rrobs
Well-Known Member
Then I assume you readily agree with Jesus that his Father is greater than himself. Doesn't the trinity require we believe they are coequal in all ways?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Word
- Thread starter rrobs
- Start date
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I believe that we all interpret what we read as we read it and then we take it for what it's worth, and since we all think differently we all come up with different interpretations of the same verses. I happen to agree with YOUR interpretations because I think like you do about Jesus, but those who believe that Jesus is God are going to interpret the verses to mean that Jesus is God.
I hope you understand what I mean as this is a VERY important matter.
“Know assuredly that just as thou firmly believest that the Word of God, exalted be His glory, endureth for ever, thou must, likewise, believe with undoubting faith that its meaning can never be exhausted.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 175
The goal as I see it is to find the correct meanings of verses, what the authors were intending to convey. If everyone knew what that was, there would be complete agreement between Christians, but we all know this is not the case.
rrobs said : " Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. Why go and change that to, "Sanctify them through thy truth and the traditions of the early Christians: thy word and the traditions of the early Christians is truth." (rrobs, post #78)
This is a mischaracterization of historical study and it's role in gaining understanding about historical Christian religion and what it was like. Let me explain :
For example, you said : "You mentioned Clement as a source of truth." (rrobs, post #78)
This is incorrect, I pointed out that Clement and early Christian literature is a source of historical data. Clement, who was a convert of the apostle Peter (though barnabas) tells us what the Apostle Peter was teaching him and others. This does not mean Clement was correct, merely that he passed on what the early Teachings were in his opinion. Remember that Judeo-Christianity is a HISTORICAL religion.
THE CLOSER THE WITNESS IS TO THE HISTORICAL OCCURRENCE, THE BETTER THE WITNESS TENDS TO BE
The basic historical principle is that those who are eyewitnesses of history are probably most able to describe what was actually done. (This principle seems to hold true in court cases where an actual witness is typically better able to describe actual events than others who heard about the event.)
Then those who were told by eyewitnesses are the next best witnesses of historical fact. Then those who were told by those who were told, etc.
One eyewitness to Jesus and his Christian doctrine was the apostle Peter. The apostle Peter taught the convert Clement I. Clement wrote a diary. Clements diary describes the Christian doctrine which he was taught by the apostle Peter and which he then taught others. We can read Clements writings regarding the doctrines the Apostle Peter taught him and his descriptions of early Christian doctrines and practices.
A similar principle applies to the earliest Christian literature. The earliest literature and that which is closest to the earliest Christian movement, historically, tends to best represent that Christian movement. (there are exceptions of course...)
In this sort of historical model, the early Christian literature and it's doctrines, it's interpretations and it's opinions are likely to more closely represent early christian doctrine that your writings, your doctrines, your interpretations and your opinions. This is simply a working principle but it isn't necessarily correct. If you disagree, you are invited to let me know why you think this assumption is erroneous and i can be convinced with good data and logical explanation.
I also think that the early Christianity with their doctrines seems more logical and more rational and more intuitive than the many versions taught by later Christian movements. That is, I do not yet see any advantage to later Christian doctrines and their interpretations of text over the earliest Christian doctrines and their interpretations of text. I could be wrong on this point, but for now, I am comfortable with that working theory. This is why I think, at this point, that the earliest Christianity, takes priority over later versions of Christianity. I can certainly be convinced other wise if presented with enough data and logical thought.
Thus, it isn't that you are automatically "wrong" in your religion and the earliest Christians are automatically "correct" in their religion, simply that their witness have higher priority because it is closer to the original gospel historically and the early gospel seems, to me, to be more logical and more rational than the doctrines of the later Christian movements. Please remember I am not speaking of medieval literature, but the principle seems to apply best to the earliest literature.
This is why I asked in essence : ‘
“Why does your interpretation of scripture take priority over that of Clement, the colleague of the Apostle Peter?”
