Biblical Translation--Eden

Hi autumnman,You are aware that there were many churches that did not attend or send representatives to the Nicaea council because they did not share the same beliefs. These are the ones who were persecuted for the next 1200 years by the Roman Universal {Catholic} Church.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

I think you better read the New Testament again. You seemed to have missed some important teachings. You see there is this teaching from Christ about the resurrection of the body. Here is one place where we see His indication that He did expect some of His believers to either be persecuted to death or to physically expire: So for about 2,000 plus some years the Christians have understood that some of them would be buried in the tombs on that day when Christ commands them to come forth in resurrection.They spoke of the believers who died in Christ to be asleep. From the teaching of Luke 16:19-31 they expected the believers to be in the comfortable portion of Hades called Abraham's bosom. They await the call to come forth from the tombs.Here again we have reason to expect since Christ's ascension some disciples would "fall asleep" (ie. die in Christ): If you would notice the words "even IF HE SHOULD DIE, ... shall live" (my emphasis) . This promise along with the mighty assurance of the indwelling Holy Spirit allowed the disciples to die in the Lord bravely under the most terrible forms of persecution.Even Peter, who was a leader of the original twelve disciples, expected to die, as is indicated in his letter: Putting off of his tabernacle means expiring. His physical body would be put off in death. He expected this to be coming soon when he wrote. And it was made clear to him by his Lord Jesus Christ.Of course Jesus plainly told His disciples that some would be killed: It could be that your mocking challenge concerning the death of Christ's disciples in the past is just a predicted manifestation of this hatred from the nations to because of His name.The temprary falling asleep of the disciples in death, according to Christ'steaching, has not at all made the church weaker but rather stronger. For certain "some standing here" would include Peter, James, and John who are specifically mentioned as His three most trusted disciples. In the very next passage they are the three who witness Jesus coming in His kingdom. Jesus was a man with the divine life and glory of God concealed within the shell of His humanity. For a brief moment He "unzipped" Himself and the hidden majesty of His splendid divinity was visibly manifested radiating from within His human being. This was "the Son fo Man coming in His kingdom."True to His word, the concealed glory inside of Jesus was temporarily allowed to radiate out. It shown through His skin and His clothing. This was [b]"the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."{/b And two great figures from the Old Testament were temporarily seen conversing with Him there.You problem is that you are reading the words "Son of Man coming in His kingdom" but you don't see those words. Instead you mentally insert these words "the second coming".The Son of Man coming in His kingdom is not limited to the second coming of Christ. Matthew 16:28 is only saying some would see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom glory before they tasted death.Of course when they are resurrected in the end days they will see this manifestation again and even be co-partakers of the same event. Not only will Jesus the God-man be marveled at. But His overcoming discples also will be manifested in glory with Him: Then we have you writting: Mark 9:1-2 is a parallel passage to Matt. 16:28-17:3 which I have already explained.You are assuming that "Son of Man coming in His kingdom" (Matt.16:28) and "kingdom of God" strictly can only mean the Second Coming of Christ. But their scope is larger than that event.In the same gospel of Mark it is evident that Jesus wanted His disciples to understand that the kingdom of God came in stages as it developed on the earth: You can see from this teaching that the kingdom of God is at various stages of development. It is not only the harvest at the climax and end. It is also the kingdom in the blade stage, in the ear stage, in the full fruit in the ear stage.Christ as the Head of the kingdom of God may have ripened first and sooner in His resurrection and ascension. But His overcoming believers are to follow in the following years until the full harvest. So when the disciples who were alive saw the manifestation of the glorious Christ they were witnesses the Head part of the kingdom. The Second Coming of Christ and the divine manifestation in the Body of Christ was still to come.Both aspects are part of the kingdom of God. And both aspects are part of the Son of Man coming in His kingdom. Here we have Christ discribing some things related to the great tribulation towards the end of the church age. As you pointed out He says the generation will not pass away till all is accomplished.Curiously enough you do not notice the words immediatley following verse 30 in the very next verse 31:"Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall by no menas pass away" Jesus meant by this that His words would out last the physical universe itself. It is more likely that the entire physical universe of the heavens and the earth pass out of existence before the words of Jesus Christ would become null and void. So we believers trust taht His words are more secure and more firm than the life span of the entire physical universe.But now let us come back to this word - "generation" - "Truly I say to you that this generation shall by no mens pass away until all these things happen"The restoration of the nation of Israel in verse 28 should be one of "these things"."Generation" there does not refer to a generation defined according to the age of a person, like the generations mentioned in 1:17 - "Thus all the generations from Abraham until David are fourteen generations ...". Rather generations in Mark 13:30 refers to a generation defined by the moral condition of the people, like the generations in:Matt.11:16 - "But to what shall I liken this generation? It is like little children ..."

