Link: Copy link
I understand Ken may be very knowledgeable on SPERM but this is how it happened.Justice,
Greek word for seed is "sperma."
Men beget children, women bear them. The sperm fertilizes the egg.
Children are begotten of the Father, and born of the mother.
Ken is correct.
Jesus said I AM and not I WAS
May Christians Observe Holidays?
by Wayne Jackson
Is it wrong for Christians to celebrate some of the holidays popular in our society—like giving gifts at Christmas time, allowing children to go trick-or-treating at Halloween, or hunting eggs at Easter?
In considering this issue, several things should be kept in view.
A practice may have originated under certain circumstances but, eventually, have lost that significance—either in whole or at least significantly. There is Bible precedent for dealing with this principle.
Consider the practice of eating meat that had been sacrificed to idols previously—a very lively issue in the first century. Here is the background: A meat sacrifice would be made to an idol. After a certain portion was consumed in sacrificial flames (or by the priests), the balance would be sold as common food in the market. The controversy, therefore, arose: is this meat contaminated simply because it had some connection with an idol?
Paul’s answer is no (see 1 Corinthians 8:1-13). If one has “knowledge”—i.e., that an idol is “nothing”—and his conscience is not offended, he may eat of that meat. It is not contaminated merely by its former association.
Yet, there is this caution: if one is in an environment wherein some “weak” (i.e., without mature knowledge) brother is liable to be damaged, then it would be best to refrain in that instance, lest the weak brother’s conscience be wounded.
It would be wrong to partake religiously of a practice that compromises one’s fidelity to the truth. The apostle deals with such a matter in 1 Corinthians 10. If in a service where sacrifices were being offered to “demons” the Christian were to partake, i.e., have “communion” (koinonia—participation, fellowship), with those involved in the illicit worship, such clearly would be sinful (10:20-21).
To practice Christmas, Halloween, or Easter religiously would be unwarranted. To do so merely as a cultural custom would be a matter of personal judgment.
In Romans 14, Paul argues the general proposition that there will be different levels of knowledge among brethren and that, to a certain extent, these must be accommodated for the sake of Christian unity. For example, some, out of conviction, choose not to eat meats; others see nothing wrong with such a practice.
The apostle instructs that neither individual is to “set at naught” the other. No man is to create a law in areas of expediency and then demand that all others submit. If an overt act of transgression is not the issue, peace must prevail.
Most folks who are rather sensitive about these cultural practices are not consistent entirely in their own conduct. Consider, for example, the celebration of birthdays. In ancient Egypt, the birthdays of the Pharaohs were considered as “holy” days, with no work being done (McClintock and Strong 1969, 817). Moreover, as John Lightfoot noted: “The Jewish schools esteem the keeping of birthdays a part of idolatrous worship” (1979, 217).
Does this mean that if a man in this era gives his wife a birthday present or if we have a birthday party for a child we have compromised our faith? Surely no one will so allege.
What about the man who takes his wife out for dinner and gives her flowers on Valentine’s Day? Has he yielded to the Romish dogma regarding “Saint Valentine”? When we place flowers on the graves of our loved ones, is this the same as the Hindu practice of putting food on the graves of one’s ancestors? Does having a wedding ceremony in a church building imply that we endorse the Catholic notion that marriage is a “church sacrament”? Surely these queries must be answered negatively.
Practices can change with time and mean different things to different people. We must not compromise the truth, but neither are we permitted to make spiritual laws for others.
Old Testament: "And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you" (Ex. 3:14 KJV).
Donnie and Ken
MOST CREATIVE AWARD
[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Justice, thanks.Thanks Donnie, BTW that was a Justice exclusive. No links. We will reveal the runner up in this category very soon. (Spoiler Alert) it's all Greek to me.
[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]You forgot to name your source or link, Justice.Arianism is named for Arius, a teacher in the early 4th century A.D. One of the earliest and probably the most important item of debate among early Christians was the subject of Christ’s deity. Was Jesus truly God in the flesh or was Jesus a created being? Was Jesus God or just like God? Arius held that Jesus was created by God as the first act of creation, that Jesus was the crowning glory of all creation. Arianism, then, is the view that Jesus was a created being with divine attributes, but was not divine in and of Himself.
Arianism misunderstands references to Jesus’ being tired (John 4:6) and not knowing the date of His return (Matthew 24:36). Yes, it is difficult to understand how God could be tired and/or not know something, but relegating Jesus to a created being is not the answer. Jesus was fully God, but He was also fully human. Jesus did not become a human being until the incarnation. Therefore, Jesus’ limitations as a human being have no impact on His divine nature or eternality.
A second major misinterpretation in Arianism is the meaning of “firstborn” (Romans 8:29; Colossians 1:15-20). Arians understand “firstborn” in these verses to mean that Jesus was “born” or “created” as the first act of creation. This is not the case. Jesus Himself proclaimed His self-existence and eternality (John 8:58; 10:30). John 1:1-2 tells us that Jesus was “in the beginning with God.” In Bible times, the firstborn son of a family was held in great honor (Genesis 49:3; Exodus 11:5; 34:19; Numbers 3:40; Psalm 89:27; Jeremiah 31:9). It is in this sense that Jesus is God’s firstborn. Jesus is the preeminent member of God’s family. Jesus is the anointed one, the “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6).