“Why do your doctrines take priority over that of Clement?”
INTERPRETATION - ALL OF US READ AND ASSIGN MEANING TO WHAT WE READ
rrobs said : "Please go over my posts and find anywhere that I "interpreted" anything. I think I've only quoted verses and commented on the obvious meaning of those verses. Can you tell me specifically where I interpreted (I guess misinterpreted?) any of the verses." (rrobs, post #78)
Rrobs, Interpretation is “the act of assigning meaning to and then explaining something”. You and I and everyone on the forum engage in interpretation.
Let me give you examples from your thread on “Why didn’t the Holy Spirit know”.
There, you quoted Phil 3:21, Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.”
You then explained what the verse means to you by saying : “We'll be getting a new body that will not be at all like the one's we have here. No pain, sorrow, sickness, etc. We will live in a place on earth even better than the Garden of Eden.” (rrobs).
When you read Phillipians, thought about it and came to a conclusion as to what it meant to you and then explained that meaning to us readers, you were interpreting this scripture.
This is one of MANY, MANY, MANY example of interpreting. AND, EVERY TIME you and I, or anyone else, reads a verse, assigns a meaning to what we read, and explains what we think it means, we are interpreting.
CREATING RELIGION DOCTRINE BY GRAMMAR ALONE?
rrobs said : "Grammar is there so we all have a common ground from which we can use words to communicate. It is a rather precise tool, able to convey one person's thoughts to another. Normally we don't interpret what we read. We just read what's written and take it for what it's worth." (rrobs, post #78)
rrobs, your claim that “We don’t interpret what we read” feels like a bizarre and naïve statement.
Of course we interpret what we read.
In the process of thinking about what we read, we assign meaning to what we read. We then share these personal interpretations with others on this debate forum.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF PERSONAL INTERPRETATION USING GRAMMAR
In the “Whey didn’t the Holy Spirit Know” thread, you offered a theory that the “scriptures interpret themselves”.
Your description was : “I believe the scriptures interpret themselves much like everything else we read.” (rrobs)
Actually PEOPLE interpret and find meaning in texts while inanimate objects such as books, do not “interpret themselves”.
One problem in Christianity is that different individuals interpret texts differently and this results in the creation of multiple, conflicting belief systems, all of which claim to be “biblical”. Much of this doctrine creation is simply “reading into the text” the beliefs we have when reading the text.
AN EXAMPLE OF COMPETING PERSONAL INTERPRETATIONS : HEBREWS 1:2
“…he [God] has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom he also created the world.”
If we look at this sentence grammatically, it seems to indicate exactly what it says.
1) God has spoken to us by a Son.
2) The Son was appointed heir.
3) It was through the son that he created the worlds.
ROBS COMPETING INTERPRETATION – Based on Grammar? Based on What?
For example, your personal interpretations of such texts allowed you to conclude that the Messiah did not pre-exist birth, and the Messiah did not create the world while early Christians DID believe the Messiah existed prior to his birth and the messiah did create the world and they tell us so in their texts. The early Christian religion is different than your religion on this point.
When the early Christians read Hebrews 1:2 which said “…he [God] has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom he also created the world.” They actually could take it literally as saying God created the world through the Son. Your disagreements with their text and it's meaning did not involve grammar at all. For examples :
You offered a fictional grammatical rule to nullify the meaning of the text. (post #183)
You then claimed this doctrine was a contamination of Greek philosophy. (post #184)
You next assumed it was something happening within the mind of God (post #184).
You later tried to assume it was a metaphor of a prophet speaking of the future (post #192)
NONE of these attempts to create a competing, personal, meaning relied on authentic grammar or grammatical rules, but instead were non-grammatical attempts to nullify the obvious meaning of the text to fit your personal theology. Your meaning did not come from grammar or authentic grammatical rules.
The point is that the early Judeo-Christians did not have to create doctrines by trying to make the text fit their biases and their beliefs on this point. They actually COULD take this text at face value.
