Scripture clarifying debate

[Bananna]

K - the SON IS GOD. His statement is correct.


This is actually part of Modality as well, but it is not a biblical scripture. If used as a biblical explination it would mean actually defining God/god Eloheynu/Elohim
Theos/thiou etc...terms most English speaking persons do not understand in their greek and hebrew forms.
Interesting thought; it was the Greeks that stumbled thru "wisdom" - knowledge can be a downfall. I've seen people overstudy themselves right out of believing in Christ. SAD.
We all need a plumb line to know what is and isn't truth. The only plumb line and dictionary we need is the bible Genesis to Revelation. The problems come with the translating.

Many people have left this forum for many different reasons - some are very valid, but the bible is clear:
2 Timothy 4:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=62&chapter=4&verse=2&version=9&context=verse)
Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Ad hom & personal attacks aren't necessary and that's wrong - if we fall into that, we should apologize. But I don't apologize for standing in the truth when false teachings are being glorified & promoted.
Witnessing the truth IS love - the problem today is people are demanding a false love - warm fuzzies and feather stroking to appease.
That isn't love - we can give the truth even harshly and it's still love.
Otherwise, no discipline by a parent is 'love" either.

So I agree, but I find the problem is what people are defining LOVE to be; it's not exactly God's concept of what love is.
Love is not to back down on scripture.

However scripture is not defined according to personal interpretations, not majority interpretations. Because there is nothing new under the Heavens according to the scripture, I must assume that all scripture is defined by oral traditions handed down through the forefathers of the Church.

It is a tradition that uses the term God to define an infinate being. To say that God's blood is the payment for sin has no basis in The Scriptures... It is a tradition.

Son-of-Man is Messiah, Son-of-God is Messiah, God-with-us is Messiah. No scripture says God's blood.

[Bananna]

seeing that the gospel should be protected what is gospel should be defined

Mat 4:23 ¶ And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.


What is it to teach the authority and power of the spiritual Kingdom? What Gospel did Yeshua preach?

[Albion]

To say that God's blood is the payment for sin has no basis in The Scriptures... It is a tradition.

Son-of-Man is Messiah, Son-of-God is Messiah, God-with-us is Messiah. No scripture says God's blood.

Unless the point is supposed to be that Christ is not God, scripture indeed does connect his blood with salvation, i.e. payment for our sins.

Matt 20.28
Matt 26.28
1 Cor 6.20
2 Cor 5.21
and perhaps most especially
Ephesians 1.7

[Time2BCounted]

This is actually part of Modality as well, but it is not a biblical scripture. If used as a biblical explination it would mean actually defining God/god Eloheynu/Elohim
Theos/thiou etc...terms most English speaking persons do not understand in their greek and hebrew forms.

Interesting post Banana

First of all i agree that a knowledge of Greek and Hebrew idiom, poetic styles, and such are very important in understanding the scriptures and what it is they actually teach. Personally however, i believe the major doctrines are very well defined by very clear statements such as 'for all have sinned', so that this isnt as big an issue as it could be. Where it best comes into play is on the peripherals aiding us in defining some of the detail of a doctrine imho.


However scripture is not defined according to personal interpretations, not majority interpretations. Because there is nothing new under the Heavens according to the scripture, I must assume that all scripture is defined by oral traditions handed down through the forefathers of the Church.

I would carry it back further than that. Whether it was written or not we dont know, since we have no surviving manuscripts from the days of Abraham or Noah or Adam. I do believe culture was much more advanced than we give credit and it was possible these things were written.

On the other hand i agree with you that Oral tradition was certainly a major factor in the handing down of doctrine, but even these things werre written eventually.

Adam handed down the information concerning the fall and so on through the apostles. In this way i disagree that doctrine cannot be defined easily. I believe that the written word defines every major doctrine, including the person of Jesus and christianity itself.

It is a tradition that uses the term God to define an infinate being. To say that God's blood is the payment for sin has no basis in The Scriptures... It is a tradition.

Son-of-Man is Messiah, Son-of-God is Messiah, God-with-us is Messiah. No scripture says God's blood.