After nearly a century of debate at various early church councils, the Christian church officially denounced Arianism as a false doctrine. Since that time, Arianism has never been accepted as a viable doctrine of the Christian faith. Arianism has not died, however. Arianism has continued throughout the centuries in varying forms. The Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons of today hold a very Arian-like position on Christ’s nature. Just as the early church did, we must denounce any and all attacks on the deity of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Before the KJV especially the Geneva Bible understood that when God speaks a WORD it is an IT and not a HIM.Jesus said I AM and not I WAS
Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, "I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by Myself and spreading out the earth all alone" (Isa. 44:24).
God was ALONE? Nope says theology 101a God had a son and a spirit god who breathed on the waters. So, The Spirit OF Christ (which always existed) just flat lied in the numerous passages to refute "the lying pen of the scribes."
"I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides Me, there is no God" (Isa. 45:5).
"I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give my glory to another" (lsa. 42:8).
Jesus was begotten IN THE WOMB and therefore ginomai = to come to be, begin to exist
I AM in Greek:
eimi, In Prose eimi serves as FUTURE. to erkhomai, I shall go, shall come. to come or go come or go, the special senses being given by the context,
erkhomai loci, come to, arrive at, which comes or passes to a person by bequest, conveyance, arrived at that time of life,
Everything existed in the mind of God but it did not begin to be until it's own time.
The trinity treats the PHYSICAL JESUS as a member of the "god family." However, the statement is always "father, spirit and son" none of which are NAMES. The Son of God is defined by John and historic trinitarians as the ARTICULATED VOICE of God.
How he or we might have a spiritual existence is unknown but Jesus began to be when Jesus was born of the SPERM of Abraham protected from all of the Civil-Military-Clergy vowed to murder the prophets who were inspired or breathed upon by the Spirit OF Christ or meaning MESSIAH.
Jesus said that all of the power of God's planned purpose was vested in him.
WORD is never a "people." Word or Logos is God's PLAN or rational method:
In the beginning was the PLAN and the PLAN was God since He is wholly (holy) Spirit
Polytheists who deny the value of the work of the MAN Jesus Christ have the usual spiritual dislexia and read:
In the beginning was the Jesus, and the Jesus was with God
This is part of the predestined PLAN of blasphemers who confess that the Spirit or Mind of God was TOO DUMB to just say that:
"The godhead is God, Jesus and Holy Spirit mother."
The GOD FAMILY did not dwell inside of Jesus: Theotes means "the divine nature".
[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]False. Bill's equation (Jesus = the Word = God), that is. Let's briefly examine John 1:1,14:Justice, it is incomprehensible to Donnie and Ken that anyone would believe that Jesus was the Word Who was with God and was God in the beginning (i.e., Jesus = the Word = God), just as it is incomprehensible to us that Donnie and Ken would believe that Jesus is not eternal.
[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times](1) "I AM" is a name, God's name. Otherwise, "I am hath sent me unto you" would be grammatically incorrect. Rather, God the Father sent Moses to the Israelites. It was not Jesus of Nazareth who sent Moses to the Israelites.Old Testament: "And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you" (Ex. 3:14 KJV).
New Testament: "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am" (John 8:58 KJV).
These two passages are more evidence that God and Jesus are one and the same. Both refer to themselves as "I AM," which means eternal, never-ending.
Jesus is simply God made manifest in the flesh. God/Jesus as the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.
Therefore, God = Jesus = the Word.
Some people are unable to comprehend the fact that God has the supreme ability to manifest Himself in more than one way. Back to John 1: The Word was with God and the Word was God in the beginning, meaning that the Word not only was present with God, but the Word was also God at the same time. If the Word was God, then God and the Word are obviously identical. Then God/the Word manifested Himself as a human man, who took on the name "Jesus," or God/the Word in the flesh. So if the Word and God are identical, and if God as the Word became Jesus, then God, the Word, and Jesus are also identical, one and the same. Thus, the Word and Jesus are simply different manifestations of God. After all, Jesus said that he who had seen Him had seen the Father, and that He and the Father are ONE.[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]False. Bill's equation (Jesus = the Word = God), that is. Let's briefly examine John 1:1,14:
[/color]<ol>[*][color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Bill's equation is fallacious in that "the Word" (LOGOS) is mentioned -- but not Jesus.
[/color]</li>[*][color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Bill's equation is fallacious in that "God" (THEOS) is mentioned -- but not Jesus.
[/color]</li>[*][color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Bill's equation is fallacious in that Jesus of Nazareth (ref. 21 times in NT) was not in the beginning.
[/color]</li>[*][color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Bill's equation is fallacious in that it was the "LOGOS" and not "THEOS" that became flesh.
[/color]</li>[*][color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Bill's equation is fallacious: that Jesus became Jesus.[/color]</li>[/list]
God/Jesus used the SAME wording about Himself when He talked to Moses in the Old Testament and when He talked to the Jews in the New Testament: "I AM". Those two words mean the same thing on both occasions: "I am eternal. I am forever."[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times](1) "I AM" is a name, God's name. Otherwise, "I am hath sent me unto you" would be grammatically incorrect. Rather, God the Father sent Moses to the Israelites. It was not Jesus of Nazareth who sent Moses to the Israelites.
(2) Context, Bill, in John 8:51-59. Jesus was definitely speaking of both: (1) God the Father and (2) Jesus himself as the Son of God. "I AM" being in reference to God the Father, Jesus simply said: Before Abraham was "I AM"; and Jesus did NOT say: "I was before Abraham."
Bill, I think you really do understand the difference between:
(1) Before Abraham was "I AM" [God]
---------------- and -----------------
(2) I was before Abraham.[/color]