Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [biblicalapologetics] Re: Jesus as "Lord" (Tillman)

Expand Messages
  • Paul Leonard
    The text has nothing to do with the beliefs of the individuals. The Critical text is not an interpretation. It is simply a collection of MS. No one is
    Message 1 of 54 , Jan 26, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      The text has nothing to do with the beliefs of the individuals. The "Critical text" is not an interpretation. It is simply a collection of MS. No one  is writing the text they are reading it. The two textural families, if you will, read  differently. Which is "corrupt" if you will is not to be determine by who favors one over the other or who translates them or who decides they make a family of texts. The beliefs of the translators have no effect on what is actually written down IN the MS. It says what it says. It is in written form and anyone can read it. Yes the "critical text" was a combination of MS, but that is all. It exists. If you prefer one or the other that is fine. Just don't base a theology on a questionable verse. There is no way to know for sure which is correct. Those who hold to a belief based on the MJ text wills swear it is the best. However there is no absolute evidence to support that assumption/assertion.The standard rule of a clouded text being understood in the light of clear texts is appropriate here, not theological bias either way. After all God was also manifest in the windstorm, but the wind storm was not God in the flesh. I can accept either variation. It is what it MEANS that is at issue. Neither way of viewing the text is absolute, as to what is meant by and of itself. You prefer one way and others disagree. Note; many disagreeing with your position are perfectly happy to use the MJ text as well.

      kevinstubbings <low.rate.fast.closing@...> wrote:
      theos phanaroo

      God manifest.

      Majority text

      He who came...critical text.

      Critical text is under the belief that God doesnt talk to man in
      words but in concepts. It was for this reason that Wescott and Horte
      justified using corrupt manuscrips. Cause the letter doesnt mean
      anything, its only the concept and we are so much more educated that
      the Apostles that walked with Jesus.

      That is why the text that the ASV was translated from is false.

