Update on Dealing with Progressive Christianity

[Bob H]

"Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: "


"For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,  If they shall fall away {apostatize}, to renew them again unto repentance;
seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame."

 

[rsc2a]

"Diverse enough"

Jesus as God? Debatable.
The truth of the Resurrection? Let's discuss that.

An honest acknowledgement that Jesus made several exclusivity claims? How intolerant!

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Whatever you (all) may think of Paul, I think it's clear that Paul and the apostles were flawed.  The following should demonstrate that clearly:

28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

Which is why I believe I should run their writings/teachings through the grid of the recorded teachings of Jesus rather than run Jesus' teachings through their perspectives.

Exactly.  What bites me about the quote above is "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit". 

I think it's safe to say the apostles didn't deliver flawless inspired text, and in this case, I doubt it was the Holy Spirit speaking. 

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

"Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: "


"For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,  If they shall fall away {apostatize}, to renew them again unto repentance;
seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame."

Bob, you are obviously a poor schmuck who has fallen for the deceitful, despicable deceits of the Apostle Paul! Only an enlightened few are privy to the truth...and with innane posts like that, you prove you ain't one of 'em....

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Whatever you (all) may think of Paul, I think it's clear that Paul and the apostles were flawed.  The following should demonstrate that clearly:

28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

Which is why I believe I should run their writings/teachings through the grid of the recorded teachings of Jesus rather than run Jesus' teachings through their perspectives.

Exactly.  What bites me about the quote above is "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit". 

I think it's safe to say the apostles didn't deliver flawless inspired text, and in this case, I doubt it was the Holy Spirit speaking.

That quote is from Acts and can't be trusted.
Luke was only truthful and inspired when he wrote his gospel
When he wrote Acts he sold out to the great Pauline conspiracy to hijack Christian dogma.
And we know that because we just know that....

 

[Bob H]

"Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: "


"For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,  If they shall fall away {apostatize}, to renew them again unto repentance;
seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame."

Bob, you are obviously a poor schmuck who has fallen for the deceitful, despicable deceits of the Apostle Paul! Only an enlightened few are privy to the truth...and with innane posts like that, you prove you ain't one of 'em....

The Apostle John wrote the first quote.  Apparently John was only  1 for 5.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Whatever you (all) may think of Paul, I think it's clear that Paul and the apostles were flawed.  The following should demonstrate that clearly:

28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

Which is why I believe I should run their writings/teachings through the grid of the recorded teachings of Jesus rather than run Jesus' teachings through their perspectives.

Exactly.  What bites me about the quote above is "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit". 

I think it's safe to say the apostles didn't deliver flawless inspired text, and in this case, I doubt it was the Holy Spirit speaking.

That quote is from Acts and can't be trusted.
Luke was only truthful and inspired when he wrote his gospel
When he wrote Acts he sold out to the great Pauline conspiracy to hijack Christian dogma.
And we know that because we just know that....

Saying the text is inspired... .Isn't saying that the Spirit approved of what was said. I've read where the Pharisee's said Jesus was a "winebibber". I didn't take it the that Spirit felt the same way.....

The text in question is nothing more than a compromise between the Jew and Gentiles. Nothing more. Nothing less. A compromise never holds the absolute truth. It was meant as a means for them to get along. It didn't work. James was wrong.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Whatever you (all) may think of Paul, I think it's clear that Paul and the apostles were flawed.  The following should demonstrate that clearly:

28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

Which is why I believe I should run their writings/teachings through the grid of the recorded teachings of Jesus rather than run Jesus' teachings through their perspectives.

Exactly.  What bites me about the quote above is "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit". 

I think it's safe to say the apostles didn't deliver flawless inspired text, and in this case, I doubt it was the Holy Spirit speaking.

Pointing at one obvious issue isn't a reason to reject EVERYTHING. That is what SM is doing. That is what he has always done. Throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

"Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: "


"For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,  If they shall fall away {apostatize}, to renew them again unto repentance;
seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame."

I don't deny Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of God.

 

[Biker]

"Pick and choose"?  We ALL do that.

