One Creed to live by and die for...

[WalterandDebbie]

@WalterandDebbie
scripture for #9

Gal 5:24 And those who belong to Christ Jesus has crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.​

​

Mark 14: 38 Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” .......Christ crucified it and we also crucify our own by faith in his actions​

​

“And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.” (Colossians 1:18)​

Now it is a rebirth beside a first birth for the dead to new life in a spirit body.​

You see I believe that Jesus was born in that manager and never pre-existed, so it is fitting to say reborn.....only those that believe that Christ has a previous existence that is not scripture, will turn a head to this type of writing.

Thank you APAK, In your last statement, I was reading this article: The Pre-Existence of Christ Fact? or Superstition? Did Jesus Christ exist as a member of the divine Godhead before His human birth? Or is this teaching mere tradition and superstition? What is the truth? In recent times a revolutionary new theology has gained ground which says that Jesus Christ had no existence prior to conception in the womb of Mary His mother. Some claim the New Testa- ment documents are often unreliable and untrustworthy -- especially the gospel of John. Its time you knew what is going on "behind the scenes" in modern theological circles -- and the modern assault on the Bible and the divinity of Christ -- and the architect behind this furious attack! Recently, a friend sent me an article written by Anthony Buzzard entitled, "The Preexistence of Christ -- Truth Or Tradition?" published by the extremely liberal Foundation For Biblical Research, as well as another article along similar lines. In his letter he remarked, "I hope you'll have time to read and consider them before you write your article refuting them. Some points shouldn't be ignored!" I suppose I could humanly take offense at that remark; apparently he thinks I might just dash off a quick response which will leave many questions unanswered and leave him feeling empty or uncertain.

Frankly, I must admit I am somewhat "tired" of hearing about Anthony Buzzard's new heresy (which I suppose isn't really new). I read his booklet entitled "Who Is Jesus?" and his dissertation a year ago, and wrote an article entitled "Who Was Jesus Before His Human Birth?" in response to it. 77 The Abuse of Scripture When the devil came to Christ with specious interpretations of Scripture, Jesus didn't have someone else to appeal to to answer his arguments. He Himself used Scripture (Matt.4:1-10; Luke 4:1-13). He knew God's Word well enough to defeat the devil; and He set us an example for doing battle with the adversary and all his henchmen, including the likes of Anthony Buzzard. I know Buzzard from Ambassador College days. We entered as freshmen the same year (1959). He was the son of a British admiral, and consequently Herbert Armstrong appointed him freshman class president. I had no office, but I knew my Bible better than anyone else in the class (scoring 99% on the first Bible test in freshman Bible to the disbelief of Roderick Meredith the teacher). At any rate, Anthony had adustment problems, and eventually left college, let his hair grow long, left the Church, had a nervous breakdown (he was apparently under much pressure to "succeed" at college besides persecution from his family for his affililation with the "American" Church). Eventually he rejoined the Church, then left again; now he teaches at a Bible college and has a masters degree, for which he wrote his thesis denying the pre-existence of Christ. Interestingly, while still at Ambassador, he dated the woman who was to become my wife. On one of their dates he remarked to her, "You really know God, don't you?" Obviously he did not. Charles Hunting, former evangelist, and a distinctly NON-scholarly type, has joined with Buzzard in this belief. Jim Tabor, professor at North Carolina University in Charlotte, who himself once came to Ambassador after attending a Bible college in the midwest, and who briefly taught Hebrew at Ambassador (he was my Hebrew teacher one semester), has also adopted a similar view.

His story is also unique; after being let go from Ambassador, he later joined the faculty at Notre Dame, then William and Mary, and last year University of North Carolina. During this sojourn he lost his faith in God and Christianity, and became a secularist and agnostic, as he himself relates, but apparently recaptured his faith in God through the study of Judaism and the Old Testament Scriptures. Now he believes only the "Old Testament" is inspired Scripture, as such, and the New Testament is not. Particularly, he would throw out or relegate to "second place," whatever that means, the gospel of John and his epistles. This, of course, makes it easier for him to deny the pre-existence of Christ, as John's gospel is the key element in explaining the purpose and plan behind God's sending the Messiah, and how it all came about. Attack on the New Testament Tabor writes in "Restoring Abrahamic Faith," a recent publication of his, "In other words, the New Testament, as it has comes (sic) to us, in multiple manuscripts, Greek translation, with interpolations and editorial expansions, is a mixture of 'wheat and tares' as he himself predicted" (p.45). Did Jesus really predict that His Word would become a mixture of "wheat and tares"? Nonsense (John 10:35; 17:17). Jesus said, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but MY WORDS WILL NEVER PASS AWAY" 78 (Matt.24:35). Tabor claims the New Testament is not Scripture. But the apostle Peter said it was! He wrote, specifically about Paul's writings, "Paul also wrote you with the wisdom GOD gave him. He writes the same way in ALL his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and UNSTABLE people distort, AS THEY DO THE OTHER SCRIPTURES, to their own destruction" (II Pet.3:15-16).

Tabor, probably well-meaning and sincere, nevertheless claims much of the New Testament is uninspired and seems to think it is the responbility of people -- scholars, and so forth -- to sit down and determine how to choose between the correct sayings of Jesus and the incorrect, uninspired passages. Nevertheless, he claims only the Old Testament is "Scripture" as such. Doesn't that same strange? Consider! Only the New Testament witnesses to the life and sayings of the Messiah Himself! It interprets the OLD TESTAMENT. It brings us the NEW COVENANT to replace the Old Covenant. How could it be less than inspired Scripture? Are books dealing with the "first Moses" more important, and Scripture, but books dealing with the "second Moses," the Messiah, LESS IMPORTANT, and NOT "Scripture"? Apparently it offends Tabor that most of the New Testament was written originally in GREEK, not Hebrew! But why should this make any difference? Greek was the "lingua franca" of that time -- the common spoken language throughout the Mediterranean world. God PRESERVED the New Testament through the Greek Orthodox Church which copied manuscripts faithfully through the centuries. Tabor is wrong to conclude we have no reliable New Testament documents, and must resurrect what we can out of the Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and from fragments of old parchments lost in desert caves! What a low opinion he must have of God's ability to PRESERVE AND PROTECT His own "witness" to the Messiah! Tabor seems to like the synoptic gospels -- Matthew, Mark and Luke. He writes, "These show every evidence of authenticity, particularly those from Luke, or from what scholars call the Q source (contained now in Matthew and Luke). But there are other statements in the Gospels, particularly in the Gospel of John, which seem to contradict Torah faith [or his interpretation of it!]. What are we to make of this? MY APPROACH [is there any vanity here?] is to go with the clear, central, multiple-attested tradition of the Synoptic Gospels. John, who reflects more of his own style (compare 1,2,3 John), and a HELLENIZING, QUASI-GNOSTIC THEOLOGIZING, is always secondary."

 

[Wrangler]

Would please share your views per scripture on #10?

Our inheritance is THE importance of Jesus being a man - and only a man - in being resurrected. He is our proof of what is to become of us. This is why Scripture calls him the first fruits. It means like to follow. From my favorite book of the NT.

Even before he made the world, God loved us and chose us in Christ to be holy and without fault in his eyes. 5 God decided in advance to adopt us into his own family by bringing us to himself through Jesus Christ ... 11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, 12 so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. 13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.
Ephesians 1:11-14

In addition, I rely on 1 COR 15:21-28, which I characterize as Christianity's End Game. Even though most go to Revelation for this, these verses Paul wrote to Corinth succinctly tell the end game.

21 So you see, just as death came into the world through a man, now the resurrection from the dead has begun through another man. 22 Just as everyone dies because we all belong to Adam, everyone who belongs to Christ will be given new life. 23 But there is an order to this resurrection: Christ was raised as the first of the harvest; then all who belong to Christ will be raised when he comes back.​

​

24 After that the end will come, when he will turn the Kingdom over to God the Father, having destroyed every ruler and authority and power. 25 For Christ must reign until he humbles all his enemies beneath his feet. 26 And the last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For the Scriptures say, “God has put all things under his authority.”[a] (Of course, when it says “all things are under his authority,” that does not include God himself, who gave Christ his authority.) 28 Then, when all things are under his authority, the Son will put himself under God’s authority, so that God, who gave his Son authority over all things, will be utterly supreme over everything everywhere.​

 

[Behold]

Romans 6 :

""""""And just as God raised Christ Jesus from the dead, """"


Now, notice carefully what Jesus said..

John 10

Jesus said..

"""""""No man taketh my life from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and = i have power to take it up again".

Notice..

1.) God raised Jesus from the dead

2.) Jesus said...>"' I HAVE POWER..... to take IT up again" = (Raise myself from the dead)


Its the same doing it.

Unmistakable.


A.) Jesus is God.. "the Word became flesh'.... = "God manifested in the Flesh".

 

[Wrangler]

Did Jesus Christ exist as a member of the divine Godhead before His human birth?

The question has an invalid implied premise. There is no "Godhead" in Scripture. This is a concept foreign to the Biblical authors.

While there is a very bad translation that uses this term, it is not in most translations because it is not found in the text.

Beyond that there is a frequent fallacy invoked, False Alternative, that if Jesus existed before his birth he must be inhuman.

Hope this helps.

 

[Behold]

Beyond that there is a frequent fallacy invoked, False Alternative, that if Jesus existed before his birth he must be inhuman.

Here is how Jesus existed before He came here as "God manifested in the flesh.


"Let US........make man......in OUR Image"


See "Us" and "Our"

That is Father God, the Creator, and Pre-incarnate Jesus as "The Word was God" John 1.. who became the "Word became FLESH (virgin born Jesus) and dwelt among us".

 

[APAK]

Thank you APAK, In your last statement, I was reading this article: The Pre-Existence of Christ Fact? or Superstition? Did Jesus Christ exist as a member of the divine Godhead before His human birth? Or is this teaching mere tradition and superstition? What is the truth? In recent times a revolutionary new theology has gained ground which says that Jesus Christ had no existence prior to conception in the womb of Mary His mother. Some claim the New Testa- ment documents are often unreliable and untrustworthy -- especially the gospel of John. Its time you knew what is going on "behind the scenes" in modern theological circles -- and the modern assault on the Bible and the divinity of Christ -- and the architect behind this furious attack! Recently, a friend sent me an article written by Anthony Buzzard entitled, "The Preexistence of Christ -- Truth Or Tradition?" published by the extremely liberal Foundation For Biblical Research, as well as another article along similar lines. In his letter he remarked, "I hope you'll have time to read and consider them before you write your article refuting them. Some points shouldn't be ignored!" I suppose I could humanly take offense at that remark; apparently he thinks I might just dash off a quick response which will leave many questions unanswered and leave him feeling empty or uncertain.

Frankly, I must admit I am somewhat "tired" of hearing about Anthony Buzzard's new heresy (which I suppose isn't really new). I read his booklet entitled "Who Is Jesus?" and his dissertation a year ago, and wrote an article entitled "Who Was Jesus Before His Human Birth?" in response to it. 77 The Abuse of Scripture When the devil came to Christ with specious interpretations of Scripture, Jesus didn't have someone else to appeal to to answer his arguments. He Himself used Scripture (Matt.4:1-10; Luke 4:1-13). He knew God's Word well enough to defeat the devil; and He set us an example for doing battle with the adversary and all his henchmen, including the likes of Anthony Buzzard. I know Buzzard from Ambassador College days. We entered as freshmen the same year (1959). He was the son of a British admiral, and consequently Herbert Armstrong appointed him freshman class president. I had no office, but I knew my Bible better than anyone else in the class (scoring 99% on the first Bible test in freshman Bible to the disbelief of Roderick Meredith the teacher). At any rate, Anthony had adustment problems, and eventually left college, let his hair grow long, left the Church, had a nervous breakdown (he was apparently under much pressure to "succeed" at college besides persecution from his family for his affililation with the "American" Church). Eventually he rejoined the Church, then left again; now he teaches at a Bible college and has a masters degree, for which he wrote his thesis denying the pre-existence of Christ. Interestingly, while still at Ambassador, he dated the woman who was to become my wife. On one of their dates he remarked to her, "You really know God, don't you?" Obviously he did not. Charles Hunting, former evangelist, and a distinctly NON-scholarly type, has joined with Buzzard in this belief. Jim Tabor, professor at North Carolina University in Charlotte, who himself once came to Ambassador after attending a Bible college in the midwest, and who briefly taught Hebrew at Ambassador (he was my Hebrew teacher one semester), has also adopted a similar view.

His story is also unique; after being let go from Ambassador, he later joined the faculty at Notre Dame, then William and Mary, and last year University of North Carolina. During this sojourn he lost his faith in God and Christianity, and became a secularist and agnostic, as he himself relates, but apparently recaptured his faith in God through the study of Judaism and the Old Testament Scriptures. Now he believes only the "Old Testament" is inspired Scripture, as such, and the New Testament is not. Particularly, he would throw out or relegate to "second place," whatever that means, the gospel of John and his epistles. This, of course, makes it easier for him to deny the pre-existence of Christ, as John's gospel is the key element in explaining the purpose and plan behind God's sending the Messiah, and how it all came about. Attack on the New Testament Tabor writes in "Restoring Abrahamic Faith," a recent publication of his, "In other words, the New Testament, as it has comes (sic) to us, in multiple manuscripts, Greek translation, with interpolations and editorial expansions, is a mixture of 'wheat and tares' as he himself predicted" (p.45). Did Jesus really predict that His Word would become a mixture of "wheat and tares"? Nonsense (John 10:35; 17:17). Jesus said, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but MY WORDS WILL NEVER PASS AWAY" 78 (Matt.24:35). Tabor claims the New Testament is not Scripture. But the apostle Peter said it was! He wrote, specifically about Paul's writings, "Paul also wrote you with the wisdom GOD gave him. He writes the same way in ALL his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and UNSTABLE people distort, AS THEY DO THE OTHER SCRIPTURES, to their own destruction" (II Pet.3:15-16).

Tabor, probably well-meaning and sincere, nevertheless claims much of the New Testament is uninspired and seems to think it is the responbility of people -- scholars, and so forth -- to sit down and determine how to choose between the correct sayings of Jesus and the incorrect, uninspired passages. Nevertheless, he claims only the Old Testament is "Scripture" as such. Doesn't that same strange? Consider! Only the New Testament witnesses to the life and sayings of the Messiah Himself! It interprets the OLD TESTAMENT. It brings us the NEW COVENANT to replace the Old Covenant. How could it be less than inspired Scripture? Are books dealing with the "first Moses" more important, and Scripture, but books dealing with the "second Moses," the Messiah, LESS IMPORTANT, and NOT "Scripture"? Apparently it offends Tabor that most of the New Testament was written originally in GREEK, not Hebrew! But why should this make any difference? Greek was the "lingua franca" of that time -- the common spoken language throughout the Mediterranean world. God PRESERVED the New Testament through the Greek Orthodox Church which copied manuscripts faithfully through the centuries. Tabor is wrong to conclude we have no reliable New Testament documents, and must resurrect what we can out of the Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and from fragments of old parchments lost in desert caves! What a low opinion he must have of God's ability to PRESERVE AND PROTECT His own "witness" to the Messiah! Tabor seems to like the synoptic gospels -- Matthew, Mark and Luke. He writes, "These show every evidence of authenticity, particularly those from Luke, or from what scholars call the Q source (contained now in Matthew and Luke). But there are other statements in the Gospels, particularly in the Gospel of John, which seem to contradict Torah faith [or his interpretation of it!]. What are we to make of this? MY APPROACH [is there any vanity here?] is to go with the clear, central, multiple-attested tradition of the Synoptic Gospels. John, who reflects more of his own style (compare 1,2,3 John), and a HELLENIZING, QUASI-GNOSTIC THEOLOGIZING, is always secondary."

Though I like the clarity in the article, I cannot vouch for its accuracy. I do see stretched out truths in it that are really fibs to suit the typical same or common biased agenda of the author.

That said Walter, I do believe that the word of God, the entire 66 Books of the Bible, if we have all of it today or not, is definitely inspired from him (singular!). I can weed and discount parts of scripture that have been modified or tampered with deliberately over the centuries. And as this article suggests or not, it is really the NT that has been tampered with a great deal by extreme biases and prejudices of the translators towards I believe their warped and self-serving human limiting theories to especially nature of the Father and Son.

I stick next to my guns and deeply believe and affirm that Jesus, the Christ and our lord and savior was just a typical man (son of man) man at one time, truly born of the Father's spirit with a human woman for his (again singular) purpose to work together for his goodness and restoration of mankind.

Yahshua was predicted throughout the OT as the new and better Moses, Isaac and better that any prophet previous to him, and he was and is today. And his story really started on terra firma some 2000 years ago. No superstitions or extra-scriptural mumbo jumbo to prop up any previous existence as another god and all that extra baggage and all that goes with that notion, along with all the mental gym waving and motions that are then needed to constantly maintain it. They have manufactured grave lies spoken about and against the Father and Son throughout the years, since especially the 3rd century. They have especially reduced the true nature of the Father and increases the power and stature of his Son. What a shame, and it is now irreversible as @face2face has said.

 

[Behold]

really the NT that has been tampered with a great deal by extreme biases and prejudices of the translators

What you just wrote....is exactly what the Devil would say, if you asked Him if the Bible is True and can be trusted.

Realize yourself yet, Apak?

 

[Wrangler]

And his story really started on terra firma some 2000 years ago. No superstitions or extra-scriptural mumbo jumbo to prop up any previous existence as another god and all that extra baggage and all that goes with that notion, along with all the mental gym waving and motions that are then needed to constantly maintain it. They have manufactured grave lies spoken about and against the Father and Son throughout the years, since especially the 3rd century. They have especially reduced the true nature of the Father and increases the power and stature of his Son. What a shame, and it is now irreversible as @face2face has said.

Two points:

1. Most don't realize this.
2. Most have been so entrenched into accepting the mental gymnatics, superstitions or extra-scriptural mumbo jumbo that what is irreversible is their ability to think on the subject clearly.

Hence, the impetus for the creed. It reminds me of a Star Trek NG episode where Data was correcting Dr Pulanski about his name. She kept calling him da-ta rather than day-ta. And asked him what is the difference. He simply said one was his name and the other is not.

It is foundational. Most Christians do not know the name of their own God according to the Bible is YHWH and this is THE name he is to be known for all generations. It seems to me that we ought to reserve these as exclusive synonymns.

Likewise, the next level of authority, which are synonymous is the son of YHWH and Jesus. There really is no reason to confuse the two. The best argument to confuse them was said by a minister who said you would not be properly respecting Jesus. Well, that is a risk if I were wrong. However, I think the greater risk, the risk that goes against explicit Scripture is that all glory is to go to YHWH. Nothing is written about YHWH sharing his glory, even with his son.

Neither of us see a compelling reason to invent mental gymnatics, superstitions or extra-scriptural mumbo jumbo to change that foundation.

 

[Behold]

Hence, the impetus for the creed.

When did Jesus become a Creed?

When did discipleship become a Creed?

When did a lack of understanding of Who the Pre-incarnate Jesus is, become a "Creed".


ummmmmm?

A.) This Thread.

 

[amigo de christo]

What you just wrote....is exactly what the Devil would say, if you asked Him if the Bible is True and can be trusted.

Realize yourself yet, Apak?

BINGO .

 

[Keturah]

Thank you @amadeus & @APAK & the many others that served in the VN ,WW2 or any era of SERVICE for the freedom of others in danger of suppression of said freedoms!
***Thanks for coming back as well.

Thanks & praise be unto God that no matter the infringement or suppression of the rights of humanity for ....the word of God sets us free & free indeed, even in our opinions, interpretations & thoughts on our walk with him.

 

[amigo de christo]

Thank you @amadeus & @APAK & the many others that served in the VN ,WW2 or any era of SERVICE for the freedom of others in danger of suppression of said freedoms!
***Thanks for coming back as well.

Thanks & praise be unto God that no matter the infringement or suppression of the rights of humanity for ....the word of God sets us free & free indeed, even in our opinions, interpretations & thoughts on our walk with him.

Many moons ago i served in another miliatary . the USMC .
Now i serve in the UMOGAOTL . the UNITED MILITARY OF GOD AND OF THE LAMB .
i exchanged my M sixteen for JOHN THREE SIXTEEN .
MY rounds of carnal amo for the true spiritual ammo of GOD .
WE IN the ARMY OF THE KING now my dear friend .
Where now our weapons are SPIRITUAL and not carnal . MIGHTY and STRONG
to the pulling down oF EVERYTHING contrary to GOD , bringing even our thoughts subject unto CHRIST THE KING .
Yep . Years ago i graduated number one in my anti terrorism class ,
And now years later , i would be on the very pontential terroist list . MY How things have changed .
I once lived high in this world , but was lost in a lie . Now i am hated and no longer seen
as number one in their class , but rather nearer to number one on that potential terroist list they DO HAVE .
OH YES THEY HAVE A LIST my friend . I know all about it . TRUE LAMBS ARE ON IT
now its called potential , due to they are not necessarily calling every lamb a terroist
BUT they see us as a potential one .
Now , i know , that seems so trivial right . UNTIL YOU SEE the law that got passed in some years back .
DID YOU know that if your name is even on a POTENTIAL terroist list
YOU can be rounded up without question and detained without TRIAL
TILL THEY and their governing body DECIDE you are not a threat .
SOMETHING is about to come DOWN the pipe . Fear not man , fear not what is nor what is to come .
WE HAVE THE LORD and HE WILL be with us no matter what we suffer FOR HIM .

 

[APAK]

When did Jesus become a Creed?

When did discipleship become a Creed?

When did a lack of understanding of Who the Pre-incarnate Jesus is, become a "Creed".


ummmmmm?

A.) This Thread.

Is the idea of Creed annoying you Behold? Why does it seem to irritate you?

A Creed is very helpful to know what and who you believe in. It tells other and reconfirms to yourself who you are in the spirit!!

Jesus is not a substitute for a Creed of affirmation or faith, or visa a versa. Both have their place.

I would suggest you might want to develop a list of things that Jesus said he was and is today and what he did not say he was or did. It may surprise you that 'church' leaders have added and subtracted from this list. If you say you are in one camp versus others, then your Creed and beliefs must align. Now if you do not care want camp you are in then you are certainty fooling yourself. You are most definitely aligned in a camp, and you might be in denial. I think you know your camp already.

The same words I address to @amigo de christo as he thinks and believes just in Jesus for every thing it seems in his life, and that is all that counts. And then you are very mistaken, indeed.

 

[Behold]

Is the idea of Creed annoying you Behold?

Religious Creeds are strictly related to Denominations and Cults.

As both have them, and both are man-made.

CHRISTianity is God made., and that is a different situation, entirely.

 

[Behold]

Jesus is not a substitute for a Creed of affirmation or faith, or visa a versa. Both have their place.

Jesus has nothing to do with Creeds.
Nor does the Bible.

As i said, that religious stuff is man-made.

 

[Behold]

I would suggest you might want to develop a list of things that Jesus said he was and is today and what he did not say he was or did. It may surprise you that 'church' leaders have added and subtracted from this list.

Im not the one to filter the word of God through 30 "extant" greek texts, or through "church fathers" or through "Strong's Concordance".

I Trust the Bible.
I believe it.
I teach it.
I preach it.
I LOVE It.
It is the word of God, and the word is Eternal Life.
ITs Holy Seed for the Soul.
I would never do the devil's work of trying to cause people to doubt the Bible on a Forum, or from a Pulpit.

The words in the Bible are Salvation and Truth and Power.
"Thy word is Truth".
The Bible is a living book. It has the power of God in its words.
They changed my Life. I saw it happen, and im still seeing it happen.
Ive seen them do the same for many others.
I've seen the Bible shake up a room full of God haters, more than once.

When a person is in opposition to the Holy Bible, they are in opposition to God Himself.
And they will find that out, sooner or later.
Believe it.

 

[Ritajanice]

The Bible is a living book. It has the power of God in its words

Amen!!....The Living word of God, speaks to his children’s heart/spirit.....it still blows my mind, the Bible is the Living word of God....breathtakingly “ Amazing “....

◄ Hebrews 4:12 ►

Context Crossref Comment Greek Verse (Click for Chapter) New International Version For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart

 

[Behold]

Amen!!....The Living word of God, speaks to his children’s heart/spirit.....it still blows my mind, the Bible is the Living word of God....breathtakingly “ Amazing “....

​

◄ Hebrews 4:12 ►

​

Context Crossref Comment Greek Verse (Click for Chapter) New International Version For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart

Yes, amen.

The Holy Bible is our spiritual food.
Our spirit starves without its in-filling.

 

[Ritajanice]

Yes, amen.

The Holy Bible is our spiritual food.
Our spirit starves without its in-filling.

Amen!!

 

[APAK]

Religious Creeds are strictly related to Denominations and Cults.

As both have them, and both are man-made.

CHRISTianity is God made., and that is a different situation, entirely.

Can be viewed that way of of course, although they are directly derived from scripture. In fact the very first Creed was given by God to Moses to the Israelites, as a mandatory Creed. Of course you know the what I'm speaking of I presume.