None of us limit ourselves to scriptures as our “sole source” of faith and practice. You are not limiting yourself to “scriptures”. You are including your own religion, with it’s beliefs and biases. You are including your own understanding and your own interpretation of scriptures. You include your historical background, your language background, the specific text you have in front of you and a host of other, somewhat arbitrary characteristics. The early Judeo-Christians had THEIR own religion and their beliefs and their biases and their different interpretation of scriptures which were different than yours. Their religion was different than yours and it used scriptures differently than your religion
Why does your religion with it’s doctrines and it’s personal interpretation take priority over the more original Christian religion with it’s doctrines and it’s interpretations of scriptures?
Clear
ειτζτζειω
Last edited:
The Anointed
Well-Known Member
It is written that Clement of Alexandria, was born 'Titus Flavius Clemens' to pagan parents in Athens around 150.
Clement of Alexandria - Wikipedia.
While in the mid-19th century it was customary to identify Clement 1, as a freedman of 'Titus Flavius Clemens,' who was consul with his cousin, the Emperor Domitian,
Pope Clement I - Wikipedia
rrobs
Well-Known Member
I would think that pretty much anybody could read your reply and understand what you are saying. I just don't see much room for a lot of different opinions about what it is that you said. You spoke very clearly and your intent is not hard to ascertain.I believe that we all interpret what we read as we read it and then we take it for what it's worth, and since we all think differently we all come up with different interpretations of the same verses. I happen to agree with YOUR interpretations because I think like you do about Jesus, but those who believe that Jesus is God are going to interpret the verses to mean that Jesus is God.
I hope you understand what I mean as this is a VERY important matter.
“Know assuredly that just as thou firmly believest that the Word of God, exalted be His glory, endureth for ever, thou must, likewise, believe with undoubting faith that its meaning can never be exhausted.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 175
The goal as I see it is to find the correct meanings of verses, what the authors were intending to convey. If everyone knew what that was, there would be complete agreement between Christians, but we all know this is not the case.
As far as I can tell from the scriptures, the reason we have 40,000 different denominations is because of carnality, or, said another way, a lack of spirituality.
1Cor 3:1-4,
1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, [even] as unto babes in Christ.
2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able [to bear it], neither yet now are ye able.
3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas [there is] among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I [am] of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
I just don't see where that could say anything than what it clearly says. There are divisions because some say they are of Paul, some say of Apollos, some say Martin Luther, some say John Calvin, some say Pope Benedict, etc. Now I know I added the last three, but I'm just carrying what God said a bit further. I think God's intended meaning is crystal clear.
God magnified His word above His name. Each word has been purified 7 times. It contains all truth. It says one thing and one thing only. How could anhone read that last sentence and then say I think the scriptures can be taken in many different ways? I said one and that's what I meant. We all know what one means and we all know it doesn't mean the same thing as two. Very simple concept here.
I guess the main thing is that I do believe God says one thing to all people. I think He is capable of making His will known for anybody that wants to know.
Much of the problem comes because many new Christians already "know" Jesus is God (and many other non-truths) before they even start reading the book. If they don't they'll hear soon enough about how it is the foundation of their faith, that without believe it there is no salvation. Let's face it, that is a strong sentiment to overcome and sadly most never do. Most end up in idolatry, worshiping a false god and another Jesus whom Paul did not preach. I'm glad you understand that a son can not be his own father.
I don't mean to say I have the corner on truth or that I know everything about the scriptures. I certainly don't. I do mean to say that the scriptures contain a pure message and we ought to be able to agree what that message is. That's exactly what God wants us to do.
1Cor 1:10,
Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and [that] there be no divisions among you; but [that] ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
Rom 15:5,
Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be likeminded one toward another according to Christ Jesus:
What "interpretation" would one have to come up with to make these verses say anything other than God wants us to all agree on what the scriptures say. I don't know why He would say that if it weren't available.