I disagree

Acts 20:28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=20&verse=28&version=9&context=verse)
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

To say that God bought or purchaced the church with His own blood is to quote from Acts. It is clearly defined in scripture imho

[Bananna]

Be heeding yourselves and the flocklet in which the spirit of Holiness placed you supervisors shepherding
the called-out of The God which he procures through the blood of his own.

God has no blood only the son has blood.

Multiple valid theories of this particular statement exist.

I'm more interested in what Yeshua said the gospel was, just as a starter in defining terms. One must know what they are defending surely.

The Gospel Yeshua started his ministry under was the same as John the Baptist. That is why he was baptised under John's ministry.

[Albion]

God has no blood only the son has blood.

God had no blood until he assumed the body of a human in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus had blood just as we all do.

We get the point you are trying to make, that your church, the Church of God-Seventh Day, is not a Trinitarian body. It is a small jurisdiction that departs from historic Christianity on this and several other doctrinal matters.

[Bananna]

Sorry,
Not SDA
Don't follow church creeds just scripture.
I have the ability to see more than one valid argument and took the present icon because of my brothers and sisters being persecuted... but I knew I was next.

No you don't get the issue. The issue is that the gospel has been confused with doctrines written by men.

bananna

[Simon_Templar]

Sorry,
Not SDA
Don't follow church creeds just scripture.
I have the ability to see more than one valid argument and took the present icon because of my brothers and sisters being persecuted... but I knew I was next.

No you don't get the issue. The issue is that the gospel has been confused with doctrines written by men.

bananna
in your opinion...

and that is the problem with your argument, and all arguments like it. You say you rely only on scripture. The truth is you rely on your opinion of scripture, your perception of scripture.

[Bananna]

Mat 4:23 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/search/getBible.cfm?b=Mat&c=4&v=23&version=KJV#23)And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.

1) a reward for good tidings

[LivingLifeHisWay]

John 1:1 sums it up:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

[Hentenza]

God has no blood only the son has blood.



But God is the son and the son is God.:bow:

[Time2BCounted]

Here's how i see this

Not only does scripture state explicity that Jesus is God, common sence and God's design teaches us the same.

God created everything to bring forth its own kind.

Monkeys bring forth monkeys after their kind,

People bring forth people after their kind

God brought forth God after HIS own kind

When we consider this and then weigh in the scriptures declaring Jesus to be God, we have very little alternative imho

[Albion]

Sorry,
Not SDA
If you are addressing me, I didn't say that you are SDA.

Don't follow church creeds just scripture.

Yeh, right. But your icon identifies you as affiliated with a church, all right, and that's what I was referring to.

No you don't get the issue. The issue is that the gospel has been confused with doctrines written by men.

The issue is that you don't believe in the Trinity. I'm not outraged over it; there are such churches. But that's the issue you are pursuing here (even if it sounds better to say that you don't follow any church and just are a student of scripture whose views are in line with scripture while everyone else's are "written by men." Anyone can say that.)

[Bananna]

But God is the son and the son is God.:bow:

The son is described as having divine atributes much like the Torah is described as being devine. Neither is said to be HaShem (The Name) in the scriptures directly. To put God of the universe in a logic box just does not fit IMO.
To write any statement with anything other than scripture from Genesis to Revelation IMO is to add to the Word of God.
God's blood was the term that caught my eye and actually has been bothering me since a theologian coined the term.

Rather than the idea of the blood of the righteous... which I'm familiar to with in Torah, and actually see in the Greek scriptures, the meaning has been changed to "God's blood". A little tangent soon diverges.

All these little side steps to explain the unexplainable are a very slippery slope IMO

If your reason for shoring up and clarifying scripture is due to a desire to preserve the integrity of the Gospel,
Please do a full study in scriptures of the Gospel of Christ. Gospel is not putting God's definition in a box it is Repentance and turning to God.

[Bananna]

If you are addressing me, I didn't say that you are SDA.

Yes, sorry I am. I was speaking to you. You are confusing Church of God Seventh Day with Seventh Day Adventist.
Church of God does not teach against the Trinity. Our congregation has no Creed. We manage just fine with Trinitarians and non Trinitarians, Modalist etc. Most of them do not care to study up on the coined labels. To love God and to love one another is our primary goal according to the scriptures.


