, or more especially the only begotten son of God, then this is proof positive that he is God.

Thank you for this thread! It's exactly what I was looking for about what "only begotten" means. I think if the lost saw this thread there would be less confusion about the nature of Christ. Some think, that Jesus was the ONLY being created by God directly. Others believe he is the only one eternally generated. I think the only way to know is to compare "monogenes" with how it's used in other parts of scripture. If you had to translate it how would you translate it? Uniquely begotten? Unique one? One begotten? One of a kind?