Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Christian chat
Jim

Being Christian - the 'substance of the faith'.

On another thread, the subject of the Nicene Creed came up. This is the accepted core document of most Christian denominations, and even those churches wich do not subscribe to it, or use credal statements in worship, acknowledge that its' substance is entirely in accord with the Gospel. (Orthodox churches subscribe to the 'filioque' but that is really theological nit picking and really doesn't take anything major from the creed itself:
 
    "We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.
And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father  and the Son,.  who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen. "

This is the 'back to basics' of the core beliefs of Christianity.
Other groups accept some, add on bits...etc, but, in doing so, remove themselves from the common understanding of what Christian doctrine really is.
Lexilogio

Jim, I disagree. I support the Nicene Creed - but orthodox churches do have a big problem with it, the filoque is not "theological nitpicking". It is a central part of the divinity.

To use the Nicene Creed as a yardstick for who is Christian is a little narrow.

The Nicene Creed is not part of the Bible - and yet it is treated as scripture. Scripture which, as read out today, is not the same as the one agreed at Nicea. It also rules out Coptic Christians. Who apparently aren't Christian at all - by that ruling.

I am very sensitive about this idea of accusing people of not being Christian. To me it is a refusal of the right to follow Jesus. I do not agree with the way a number of churches worship - I feel that their worship does not fit with the guidance given in the gospel, but I never consider that they are "not Christian". To me, the word Christian has far wider connotation.

The Nicene Creed was the established church, the Catholic Church's view of Christianity. I'm not Catholic. I might still say the creed, but I would not exclude those who do not.
Jim

Hang on, though - I'n not an RC either, Lexi.
however, when I was part of the CofS Panel on Doctrine, we had a kind of ecumenical symposium.
There were reps from RC, presbyterian, Episcopal, Baptist, Congregational - even the then professor of NT Greek at Glasgow Uni (now  former Abp of Great Britain and Thyatira in the Greek Orthodox tradition).
With the question of the filioque set aside for obvious reasons, the rest of the creed was agreed as core to the Christian faith.
(As a matter of fact, the core of the "Apostles Creed" was taken in its' entirity).
The purpose was a united statement of Christian doctrine in Scotland - and a bedrock for fighting the scourge of sectarianism.
THe result was the "Mission of Friendship" campaign, in which Christians from various denominations went out into their towns to show unity.
(In my own town's case, that meant CofS and RC...the local brethren did not take part.)

There was also a statement reaffirming the basis of Christianity was faith in the One, Triune God, and that all other practices which claimed the name of Christian were, in fact, less than Christian.
bnabernard

So you became a sect then.
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Filioque

bernard (hug)
Lexilogio

Jim wrote:
Hang on, though - I'n not an RC either, Lexi.
however, when I was part of the CofS Panel on Doctrine, we had a kind of ecumenical symposium.
There were reps from RC, presbyterian, Episcopal, Baptist, Congregational - even the then professor of NT Greek at Glasgow Uni (now  former Abp of Great Britain and Thyatira in the Greek Orthodox tradition).
With the question of the filioque set aside for obvious reasons, the rest of the creed was agreed as core to the Christian faith.
(As a matter of fact, the core of the "Apostles Creed" was taken in its' entirity).
The purpose was a united statement of Christian doctrine in Scotland - and a bedrock for fighting the scourge of sectarianism.
THe result was the "Mission of Friendship" campaign, in which Christians from various denominations went out into their towns to show unity.
(In my own town's case, that meant CofS and RC...the local brethren did not take part.)

There was also a statement reaffirming the basis of Christianity was faith in the One, Triune God, and that all other practices which claimed the name of Christian were, in fact, less than Christian.


The unity part is good. And I am all in favour of these events where common ground can be established. But it still excludes those who we would consider Christian - such as the Coptics. We have all inherited the mantle of the "Established Church". But I don't think we can state that those without are therefore not Christian.
Jim

There were no Copts in the symposium, Lexi, because there was no Coptic congregation at the time active in Scotland (One had just went moribund the year before, but, happily, there are now four Coptic congregations in Scotland, two meeting in Scottish Episcopal churches, and one meeting in a CofS church hall.
We recognise the differences - but aso the fact that we hold the One, Triune God as the core of the faith, and that the saving power of Christ, God Incarnate unites us.
BTW, we also have strong links with the Syriac Orthodox congregation in Edinburgh, and two Messianic Jewish groups as well.

What unites us is the acceptance of the Triune God, His saving act, and our response to it.


BTW....established?
Er....John knox would throw a wobbly! THe CofS is definately NOT established!
The 1707 Act of Union specifically mentions the fact that the CofS would be completely independant of the state, nor would it interfere in the state.
We're proud of that bit!
LeClerc

Hello Jim

The early believers in Messiah Y'shua, tasted the substance of faith, knew the substance of faith, and experienced the substance of faith.

Acts 2

36 "Let all the house of Yisra'el therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Yeshua whom you crucified."
37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Kefa and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"
38 Kefa said to them, "Repent, and be immersed, everyone of you, in the name of Yeshua the Messiah for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Ruach HaKodesh.
39 For to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all who are far off, even as many as the Lord our God will call to himself."
40 With many other words he testified, and exhorted them, saying, "Save yourselves from this crooked generation!"
41 Then those who gladly received his word were immersed. There were added that day about three thousand souls.
42 They continued steadfastly in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and prayer.
43 Fear came on every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles.
44 All who believed were together, and had all things common.
45 They sold their possessions and goods, and distributed them to all, according as anyone had need.
46 Day by day, continuing steadfastly with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home, they took their food with gladness and singleness of heart,
47 praising God, and having favor with all the people. The Lord added to the assembly day by day those who were being saved.


The substance of faith was a way of life, not the confession of a creed.

Regards

LeClerc
Jim

Agreed, LeClerc.
However, as seen in the very earliest Pauline letters ( e.g. 1 Corinthians) there were already rivalries and even division in exactly what  the core values and substance of the faith was! One only has to read the account in Acts of the dispute at the 'council of Jerusalem' between those advocating forced circumcision of Gentile believers, and Paul's insistence that converting to Judaistic practice need not occur before recognition as a Christian.

As the apostles died off, and the influence of Gnosticism from the outside permeated the believers, church leaders had to make a stand on just what the message WAS.
Early creeds survive (some at least partially appearing in  bits of Pauline scripture), but, as the church grew and spread, into parts of the Empire and beyond, which had never known Jewish influence, the need for a core creed to maintain the unity of the Gospel message became imperative.

Similarly, today, when we meet as broken parts of the church, we need to unite together in a united creedal statement to which each can subscribe.
That's why the shorter Apostles' Creed is used at such meetings such as the Lausanne movement of Evangelicals.
Longer statements are fashioned, filled with theology speak, but the basics of the faith unite us in common witness.
We know what IS, and what is NOT Christian!
LeClerc

Hi Jim

There is much misunderstanding here Jim.

Do you agree Jim that there is a huge gulf between the Spirit of Torah and what are known by many as ''Judaistic practices''.

The Messiah spoke out against many of these ''Judaistic practices'' which had become an unbearable yoke to the people of Israel.

When was the Apostles Creed written and by whom ?

Regards

LeClerc
Jim

LeClerc:
The reason I mentioned the Apostles Creed is that it predates the Nicene by over a century.
The first mention is in a letter by Hypolitas dating from 215 AD, when the faith was still expanding, but Gnosticism and the pseudoepigrapha of the Gnostic writings were in circulation.

Both those who heard the apostles, and ourselves, have something in common: we both have access to the Scriptures (or, in the case of second century believers, those who wrote them) Later believers had limited access to the written word, plus the added drawback of Gnostic preaching, teaching and copied word. Note that these false versions of the faith were created by the predominantly Greco-Roman literate (and richer) classes, who could promulgate their ideas wider than the predominantly poorer ( and in some cases, persecuted) Christians. Given that the Gnostics laid emphasis on mystery and secrets, which were a crossover from pagan idolatry, and had nothing to do with the Gospel or Pauline message, ways of communicating just exactly what being Christian was had to be created - hence the creeds.
The Apostles Creed was a very basic core set of beliefs which were rooted in the Gospels round which all believers could unite...and it still is!

As for Judastic influence? I speak, not of the OT, but the tendency toward legalism which was a sad reflection on the Pharisaic system. Jesus, the fulfilment of the Law, was the guarantor that Gentile believers need not become Jews before becoming Christian.
That was the essential dispute between Paul and some of the other apostles in Jerusalem recorded in Acts.
LeClerc

Hello Jim

Jim wrote:
LeClerc:
The reason I mentioned the Apostles Creed is that it predates the Nicene by over a century.
The first mention is in a letter by Hypolitas dating from 215 AD, when the faith was still expanding, but Gnosticism and the pseudoepigrapha of the Gnostic writings were in circulation.


If we can look at this first.

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell.
The third day He arose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.
Amen.


Even thoses who call themselves Christians today do not hold to the Apostles Creed for two reasons.

