bbyrd009
Groper
- Nov 30, 2016
- 33,943
- 12,082
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States Minor Outlying Islands
well i dont know, although i suspect so, but my point was that “absolute truths” are by definition not disagreed with by anyone
Is Jesus a Man That God Selected?
- Thread starter Wrangler
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
"Absolute truth" is redundant. Something is true or not. Maybe true? Absolutely True!
I think it comes down to rather you hold to an objective or subjective reality. It seems to me you are more thinking this all subjective, would you agree?
Much love!
Interesting exchange. In another thread, either an atheist or agnostic seemed to suppose that if a thing COULD BE disputed, that meant it was not true. Of course, anything can be unreasonably disputed.
I've referenced the old nursery rhythm numerous times, Jack and Jill. Does anyone dispute this is a story of 2 beings? Yet, in Acts 17:31, when 'God selected this man' Jesus (that's different). Language usage.
What an odd way to word something if the meaning was not plain. Jack and Jill went up the hill, but you see, they are really one being in 2 persons. So, when Jack fell down and broke his crown, it has many ramifications. That this happened to Jack BEFORE anything in the story happened to Jill, does not take away from the idea that it really happened to both of them, since they are one being, don't you know. No one really knows why the story THEN explains that Jill came tumbling AFTER since, although her person may have tumbled after, as a bi-une being they actually tumbled together.
It's just our limited human perception and human logic and human language that gets in the way of every story. Words, then are an impediment to understanding. Up can mean up or any other direction. Duality, you see.
Let we forget, although not mentioned, they are actually a tri-une being but be it with the pale or the water in the pale changes on so many factors, the most important of which is that we aren't to know all the factors. 'God selected this man' Jesus. Simply means that Jesus is not God but was acted on by God. Jesus is the object of the sentence and God is the subject of the sentence. This is not some kind of equality. Joe Biden selected this woman, Harris. Same form of language. We don't assert Harris is Biden as it is clear from the sentence that is not the case.
Acts 17:31 KJV
31) Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
Acts 17:31 YLT
31) because He did set a day in which He is about to judge the world in righteousness, by a man whom He did ordain, having given assurance to all, having raised him out of the dead.'
Acts 17:31 LITV
31) because He set a day in which "He is going to judge the habitable world in righteousness," by a Man whom He appointed; having given proof to all by raising Him from the dead. Psa. 9:8
These are the translations I keep on my work computer. I can't seem to agree with the Voice translation here. And you seem to be hanging everything on that word.
Much love!
Ordained. Appointed. Selected. These are synonyms.
God ordained the man Jesus. KJV. Same difference. The meaning goes against trinity world.
amigo de christo
Well-Known Member
Do you MIND saying that again . YOUR RIGHT MY FRIEND . Let it be said again and again .
The word there is from Horidzo, to bound. We see this word in conjection with "pro", prohoridzo is translated predestine. It comes to us as the English word Horizon.
There are 8 places various forms of horidzo are used in the NT,
Luke 22:22 KJV
And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed!
Acts 11:29 KJV
Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea:
Acts 17:26 KJV
And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
Acts 10:42 KJV
And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.
Acts 17:31 KJV
Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
Romans 1:4 KJV
And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
The main idea using this word is to say God limits the possibilities to This Man.
Not that God looked at all men, and "selected" this one from among the rest.
Ordain, appoint, these don't imply other possible choices. Select does. I don't see that as a faithful translation, and I find it misleading, myself.
Much love!
Not sure where you get the idea that this is the main idea but it is entertaining to see you dance around God, in his unitarian nature, acted with respect to the man Jesus.
The action this unitarian God took was in the vein of selecting, ordaining, appointing. To call elevating a man to such action limiting is inventive, to be sure. Did God limit Saul and David and the prophets when he selected or anointed them? I think not.
The main idea from the verse is that God is a separate being from Jesus. Jesus is the object of the sentence, acted upon. God is the subject of the sentence, doing the acting.
Why do you persist in your heretical delusions? God the Father is distinct from God the Son, who is distinct from God the Holy Spirit. But it is still ONE GOD.
I think it's actually talking about something a little different. But I see how you are thinking of it. I just don't see the original language supporting either your selected translation, or your conclusion.
Setting a limit is exactly what that word means. So, you can go with that, or not.
Much love!
amigo de christo
Well-Known Member
cept this generation . they believe truth to be relevant to what a person believes . Talk about delusion . TRUTH IS ABSOLUTE .
No matter if we know it or not .
amigo de christo
Well-Known Member
Even paul says in several places the Spirit of GOD , he also says spirit of Christ . THEY ALL ONE .
God did not create HIS SPIRIT NOR HIS WORD . HE SIMPLY IS HIS SPIRIT AND HIS WORD .
The point to note is that they are all ONE, yet each one is distinct from the other. Hence there are "THREE witnesses in Heaven".
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (1 John 5:7)
amigo de christo
Well-Known Member
Yep they are three that bear witness in heaven and these are ONE
and three that bear witness on earth , the SPIRIT , water and blood and these agree in one .
Notice the SPIRIT is both places . The spirit is a lambs guide . LET THE KING BE PRAISED .
Yes indeed . Let the glorious LORD be praised . Ps , dont nevah follow JW s , mormons or adventist , OR ROME
or emergent , or nar , or prosperity or ......well okay that list is too long to say . LET US FOLLOW THE GLORIOUS LORD
and stay planted IN THE BIBLE .
Not true at all. There are 4 major examples.
1. Adam & Eve Did Not Die The Day They Ate the Forbidden Fruit.
2. God lied to 400 prophets.
3. God hates lying but honored the Midwives of Moses time and Rahab the prostitute because they lied.
4. Jesus did not rebuild the temple in 3 days.
Now, if you want to say these things are true 'from a certain POV,' a relative or qualified, non-absolute saying, then we agree.
I can't believe you are still relying on a discredited translation to make your point.
Bob Estey
Well-Known Member
It's hard to twist things such as "Do not commit adultery" or “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”
Bob Estey
Well-Known Member
How many ways are there to interpret statements such as, "Do not commit adultery" or “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination”?
Bob Estey
Well-Known Member
Thanks. Sadly, I heard a pastor say that a priest long ago could have substituted his words for God's words in the Bible, to further his own agenda. That would be the same as saying the Bible is lying. One thing I take on faith is that the Bible does not lie.
Similar threads