      --- In biblicalapologetics @yahoogroups. com, "kevinstubbings"
      <low.rate.fast. closing@. ..> wrote:
      >
      > Nothing to do with the translators of the ASV but the text that
      they
      > translated from. And what text was that?
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In biblicalapologetics @yahoogroups. com, Paul Leonard
      > <anotherpaul2001@ > wrote:
      > >
      > > I do not "like" the "Critical Text" anymore than I like
      > the "Majority Text" . I judge all work by the abilities of the
      > scholars, and the evidence presented in support of a reading, not
      the
      > personal beliefs of the scholars involved, unless I see them
      > interjected in to the work as a bias. Attack the man arguments like
      > you are using, immediately cause a question as such attacks
      generally
      > hide insufficient evidence for a position. The MS evidence, which
      > anyone can examine makes the verse in question a clouded text as to
      > what the ORIGINAL said. Anyone who can read Greek can evaluate the
      > MS in regard to this verse. There is nothing hard to see between
      the
      > different MS available. No strange syntax etc. Just the words.
      > >
      > > No interpretation is occurring here. It is the words of the
      > original text that are in question. You are presenting meaningless
      > arguments in this issue.
      > >
      > > I assume you do not accuse the Translators of the ASV of not
      being
      > Christians or scholars????
      > >
      > > Not to exclude many other versions that read "he" instead
      of "God"
      > based on the texts examined?
      > >
      > > kevinstubbings <low.rate.fast. closing@>
      > wrote: So you like the critical?
      > > Do you know anything about the Critical text??
      > > Done by Westcott and Horte. Trinitarians. Evolutionists. Mary
      > > worshipers. Who said that God dose not talk to man in words, but
      > > concepts. That they were better at interpiting the scripture
      that
      > the
      > > apostles?
      > >
      > > You need to study.
      > >
      > > --- In biblicalapologetics @yahoogroups. com, Paul Leonard
      > > <anotherpaul2001@ > wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Nope
      > > >
      > > > kevinstubbings <low.rate.fast. closing@>
      > > wrote: majority lext rules.
      > > >
      > > > --- In biblicalapologetics @yahoogroups. com, Paul Leonard
      > > > <anotherpaul2001@ > wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > It is never wise to hang a hat on a questionable verse.
      This
      > is
      > > > an "unclear" verse, due to the MS question, as to what it
      > > originally
      > > > said.
      > > > >
      > > > > As an example.
      > > > >
      > > > > ASV 1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the
      > mystery
      > > of
      > > > godliness; He who was manifested in the flesh, Justified in
      the
      > > > spirit, Seen of angels, Preached among the nations, Believed
      on
      > in
      > > > the world, Received up in glory.
      > > > >
      > > > > KJV 1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the
      > mystery
      > > of
      > > > godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the
      > Spirit,
      > > > seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in
      the
      > > world,
      > > > received up into glory.
      > > > >
      > > > > It is virtually impossible to state with absolute certainty
      > as
      > > to
      > > > which is correct. That means we should NOT use it as a text
      to
      > > > establish any belief, pro or con.
      > > > >
      > > > > kevinstubbings <low.rate.fast. closing@>
      > > > wrote: Its hard to understand
      how
      > > God
      > > > could come and robe himself in flesh.
      > > > > The bible describes this as a Mystery.
      > > > > 1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of
      > > godliness:
      > > > > God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit,
      seen
      > of
      > > > > angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the
      > world,
      > > > received
      > > > > up into glory.
      > > > > The God here that is "seen of angels" .
      > > > > You cant see a spirit.
      > > > > It was God that was manifest "IN THE FLESH" special
      emphasis
      > on
      > > IN.
      > > > > Jesus was who was preached to the Gentiles.
      > > > >
      > > > > --- In
      biblicalapologetics @yahoogroups. com, "kevinstubbings"
      > > > > <low.rate.fast. closing@> wrote:
      > > > > >
      > > > > > I dont think anybody here is trying to say that God is
      or
      > was
      > > > ever a
      > > > > > man. I believe we were disscussing the deity of Jesus.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Have you ever heard the expression Emanuel? It means
      very
      > > > simply "God
      > > > > > with us" or God visiting his people. Jesus was the Son
      of
      > God
      > > in
      > > > the
      > > > > > flesh for the simple reason that God himself impregnated
      > Mary
      > > > who was
      > > > > > at that time a virgin. So his flesh was the literal
      > offspring
      > > or
      > > > Son
      > > > > > of God. But his Spirit, not his humanity, was God, the
      > only
      > > God,
      > > > the
      > > > > > One God that the Jews worshiped. The first Adam was made
      a
      > > > living
      > > > > > soul, the second Adam, Jesus, was made a quickenning
      > Spirit.
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > --- In biblicalapologetics @yahoogroups. com, "wglmp"
      > > <mtillman@>
      > > > > > wrote:
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > None of those statements make or prove Jesus was God.