The first one is the phrase ''He desended into hell''.

Not all Christians agree on this interpretation.

The second one is ''I believe in the holy catholic church''

this does not mean the Roman Catholic Church but the universal assembly of believers.

However for many this still remains a big problem seeing the term holy catholic church to mean the Roman Catholic Church.

So what was formulated to unite brings further division.

Will respond to your other comments later.

Regards

LeClerc
Jim

Well, LeClerc, given that there is, albeit scanty, scriptural basis for "He desceneded into Hell" (modern version "the place of the dead"), the phrase is still aposite in my view.
As for "Holy Catholic Church"?
Again, yes, I agree - and some modern versions have "Universal", or "World wide", which, in essence, define 'Catholic'.
This, too, is Scriptural, both in inspiration
"We are all one in Christ Jesus", and, as Jesus prayed Himselfm in Gethsemene;
"I pray for My people, that they might be one",
aspirational.
LeClerc

Morning Jim

Jim wrote:

This, too, is Scriptural, both in inspiration
"We are all one in Christ Jesus", and, as Jesus prayed Himselfm in Gethsemene;
"I pray for My people, that they might be one",
aspirational.




Jim wrote:

Well, LeClerc, given that there is, albeit scanty, scriptural basis for "He desceneded into Hell" (modern version "the place of the dead"), the phrase is still aposite in my view.
As for "Holy Catholic Church"?
Again, yes, I agree - and some modern versions have "Universal", or "World wide", which, in essence, define 'Catholic'.


Have been doing some more research into what is commonly known as The Apostles Creed.

The earliest know version is the Old Roman Version which is translated into English as follows.

I believe in God the Father Almighty;
and in Christ Jesus His only Son, our Lord,
Who was born from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary,
Who under Pontius Pilate was crucified and buried,
on the third day rose again from the dead,
ascended to heaven,
sits at the right hand of the Father,
whence He will come to judge the living and the dead,
and in the Holy Spirit,
the holy Church,
the remission of sins,
the resurrection of the flesh
(the life everlasting).


It does not include ''He descended into Hell'' or the word ''catholic'', my question is, if that was accepted then, then why the need for a change several hundred years later.

The Latin (Rufinus) and the Greek (Marcellus) versions are faithful, literal, verbatim translations of each other. The only outstanding difference is the concluding clause in the Greek text, ζωὴν αἰώνιον ("life everlasting"), which has no equivalent in the Latin text.

Jim wrote:
LeClerc:
Jesus, the fulfilment of the Law, was the guarantor that Gentile believers need not become Jews before becoming Christian.
That was the essential dispute between Paul and some of the other apostles in Jerusalem recorded in Acts.


Could you please define ''Gentile'' and ''Jew''

Regards

LeClerc
Jim

Gentile:
One not born under the jurisdiction of the LAW of Moses, not part of the Abrahamic inheritance through Isaac and Jacob, wider, one who did not acknowledge YHWH as the One and only God but, in some cases, came to realise this.
Jew:
Born as an inheritor of the Abrahamic covenant through Isaac and Jacob, who acknowledged the Law, who made effort to keep it, despite the fruitlessness of this task, and who hoped - and in a few cases today hopes - for a Messiah who has already come.

Christian:
A person, regardless of race, ethnicity, background or status, who acknoowledges One God, triune in nature, accepting Christ Jesus as the only means of Salvation through His death and resurrection.
LeClerc

Hi Jim

Jim wrote:
Gentile:
One not born under the jurisdiction of the LAW of Moses, not part of the Abrahamic inheritance through Isaac and Jacob, wider, one who did not acknowledge YHWH as the One and only God but, in some cases, came to realise this.
Jew:
Born as an inheritor of the Abrahamic covenant through Isaac and Jacob, who acknowledged the Law, who made effort to keep it, despite the fruitlessness of this task, and who hoped - and in a few cases today hopes - for a Messiah who has already come.

Christian:
A person, regardless of race, ethnicity, background or status, who acknoowledges One God, triune in nature, accepting Christ Jesus as the only means of Salvation through His death and resurrection.


Thanks Jim for your reply if we may turn to Genesis 17

5 Neither will your name any more be called Avram, but your name will be Avraham; for the father of a multitude of nations have I made you

The Hebrew word translated as nations is gowy, in the Septuagint, nations is translated from the Greek word, ethnos.

Both of these words are often translated as Gentile.

Therefore according to Genesis 17 verse 5 has God made  Abraham the father of many Gentiles ?

Also, as to the definition of Jew, would you include the other tribes descended from Yacob.

Regards

LeClerc
Jim

Does it really matter?
With respect, if a person, no matter what his or her ancestry, has abandoned faith in God, then his or her ancestry is just about as important as a snowflake in the desert! the dert!
LeClerc

Hi Jim

Jim wrote:
Does it really matter?
With respect, if a person, no matter what his or her ancestry, has abandoned faith in God, then his or her ancestry is just about as important as a snowflake in the desert! the dert!


Yes I believe it does matter because of what you have posted here

Jim wrote:

This, too, is Scriptural, both in inspiration
"We are all one in Christ Jesus", and, as Jesus prayed Himselfm in Gethsemene;
"I pray for My people, that they might be one",
aspirational.


Much hurt, pain and division has been caused within the Body of Messiah because of a misunderstanding of the English words ''Gentile'' and ''Jew'' and through the introduction of various creeds based on the traditions of men.

See what a difference it makes when you read a translation of The Scriptures which does not contain the English word ''Gentile''.

The healing has to begin with someone and that someone includes me.



Regards

LeClerc
Jim

The problem, though, is that the NT was not written in Aramaic or Hebrew, but in Greek.
If we translate into English (regardless of what 'style' of modern English) the Koine Greek, we are limited in the phrasiology we have at our disposal. "Gentile" is a common English usage and roughly equates to the Aramaic word, and the Greek, both of which were 'lingua franca' in Judeo-Palestine in 1st and second century.
Hebrew was becoming moribund, a type of language we would normally equate with Latin today. The Septuagint translation was increasingly popular in Judeo-Palestine (Witness the frequent use of the LXX in the Pauline letters and Acts), making Hebrew somewhat subordinate. Only with the diaspora was Hebrew maintained and prospered, as are many indigenous languages in displaced populations.
LeClerc

Hi Jim

Jim wrote:
The problem, though, is that the NT was not written in Aramaic or Hebrew, but in Greek.
If we translate into English (regardless of what 'style' of modern English) the Koine Greek, we are limited in the phrasiology we have at our disposal. "Gentile" is a common English usage and roughly equates to the Aramaic word, and the Greek, both of which were 'lingua franca' in Judeo-Palestine in 1st and second century.
Hebrew was becoming moribund, a type of language we would normally equate with Latin today. The Septuagint translation was increasingly popular in Judeo-Palestine (Witness the frequent use of the LXX in the Pauline letters and Acts), making Hebrew somewhat subordinate. Only with the diaspora was Hebrew maintained and prospered, as are many indigenous languages in displaced populations.


What are the origins of the English word Gentiles. I thought it came from the Latin from gentīlis (“pagan, foreign”), from gēns (“clan, tribe”) + adjective suffix -ilis

The Greek word ethnos can be translated nations without any problems.

Sorry Jim, I am going off topic here, back to the subject of the OP.

Regards

LeClerc
Jim

Yep.
'gens' is from the Latin - as are many such words - we get 'Gentile', 'Gentleman' etc, from the same root.
The convention has always been, right back from Tyndale and Wycliffe, up to modern versions in international standard English, to use 'gentile' rather than confuse the issue (Though GNB diverges a bit in some modern updates)

It migh be interesting to note that the Lorimer translation from Koine to classic Scots substitutes several phrases for 'gentile:
"fowk o foreign pairts".
"fowk at wisna Jewish"
"Them that werna circumcised".
LeClerc

Morning Jim

Jim wrote:
Yep.
'gens' is from the Latin - as are many such words - we get 'Gentile', 'Gentleman' etc, from the same root.
The convention has always been, right back from Tyndale and Wycliffe, up to modern versions in international standard English, to use 'gentile' rather than confuse the issue (Though GNB diverges a bit in some modern updates)

It migh be interesting to note that the Lorimer translation from Koine to classic Scots substitutes several phrases for 'gentile:
"fowk o foreign pairts".
"fowk at wisna Jewish"
"Them that werna circumcised".


I like those translations Jim.

If we turn to the Latin Vulgate we find in 1 Corinthiasn 10 verse 32

sine offensione estote Iudaeis et gentilibus et ecclesiae Dei

Which gives the impression that there are three groups of people Jews, Gentiles and Christians.

Gentilibus is translated from the Greek ''Hellen''.

The Latin Vulgate does the same with 1 Corinthians 12 verse 13

etenim in uno Spiritu omnes nos in unum corpus baptizati sumus sive Iudaei sive gentiles sive servi sive liberi et omnes unum Spiritum potati sumus

This time translating The Greek ''Hellen'' as gentiles.