Take care
rrobs
Well-Known Member
OK, here's my interpretation of what you are saying:
Some of us never assign meaning to what we read. As such it proves that nobody in this forum engages in interpretation.
That's my interpretation, and, apparently, nobody can say I'm wrong (assuming they interpret my statements correctly, which may or may not be the actual case). Huh?????
Hi @The Anointed
I am not sure why you bring up a different Clement of a later age than the Clement I am referring to. Are you are confusing Clement of Rome (born 35 a.d.) with Clement of Alexandria (born approx 150 a.d.) ?
Clement of Rome was writing at the same time John the revelator was writing and 1 Clement, as an apostolic era writing is dated inside the first century (70-95 a.d.)
Clear
αιτζτωφυω
Last edited:
Nova2216
Active Member
rrobs
Well-Known Member
By the way, I'd still be interested in specific examples of verses I "interpreted" incorrectly if you have the time.
Take care
rrobs
Well-Known Member
What does this mean?
John 14:28,
Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come [again] unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
Looks to me like God is greater than Jesus.
God bless
The Anointed
Well-Known Member
Continued from post #84.
Could Clement 1and Clement of Alexandria be one and the same?
It was not I who connected Clement 1 and Clement of Alexander as both being born, ''Titus Flavius Clemens.'
But it's good to see that you believe they are not and the same because Clement of Alexander is a deceiver.
In the days of the Apostle Paul, the people were already beginning to fall away from the truth, and following another gospel that was not taught by the word of God or the apostles.
In his 2nd letter to the Corinthians 11: 4; Paul says, “You gladly tolerate anyone who comes to you and preaches a different Jesus, not the one we preached; and you accept a spirit (The Lie) and a gospel completely different from the spirit (Of Truth) and the gospel you received from us.”
So, what was that other gospel that was leading the people away from the truth and away from the Jesus as preached by the Apostles, to another false Jesus?
That gospel was the word of the anti-christ, that refused to acknowledge that Jesus had come as a human being, and instead, they believed that he was a spirit, whose humanlike body was able to pass through Mary’s Hymen without breaking it, and who, like some Hologram, would appear and disappear at will. Even in the later days of John, the false teaching that Jesus was not of the seed of Adam from which every human being who has, or ever will walk this earth, has descended, and had not come as a human being, but as a spiritual being, was already beginning to rear its ugly head, and concerning that evolving falsehood, John had this to say.
1st letter of John 4:1-3; “My dear friends, do not believe all who claim to have the spirit, (My words are spirit) but test them to find out if the spirit [teachings] they have come from God. For many false prophets have gone out everywhere. This is how you will be able to know if it is Gods spirit/word: anyone who acknowledges that Jesus came as a human being has the spirit who comes from God. But anyone who denies this about Jesus does not have the spirit from God. The spirit that he has is from the enemy of the anointed one, the Anti-christ etc.”
2nd letter of John verses 7-10; “Many deceivers have gone out all over the world, people who do not acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being. Such a person is a deceiver and an enemy of Christ.”
Where would one expect to find the teaching that Jesus was not a true human being, “Born of the seed of Adam” which has been spread ALL OVER THE WORLD.
In Alexandria, by the second century, ‘Docetism,’ the concept that Jesus had existed as a spirit rather than a human being, had all but theoretically been stamped out. But still, there persisted the belief that their Jesus, although seen as a sort of human being, did not have our normal bodily needs, such as eating, drinking and excretion, and Clement the bishop of Alexandria, wrote: “It would be ridiculous to imagine that the redeemer, in order to exist, had the usual needs of man. He only took food and ate it in order that we should not teach about him in a Docetic fashion.” Matthew 4: 2; After spending 40 days and night without food, Jesus was hungry, Why would Satan try to tempt Jesus into turning stones into bread, if Jesus did not have the usual needs of man, and only took food and ate it in order that we should not teach about him in a Docetic fashion?