The issue is that you don't believe in the Trinity. I'm not outraged over it; there are such churches. But that's the issue you are pursuing here (even if it sounds better to say that you don't follow any church and just are a student of scripture whose views are in line with scripture while everyone else's are "written by men." Anyone can say that.)

There are many levels of understanding God. Even when I was trinitarian it bugged me to see the little changes in meaning of scriptures to emphisize personal beliefs. So I stopped using the term trinity long before I started seeing God differently in scriptures.

Thank you for letting me clarify that.

I'd like to discuss the 'gospel' according to scripture if some are willing.
bananna

[Albion]

Yes, sorry I am. I was speaking to you. You are confusing Church of God Seventh Day with Seventh Day Adventist.

Well, the only reason for the confusion is that you described your affiliation as COG--Seventh Day on your personal masthead (Beth El Church of God 7th day, to be exact), and there is nothing there about SDA.

I'd like to discuss the 'gospel' according to scripture if some are willing.
bananna

We're all willing. However, we here accept the Nicene Creed, considering it to be in accord with Scripture, even while knowing that some other Christians don't.

[Bananna]

Well, the only reason for the confusion is that you described your affiliation as COG--Seventh Day on your personal masthead (Beth El Church of God 7th day, to be exact), and there is nothing there about SDA.
I simply meant your comment about non trinitarian does not apply to the Church of God... That is an issue with some Seventh Day adventists. I only meant to clarify you seem confused. Church of God teaches the Trinity. I associate with many churches... none deny the Trinity. Please don't put on them any of my beliefs. I'm not representing anyone but myself.


We're all willing. However, we here accept the Nicene Creed, considering it to be in accord with Scripture, even while knowing that some other Christians don't.
It is not the nicene creed and the scriptures I had the problem with when I changed my icon it was the disclaimers and the definitions and the ultra clarications of what each term meant. The definitions were not Hebraic.

Did you want to start with a quote from a creed that defines pure gospel?
Do you want to start by quoting a scripture that defines the gospel?

Blessings
Bananna

[Albion]

I simply meant your comment about non trinitarian does not apply to the Church of God... That is an issue with some Seventh Day adventists.

Ah, I see. But you can see why I wondered why you'd sport their icon if it's not your church and not one you identify with. Anyway, you are right that I assumed too much about the CofG-7th day without looking it up.

Did you want to start with a quote from a creed that defines pure gospel?

You wanted to have a discussion, so please go ahead wherever you'd care to begin.

[Bananna]

1Pe 4:17 For the time [is come] that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if [it] first [begin] at us, what shall the end [be] of them that obey not the gospel of God?


2Jo 1:6 And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.

The Gnostics wanted to know God through knowledge
The Saducees denighed the the reserection.

The gospel Yeshua preached was simple enough for a little child to understand. A child easily understands that doing good brings rewards. We must come as little children to God. That is what makes a Christian... a follower of the Christ. IMO

[Simon_Templar]

The gospel Yeshua preached was simple enough for a little child to understand. A child easily understands that doing good brings rewards. We must come as little children to God. That is what makes a Christian... a follower of the Christ. IMO



This is, in my opinion, one of the more misused and misunderstood ideas in scripture.

When we are told to receive the gospel of the Kingdom like a Child, or to have faith like a child, it has nothing what-so-ever to do with simplicity of understanding, or doctrinal beliefs etc. It has to do with with our attitude towards God.
A little child may throw a tantrum, when they don't get what they want. They may resist the authority of their parents, but they don't question it, they don't usually doubt what they are told by their parents. They simply accept whether they understand or not, and what they are told then becomes the basis for their future understanding.

Paul talks also about putting the foolishness of childhood behind us when we become mature. The is this idea among many Christians that we should never become mature beleivers but we should try to remain as children. This is completely unscriptural and foolish.

The child-like aspect doesn't mean that everything is simple, it means that we simply accept it whether we understand it or not.

The gospel ultimately boils down to one thing.. Jesus Christ is Lord. That one thing, however, contains many other truths which we will have to grow in and come to terms with once we accept that one foundational truth.