This has led to much confusion surrounding the word Gentile.

Regards

LeClerc
Jim

The Vulgate wasn;t a great translation in itself, LeClerc...though when Jerome translated it, most of the main MSS were already denied him. Most of the subsequent Western versions were based almost entirely on the Vulgate, with the errors incorporated and in some cases exacerbated, in the process.

When the KJV was created from the Geneva Bible (itself a translation, almost verbatim, from the Vulgate, further error was introduced by James VI & I's insistance that language which emphasised monarchial authority was used.

Only with modern (mid nineteenth and subsequent) translations, with increasing use of newly available MSS material, has the accuracy been restored to a more acceptable level, with footnotes where 'familiar' words are used.

(Though with the shifting sands of ALL modern languages, new translations are always welcome.)
LeClerc

Morning Jim

Jim wrote:
The Vulgate wasn;t a great translation in itself, LeClerc...though when Jerome translated it, most of the main MSS were already denied him. Most of the subsequent Western versions were based almost entirely on the Vulgate, with the errors incorporated and in some cases exacerbated, in the process.

When the KJV was created from the Geneva Bible (itself a translation, almost verbatim, from the Vulgate, further error was introduced by James VI & I's insistance that language which emphasised monarchial authority was used.

Only with modern (mid nineteenth and subsequent) translations, with increasing use of newly available MSS material, has the accuracy been restored to a more acceptable level, with footnotes where 'familiar' words are used.

(Though with the shifting sands of ALL modern languages, new translations are always welcome.)


Yes agreed 100%.

We have available today online, many of the manuscripts which the Bible Student could not easily access a few years ago.

That is one reason why the WTBTS stopped producing the interlinear translations of the NT. It showed too easliy how the NW translators had distorted the word of Elohiym.

Regards

LeClerc
Jim

Ah!
The Kingdom Interlinear!
I remember the late professor William Barclay, the noted New Testament scholar and expert in Koine Greek, saying that, sadly, the KIT was useless as both an interlinear, and because of its' bulk, a prop for a wonky table leg!

Don't get me started on the dismal mistranslation which is the NWT, and its' KIT brother....
At least Jerome knew Greek, even if the MSS he had to work with were inferior.
The mysterious translators of the NWT have, as far as we know, no qualifications in linguistics, semiotics, ancient Near Eastern languages (including Armaic Coptic and Hebreew ) or Koine Greek.
It is no surprise that the document they botched together is probably the worst excuse for a Bible translation in fifteen centuries.
Quite an achievement!
The translators of the NWT wre guilty of the same error as those of the KJV, in that they submitted to outside pressure to influence the scripture to suit their patron's ideas - though those who created the NWT are infinitely more guilty, because of deliberate, wanton mistranslation of Scripture in order to mislead the adherants of the JW religion.
bnabernard

What was Noah, Shem, Ham & Japheth? what was Melechizedeck?

bernard (hug)
Jim

Er....Human?
bnabernard

Jim wrote:
Er....Human?


Ah that  explains it then, the Jews, Gentiles and Christians are somthing non human, silly me.

bernard (hug)
Jim

Bernie:
I'm not a YEC.
I don't accept the traditional flood account in Genesis as entirely historical, given the evidence (or lack thereof) from history.
Like most Christians, I accept that there is a large degree of theology in what is primarily a folk legend.
This takes nothing away from the story or the lessons it teaches.
bnabernard

Jim wrote:
Bernie:
I'm not a YEC.
I don't accept the traditional flood account in Genesis as entirely historical, given the evidence (or lack thereof) from history.
Like most Christians, I accept that there is a large degree of theology in what is primarily a folk legend.
This takes nothing away from the story or the lessons it teaches.


Are you  saying is that the old testemant is a hoax?

bernard (hug)
LeClerc

Morning Bernie

bnabernard wrote:
What was Noah, Shem, Ham & Japheth? what was Melechizedeck?

bernard (hug)


What was Lamech ?

Regards

LeClerc
Jim

[quote="bnabernard:110179"]
Jim wrote:
Bernie:
I'm not a YEC.
I don't accept the traditional flood account in Genesis as entirely historical, given the evidence (or lack thereof) from history.
Like most Christians, I accept that there is a large degree of theology in what is primarily a folk legend.
This takes nothing away from the story or the lessons it teaches.


Are you  saying is that the old testemant is a hoax?

You will never find, in any posts I make, any even remote suggestion that the OT is a hoax, Bernie.
I firmly believe it to be part of God's inspired word.
Simply not primarily a historical record. That was never its' purpose. bernard
bnabernard

         

??????? anybody else want to throw a question into the ring    

Sorry Jim you posted before me, this replay was meant for LC

bernard (hug)
LeClerc

Morning Bernie

bnabernard wrote:
What was Noah, Shem, Ham & Japheth? what was Melechizedeck?

bernard (hug)


What was Lamech ?

Regards

LeClerc
bnabernard

Jim

10187"]          

??????? anybody else want to throw a question into the ring    

Why?
The majority of Biblical scholars, both Jewish and Christian, acknowledge that the Torah as we know it was compiled in exile in Babylon.
Some say that it was actually WRITTEN there...I disagree, but do agree that it was very heavily edited.
The reason is simple; tribes and nations menttioned as having existed at the time of Abraham - or Moses - could not possibly have existed then, nor could terms such as 'Pharaoh' have existed in Abraham's time (assuming you accept the dates given in Genesis as accurate.)
That these were put down in print does not diminish one whit from the theology of Scripture, whose whole purpose was to prepare for Christ.
bnabernard

So what we have Jim is this situation where God lets people believe a load of old codswholop then blames them for getting it wrong?

Or to put it another way makes a mockery out of those who believe in him.

How confident then are you  that the same does not apply to yourself considering the so called absolute rubbish he has allowed people to believe to date regarding the hebrew/jew?

bernard (hug)
Jim

Eh?
I've never reffered to Scripture as
"A load of old codswallop" - nor will I.
The fact that it is not meant as a history book does not diminish the theology of the Pentateuch by one jot!
bnabernard

Jim wrote:
Eh?
I've never reffered to Scripture as
"A load of old codswallop" - nor will I.
The fact that it is not meant as a history book does not diminish the theology of the Pentateuch by one jot!


Ok Jim, it's not codswholop,   (bloke scratching his head)
What is the story of the flood if it is not codswholop.
You have this scenario where every naughty person on the earth is drowned, all the creatures with them.
Is this just a tale to put the wind up us?
Is it like mum saying she will kill us if we don't eat our greens.

Bernard (hug)
LeClerc

Hello Bernie

bnabernard wrote:


Genesis 5 Complete Jewish Bible
28 Lemekh lived 182 years and fathered a son, 29 whom he called Noach [restful]; for he said, “This one will comfort us in our labor, in the hard work we do with our hands [to get what comes] from the ground that ADONAI cursed.”

Regards

LeClerc
bnabernard

bnabernard wrote:
Jim

[quote="bnabernard:110197"]
Jim wrote:
Eh?
I've never reffered to Scripture as
"A load of old codswallop" - nor will I.
The fact that it is not meant as a history book does not diminish the theology of the Pentateuch by one jot!


Ok Jim, it's not codswholop,   (bloke scratching his head)
What is the story of the flood if it is not codswholop.
You have this scenario where every naughty person on the earth is drowned, all the creatures with them.
Is this just a tale to put the wind up us?
Is it like mum saying she will kill us if we don't eat our greens.

   First:
I believe there WAS a lood - not a global one; Scripture doesn't say that.
Second, given the remarkable similarities in the Gilgamesh stories and those of the Noahic flood, I maintain that some cross cultural infusion during the Babylonian exile took place, and we simply cannot separate what the original flood story was.
Third; since there is not one single piece of evidence for a flood in recorded history outside the Fertile Crescent, we must conclude that if the events recorded in Genisis took place in absolute accuracy, they must have happened well before 4000 BC - which skews the chronology of Scripture way off beam if you take it as a stand-alone historical document - which is not its' purpose.
bnabernard

Well drowning everybody other than Noah and his family seems to bend the idea of there being suvivours.

However what your idea presents us with is a God that was/is not in control and is prepared to accept lies being told about him.

I take it you don't believe in a stand alone God.

bernard (hug)
Jim

[quote="bnabernard:110202"]Well drowning everybody other than Noah and his family seems to bend the idea of there being suvivours.

However what your idea presents us with is a God that was/is not in control and is prepared to accept lies being told about him.

I take it you don't believe in a stand alone God.