Their Jesus was not the Jesus as taught by the apostles, but that other Jesus, taught by the Anti-Christ, who unlike we mere HUMAN BEINGS, did not need to eat, drink, or go to the toilet, as was taught by one of the great teachers that the authorities of Emperor Constantine’s universal church, used as one of their authorities when trying to defend their false doctrines.
Saint Clement of Alexandria, who was a saint in the Martyrology of the Roman universal church, in support of the great lie, speaks of the time that some imaginary midwife, who was supposed to be at the birth of Jesus, (Non-biblical) told some woman by the name Salome, (Non biblical) that the mother was still a virgin after the birth and that her hymen was still intact, and that this supposed Salome, stuck her finger into the mother’s vagina to check, and her hand immediately withered up, but the baby Jesus reached out and touched her hand and healed it. (Non biblical)
Clement was accepted as a saint in the universal church, which was established by Emperor Constantine, from a rag-tag group of insult hurling religious bodies, who called themselves christians. Eventually, sick to the stomach with their constant quarreling and abuse toward each other, Constantine summoned all the leaders of those groups to the first ever "World Council of churches," where, in 325 AD, some 300 years after the Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ had been firmly established in Jerusalem, the non-christian, and almost certainly theologically illiterate Constantine, established his universal church, which has nothing to do with the Jesus as taught by the apostles.
Down to the 17th century Clement was venerated as a saint. His name was to be found in the Martyrologies, and his feast fell on December 4. But when the Roman Martyrology was revised by Clement VIII (Pope from 1592 to 1605), his name was dropped from the calendar on the advice of his confessor, Cardinal Baronius. Pope Benedict XIV in 1748 maintained his predecessor's decision on the grounds that Clements life was little-known; that he had never obtained public cultus in the Church; and that some of his doctrines were, if not erroneous, at least highly suspect.
"ERRONEOUS--HIGHLY SUSPECT ?" They certainly got that right, but by then the false teaching of the so-called virgin birth had become firmly established, now the minds of those who believe his rubbish, are so mixed up and set as hard as concrete, that one would need a sledge hammer to crack them open and allow the light of truth shine in.
Could Clement 1and Clement of Alexandria be one and the same?
It was not I who connected Clement 1 and Clement of Alexander as both being born, ''Titus Flavius Clemens.'
But it's good to see that you believe they are not and the same because Clement of Alexander is a deceiver.
In the days of the Apostle Paul, the people were already beginning to fall away from the truth, and following another gospel that was not taught by the word of God or the apostles.
In his 2nd letter to the Corinthians 11: 4; Paul says, “You gladly tolerate anyone who comes to you and preaches a different Jesus, not the one we preached; and you accept a spirit (The Lie) and a gospel completely different from the spirit (Of Truth) and the gospel you received from us.”
So, what was that other gospel that was leading the people away from the truth and away from the Jesus as preached by the Apostles, to another false Jesus?
That gospel was the word of the anti-christ, that refused to acknowledge that Jesus had come as a human being, and instead, they believed that he was a spirit, whose humanlike body was able to pass through Mary’s Hymen without breaking it, and who, like some Hologram, would appear and disappear at will. Even in the later days of John, the false teaching that Jesus was not of the seed of Adam from which every human being who has, or ever will walk this earth, has descended, and had not come as a human being, but as a spiritual being, was already beginning to rear its ugly head, and concerning that evolving falsehood, John had this to say.
1st letter of John 4:1-3; “My dear friends, do not believe all who claim to have the spirit, (My words are spirit) but test them to find out if the spirit [teachings] they have come from God. For many false prophets have gone out everywhere. This is how you will be able to know if it is Gods spirit/word: anyone who acknowledges that Jesus came as a human being has the spirit who comes from God. But anyone who denies this about Jesus does not have the spirit from God. The spirit that he has is from the enemy of the anointed one, the Anti-christ etc.”