      > > > > > > The notion that Jesus was God in the flesh needs first
      > to
      > > be
      > > > > > > supported on the Old Testament texts and opinions of
      > > Orthodox
      > > > > > Rabbis
      > > > > > > of the day that God can become a man... ANY man. On
      the
      > > > contrary,
      > > > > > > Orthodox Judaism flatly refuted the idea that God was
      or
      > > even
      > > > would
      > > > > > > become a man, and they based their refusal to cotton
      > such
      > > an
      > > > > > > incarnation with Biblical verses such as these from
      > > > Deuteronomy 4.
      > > > > > > 4:14. "And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach
      > you
      > > > statutes
      > > > > > > and ordinances, so that you should do them in the land
      > to
      > > > which you
      > > > > > > are crossing, to possess. 15. And you shall watch
      > > yourselves
      > > > very
      > > > > > > well, for you did not see any image on the day that
      the
      > > Lord
      > > > spoke
      > > > > > to
      > > > > > > you at Horeb from the midst of the fire. 16. Lest you
      > > become
      > > > > > corrupt
      > > > > > > and make for yourselves a graven image, the
      > representation
      > > of
      > > > any
      > > > > > > form, the likeness of male or female, 17. the likeness
      > of
      > > any
      > > > beast
      > > > > > > that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird
      > that
      > > > flies in
      > > > > > > the heaven, 18. the likeness of anything that crawls
      on
      > the
      > > > ground,
      > > > > > > the likeness of any fish that is in the waters,
      beneath
      > the
      > > > earth.
      > > > > > > 19. And lest you lift up your eyes to heaven, and see
      > the
      > > sun,
      > > > and
      > > > > > > the moon, and the stars, all the host of heaven, which
      > the
      > > > Lord
      > > > > > your
      > > > > > > God assigned to all peoples under the entire heaven,
      and
      > be
      > > > drawn
      > > > > > > away to prostrate yourselves before them and worship
      > them."
      > > > > > > And these from Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; Job
      9:32;
      > > Hosea
      > > > 11:9;
      > > > > > > Deuteronomy 4:35-36, 39; and Malachi 3:6.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Only then can we discuss whether a certain man (I'm
      > > assuming
      > > > you'll
      > > > > > > suggest Jesus, somebody else might suggest another
      > person)
      > > was
      > > > God.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > --- In
      > > biblicalapologetics @yahoogroups. com, "kevinstubbings"
      > > > > > > <low.rate.fast. closing@> wrote:
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > Jesus said " all Power is given to me in heaven and
      > earth"
      > > > > > > > by his own autority he simply says "Peace be still"
      > and
      > > the
      > > > seas
      > > > > > > calm
      > > > > > > > He says "if I with the finger of God heal you"
      > > > > > > > He also says "Before Abraham was I AM"
      > > > > > > > He still is there.
      > > > > > > > I AM THAT I AM. When he speaks through the burning
      > bush,
      > > He
      > > > > > > > says "THAT" I AM. He was pointing ahead in time to
      > THAT I
      > > AM.
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > --- In biblicalapologetics @yahoogroups. com,
      > <mtillman@>
      > > > wrote:
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > I understand the words you are using, but they
      apply
      > > > equally to
      > > > > > > ME
      > > > > > > > and to YOU as they would to Jesus. Jesus was no
      > > more "God"
      > > > than I
      > > > > > > am,
      > > > > > > > and YOU are no less "God" than he was.
      > > > > > > > > After all, God is always everywhere. There is no
      > where
      > > > where
      > > > > > God
      > > > > > > is
      > > > > > > > not. Nothing exists other than God or without His
      > > > permission.
      > > > > > > > Therefore, that God was "in" Jesus is no more
      mystical
      > > than
      > > > that
      > > > > > > God
      > > > > > > > is in all of us, even in the rocks and the wind and
      > the
      > > > stars.
      > > > > > > > > In short, Jesus was no more "God in the flesh"
      than
      > > > anybody
      > > > > > ever
      > > > > > > > was.
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > ---- kevinstubbings <low.rate.fast. closing@>
      wrote:
      > > > > > > > > > The flesh of Jesus was MAN but the Spirit of
      Jesus
      > > was
      > > > GOD.
      > > > > > > > > > For 'IN' Him dwelleth ALL the fullness of the
      the
      > > > Godhead
      > > > > > > bodily.
      > > > > > > > > > God was 'IN' Christ reconciling the world to
      > Himself.
      > > > > > > > > > Jesus said "I am in the Father and the Father
      > is 'IN'
      > > me.
      > > > > > > > > > God was manifest in the flesh.
      > > > > > > > > > Jesus is the express image of Gods person.
      > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >


    • setfreein1973@aol.com
      From what verse did you used to support this theory? Stan In a message dated 1/19/2008 10:39:40 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, anotherpaul2001@yahoo.com writes:
      Message 54 of 54 , Feb 10, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        From what verse did you used to support this theory?
        Stan
         
        In a message dated 1/19/2008 10:39:40 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, anotherpaul2001@... writes:
        It is called "Agency" and was prefigured as an example by Moses being "God/Elohim" to Pharaoh and Aaron being his (Moses) prophet.




      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.