Bernie:
What gave you that idea?
But if I believe in a God who is truth - and I do - where is the evidence for a pan-global flood in human history, or indeed prehistory?
I mean, even in Israel, remains of the famous "Mt Carmel lady" have been dated to at least 20,000BC - with no sign of any water penetration into those remains.
Since the remains were found in a cave in Mt Carmel - not an interrment - any flloding there would have destroyed, disturbed or contaminated them.
They were found by Israeli archaeologists in pristine condition.
Therefore
A) the flood occured before 20,000BC,
or
B) the flood did not reach as far as Israel.
LeClerc

Hello Bernie

bnabernard wrote:
What was Noah, Shem, Ham & Japheth?

bernard (hug)


Noah was the Father of Shem Ham and Japeth

Genesis 5
32 Noah was five hundred years old, and Noah became the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Lamech was the Father of Noah

Genesis 5
28 Lamech lived one hundred and eighty-two years, and became the father of a son. 29 Now he called his name Noah, saying, “This one will [c]give us rest from our work and from the toil of our hands arising from the ground which the Lord has cursed.” 30 Then Lamech lived five hundred and ninety-five years after he became the father of Noah, and he had other sons and daughters. 31 So all the days of Lamech were seven hundred and seventy-seven years, and he died.


Regards

LeClerc
JamesJah

LeClerc wrote:
Morning Jim

Jim wrote:
Yep.
'gens' is from the Latin - as are many such words - we get 'Gentile', 'Gentleman' etc, from the same root.
The convention has always been, right back from Tyndale and Wycliffe, up to modern versions in international standard English, to use 'gentile' rather than confuse the issue (Though GNB diverges a bit in some modern updates)

It migh be interesting to note that the Lorimer translation from Koine to classic Scots substitutes several phrases for 'gentile:
"fowk o foreign pairts".
"fowk at wisna Jewish"
"Them that werna circumcised".


I like those translations Jim.

If we turn to the Latin Vulgate we find in 1 Corinthiasn 10 verse 32

sine offensione estote Iudaeis et gentilibus et ecclesiae Dei

Which gives the impression that there are three groups of people Jews, Gentiles and Christians.

Gentilibus is translated from the Greek ''Hellen''.

The Latin Vulgate does the same with 1 Corinthians 12 verse 13

etenim in uno Spiritu omnes nos in unum corpus baptizati sumus sive Iudaei sive gentiles sive servi sive liberi et omnes unum Spiritum potati sumus

This time translating The Greek ''Hellen'' as gentiles.

This has led to much confusion surrounding the word Gentile.

Regards

LeClerc


The Greek in my Diaglot= Ellenes, where did you get your hellen from?
LeClerc

Hello James

JamesJah wrote:
LeClerc wrote:
Morning Jim

Jim wrote:
Yep.
'gens' is from the Latin - as are many such words - we get 'Gentile', 'Gentleman' etc, from the same root.
The convention has always been, right back from Tyndale and Wycliffe, up to modern versions in international standard English, to use 'gentile' rather than confuse the issue (Though GNB diverges a bit in some modern updates)

It migh be interesting to note that the Lorimer translation from Koine to classic Scots substitutes several phrases for 'gentile:
"fowk o foreign pairts".
"fowk at wisna Jewish"
"Them that werna circumcised".


I like those translations Jim.

If we turn to the Latin Vulgate we find in 1 Corinthiasn 10 verse 32

sine offensione estote Iudaeis et gentilibus et ecclesiae Dei

Which gives the impression that there are three groups of people Jews, Gentiles and Christians.

Gentilibus is translated from the Greek ''Hellen''.

The Latin Vulgate does the same with 1 Corinthians 12 verse 13

etenim in uno Spiritu omnes nos in unum corpus baptizati sumus sive Iudaei sive gentiles sive servi sive liberi et omnes unum Spiritum potati sumus

This time translating The Greek ''Hellen'' as gentiles.

This has led to much confusion surrounding the word Gentile.

Regards

LeClerc


The Greek in my Diaglot= Ellenes, where did you get your hellen from?


http://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_corinthians/12-13.htm

http://biblehub.com/greek/1672.htm

Regards

LeClerc
JamesJah

[quote="Jim:110203"]
bnabernard wrote:
Well drowning everybody other than Noah and his family seems to bend the idea of there being suvivours.

However what your idea presents us with is a God that was/is not in control and is prepared to accept lies being told about him.

I take it you don't believe in a stand alone God.

Bernie:
What gave you that idea?
But if I believe in a God who is truth - and I do - where is the evidence for a pan-global flood in human history, or indeed prehistory?
I mean, even in Israel, remains of the famous "Mt Carmel lady" have been dated to at least 20,000BC - with no sign of any water penetration into those remains.
Since the remains were found in a cave in Mt Carmel - not an interrment - any flloding there would have destroyed, disturbed or contaminated them.
They were found by Israeli archaeologists in pristine condition.
Therefore
A) the flood occured before 20,000BC,
or
B) the flood did not reach as far as Israel.


Those in our location which call themselves Christian no longer uphold the trinity or the old creed they have mapped themselves a new one, they call themselves the United Reform church.

It was quite popular for a while.

Still they are missing out on all the bible research done by the JW's are they not?

The mountain of Jehovah is mot for those who think they know better than the Almighty, those who are sucked in by spurious experts on archaeology,
JamesJah

LeClerc wrote:
Hello James

JamesJah wrote:
LeClerc wrote:
Morning Jim

Jim wrote:
Yep.
'gens' is from the Latin - as are many such words - we get 'Gentile', 'Gentleman' etc, from the same root.
The convention has always been, right back from Tyndale and Wycliffe, up to modern versions in international standard English, to use 'gentile' rather than confuse the issue (Though GNB diverges a bit in some modern updates)

It migh be interesting to note that the Lorimer translation from Koine to classic Scots substitutes several phrases for 'gentile:
"fowk o foreign pairts".
"fowk at wisna Jewish"
"Them that werna circumcised".


I like those translations Jim.

If we turn to the Latin Vulgate we find in 1 Corinthiasn 10 verse 32

sine offensione estote Iudaeis et gentilibus et ecclesiae Dei

Which gives the impression that there are three groups of people Jews, Gentiles and Christians.

Gentilibus is translated from the Greek ''Hellen''.

The Latin Vulgate does the same with 1 Corinthians 12 verse 13

etenim in uno Spiritu omnes nos in unum corpus baptizati sumus sive Iudaei sive gentiles sive servi sive liberi et omnes unum Spiritum potati sumus

This time translating The Greek ''Hellen'' as gentiles.

This has led to much confusion surrounding the word Gentile.

Regards

LeClerc


The Greek in my Diaglot= Ellenes, where did you get your hellen from?


http://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_corinthians/12-13.htm

http://biblehub.com/greek/1672.htm

Regards

LeClerc


That does not change my Diaglott now does it ?


Original Word: Ἕλλην, ηνος, ὁ
The Boyg

JamesJah wrote:
The mountain of Jehovah is mot for those who think they know better than the Almighty, those who are sucked in by spurious experts on archaeology,


Are you referring to the sorts of "experts" who proclaimed the great pyramid of Giza to be "the Bible in stone"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramidology#Charles_Taze_Russell
JamesJah

Jim wrote:
Eh?
I've never reffered to Scripture as
"A load of old codswallop" - nor will I.
The fact that it is not meant as a history book does not diminish the theology of the Pentateuch by one jot!


After the flood came the tower of Juptor Bellos which came the tribes of the Chinese, Greeks, Izdhubar, (Nimrod),Mizrain,(Egypt), Phenicia or Canaan.

Now tell me what happened to all those other persons mentioned who lived befor the flood?

Genesis 6:4
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days and afterward. During that time the sons of the true God continued to have relations with the daughters of men, and these bore sons to them. They were the mighty ones of old times, the men of fame.
LeClerc

Hello James

JamesJah wrote:
LeClerc wrote:
Hello James

JamesJah wrote:
LeClerc wrote:
Morning Jim

Jim wrote:
Yep.
'gens' is from the Latin - as are many such words - we get 'Gentile', 'Gentleman' etc, from the same root.
The convention has always been, right back from Tyndale and Wycliffe, up to modern versions in international standard English, to use 'gentile' rather than confuse the issue (Though GNB diverges a bit in some modern updates)

It migh be interesting to note that the Lorimer translation from Koine to classic Scots substitutes several phrases for 'gentile:
"fowk o foreign pairts".
"fowk at wisna Jewish"
"Them that werna circumcised".


I like those translations Jim.

If we turn to the Latin Vulgate we find in 1 Corinthiasn 10 verse 32

sine offensione estote Iudaeis et gentilibus et ecclesiae Dei

Which gives the impression that there are three groups of people Jews, Gentiles and Christians.

Gentilibus is translated from the Greek ''Hellen''.

The Latin Vulgate does the same with 1 Corinthians 12 verse 13

etenim in uno Spiritu omnes nos in unum corpus baptizati sumus sive Iudaei sive gentiles sive servi sive liberi et omnes unum Spiritum potati sumus

This time translating The Greek ''Hellen'' as gentiles.

This has led to much confusion surrounding the word Gentile.

Regards

LeClerc


The Greek in my Diaglot= Ellenes, where did you get your hellen from?


http://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_corinthians/12-13.htm

http://biblehub.com/greek/1672.htm

Regards

LeClerc


That does not change my Diaglott now does it ?