​

Matt.12:39 - "But He answered and said to them, An evil and adultersous generation seeks after a sign, and a sign shall not be given to it except the sing of Jonah the prophet."

​

verse 41 - "Ninevite men will stand up in the judgment with this generation and will condemn it ..."

​

verse 42 - "The queen of the south will rise up in the judgment with this generation and will condemn it ...

​

verse 45 - "Thus shall it be also with this evil generation"

​

Proverbs 30:11-14 "There is a generation that curse their father, and do not bless their mother.

​

There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet are not washed from their filthiness.

​

There is a generation - ho how lofty are their eyes, and their eyelids are raised [arrogantly].

​

There is a generation whose teeth are [like] swords, and their jaw teeth [like] knives, to devour the afflicted from off the earth, and the needy from among men." Christ means therefore that generation is defined by moral condition in this passage. "Generation" in the sense of a typical life span of a human from childhood to old age is not what Christ meant there.In verse 32 He says that no one, including Himself, (at least at that time) knew the hour of the complete fulfillment of His prophecy: It is interesting that the moral generation of which Jesus spoke has actually gotten worse in many respects.And the need for the disciples to be all the more vigilant and alert as the moral generation becomes worse, makes the teaching of Jesus all the more profitable to us who believe.Here is a passage on the end times which you should also meditate on: And concerning the teaching of the New Testament the last times are characterized by these traits: I find this good pracitical advice on the nature of the moral generation to come following the departure of the first apostles. I am so thankful that the Christian gospel lives on after so long a time of trial and testing.

Hi, ICANT.Yes, I am indeed quite aware "that were many churches that did not send representative to Nicaea." These churches simply expired/disappeared. None that I know of ever made it to Europe. The Reformation began within the Roman Universal Church, not outside of it.Regards,
Ger

jaywill: You are as long-winded as ever. So much for making a short, concise point.What "muthos=Myths" are they and you talking about. What could possibly be more myth-like than being born of a virgin, walking on water, raising a four day old rotting corps from death, and raising from death with the sins of the world on one's shoulders? I am very curious about these myths you and the Book of 2 Timothy are alluding to.Let's address the people standing with Jesus and their generation not passing away until "all" is fulfilled, and if indeed "all" was fulfilled during that generation why was John writing Revelation in 95 A.D.?Regards,
GerEdited by autumnman, : Regards/Regards

Hi autumnman, You are right the reformation began with several different people trying to reform the Roman Universal Church. But there were Churches
in many places that were not part of the Roman Church.Well some 6 to 50 million of the members of those churches expired at the hands of the Roman Universal Church under their Church and state rule. But they still survived.They were known by many different names, Montanist ... Paulician ... Novationist ... Paterines ... Donatist ... Albigenses.They were refered to as Anabaptists much of the time because they would not accept the baptism of the Roman Church and re-baptized everyone coming from the Roman Church.They still exist today. They have never been a part of the Roman Church and never will.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi, ICANT.Thanks for that information. Where do these "other churches" come into play in regard to the Christian movement, and what manuscripts form their Sacred Scriptures. I would be very interested in learning some of the facts.Again, Thank you,
Ger

My interest does not lie so much in chasing down the modern myths that people believe. I barely have enough time to explore all the vast riches of truth in the Bible.So I will not spend a lot of time discussings myths. What is important to me is that the gospel of Christ is not a cleverly devised myth as Peter indicated: I regard the Apostle Peter's word over yours. And Peter writes that they did NOT follow "clevery devised myths" but were eyewitness.What is further of interest to me is that Peter discribes the transfiguration of Christ on the mount witnessed by he, James, and John as "the power and coming of our Lord Jesus CHrist".Of course this was not the Second Coming. But it was the pwer and coming of Christ, or as Christ put it, the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.Peter goes on about this foretaste of more to come: I know I can be long winded, but you apparently did not read carefully my response which has already addressed this point.Read it again and pay attention to what I said about the word "generation" in Mark 13:30.What did I say about the word generation as it is used in such verses as Mark 13:30; Matt.11:16; 12:39,41-42,45; and Proverbs 30:11-14?How is it different from its usage in a verse like Matthew 1:17 - " ... fourteen generations ...?"Your idea that Christ was in error has already been refuted.You are also trying to make "this generation" (Mark 13:30) and "some of those standing here" (Mark 9:1) refer to the same people.The scope of "this generation" includes more than "some of those standing here". Some of "this generation" had not been born yet because the generation is defined by the moral condition not the typical human life span.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

jaywill: You wrote, And you quote 2nd Peter 1:16

quote:

---

"For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we became eyewitnesses of that One's majesty.

