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

[Guest shiloh357]

Just now, akueg said:

I've heard that before. People in your position will call those who actually understand the scriptures "heretics", when it is they themselves who are the heretics who have alienated themselves from the actual teaching of scripture in favor of what they have been taught by their churches. Jesus Christ coming into existence in the beginning is the original teaching of scripture, hence "he is the firstborn of creation" and "the Father is greater than I". It was the catholic church that later on distorted sound teaching by promulgating their teaching of the trinity, which the protestant churches have subsequently borrowed. I have taken enough time out of my day to try to show you with scripture that you are wrong, but if you refuse to come to understanding, that is on you. Bye.

The term "firstborn of creation"  doesn't refer to being born or coming into existence. It is a old terms that simply means, "chief."   Jesus is the chief, in that he holds the highest place in creation.  

I didnt call you a heretic.  I called your teachings heresy.   You don't understand the Scriptures at all. 

I don't care if you speak to me at all.    But I will be here to counter what you teach so that no one is led astray by you and that no one agrees with or believes anything you say.  Whether you address me again or not, is irrelevant to my participation on this thread.

[akueg]

17 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

The term "firstborn of creation"  doesn't refer to being born or coming into existence. It is a old terms that simply means, "chief."   Jesus is the chief, in that he holds the highest place in creation.  

I didnt call you a heretic.  I called your teachings heresy.   You don't understand the Scriptures at all. 

I don't care if you speak to me at all.    But I will be here to counter what you teach so that no one is led astray by you and that no one agrees with or believes anything you say.  Whether you address me again or not, is irrelevant to my participation on this thread.

Who do you suppose was given a "chief" position in a family according to scripture? Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

[akueg]

Just now, Sojourner414 said:

I took some time to read your posts; Shiloh357 is right. Jesus is not "a god" or some created thing that is lesser than God. Scripture says: " Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am. " (John 8:58 NASB), and  "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. " (John 1 NASB)

What bothers me is your insistence on insisting Jesus is lesser than God.  Unless it was God's blood that redeemed mankind, we could not be redeemed at all.

We understand it just fine,  but it's not our problem if folks keep explaining to you that Scripture means what it clearly says, and you cannot accept that. Jesus is God, and no amount of hermeneutical gymnastics is going to work in order to "knock Him down" to the role you wish to relegate Him to. So, with that being the case, I would recommend you find somewhere then that caters to your particular "theology".

In other words: don't let the door hit you on the way out.

"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])

Jesus himself affirmed he is lesser. His words, not mine.

[Guest shiloh357]

41 minutes ago, akueg said:

Who do you suppose was given a "chief" position in a family according to scripture? Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

Yes, but "firstborn" simply refers to status,as it is used in Colossians 1: 15.   In 1:18, it is used to refer to Jesus as the firstborn from the dead, which defies the notion that Jesus was created or "born."    It simply refers to a status of preeminence.    In ancient times, you could be the "firstborn"  of anything.  It had nothing to do with being born, or coming into existence. 

 

[akueg]

3 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Yes, but "firstborn" simply refers to status,as it is used in Colossians 1: 15.   In 1:18, it is used to refer to Jesus as the firstborn from the dead, which defies the notion that Jesus was created or "born."    It simply refers to a status of preeminence.    In ancient times, you could be the "firstborn"  of anything.  It had nothing to do with being born, or coming into existence. 

 

He's the firstborn from the dead because he is the FIRST to be born among the dead INTO the new body of glory. Firstborn isn't just status, it is being FIRST, in a context. Yes, sometimes the rights of a firstborn son have been given to other sons who were not firstborn, such as Isaac, who was not Abraham's first born son, which was Ishmael. However, we are not dealing with a transference of firstborn rights with Jesus Christ. He is firstborn of creation because he was the FIRST to be born in creation. He is the firstborn of the dead because he is the FIRST TO BE RESURRECTED AMONG THE DEAD INTO THE NEW BODY OF GLORY. 

Again, you use say these words "firstborn", "son", "representation", "image" interchangeably because you have knowledge of them, but you really do understand what they actually mean.

[John Robinson]

Akueg, you say you aren't a JW, but every single one of your talking points lines up exactly with what they teach.

Every. Single. One.

And that damnable heresy condemns both them, and you.

[akueg]

18 minutes ago, Yowm said:

Rather...

Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. 
(Joh 11:25a)
 

How does that negate "the FIRST to be born among the dead INTO the new body of glory"?

[akueg]

1 hour ago, Yowm said:

It proves He is more than "the FIRST to be born among the dead INTO the new body of glory", He is the source of resurrection and life and therefore God.

 

No, it proves that THROUGH him is found the resurrection and the life, hence,

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:6 [NIV])

Why? Because he is the REPRESENTATION of the Father. We worship the Father by worshiping his representation. By the mercies of God, PLEASE UNDERSTAND!

 

[akueg]

2 hours ago, John Robinson said:

Akueg, you say you aren't a JW, but every single one of your talking points lines up exactly with what they teach.

Every. Single. One.

And that damnable heresy condemns both them, and you.

I'm going to repeat what I told someone else here that said the same thing,

Oh, because wearing tzitzit, tefillin, and head coverings for wives is SUCH as Jehovah's Witness thing? Or because saying the name of YHWH was the name of the angel, not directly the name of the Father, is SUCH a Jehovah Witness thing even though the whole premise of their religion is the Father's name is "Jehovah"? Clearly you did not understand, if you even read at all. I am not JW, nor have I ever been, and this much is obvious when you compare the teachings on their website, to my own. Just because I agree that consuming blood is sin just as they do does not make me JW. Did the command to abstain from blood originate from them, or did it originate from the command given to Noah recorded in Genesis, and also repeated throughout the Torah, and also by the apostles? Hellur?

[John Robinson]

Akueg, for the sake of your own soul, find some JW literature and do a line by line comparison with that cult believes and what you've been saying here. I'm not talking about "tzitzit, tefillin, and head coverings for wives." None of that is salvic. I'm talking about the core beliefs of those cultists and you. 

Who God is.

Who Jesus is.

Who the Holy Spirit is.

And if the similarities don't jump out and sock  you in the kisser, then I have no more to offer you. I simply hope you repent from this madness before it's too late.