Original Word: Ἕλλην, ηνος, ὁ


Where are you looking James ???

http://www.heraldmag.org/literature/diaglott/8_1corinthians.pdf

Regards

LeClerc
JamesJah

The Boyg wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
The mountain of Jehovah is mot for those who think they know better than the Almighty, those who are sucked in by spurious experts on archaeology,


Are you referring to the sorts of "experts" who proclaimed the great pyramid of Giza to be "the Bible in stone"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramidology#Charles_Taze_Russell


No he only claimed to be doing research in such matters and was open to correction if someone happened to know better.

In fact he held the Seventh day Adventist in esteem until they denied the ransom, he was wise enough at the time to be able to see serious flaws in some teachings common in his day and most have benefitted from the direction he set bible study on.

One thing he got right that most religions avoid and that is each person is reasonable before the Almighty for what he believes and does, so all are encouraged to study scripture themselves and not leave their salvation up to some one who tells them they are saved.

John 17:3
This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.
JamesJah

LeClerc wrote:
Hello James

JamesJah wrote:
LeClerc wrote:
Hello James

JamesJah wrote:
LeClerc wrote:
Morning Jim

Jim wrote:
Yep.
'gens' is from the Latin - as are many such words - we get 'Gentile', 'Gentleman' etc, from the same root.
The convention has always been, right back from Tyndale and Wycliffe, up to modern versions in international standard English, to use 'gentile' rather than confuse the issue (Though GNB diverges a bit in some modern updates)

It migh be interesting to note that the Lorimer translation from Koine to classic Scots substitutes several phrases for 'gentile:
"fowk o foreign pairts".
"fowk at wisna Jewish"
"Them that werna circumcised".


I like those translations Jim.

If we turn to the Latin Vulgate we find in 1 Corinthiasn 10 verse 32

sine offensione estote Iudaeis et gentilibus et ecclesiae Dei

Which gives the impression that there are three groups of people Jews, Gentiles and Christians.

Gentilibus is translated from the Greek ''Hellen''.

The Latin Vulgate does the same with 1 Corinthians 12 verse 13

etenim in uno Spiritu omnes nos in unum corpus baptizati sumus sive Iudaei sive gentiles sive servi sive liberi et omnes unum Spiritum potati sumus

This time translating The Greek ''Hellen'' as gentiles.

This has led to much confusion surrounding the word Gentile.

Regards

LeClerc


The Greek in my Diaglot= Ellenes, where did you get your hellen from?


http://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_corinthians/12-13.htm

http://biblehub.com/greek/1672.htm

Regards

LeClerc


That does not change my Diaglott now does it ?


Original Word: Ἕλλην, ηνος, ὁ


Where are you looking James ???

http://www.heraldmag.org/literature/diaglott/8_1corinthians.pdf

Regards

LeClerc


http://biblehub.com/greek/1672.htm
Jim

Ooops!
James;
You seem to forget that CT Russel remained a pyramidiot till he snuffed it.
Isn't that why he has a pyramid shaped gravestone erected by his acolytes in the WTBTS who shared his delusion?
Jim

And here's the proof.....


http://www.google.com/images?hl=e...p;ved=0CCgQsAQ&q=ct%20russell's%20grave&tbm=isch

Fitting memorial to a pyramidiot, wouldn't you say?
LeClerc

Hello James

JamesJah wrote:
LeClerc wrote:
Hello James

JamesJah wrote:
LeClerc wrote:
Hello James

JamesJah wrote:
LeClerc wrote:
Morning Jim

Jim wrote:
Yep.
'gens' is from the Latin - as are many such words - we get 'Gentile', 'Gentleman' etc, from the same root.
The convention has always been, right back from Tyndale and Wycliffe, up to modern versions in international standard English, to use 'gentile' rather than confuse the issue (Though GNB diverges a bit in some modern updates)

It migh be interesting to note that the Lorimer translation from Koine to classic Scots substitutes several phrases for 'gentile:
"fowk o foreign pairts".
"fowk at wisna Jewish"
"Them that werna circumcised".


I like those translations Jim.

If we turn to the Latin Vulgate we find in 1 Corinthiasn 10 verse 32

sine offensione estote Iudaeis et gentilibus et ecclesiae Dei

Which gives the impression that there are three groups of people Jews, Gentiles and Christians.

Gentilibus is translated from the Greek ''Hellen''.

The Latin Vulgate does the same with 1 Corinthians 12 verse 13

etenim in uno Spiritu omnes nos in unum corpus baptizati sumus sive Iudaei sive gentiles sive servi sive liberi et omnes unum Spiritum potati sumus

This time translating The Greek ''Hellen'' as gentiles.

This has led to much confusion surrounding the word Gentile.

Regards

LeClerc


The Greek in my Diaglot= Ellenes, where did you get your hellen from?


http://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_corinthians/12-13.htm

http://biblehub.com/greek/1672.htm

Regards

LeClerc


That does not change my Diaglott now does it ?


Original Word: Ἕλλην, ηνος, ὁ


Where are you looking James ???

http://www.heraldmag.org/literature/diaglott/8_1corinthians.pdf

Regards

LeClerc


http://biblehub.com/greek/1672.htm


Greeks James not Gentiles even your NW translation supports this translation.

1 Corinthians 10 NWT
32  Keep from becoming causes for stumbling to Jews as well as Greeks and to the congregation of God

1 Corinthians 12 NWT
32  Keep from becoming causes for stumbling to Jews as well as Greeks and to the congregation of God

Regards

LeClerc
JamesJah

LeClerc wrote:
Hello James

JamesJah wrote:
LeClerc wrote:
Hello James

JamesJah wrote:
LeClerc wrote:
Hello James

JamesJah wrote:
LeClerc wrote:
Morning Jim

Jim wrote:
Yep.
'gens' is from the Latin - as are many such words - we get 'Gentile', 'Gentleman' etc, from the same root.
The convention has always been, right back from Tyndale and Wycliffe, up to modern versions in international standard English, to use 'gentile' rather than confuse the issue (Though GNB diverges a bit in some modern updates)

It migh be interesting to note that the Lorimer translation from Koine to classic Scots substitutes several phrases for 'gentile:
"fowk o foreign pairts".
"fowk at wisna Jewish"
"Them that werna circumcised".


I like those translations Jim.

If we turn to the Latin Vulgate we find in 1 Corinthiasn 10 verse 32

sine offensione estote Iudaeis et gentilibus et ecclesiae Dei

Which gives the impression that there are three groups of people Jews, Gentiles and Christians.

Gentilibus is translated from the Greek ''Hellen''.

The Latin Vulgate does the same with 1 Corinthians 12 verse 13

etenim in uno Spiritu omnes nos in unum corpus baptizati sumus sive Iudaei sive gentiles sive servi sive liberi et omnes unum Spiritum potati sumus

This time translating The Greek ''Hellen'' as gentiles.

This has led to much confusion surrounding the word Gentile.

Regards

LeClerc


The Greek in my Diaglot= Ellenes, where did you get your hellen from?


http://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_corinthians/12-13.htm

http://biblehub.com/greek/1672.htm

Regards

LeClerc


That does not change my Diaglott now does it ?


Original Word: Ἕλλην, ηνος, ὁ


Where are you looking James ???

http://www.heraldmag.org/literature/diaglott/8_1corinthians.pdf

Regards

LeClerc


http://biblehub.com/greek/1672.htm


Greeks James not Gentiles even your NW translation supports this translation.

1 Corinthians 10 NWT
32  Keep from becoming causes for stumbling to Jews as well as Greeks and to the congregation of God

1 Corinthians 12 NWT
32  Keep from becoming causes for stumbling to Jews as well as Greeks and to the congregation of God

Regards

LeClerc


Is it a crime to say Gentile?

What is is it that is being taught by the statement?

Who was the only nation under God's law?

What made the other nations law less?

?
JamesJah

Jim wrote:
And here's the proof.....


http://www.google.com/images?hl=e...p;ved=0CCgQsAQ&q=ct%20russell's%20grave&tbm=isch

Fitting memorial to a pyramidiot, wouldn't you say?


Russell lived in the dark ages the same as all religions why do other religions make such a big thing out of his choosing the wrong alter that was left in Egypt by Jehovah, for him a simple mistake even if not so for those who now have the benefit of moving on from his research.

He opened peoples eyes to the fact that we were about to enter the time of the end something most religions tried to avoid.

If we had waited for the churches to reveal the truth and preach the good news we would still be waiting would we not?


One thing it did was act as a memory aid for bible history which was quite in order was it not?




Jim

Er "Jehovah" left the pyramid of Khufu (dedicated to Osiris, Nut, Horus and the assimilated god-king

Oh, and, BTW, your nice illustration wasn't from the Pyramid Texts which themselves were two centuries after Khufu.
It was from a bog-standard New Kingdom 'Book of the dead'.