2nd letter of John verses 7-10; “Many deceivers have gone out all over the world, people who do not acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being. Such a person is a deceiver and an enemy of Christ.”
Where would one expect to find the teaching that Jesus was not a true human being, “Born of the seed of Adam” which has been spread ALL OVER THE WORLD.
In Alexandria, by the second century, ‘Docetism,’ the concept that Jesus had existed as a spirit rather than a human being, had all but theoretically been stamped out. But still, there persisted the belief that their Jesus, although seen as a sort of human being, did not have our normal bodily needs, such as eating, drinking and excretion, and Clement the bishop of Alexandria, wrote: “It would be ridiculous to imagine that the redeemer, in order to exist, had the usual needs of man. He only took food and ate it in order that we should not teach about him in a Docetic fashion.” Matthew 4: 2; After spending 40 days and night without food, Jesus was hungry, Why would Satan try to tempt Jesus into turning stones into bread, if Jesus did not have the usual needs of man, and only took food and ate it in order that we should not teach about him in a Docetic fashion?
Their Jesus was not the Jesus as taught by the apostles, but that other Jesus, taught by the Anti-Christ, who unlike we mere HUMAN BEINGS, did not need to eat, drink, or go to the toilet, as was taught by one of the great teachers that the authorities of Emperor Constantine’s universal church, used as one of their authorities when trying to defend their false doctrines.
Saint Clement of Alexandria, who was a saint in the Martyrology of the Roman universal church, in support of the great lie, speaks of the time that some imaginary midwife, who was supposed to be at the birth of Jesus, (Non-biblical) told some woman by the name Salome, (Non biblical) that the mother was still a virgin after the birth and that her hymen was still intact, and that this supposed Salome, stuck her finger into the mother’s vagina to check, and her hand immediately withered up, but the baby Jesus reached out and touched her hand and healed it. (Non biblical)
Clement was accepted as a saint in the universal church, which was established by Emperor Constantine, from a rag-tag group of insult hurling religious bodies, who called themselves christians. Eventually, sick to the stomach with their constant quarreling and abuse toward each other, Constantine summoned all the leaders of those groups to the first ever "World Council of churches," where, in 325 AD, some 300 years after the Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ had been firmly established in Jerusalem, the non-christian, and almost certainly theologically illiterate Constantine, established his universal church, which has nothing to do with the Jesus as taught by the apostles.
Down to the 17th century Clement was venerated as a saint. His name was to be found in the Martyrologies, and his feast fell on December 4. But when the Roman Martyrology was revised by Clement VIII (Pope from 1592 to 1605), his name was dropped from the calendar on the advice of his confessor, Cardinal Baronius. Pope Benedict XIV in 1748 maintained his predecessor's decision on the grounds that Clements life was little-known; that he had never obtained public cultus in the Church; and that some of his doctrines were, if not erroneous, at least highly suspect.
"ERRONEOUS--HIGHLY SUSPECT ?" They certainly got that right, but by then the false teaching of the so-called virgin birth had become firmly established, now the minds of those who believe his rubbish, are so mixed up and set as hard as concrete, that one would need a sledge hammer to crack them open and allow the light of truth shine in.
halbhh
The wonder and awe of "all things".
Oh, we like explaining.
If one tries to pin it down, I tend to go with 'of one accord, perfectly', but I think that falls short. It's deeper than only agreement. They are truly together. (regarding other verses, every instance of 'one' doesn't have to carry the same sense in varied situations.
The simplest reading that seems right is 'in one accord', but it seems to me, personally, that with Christ, it goes deeper. It's not only in one accord, but more I think. But we don't have an ability to encompass or define all about God with our words.
The Anointed
Well-Known Member
"My Father is Greater than I," were the words that Jesus was commanded to say, by ‘The Son of Man’ who said to Moses in Deuteronomy 18: 18-19; "I will send them a prophet like you from among their own people; I will put MY WORDS in his mouth, and he and he shall speak to them all that I command, and whosoever will not heed MY WORDS, which he shall speak in MY NAME, I will punish, etc.”