---

Why would Peter have to preface a statement with "we did not follow cleverly devised myths." I find that curious.1st Peter 4:7 states, "But the end of all this is at hand; be ye therefore sober,and watch unto prayer." This text is suspected to have been written between 62 & 64 A.D. In Luke 21:31, supposedly written between 75 & 90 A.D., it conveys Jesus saying, "So,likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kngdom of God is nigh at hand." The time-lines are indeed somewhat confusing, but it is clear that the authors were conveying their message to the people of their time and their generation.The wonderful gift bestowed by "belief" is that facts, time, reality, reason and rationality hold no sway in the mind of the "believer." People can and do believe anything if it suits them.There is only a problem with nonbelievers when believers claim that what they believe is "actual, real, true, and fact." If one has to "believe it", whatever "it" is, it is not "actual, real, true, or fact."Do you see my point?Regards,
Ger

[qs/]Since we still do not know what "church and/or kingdom" you are actually talking about, I will simply say, No! That "generation" did pass away, and "all" that was to be fulfilled was actually not fulfilled. If "all" had been fulfilled it would not have taken the Reformation movement to "fulfill" any portion of it.[qs] Thannks for your response, but sounds and looks like you are confusing a whole host of issues with the simple explantion of the establishment of the kingdom itself. I find it hard to believe you do not know we are talking about Christ's Church or kingdom. He said I will build my Church. To make the statement that it was not fullfilled is simply an assertion. The New testament says it was established and demonstrated in the book of Acts. I see nothing to respond to in the above statement, that I have not already answered. Simply read any book of the New Testament.As for the things that were written in the Book of revelations, they pertain to specific events that the Chritians were suffering at the hands of persecution and nothing to do with the Establishment of the Church or Kingdom. The things that were shortly come to pass, were things that the lord was going to do for the Children of God. It certainly does not imply, even indirectly that the establishment of the Church or Kingdom had not come to pass.I am sure you are a very nice person, but this is a very confused argument you have made in this post. Maybe you could elaborate alittle clearer. I think my argument stands as valid, until it can be demonstrated to be otherwise. I see no Clitch as you call it.ThanksD Bertot

In the previous verses to this Peter makes it clear that as long as he is alive he will remind the disciples of the gospel. He expects that his death is about to occur. Since he is most likely elderly and some of his audience are much younger he intends to strengthen their faith.Of course they had in that day opponents to the Gospel as well as today. There is really nothing new under the sun about this. So he reminds the believers, old and young, that what he taught them was not based on cleverly concocted myths.Then in the following verses 19 and 20 he reinforces their faith by reminding them of the entire trustworthiness of the Scriptures themselves and the power of thier internal operation to change lives in those who believe: Peter first points to him and the others being eyewitnesses to Christ's transfiguration. Then Peter points to prophecy of the Scripture. He probably means Old Testament prophecy.To those who receive God's words of prophecy something like light arises in thier hearts. Though this is indeed subjective there is no reason for me to say "Well, because this is subjective therefore it is not really real."The suspicious modern attitude that if it is subjective then it must not be real truth, does not hold here. The outward witness and the inward witness are both vital. After all, God is not interestedd simply in supplying correct information just to tickle our curiosity
and for no other purpose.We are darkened inside in our conscience and in our estrangement from God. The prophetic word enlightens us within to commune and fellowship with God.No word of prophecy, Peter says, is a matter of some prophet's private interpretation. The genuine prophets were borne along by the Spirit of God in their utterances. It has a purefying effect to be vigilant and on guard that Christ may come at any time. And God intends that Christ would sanctify us, permeate us, and soak us with His divine nature.The believers have become "partakers of the divine nature". They are not merely to be passive spectakers of the divine nature. But they are to partake in that divine nature.The approaching coming of thier Lord is an incentive to partake of that nature, to live by Him. That is to be found one with Him and in union with Him.So there are many exhortations of His coming throughout the Scipture. It is not as if we believers are simply waiting around. We need to live by Christ. He that has this hope in Him of His appearing purifies Himself as He is pure, John writes.Whether in this century or the next, this incentive to live for Christ and by Christ fulfills God's eternal purpose to secure for Himself a people saturated with the divine nature.So the army of such saturated disciples grows larger and larger as those vigilant ones of each generation live Christ like the wise virgins.You certainly needn't feel sorry for us. The meek shall inherit the earth you know?That is all I can say now. I have to go.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