Maybe you'd better consult the lds bunch.
They know just as little about Egypt as you do.
JamesJah

Jim wrote:
Er "Jehovah" left the pyramid of Khufu (dedicated to Osiris, Nut, Horus and the assimilated god-king

Oh, and, BTW, your nice illustration wasn't from the Pyramid Texts which themselves were two centuries after Khufu.
It was from a bog-standard New Kingdom 'Book of the dead'.

Maybe you'd better consult the lds bunch.
They know just as little about Egypt as you do.


Is that so can an expert like you tell us where this might be?

Isaiah 19:19-21
In that day there will be an altar to Jehovah in the middle of the land of Egypt and a pillar to Jehovah at its boundary.

It will be for a sign and for a witness to Jehovah of armies in the land of Egypt; for they will cry out to Jehovah because of the oppressors, and he will send them a savior, a grand one, who will save them.
Jim

Yes.
Elephantine.


'Cos, James, Jews built a functioning Temple to YHWH there in the 26th dynasty of Egypt.
They also had a further 2 Temples to Yhwh in sucession in Ptolemaic times, when the Septuagint was being translated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elep...pyri#Jewish_temple_at_Elephantine


Next?
JamesJah

Jim wrote:
Yes.
Elephantine.


'Cos, James, Jews built a functioning Temple to YHWH there in the 26th dynasty of Egypt.
They also had a further 2 Temples to Yhwh in sucession in Ptolemaic times, when the Septuagint was being translated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elep...pyri#Jewish_temple_at_Elephantine


Next?


Same answer as the JW's so who has things screwed down?

Jews who fled to Elephantine in Upper Egypt set up a temple and an altar, according to the Elephantine Papyri;
JamesJah

Insight to the scriptures p85 Altar
some centuries later the Jews near Leontopolis did likewise. (Jewish Antiquities, XIII, 62-68 [iii, 1]; The Jewish War, VII, 420-432 [x, 2, 3]) This latter temple and altar were built by Priest Onias in an attempt to fulfill

Where is Jehovah's mountain?
Jim

Jews who fled to upper Egypt?

Where did that particcular rubbish come from?
The Jews who were based in Elephantine were, like the Carian Greeks in the same area, mercenaries, invited by Psamtik I of the Egyptian Saite dynasty to reinforce the vital Elephantine border!
Egypt had just expelled a dynasty of Ethiopian rulers, the last of whom , Tanutamani, was threatening a resurgence.
These Jews were not fleeing Assyria, James - that was eighty odd years in the future! These were in it for the mercenary pay and conditions, and their children remained there.
Jim

Jim wrote:
Jews who fled to upper Egypt?

Where did that particcular rubbish come from?
The Jews who were based in Elephantine were, like the Carian Greeks in the same area, mercenaries, invited by Psamtik I of the Egyptian Saite dynasty to reinforce the vital Elephantine border!
Egypt had just expelled a dynasty of Ethiopian rulers, the last of whom , Tanutamani, was threatening a resurgence.
These Jews were not fleeing Assyria, James - that was eighty odd years in the future! These were in it for the mercenary pay and conditions, and their children remained there.




Bumped for James.
JamesJah

Did some one try to put a pyramid on Moses tomb?

Jude 8-10
Despite this, these men too are indulging in dreams, defiling the flesh, despising authority, and speaking abusively of glorious ones. 

But when Michael the archangel had a difference with the Devil and was disputing about Moses body, he did not dare to bring a judgment against him in abusive terms, but said:

May Jehovah rebuke you” But these men are speaking abusively about all the things they really do not understand. And in all the things that they do understand by instinct like unreasoning animals, they go on corrupting themselves.
Jim

JamesJah wrote:
Did some one try to put a pyramid on Moses tomb?

Jude 8-10
Despite this, these men too are indulging in dreams, defiling the flesh, despising authority, and speaking abusively of glorious ones. 

But when Michael the archangel had a difference with the Devil and was disputing about Moses body, he did not dare to bring a judgment against him in abusive terms, but said:

May Jehovah rebuke you” But these men are speaking abusively about all the things they really do not understand. And in all the things that they do understand by instinct like unreasoning animals, they go on corrupting themselves.



Evasion noted.
JamesJah

Why did some idiots think that it was ok to put a pyramid on any tomb?

What was their motive?

Any one heard the amount of rubbish that some say happened in the church of the holy sepulchre in Jerusalem.

Do they believe no one can see what liars they are?

How many believe what they say about the Dome of the rock?

Has Jerusalem become a den of robbers as it was in Jesus day?


Good job the Jerusalem is free and she is our mother.






Click to see full size image
Jim

JamesJah wrote:
Why did some idiots think that it was ok to put a pyramid on any tomb?

What was their motive?

Any one heard the amount of rubbish that some say happened in the church of the holy sepulchre in Jerusalem.

Do they believe no one can see what liars they are?

How many believe what they say about the Dome of the rock?

Has Jerusalem become a den of robbers as it was in Jesus day?


Good job the Jerusalem is free and she is our mother.

Evasion noted.






Click to see full size image
JamesJah

Revelation 1:1-3
A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent his angel and presented it in signs through him to his slave John, who bore witness to the word God gave and to the witness Jesus Christ gave, yes, to all the things he saw. Happy is the one who reads aloud and those who hear the words of this prophecy and who observe the things written in it, for the appointed time is near.

Luke 22:27
For which one is greater, the one dining or the one serving? Is it not the one dining? But I am among you as the one serving.


John 14:28, 29
I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I am.

So now I have told you before it occurs, so that you may believe when it does occur.

John 5:30
I cannot do a single thing of my own initiative. Just as I hear, I judge, and my judgment is righteous because I seek, not my own will, but the will of him who sent me.


John 7:28
I have not come of my own initiative, but the One who sent me is real, and you do not know him.



John 8:28
I do nothing of my own initiative; but just as the Father taught me, I speak these things.


John 8:42
I have not come of my own initiative, but that One sent me.



How many trinities did the Egyptians have?????
LeClerc

Morning James

JamesJah wrote:
Revelation 1:1-3
A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent his angel and presented it in signs through him to his slave John, who bore witness to the word God gave and to the witness Jesus Christ gave, yes, to all the things he saw. Happy is the one who reads aloud and those who hear the words of this prophecy and who observe the things written in it, for the appointed time is near.

Luke 22:27
For which one is greater, the one dining or the one serving? Is it not the one dining? But I am among you as the one serving.


John 14:28, 29
I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I am.

So now I have told you before it occurs, so that you may believe when it does occur.

John 5:30
I cannot do a single thing of my own initiative. Just as I hear, I judge, and my judgment is righteous because I seek, not my own will, but the will of him who sent me.


John 7:28
I have not come of my own initiative, but the One who sent me is real, and you do not know him.



John 8:28
I do nothing of my own initiative; but just as the Father taught me, I speak these things.


John 8:42
I have not come of my own initiative, but that One sent me.





Do you not send your word when it leaves your lips or are you saying you and your word are two separate beings ?

Regards

LeClerc
Jim

JamesJah wrote:
Revelation 1:1-3
A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent his angel and presented it in signs through him to his slave John, who bore witness to the word God gave and to the witness Jesus Christ gave, yes, to all the things he saw. Happy is the one who reads aloud and those who hear the words of this prophecy and who observe the things written in it, for the appointed time is near.

Luke 22:27
For which one is greater, the one dining or the one serving? Is it not the one dining? But I am among you as the one serving.


John 14:28, 29
I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I am.

So now I have told you before it occurs, so that you may believe when it does occur.

John 5:30
I cannot do a single thing of my own initiative. Just as I hear, I judge, and my judgment is righteous because I seek, not my own will, but the will of him who sent me.


John 7:28
I have not come of my own initiative, but the One who sent me is real, and you do not know him.



John 8:28
I do nothing of my own initiative; but just as the Father taught me, I speak these things.


John 8:42
I have not come of my own initiative, but that One sent me.



How many trinities did the Egyptians have?????


None.
Since the Trinity is Three persons in One God, the Egyptians had no such entity.

They DID have 'families' at various cult centres and at various stages:
Amun, Mut and Khons at Inuet (Thebes)
Isis, Osiris and Horus at Abydos, Dendera and Philae,
Set, Bast and their 'sons' Ijt-afnet and Tefnakht at Bubastis, etc.
These were groups of individual netjeru - not an individual who is three persons.
Stop reading the Watchtower anti-history, James...it won't work.
Jim

Jim wrote:
Jim wrote:
Jews who fled to upper Egypt?

Where did that particcular rubbish come from?
The Jews who were based in Elephantine were, like the Carian Greeks in the same area, mercenaries, invited by Psamtik I of the Egyptian Saite dynasty to reinforce the vital Elephantine border!
Egypt had just expelled a dynasty of Ethiopian rulers, the last of whom , Tanutamani, was threatening a resurgence.
These Jews were not fleeing Assyria, James - that was eighty odd years in the future! These were in it for the mercenary pay and conditions, and their children remained there.




Bumped for James.