Christians are not known for doing that, unbelievers are.

The church is built upon Jesus Christ and that which He taught, not what others said about Him. Granted, we have to rely on historical record.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,and the Word was God.

The Word (Christ) was with God, the word(Christ) WAS GOD. The Christ, aka Word, IS GOD

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

When CHRIST, aka GOD, picked Paul as his "Chosen Vessel", this meant he was not only an Apostle -apostolos, translated "messenger", he was a chosen vessel specifically TO BEAR God aka Jesus AKA the WORD's, name. Acts 9:15. The point here, re-iterated twice and is the point of scripture itself,, cannot be any clearer for you

I believe, a community of faith should be diverse wherever possible whether that be in culture, thought, doctrine, politics, marital and economic status, etc. and Jesus should be the unifying thread.

This is named a CHRISTIAN message board so by it's very definition, it is a GOD aka Jesus aka THE WORD, message board for his own to discuss TRUTH, aka the Bible.
Trying to pit Jesus against himself is something heretics have been doing for eons.

1 John 2:23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.

Yes, I do "pick and choose", but I am willing to admit it.

You will not confess the Son, you deny him. Proclaim it openly on the world wide web
You are not only unsaved... but actively seeking to destroy his deity

.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Christians are not known for doing that, unbelievers are.

I am going on fact, not reputation.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,and the Word was God.

The Word (Christ) was with God, the word(Christ) WAS GOD. The Christ, aka Word, IS GOD

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. 

The word "Word" is logos and is never translated as "Jesus Christ" in lexical definition. The verse does not say "In the beginning was Jesus" but rather "In the beginning was logos". It simply means "God's purposes, plans." In John 14, Jesus said, "The words (logos) I speak are not my own, but my Father who lives in me does his work..."

The logos becoming flesh simply identifies that the plans of God were being fulfilled in human form. A like term we would use is "the promise became reality". In this case, God's plan took form in human flesh in the body of Jesus Christ.

The Jews of that day would have understood "word" to be God's character, being worked out. "The word of the Lord was Joseph's helper." "Moses brought people to hear the word of the Lord." etc. So the Jewish people to whom John's work would have been read would have understood "word" to be referencing God's wisdom and action.

When CHRIST, aka GOD, picked Paul as his "Chosen Vessel", this meant he was not only an Apostle -apostolos, translated "messenger", he was a chosen vessel specifically TO BEAR God aka Jesus AKA the WORD's, name. Acts 9:15. The point here, re-iterated twice and is the point of scripture itself,, cannot be any clearer for you

The word "logos" does not appear in Acts 9 so you are stretching your point. Oh, and "vessel" simply means "utensil", either an object or man. It is NOT translated apostolos as you want to believe.

This is named a CHRISTIAN message board so by it's very definition, it is a GOD aka Jesus aka THE WORD, message board for his own to discuss TRUTH, aka the Bible.

And you are free to maintain that opinion.

Trying to pit Jesus against himself is something heretics have been doing for eons.

Perhaps that is true. I am pitting OTHERS against Jesus, those "others" (among the group) being writers in the canon.

You will not confess the Son, you deny him. Proclaim it openly on the world wide web

Like Peter, I confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.

You are not only unsaved... but actively seeking to destroy his deity

Whoever confesses me before all, I will confess before my Father in heaven. I am confessing that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God so it is up to Him to make my eternal fate.

Oh, and if He is deity, I wouldn't have the power to destroy His deity. Perhaps I am shedding light that there is another hermeneutic in seeing Jesus than what is accepted and expected by Protestantism and Evangelicalism.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

"He" refers back to the Word.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Smellin Coffee]

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. 

The word "Word" is logos and is never translated as "Jesus Christ" in lexical definition. The verse does not say "In the beginning was Jesus" but rather "In the beginning was logos". It simply means "God's purposes, plans." In John 14, Jesus said, "The words (logos) I speak are not my own, but my Father who lives in me does his work..."

The logos becoming flesh simply identifies that the plans of God were being fulfilled in human form. A like term we would use is "the promise became reality". In this case, God's plan took form in human flesh in the body of Jesus Christ.