It was he who also said through the mouth of his earthly temple that he had filled with his spirit/word; “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.”
Three days after the Jews had Jesus, the earthly Temple of our heavenly Father, crucified, it was resurrected by our Father, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Acts 5: 30; The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you slew and hanged on a tree.
Acts 13: 30; But God raised him from the dead: and he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee, etc.
1st Corinthians 6: 14; And God has both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.
2nd Corinthians 1: 9; But we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God which raiseth the dead.
2nd Corinthians 4: 14; knowing that he who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and bring us with you into his presence.
Acts 17: 31; For He (The Lord God our saviour) has fixed a day in which he shall judge the whole world with justice by means of a MAN he has CHOSEN. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising that MAN from death.
It was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who said through his obedient servant Jesus; “Destroy this Temple and in three days I will raise it up,.” and who also said; "My Father is greater than I."
It was after the spirit had abandoned him on the cross that the man Jesus said, "I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.?
Last edited:
Hi Annointed
I quoted 1 Clement, the colleague of the Apostle Peter. I could not find anything in your last post that was in any way relevant to 1 Clement and so I skipped reading about the Clement you discussed. Did you have anything relevant to comment that might be relevant?
Clear
I quoted 1 Clement, the colleague of the Apostle Peter. I could not find anything in your last post that was in any way relevant to 1 Clement and so I skipped reading about the Clement you discussed. Did you have anything relevant to comment that might be relevant?
Clear
Last edited:
The Anointed
Well-Known Member
Yep! I wished first to reveal that there is so much controversy as to the Popes of the Roman church of Emperor Constantine, who I believe, WAS the first Pope of the church that he established in the 4th century, and to also reveal that the lying Clement of Alexander, who was made a saint of his Roman church in the 4th century, was not kicked out until the 16th century, after the false teaching of the supposed virgin birth had been firmly established in the minds of the gullible.
Nova2216
Active Member
Do not assume what I meant by my questions.
It's possible you inferred incorrectly.
I believe the scriptures speak for themselves.
It's best that way . (1Peter 4:11)
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Paul was hoping that that Christians would all speak the same thing, and that there would be be no divisions among and that they would be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment, but hoping for something does not mean it will be possible. As long as there are humans, humans will disagree, because no two people think exactly alike and even the same person will not always be speaking the same thing at the same time.
As I said before, there can be many meanings to the same verses, and many meanings can be correct, as people look at the verse from another perspective.
For example, you said:
What does this mean?
John 14:28,
Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come [again] unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
Looks to me like God is greater than Jesus.
As I interpret that verse, I think the primary message from Jesus is that He is going away and He will come again, and if we love Him we should be happy about that.
The second part of the verse -- because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I -- is just an afterthought, not the main point Jesus sought to convey.
Moreover, in order to really understand what Jesus was getting at, John 14:28 needs to be read in the context of the surrounding verses. I have my own interpretation of what these verses mean, and they are related to other verses in John 15, 16 and 17.
25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.
28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
29 And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe.
30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.
31 But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence.
Last edited:
Nova2216
Active Member
Paul was not HOPING people would speak the same thing in (1Cor.1:10) (Phil.3:16).
He was delivering the commands of the lord according to (Jn 14:26).
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
1Cor 1:10,
Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and [that] there be no divisions among you; but [that] ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
Rom 15:5,
Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be likeminded one toward another according to Christ Jesus:
That is not how I interpret those verses. True, Paul was doing more than hoping, but he was not commanding
Beseech: ask (someone) urgently and fervently to do something; implore; entreat. beseech means - Google Search
Moreover, I do not believe those verses from Paul are related to the verses on John 14. They are Jesus speaking on a wholly different subject. I do not understand how you tie them together, what you think their connection is?