BUMPED again for James in the vain hope that his selective amnesia doesn't kick in again.
JamesJah

It appears the some who call themselves Christian have no idea what an envoy is.

actually I just use a postman to carry my words.
Jim

JamesJah wrote:
It appears the some who call themselves Christian have no idea what an envoy is.

actually I just use a postman to carry my words.



It appears that some who call themselves Christian are incapable of answering posts directly.
JamesJah

What religion is this person?




Is it obvious
LeClerc

Hi James

JamesJah wrote:
It appears the some who call themselves Christian have no idea what an envoy is.

actually I just use a postman to carry my words.


Your postman carries your spoken words which leave your lips ?

Regards

LeClerc
Jim

JamesJah wrote:
What religion is this person?




Is it   obvious
 


It isn't a person.
JamesJah

Jim wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
What religion is this person?




Is it   obvious
 


It isn't a person.



           
Jim

JamesJah wrote:
Jim wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
What religion is this person?




Is it   obvious
 


It isn't a person.



           



Something amusing you, James?
Can a netjer have a religion?


Here's a teensy weensy clue - see that feather on the head?
That indicates 'living-in-truth' - in other words, dead.
See the ankh symbol?
That indicates 'giving life'.
And the 'Hek-saf' sceptre?
That indicates power...
The absence of a Uraeus serpent indicates that the personage is noot royal, therefore not identified as an 'Osiris'.
Therefore, in the absence of a name heiroglyph, the identity of the person is not given.
I'd suggest a tutulerary goddess,
one of the four 'protective goddesses in the book of Amduat.
JamesJah

What an education one gets here,

The Anh a cymbal of life sais that she was of what religion


?
Jim

JamesJah wrote:
What an education one gets here,

The Anh a cymbal of life sais that she was of what religion


?
 

Eh?
1:
define 'netjeru'.
2. On defining 'netjeru', tell me, can a netjer belong to a religion, or is a religion aimed at a netjer?
JamesJah

Jim wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
What an education one gets here,

The Anh a cymbal of life sais that she was of what religion


?
 

Eh?
1:
define 'netjeru'.
2. On defining 'netjeru', tell me, can a netjer belong to a religion, or is a religion aimed at a netjer?


The Ankh was the give away, a cymbal of the god Tammuz, whose priests use the cross to signify her name.

Beats walking around with a pyramid does it not?

++++++++++ can be seen on a priests clothing.
Jim

JamesJah wrote:
Jim wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
What an education one gets here,

The Anh a cymbal of life sais that she was of what religion


?
 

Eh?
1:
define 'netjeru'.
2. On defining 'netjeru', tell me, can a netjer belong to a religion, or is a religion aimed at a netjer?


The Ankh was the give away, a cymbal of the god Tamaz, whose priests use the cross to signify her name.


Beats walking around with a pyramid does it not?

++++++++++ can be seen on a priests clothing.
 


The ankh, James, is simply the heiroglyph for 'life'. It derives from the stylised form of a sandal strap.
It is seen being held and offered by many gods.
The earliest known is a representation of Horus holding an ankh to Djoser Netjerkhet in his dyn III mortuary shrine next to his Step Pyramid in Saqqara.
By the dyn VI, the so-called 'Pyramid texts' had wall scenes of all 42 major deities in the Old Kingdom holding ankhs.
By the time of the New Kingdom, kings were similarly depicted, being themselves associated with various deities (Amun, Ptah, Aten, Aah, Bast, Horus, etc).
To ascribe the ankh to one particular deity is quite simply wrong.

Here's a classic depiction of Re-Horakhty (earlier form of the Aten)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra-Horakhty#Relationship_to_other_gods

from the earlier part of the reign of Neferkheperure Amenhotep IV / Akhenaten.
JamesJah

Jim wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Jim wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
What an education one gets here,

The Anh a cymbal of life sais that she was of what religion


?
 

Eh?
1:
define 'netjeru'.
2. On defining 'netjeru', tell me, can a netjer belong to a religion, or is a religion aimed at a netjer?


The Ankh was the give away, a cymbal of the god Tamaz, whose priests use the cross to signify her name.


Beats walking around with a pyramid does it not?

++++++++++ can be seen on a priests clothing.
 


The ankh, James, is simply the heiroglyph for 'life'. It derives from the stylised form of a sandal strap.
It is seen being held and offered by many gods.
The earliest known is a representation of Horus holding an ankh to Djoser Netjerkhet in his dyn III mortuary shrine next to his Step Pyramid in Saqqara.
By the dyn VI, the so-called 'Pyramid texts' had wall scenes of all 42 major deities in the Old Kingdom holding ankhs.
By the time of the New Kingdom, kings were similarly depicted, being themselves associated with various deities (Amun, Ptah, Aten, Aah, Bast, Horus, etc).
To ascribe the ankh to one particular deity is quite simply wrong.

Here's a classic depiction of Re-Horakhty (earlier form of the Aten)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra-Horakhty#Relationship_to_other_gods

from the earlier part of the reign of Neferkheperure Amenhotep IV / Akhenaten.


The Ankh is just a phallic symbol depicting the sex organs assorted by the hippy movement they prefer it to the common cross.
Jim

JamesJah wrote:
Jim wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Jim wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
What an education one gets here,

The Anh a cymbal of life sais that she was of what religion


?
 

Eh?
1:
define 'netjeru'.
2. On defining 'netjeru', tell me, can a netjer belong to a religion, or is a religion aimed at a netjer?


The Ankh was the give away, a cymbal of the god Tamaz, whose priests use the cross to signify her name.


Beats walking around with a pyramid does it not?

++++++++++ can be seen on a priests clothing.
 


The ankh, James, is simply the heiroglyph for 'life'. It derives from the stylised form of a sandal strap.
It is seen being held and offered by many gods.
The earliest known is a representation of Horus holding an ankh to Djoser Netjerkhet in his dyn III mortuary shrine next to his Step Pyramid in Saqqara.
By the dyn VI, the so-called 'Pyramid texts' had wall scenes of all 42 major deities in the Old Kingdom holding ankhs.
By the time of the New Kingdom, kings were similarly depicted, being themselves associated with various deities (Amun, Ptah, Aten, Aah, Bast, Horus, etc).
To ascribe the ankh to one particular deity is quite simply wrong.

Here's a classic depiction of Re-Horakhty (earlier form of the Aten)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra-Horakhty#Relationship_to_other_gods

from the earlier part of the reign of Neferkheperure Amenhotep IV / Akhenaten.


The Ankh is just a phallic symbol depicting the sex organs assorted by the hippy movement they prefer it to the common cross.


Eh?
Sorry - Eh?
James, the ankh is no more a phallic symbol than the letter A (which is actually, in its' early form, a stylised representation of a cow's head)
As I posted, it is simply a sandal strap used as a heiroglyph.
It translates as "life", hence Tutankhaten/Amun translates as "Living image of the Aten/Amun (he was hedging his bets)
I don't know where you're getting this from, but try a reputable heiroglyph site!
Mystic and occultist (and pyramidiots) spin all sorts of guff round it, but basically, that is all it ever was.
The Copts adopted it as part of their Cross to symbolise life from death - and the even more stylised Celtic Cross is a derivation from the Coptic.

One of the earliest Coptic inscriptions we have - and one of the latest heiroglyphic inscriptions, refers to Jesus.
It was found on an ostraca in Tell el Yehudeyah, and dates from c 140 AD.

"Hequa ankh, hequa Kemet sa netjer Jesu!"

"Ruler of life, ruler of the Black land (the Egyptians' own name for their country), our God Jesus!"

AMEN!
JamesJah

The point of my post Jim was simple if you could see the pictures as you can not then there is no point in you answering as you miss the main point that the cross was popular religious object long before the Pope took charge of it.

The only cross that should be used for Christ is the Greek one, X for Christos. OK?
LeClerc

Morning James

JamesJah wrote:
It appears the some who call themselves Christian have no idea what an envoy is.

actually I just use a postman to carry my words.


Lets try again James.

Your word, (note your word, not someone elses word), which you give to your postman to carry, is that word an expression of your thoughts ?

Lets keep this simple, yes or no.

Regards

LeClerc
Sebastian Toe

LeClerc wrote:


Lets keep this simple, yes or no.


All the very best of luck with that one!
Jim

JamesJah wrote:
The point of my post Jim was simple if you could see the pictures as you can not then there is no point in you answering as you miss the main point that the cross was popular religious object long before the Pope took charge of it.

The only cross that should be used for Christ is the Greek one, X for Christos. OK?
 
Sorry, James.
By enlarging the image, I can't see a cross - only a goddess holding an ankh.
That the erly Copts adapted the ankh BEFORE the Chi-Rho symbol was used ogf Christ, before the papacy existed - and well over 150 years before Constantine and Nicea, shows that  the Cross was already seen as a symbol of death becoming life - the CROSS, James - not the STAKE. Also, that ostracon with the inscription?
Again, over a century and a half before Constantine, it acknowledges Christ as God.
It is now in the Cairo Museum.
Remember, to the first, second and third century peoples, literacy was not universal - symbols were, and were used as communication aids. To have scribbled an inscription on an ostracon indicates that the person doing the scribbling was educated, literate and had an understanding of his subject. Therefore that person knew what they were saying when declaring Christ as God.
bnabernard

Sebastian Toe wrote:
LeClerc wrote:


Lets keep this simple, yes or no.