bertot:You appear to be under the mistaken impression that in the first centuries of the Common Era {a.k.a. A.D.} one "kingdom-like Christian church" was founded by those who had lived during and shortly after the Jewish messianic movement. That happens to not be the historical facts. There were many followers of many different sects of "christianity" in the first centuries of the Common Era. There were the Marcionites and Dualists and Gnostics who believed quite differently from Irenaeus and Clement and others who regarded themselves as the leaders of the Orthodox Christian doctrine. The battle between these various Christian groups continued on until Emperor Constatine embrased the Orthodox Christian doctrine. These Ecclesiastical Christians now had the entire Roman Empire to back their arguments, and only then were the so-called "heretics" put to rest. Not until 1945 were the Gnostic manuscripts found at Naj Hammadi, Egypt. These Gnostic manuscripts revealed in vivid detail a completely different Christian movement than the Orthodox Christianity that was embrased by the Roman Empire.Historically, there was no "Divine-Kingdom/Chruch" established in the Middle East at the beginning of the Common Era.So again; What church/kingdom are you addressing?Regards,
Ger

jaywill: You wrote, I certainly hope I have not conveyed at any point in our discussion that I "feel sorry" for you or any other Christian. Why would I feel sorry for you? I am but one man; Christians of all denominations are in the majority.Let's get back to the Gospels. I have seen you quoting more from the writings of the Apostles than from the four Gospels and Jesus. I personally find that interesting. "The meek shall inherit the earth," said Jesus. But Jesus also said, "He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it into life eternal" (John 12:25).So what is it; "inherit the earth" or "hate life in this world"?Eventually we will end up back with "Adam", "the command(s)" and the "tree" in paradise.Regards,
Ger

[/qs]You appear to be under the mistaken impression that in the first centuries of the Common Era {a.k.a. A.D.} one "kingdom-like Christian church" was founded by those who had lived during and shortly after the Jewish messianic movement. That happens to not be the historical facts. There were many followers of many different sects of "christianity" in the first centuries of the Common Era. There were the Marcionites and Dualists and Gnostics who believed quite differently from Irenaeus and Clement and others who regarded themselves as the leaders of the Orthodox Christian doctrine. The battle between these various Christian groups continued on until Emperor Constatine embrased the Orthodox Christian doctrine. These Ecclesiastical Christians now had the entire Roman Empire to back their arguments, and only then were the so-called "heretics" put to rest. Not until 1945 were the Gnostic manuscripts found at Naj Hammadi, Egypt. These Gnostic manuscripts revealed in vivid detail a completely different Christian movement than the Orthodox Christianity that was embrased by the Roman Empire.Historically, there was no "Divine-Kingdom/Chruch" established in the Middle East at the beginning of the Common Era.So again; What church/kingdom are you addressing?[qs] Hi Autumnman, You are indeed an enigma, a blessed contradiction of randomness and ideas. I mean that in the best possible spirit.From your previous post I thought we were discussing the words of Jesus in one place verses his words in another place. You seem to use the New Testament like a two-edged sword. On the one hand you quote his words in one place, then qoute his words in another place to try and show a contradiction or how a prophecy might not have come true or something. When however, I show how the words, concepts or ideas do not contradict eachother, you ignore my argument from the scriptures that you yourself quoted and run to the historicity question. What exacally is it that you are wanting to discuss. I have now presented 2 arguments from scripture that you quoted and used to formulate your argument, with no response to thos e specific arguments that I made.Do you want to discuss the NT documents or the words and belifes in the NT? Those are 2 totally different issues.[qs/]Historically, there was no "Divine-Kingdom/Chruch" established in the Middle East at the beginning of the Common Era.[qs] Again you seem to be involving yourself in contradiction with the above quote. If the NT documents are to be believed, say with Gnostic gospels, then there was a Kingdom/Church established in 33AD.
It seems as though you are automatically dismissing the NT in favor of some other documents.Ofcourse I can not know what it is that you want to discuss until you stay with one thing or the other., ie, the NT or its hisoricity.In my previous discussions with SilentH, PaulK, RAZD and others it was very hard to discuss issues not knowing exacaaly what they were or what positions they hold. For example I am a fundamentalist Christian, who believes in the scriptures as the verbally inspired word of God. Possibly if could tell what you are and exacally what you believe it might make the process alittle easier.ps. Could someone show me again how to highlight QUOTES. I seem to have forgotten.ThanksD Bertot

To Autumnman. I have to scoot off to work now, but I will get back to your responses later. Thanks D Bertot.

bertot: Thanks for you reply. I will attempt to claify my position.as for quotes: [qs, in brackets ]at the beginning of the quote; at the end [ /qs, in brackets]; only qs in brackets and /qs in brackets
Thus: You wrote, If you are quoting a source: [quote, in brackets] beginning, end [/quote, in brackets]; only quote in brackets and /quote in bracketsThus: Jesus said,

quote:

---

"Judge not"

---

There is no space between the [ ]and the text[ ]I will post this for you and then go on regarding my position.Regards,
GerEdited by autumnman, : claification