The Jews of that day would have understood "word" to be God's character, being worked out. "The word of the Lord was Joseph's helper." "Moses brought people to hear the word of the Lord." etc. So the Jewish people to whom John's work would have been read would have understood "word" to be referencing God's wisdom and action.[/quote]

SC - Do  you believe Jesus to be the incarnate God?

 

[Ransom]

Anyone who reads John 1 and doesn't see that John intends to identify the divine logos with the man Jesus Christ, is either incapable of reading or dishonest.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Christians are not known for doing that, unbelievers are.

I am going on fact, not reputation.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,and the Word was God.

The Word (Christ) was with God, the word(Christ) WAS GOD. The Christ, aka Word, IS GOD

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. 

The word "Word" is logos and is never translated as "Jesus Christ" in lexical definition. The verse does not say "In the beginning was Jesus" but rather "In the beginning was logos". It simply means "God's purposes, plans." In John 14, Jesus said, "The words (logos) I speak are not my own, but my Father who lives in me does his work..."

The logos becoming flesh simply identifies that the plans of God were being fulfilled in human form. A like term we would use is "the promise became reality". In this case, God's plan took form in human flesh in the body of Jesus Christ.

The Jews of that day would have understood "word" to be God's character, being worked out. "The word of the Lord was Joseph's helper." "Moses brought people to hear the word of the Lord." etc. So the Jewish people to whom John's work would have been read would have understood "word" to be referencing God's wisdom and action.

When CHRIST, aka GOD, picked Paul as his "Chosen Vessel", this meant he was not only an Apostle -apostolos, translated "messenger", he was a chosen vessel specifically TO BEAR God aka Jesus AKA the WORD's, name. Acts 9:15. The point here, re-iterated twice and is the point of scripture itself,, cannot be any clearer for you

The word "logos" does not appear in Acts 9 so you are stretching your point. Oh, and "vessel" simply means "utensil", either an object or man. It is NOT translated apostolos as you want to believe.

This is named a CHRISTIAN message board so by it's very definition, it is a GOD aka Jesus aka THE WORD, message board for his own to discuss TRUTH, aka the Bible.

And you are free to maintain that opinion.

Trying to pit Jesus against himself is something heretics have been doing for eons.

Perhaps that is true. I am pitting OTHERS against Jesus, those "others" (among the group) being writers in the canon.

You will not confess the Son, you deny him. Proclaim it openly on the world wide web

Like Peter, I confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.

You are not only unsaved... but actively seeking to destroy his deity

Whoever confesses me before all, I will confess before my Father in heaven. I am confessing that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God so it is up to Him to make my eternal fate.

Oh, and if He is deity, I wouldn't have the power to destroy His deity. Perhaps I am shedding light that there is another hermeneutic in seeing Jesus than what is accepted and expected by Protestantism and Evangelicalism.

Smellin, if you will read and think on the lame argument(s) you parroted above, you can't really believe that stuff....some of the links and arguments you post here simply Illustrate how evidence free the arguments to put forth really are....
Are you just playing devils advocate?

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Anyone who reads John 1 and doesn't see that John intends to identify the divine logos with the man Jesus Christ, is either incapable of reading or dishonest.

You mean to say that you weren't just blown away with the 'brilliance' of the argument he put forth?! 

 

[Smellin Coffee]

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

"He" refers back to the Word.

And the KJV denotes the word "He" as "the same".

"In the beginning was the word (character and action) and the word (c & a) was with God and the word (c & a) was God. The same (c & a) was in the beginning with God.  All things were made by him (God); and without him (God) was not any thing made that was made. In him (God) was life; and the life was the light of men."

There is a possibility that the word "beginning" may not be talking about creation of the world but about a new period of time (dispensation?) which started with John the Baptist, as mentioned in John 1.  None of the other times the word "beginning" is mentioned in John's epistle does it ever suggest the creation of the world. So when we take "beginning" and "logos" in conjunction with the rest of the book and the way the words were used, to make John 1 as we understand it as Jesus being deity, it doesn't fit with the rest of the Gospel of John.