All the very best of luck with that one!


Trouble is ST you get into the area of 'intelectual property' such as me registering a Patent, my thoughts and design, then the working model made out of what I choose.
Is a dyson dyson is it a vacum cleaner, what is it?

bernard (hug)
Jim

bnabernard wrote:
Sebastian Toe wrote:
LeClerc wrote:


Lets keep this simple, yes or no.


All the very best of luck with that one!


Trouble is ST you get into the area of 'intelectual property' such as me registering a Patent, my thoughts and design, then the working model made out of what I choose.
Is a dyson dyson is it a vacum cleaner, what is it?

bernard (hug)
 

Using your analogy, Bernie, certain groups try to turn a Dyson into a personal stereo.
Only one of these will clean the carpets, though.
bnabernard

 Some people wont clean their carpets unless they are listening to music, but Dyson, stereo, it's still a noise.
However what cleans your carpet, is it Dyson or his idea?

Intelectual property, a thought that leads to a product.

bernard (hug)
LeClerc

Morning Bernie

bnabernard wrote:
Sebastian Toe wrote:
LeClerc wrote:


Lets keep this simple, yes or no.


All the very best of luck with that one!


Trouble is ST you get into the area of 'intelectual property' such as me registering a Patent, my thoughts and design, then the working model made out of what I choose.
Is a dyson dyson is it a vacum cleaner, what is it?

bernard (hug)


But Bernie did your thought bring into existence the matter out of which the vacuum cleaner is made ?

Regards

LeClerc
JamesJah

LeClerc wrote:
Morning James

JamesJah wrote:
It appears the some who call themselves Christian have no idea what an envoy is.

actually I just use a postman to carry my words.


Lets try again James.

Your word, (note your word, not someone elses word), which you give to your postman to carry, is that word an expression of your thoughts ?

Lets keep this simple, yes or no.

Regards

LeClerc



Let us keep it really simple and let the Almighties word give the answer shall we?

Isaiah 55:11
So my word that goes out of my mouth will be. It will not return to me without results, But it will certainly accomplish whatever is my delight, And it will have sure success in what I send it to do.

How does his word return?


Ever wondered why humans think angels have wings?

Do wings convey the idea of flying in such a way as humans can understand it?





Click to see full size image
JamesJah

Jim wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
The point of my post Jim was simple if you could see the pictures as you can not then there is no point in you answering as you miss the main point that the cross was popular religious object long before the Pope took charge of it.

The only cross that should be used for Christ is the Greek one, X for Christos. OK?
 
Sorry, James.
By enlarging the image, I can't see a cross - only a goddess holding an ankh.
That the erly Copts adapted the ankh BEFORE the Chi-Rho symbol was used ogf Christ, before the papacy existed - and well over 150 years before Constantine and Nicea, shows that  the Cross was already seen as a symbol of death becoming life - the CROSS, James - not the STAKE. Also, that ostracon with the inscription?
Again, over a century and a half before Constantine, it acknowledges Christ as God.
It is now in the Cairo Museum.
Remember, to the first, second and third century peoples, literacy was not universal - symbols were, and were used as communication aids. To have scribbled an inscription on an ostracon indicates that the person doing the scribbling was educated, literate and had an understanding of his subject. Therefore that person knew what they were saying when declaring Christ as God.


Just because Christ was a god like many other gods of his time some get confused about how Christians can only have one God.

That is where they bring in the equality bit so they can align themselves with the religions of Great Babylon, but Jesus is not equal to his father which he himself has spoken so do we call Jesus a lire or not?

How can Jehovah be a God of gods if he is not mightier than them?

How can Jehovah give Jesus a higher position if he is not greater than him?


That is why Jehovah is the Almighty God and Jesus is only a mighty god.

Deuteronomy 10:16, 17
You must now cleanse your hearts and stop being so stubborn. 17 For Jehovah your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the God great, mighty, and awe-inspiring,


Revelation 19:15, 16
Moreover, he treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. 16 On his outer garment, yes, on his thigh, he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.


Now that is one reason that in the Chinese bible Almighty God is used all the time so they do not get confused with all the other gods they know.



No God of gods there
bnabernard

LeClerc wrote:
Morning Bernie

bnabernard wrote:
Sebastian Toe wrote:
LeClerc wrote:


Lets keep this simple, yes or no.


All the very best of luck with that one!


Trouble is ST you get into the area of 'intelectual property' such as me registering a Patent, my thoughts and design, then the working model made out of what I choose.
Is a dyson dyson is it a vacum cleaner, what is it?

bernard (hug)


But Bernie did your thought bring into existence the matter out of which the vacuum cleaner is made ?

Regards

LeClerc


If my thought was man then yes it would.

bernard (hug)
Jim

JamesJah wrote:
Jim wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
The point of my post Jim was simple if you could see the pictures as you can not then there is no point in you answering as you miss the main point that the cross was popular religious object long before the Pope took charge of it.

The only cross that should be used for Christ is the Greek one, X for Christos. OK?
 
Sorry, James.
By enlarging the image, I can't see a cross - only a goddess holding an ankh.
That the erly Copts adapted the ankh BEFORE the Chi-Rho symbol was used ogf Christ, before the papacy existed - and well over 150 years before Constantine and Nicea, shows that  the Cross was already seen as a symbol of death becoming life - the CROSS, James - not the STAKE. Also, that ostracon with the inscription?
Again, over a century and a half before Constantine, it acknowledges Christ as God.
It is now in the Cairo Museum.
Remember, to the first, second and third century peoples, literacy was not universal - symbols were, and were used as communication aids. To have scribbled an inscription on an ostracon indicates that the person doing the scribbling was educated, literate and had an understanding of his subject. Therefore that person knew what they were saying when declaring Christ as God.


Just because Christ was a god like many other gods of his time some get confused about how Christians can only have one God.

That is where they bring in the equality bit so they can align themselves with the religions of Great Babylon, but Jesus is not equal to his father which he himself has spoken so do we call Jesus a lire or not?

How can Jehovah be a God of gods if he is not mightier than them?

How can Jehovah give Jesus a higher position if he is not greater than him?


That is why Jehovah is the Almighty God and Jesus is only a mighty god.

Deuteronomy 10:16, 17
You must now cleanse your hearts and stop being so stubborn. 17 For Jehovah your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the God great, mighty, and awe-inspiring,


Revelation 19:15, 16
Moreover, he treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. 16 On his outer garment, yes, on his thigh, he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.


Now that is one reason that in the Chinese bible Almighty God is used all the time so they do not get confused with all the other gods they know.



No God of gods there
 

So,
In decclaring Christ as "Ruler/lord of Life, Ruler of Egypt/the land", that writer, when he called Jesus "God" (not 'minor deity, which would be written 'netjer-ta-sherit') was a polytheist?
Bear in mind that this was 140 AD. he, or his predecessor, may well have HEARD the apostles.
Were the apostles as duplicitous in mistranslating Scripture as the Russelites?

I declare the Shema with confidence annd assurance, James.
There is only One true God and all others are false and nothing.
Either Jesus is a personification of that One God, or Scripture is a liar and Christ's purpose smoke, mirrors and bluster.
LeClerc

Morning Bernie

bnabernard wrote:
LeClerc wrote:
Morning Bernie

bnabernard wrote:
Sebastian Toe wrote:
LeClerc wrote:


Lets keep this simple, yes or no.


All the very best of luck with that one!


Trouble is ST you get into the area of 'intelectual property' such as me registering a Patent, my thoughts and design, then the working model made out of what I choose.
Is a dyson dyson is it a vacum cleaner, what is it?

bernard (hug)


But Bernie did your thought bring into existence the matter out of which the vacuum cleaner is made ?

Regards

LeClerc


If my thought was man then yes it would.

bernard (hug)


So you are now declaring that your thought can bring into existence matter which did not exist.

Regards

LeClerc
LeClerc

JamesJah wrote:
LeClerc wrote:
Morning James

JamesJah wrote:
It appears the some who call themselves Christian have no idea what an envoy is.

actually I just use a postman to carry my words.


Lets try again James.

Your word, (note your word, not someone elses word), which you give to your postman to carry, is that word an expression of your thoughts ?

Lets keep this simple, yes or no.

Regards

LeClerc



Let us keep it really simple and let the Almighties word give the answer shall we?

Isaiah 55:11
So my word that goes out of my mouth will be. It will not return to me without results, But it will certainly accomplish whatever is my delight, And it will have sure success in what I send it to do.

How does his word return?



Are you referring to before becoming flesh of after becoming flesh.

From the scripture you have quoted, what's the substance of the Word of YHWH ?

Regards

LeClerc

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Christian chat Page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum