Statement of Faith Based on the Truth of Scripture - Please Read

[akueg]

5 hours ago, John Robinson said:

All my spidey senses go on Full Red Alert when we get a poster claiming "another gospel" outside established Biblical canon.  Anybody recall Charles Taze Russell, William Miller, Joseph Smith, David Koresh, and others? Yeah. Those guys thought they had a new revelation as well.

Pass. That way lay madness.

Somehow live humble lives by having little and devote your time in this body to the service of others by doing good works is cultic in relation to the people you just mentioned? All of which was commanded by Jesus Christ and the apostles? No one here has brought "another" gospel, I have simply presented the actual gospel found in the scriptures, which contradicts the "other" gospels many have. This is why I have made it such a point to have very few words of my own in my studies, and simply let the scriptures speak for themselves when I quote them extensively throughout my studies. The gospels teach, "sell your possessions...", and the early assemblies "sold their possessions and properties", and this is precisely what I have slapped unto my Statement of Faith, because it is found in this one gospel given by the apostles. Simply because I actually believe and listen to the scriptures, which puts me in a minority, does not make me wrong for being in a minority, for since when has what the majority believe ever been an indicator of truth? "Few are chosen, many called", "The Israelites have rejected your covenant, torn down your altars, and put your prophets to death with the sword. I am the only one left, and now they are trying to kill me too.", "So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace." Now, if you are hesitant in believing that I am of this remnant, then do yourself a favor and look at the very scriptures I have quoted to indicate I am right. If I am wrong, let the scriptures indicate I am wrong, not what your churches have taught you. But if I am right, are you willing to forsake your churches for the sake of the truth? Maybe, maybe not.... it's very difficult for people to leave their tradition and everything they've been indoctrinated with. The saying is true, "its difficult to teach an old dog new tricks".

[Reinitin]

1 hour ago, akueg said:

I have not denied the truth behind this statement, "In the begining was the Word and the Word was With God and Was God", for I have asserted,

Jesus Christ existed in the beginning, hence "In the begininng was the Word...".

Jesus Christ was thus with God, since we just asserted he existed in the beginning, hence "...the Word was With God...".

And Jesus Christ existed AS God, just as the Father is God, because he is the "REPRESENTATION" of God, hence "...Was God".

Being AS God does not mean being God, it means REPRESENTING God, which is why Moses was told, "see I have made you AS God to Pharaoh....", again, relating to REPRESENTATION, not that Moses himself was the Father. If you cannot understand representation, which is also called the "image of God", then you cannot understand how someone can be appointed to be God, while not actually being God.

An example would be a vice president and president in a company, while the vice president exercises all authority on BEHALF of the president, in REPRESENTATION of the president, he himself is NOT the president, and HIS AUTHORITY is not only GIVEN BY THE PRESIDENT, BUT IT CAN ALSO BE TAKEN AWAY BY THE PRESIDENT.

Oh Gotcha. Im just was not familiar with a statement of faith looking like that. I didn't get what you were saying and I thought you were writing something for discusion. 

I thought "where do you even start with all those verses out of context"? But I think I get your intention now. so thank you for clarification. It's a declaration of the doctrins you adhere to in your denomination? correct?

[Guest shiloh357]

9 hours ago, akueg said:

I have not denied the truth behind this statement, "In the begining was the Word and the Word was With God and Was God", for I have asserted,

Jesus Christ existed in the beginning, hence "In the begininng was the Word...".

Jesus Christ was thus with God, since we just asserted he existed in the beginning, hence "...the Word was With God...".

And Jesus Christ existed AS God, just as the Father is God, because he is the "REPRESENTATION" of God, hence "...Was God".

Being AS God does not mean being God, it means REPRESENTING God, which is why Moses was told, "see I have made you AS God to Pharaoh....", again, relating to REPRESENTATION, not that Moses himself was the Father. If you cannot understand representation, which is also called the "image of God", then you cannot understand how someone can be appointed to be God, while not actually being God.

An example would be a vice president and president in a company, while the vice president exercises all authority on BEHALF of the president, in REPRESENTATION of the president, he himself is NOT the president, and HIS AUTHORITY is not only GIVEN BY THE PRESIDENT, BUT IT CAN ALSO BE TAKEN AWAY BY THE PRESIDENT.

Your OP at the start of the thread is chock full of false doctrines and true believers are well advised to avoid the nonsense you teach.   Jesus never came into existence.   Jesus has always existed and is just as much God as the Father is, as is the Holy Spirit.   You presented a twisting and perversion of Scripture.

Jesus doesn't just represent God.   Jesus is God in every way, in every way that the Father is God.  To deny that is to commit heresy.

[akueg]

26 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Your OP at the start of the thread is chock full of false doctrines and true believers are well advised to avoid the nonsense you teach.   Jesus never came into existence.   Jesus has always existed and is just as much God as the Father is, as is the Holy Spirit.   You presented a twisting and perversion of Scripture.

Jesus doesn't just represent God.   Jesus is God in every way, in every way that the Father is God.  To deny that is to commit heresy.

No, to disbelieve what the scriptures teach is the heresy. You call me a heretic for believing precisely what the scriptures say?

"You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. (John 14:28 [NIV])

The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. (Hebrews 1:3 [NIV])

You can believe anything you want, but you will never get around what these scriptures actually teach, the Father is GREATER than Jesus Christ and that Jesus Christ is a REPRESENTATION of the Father, which relates to why he is called God. It's actually not difficult to understand.
 

 

Edited September 27, 2017 by akueg

[Guest shiloh357]

Just now, akueg said:

No, to disbelieve what the scriptures teach is the heresy. You call me a heretic for believing precisely what the scriptures say?

No, I said you are teaching heresy becuase you are misrepresenting the true nature of Christ as God.
 

Quote

 

"You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. (John 14:28 [NIV])

The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. (Hebrews 1:3 [NIV])

You can believe anything you want, but you will never get around the Father that the scriptures teach, the Father is GREATER than Jesus Christ and that Jesus Christ is a REPRESENTATION of the Father, which relates to why he is called God. It's actually not difficult to understand.

 

The Father is greater than Jesus in authority at that time.   That changed when Jesus was exalted to the highest place, the place he was before His incarnation.  That inequality of authority was only temporary and only applied to period of Jesus' earthly ministry.

Paul said in Philippians 2 that Jesus, although equal to God the Father, did not exploit His equality with God to His own advantage. 

Jesus is the representation of the Father, but that does not preclude Jesus from also being God, co-eternal with the Father.

[akueg]

Just now, shiloh357 said:

No, I said you are teaching heresy becuase you are misrepresenting the true nature of Christ as God.
 

The Father is greater than Jesus in authority at that time.   That changed when Jesus was exalted to the highest place, the place he was before His incarnation.  That inequality of authority was only temporary and only applied to period of Jesus' earthly ministry.

Paul said in Philippians 2 that Jesus, although equal to God the Father, did not exploit His equality with God to His own advantage. 

Jesus is the representation of the Father, but that does not preclude Jesus from also being God, co-eternal with the Father.

You've just proven my point, God never loses authority, nor gains authority, nor does he ever die, BUT A REPRESENTATION DOES. Jesus Christ is the highest representation of God, hence why ALL authority is given to him in EQUAL measure as God, but he himself is a REPRESENTATION of God who is in SUBJECTION to the Father.

 

[Guest shiloh357]

34 minutes ago, akueg said:

You've just proven my point, God never loses authority, nor gains authority, nor does he ever die, BUT A REPRESENTATION DOES. Jesus Christ is the highest representation of God, hence why ALL authority is given to him in EQUAL measure as God, but he himself is a REPRESENTATION of God who is in SUBJECTION to the Father.

 

That's just complete nonsense.   Jesus is the moral representative of who the Father is.   Jesus has the same divine nature as the Father and that is why He is the visual representation of the invisible God.

[akueg]

Just now, shiloh357 said:

That's just complete nonsense.   Jesus is the moral representative of who the Father is.   Jesus has the same divine nature as the Father and that is why He is the visual representation of the invisible God.

A VISUAL representation is FINITE. The VISUAL body of Jesus Christ had a LIMITED amount of cells, which had a LIMITED amount of knowledge, hence why he did not know the hour of his own coming. And this relates to him being a REPRESENTATION of an UNLIMITED and INFINITE GOD. Stop hardening your heart and come to understanding.

[Guest shiloh357]

Just now, akueg said:

A VISUAL representation is FINITE.

But Jesus isn't finite.   Jesus is as eternally existent as the Father. 

[akueg]

1 minute ago, shiloh357 said:

But Jesus isn't finite.   Jesus is as eternally existent as the Father. 

He didn't know the hour of his own coming, 

"But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. (Matthew 24:36 [NIV])

Here you have an example of LIMITED knowledge, which implies FINITE.