In all honesty, it does seem to me that "beginning" refers to creation because it does say that "all things were made by Him." So I don't hold to the idea that "beginning" is a "new dispensation and not creation" but I do recognize that in light of the rest of John's epistle, that view has to be considered due to context of the whole book.

Now is Jesus suggested in John 1? I believe so. I believe He is the "light" mentioned in verses 7-9 where John the Baptist bore witness of that "light". It's funny that John goes on to say, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us..." so why would John mix his metaphors by calling Jesus "Word" then "Light" then back to "Word" again? I think it was because "word" and "light" are two different ideas altogether.

Then verse 18 clarifies the matter (to me):

"No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." If they were to look at Jesus, wouldn't they have been looking into the face of God? Jesus declared God to the world but the mention is that God cannot be seen by human eyes.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

[quote author=Smellin Coffee]

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. 

The word "Word" is logos and is never translated as "Jesus Christ" in lexical definition. The verse does not say "In the beginning was Jesus" but rather "In the beginning was logos". It simply means "God's purposes, plans." In John 14, Jesus said, "The words (logos) I speak are not my own, but my Father who lives in me does his work..."

The logos becoming flesh simply identifies that the plans of God were being fulfilled in human form. A like term we would use is "the promise became reality". In this case, God's plan took form in human flesh in the body of Jesus Christ.

The Jews of that day would have understood "word" to be God's character, being worked out. "The word of the Lord was Joseph's helper." "Moses brought people to hear the word of the Lord." etc. So the Jewish people to whom John's work would have been read would have understood "word" to be referencing God's wisdom and action.

SC - Do  you believe Jesus to be the incarnate God?
[/quote]

At this point right now, I believe Jesus was and is divine but not deity. I believe Him to be "the Son of God" but not "God the Son". I believe Jesus is who He clearly says He is, not our perception of who we want Him to be.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Anyone who reads John 1 and doesn't see that John intends to identify the divine logos with the man Jesus Christ, is either incapable of reading or dishonest.

Third option is to view the passage honestly from a different hermeneutic.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Smellin Coffee]There is a possibility that the word "beginning" may not be talking about creation of the world but about a new period of time (dispensation?) which started with John the Baptist, as mentioned in John 1.[/quote]

No, there isn't. John was clearly echoing the very start of the Hebrew bible to make a stronger point.

[quote author=Smellin Coffee]None of the other times the word "beginning" is mentioned in John's epistle does it ever suggest the creation of the world.[/quote]

So?

[quote author=Smellin Coffee]So when we take "beginning" and "logos" in conjunction with the rest of the book and the way the words were used, to make John 1 as we understand it as Jesus being deity, it doesn't fit with the rest of the Gospel of John.[/quote]

Actually it reinforces everything else John writes in his gospel...and especially in his epistles. Or do they not count?

[quote author=Smellin Coffee]In all honesty, it does seem to me that "beginning" refers to creation because it does say that "all things were made by Him." So I don't hold to the idea that "beginning" is a "new dispensation and not creation" but I do recognize that in light of the rest of John's epistle, that view has to be considered due to context of the whole book.[/quote]

In short, you are making an argument based on a belief you don't even actually hold.

[quote author=Smellin Coffee]Now is Jesus suggested in John 1? I believe so. I believe He is the "light" mentioned in verses 7-9 where John the Baptist bore witness of that "light". It's funny that John goes on to say, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us..." so why would John mix his metaphors by calling Jesus "Word" then "Light" then back to "Word" again? I think it was because "word" and "light" are two different ideas altogether.[/quote]

If you are going to appeal to ancient Jewish thought patterns, you at least need to be consistent. "Word" and "light" are virtually synonymous with deity to the Jew. (See again: Gen 1)

[quote author=Smellin Coffee]Then verse 18 clarifies the matter (to me):

"No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." If they were to look at Jesus, wouldn't they have been looking into the face of God? Jesus declared God to the world but the mention is that God cannot be seen by human eyes.
[/quote]

So you do deny Jesus is the incarnate God?