I was at knock yesterday

branie

And during the sermon at the 3:00 mass, the priest mentioned that Jesus included Judas in those he asked God to forgive. That never really occured to me

alex73

branie wrote: »

And during the sermon at the 3:00 mass, the priest mentioned that Jesus included Judas in those he asked God to forgive. That never really occured to me

Christ died for all Men. Judas included.

branie

Thanks for explaining that.

JimiTime

Mark14:21"The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born."

Festus

JimiTime wrote: »

Mark14:21"The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born."

Are you suggesting this is a direct reference to Judas and Judas alone? It could equally refer to anyone who betrays the Son of Man, Reformists included.

Judas did not have to commit suicide. He could have begged for forgiveness.

dead one

JimiTime wrote: »

Mark14:21"The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born."

isn't it "son of God"

SonOfAdam

While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled. John 17:12

F12

dead one wrote: »

isn't it "son of God"

As far as I am aware, Jesus never referred to himself as "the Son of God", but only as "the Son of Man". It basically means 'human' or 'son of humanity'.

gimmebroadband

Son of God and Son of Man

Douay-Rheims Bible

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Seth Brundle

JimiTime wrote: »

Mark14:21"The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born."

Just out of curiosity, is God forgiving or not?

F12

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Son of God and Son of Man

Douay-Rheims Bible

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

OK, thanks. I'm familiar with the Douay-Rheims Bible. So what is "the Word"? What exactly does it mean, remembering that the biblical texts often use archaic forms of words, not all of which are commonly used today?

dead one

F12 wrote: »

As far as I am aware, Jesus never referred to himself as "the Son of God", but only as "the Son of Man". It basically means 'human' or 'son of humanity'.

As far as i am aware, "Son of God" is same as "Servant of God" in Hebrew....
---- as you have agreed above, Jesus never reffed to himself as "the son of God" --- but his historian does --- His historians having brought him into the world in a supernatural manner, were obliged to take him out again in the same manner.
http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/index.php?search=%22son+of+God%22&searchtype=all&wholewordsonly=yes&version1=9&spanbegin=1&spanend=73

alex73

dead one wrote: »

As far as i am aware, "Son of God" is same as "Servant of God" in Hebrew....
---- as you have agreed above, Jesus never reffed to himself as "the son of God" --- but his historian does --- His historians having brought him into the world in a supernatural manner, were obliged to take him out again in the same manner.
http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/index.php?search=%22son+of+God%22&searchtype=all&wholewordsonly=yes&version1=9&spanbegin=1&spanend=73

Apart from the above post being borderline heretical nonsense.. (just my opinion)

This thread is classic example of a totally derailed Thread.. From Knock to knocking out Christs Divinity... incredible.

dead one

alex73 wrote: »

Apart from the above post being borderline heretical nonsense.. (just my opinion)

you defended your business in your opinion, it's natural for man,

F12

dead one wrote: »

As far as i am aware, "Son of God" is same as "Servant of God" in Hebrew....
---- as you have agreed above, Jesus never reffed to himself as "the son of God" --- but his historian does --- His historians having brought him into the world in a supernatural manner, were obliged to take him out again in the same manner.
http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/index.php?search=%22son+of+God%22&searchtype=all&wholewordsonly=yes&version1=9&spanbegin=1&spanend=73

That's actually incorrect. The Hebrew for 'servant of God' is Obadiah (עובדיה). In Latin it is 'Servus Dei'. You can see the root of the word deity in both the Hebrew and the Latin, with both the suffix -diah in Hebrew, and the Latin dei, denoting the possessive/genetive case. The Hebrew for 'son of God' would be 'ben ha Elohim'.

You don't say who Jesus' 'historian' is, or are. Would you care to explain who exactly you are referring to here?

dead one

F12 wrote: »

That's actually incorrect. The Hebrew for 'servant of God' is Obadiah (עובדיה). In Latin it is 'Servus Dei'. You can see the root of the word deity in both the Hebrew and the Latin, with both the suffix -diah in Hebrew, and the Latin dei, denoting the possessive/genetive case. The Hebrew for 'son of God' would be 'ben ha Elohim'.

King James Version
Acts 3:25 - Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.
Acts 3:26 - Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

New King James Version

Acts 3:25 - You are the sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying to Abraham, 'And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.
Acts 3:26 - To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning every one of you away from his iniquities.

"In the KJV, we find that Jesus is God's Son. In the NKJV, we find that He is God's servant. These are clearly not the same! The Greek word found in the text here is "pais". It can be used in Greek for either "son" or "servant." So which one is correct here?
The solution is simple: look at the context in which it is used. In English, we have many words that can have more than one meaning. If a translator, going from English to another language, came across the word "bear," he would have a choice of meanings. But it wouldn't take rocket science to figure out which one to use.

If the passage described a man with a heavy burden, the translator would understand that the man is going to "bear," or "carry" the burden. If, on the other hand, the passage described a hairy beast climbing a tree, the translator would understand the correct meaning here applies to a forest-dwelling animal that will eat nearly anything it finds. It's not really very hard.

Now look at the Bible passage above. What is being discussed?

"children of the prophets"
"covenant which God made with our fathers"
"in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed."
It's clear, isn't it? The passage is talking about "children," and "fathers" and "seed." The word "pais" means "son." But the New King James translators chose "servant." Why? They were not alone. The New World Translation, created by the Jehovah's Witnesses who deny the deity of Jesus, translated this word "servant" also. So do the NIV, ASV, NASB and other modern Bible translations.

Could it be that these modern translators disagree that "pais" can be translated "son?" No, the NKJV committee translates this very word as "boy," "child" or "son" in Matthew 2:16; 17:18; 21:15; Luke 2:43; 9:42; and John 4:51. Yet they refused to translate the word as "son" in this powerful sermon where Peter presents Jesus as Messiah and Son of God.

One has to ask, why were these translators so determined to deny the deity of Jesus in this passage? Is this a Bible you can trust with your eternal destiny?
http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/articles/saviororservant.asp

in Hebrew, "Son of God" can also be translated as "Servant of God" --- Now guess who is wrong????? bible translators use words of their own choice to make their belief eternal

F12

dead one wrote: »

In the KJV, we find that Jesus is God's Son. In the NKJV, we find that He is God's servant. These are clearly not the same! The Greek word found in the text here is "pais". It can be used in Greek for either "son" or "servant." So which one is correct here?
The solution is simple: look at the context in which it is used. In English, we have many words that can have more than one meaning. If a translator, going from English to another language, came across the word "bear," he would have a choice of meanings. But it wouldn't take rocket science to figure out which one to use.

If the passage described a man with a heavy burden, the translator would understand that the man is going to "bear," or "carry" the burden. If, on the other hand, the passage described a hairy beast climbing a tree, the translator would understand the correct meaning here applies to a forest-dwelling animal that will eat nearly anything it finds. It's not really very hard.

Now look at the Bible passage above. What is being discussed?

"children of the prophets"
"covenant which God made with our fathers"
"in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed."
It's clear, isn't it? The passage is talking about "children," and "fathers" and "seed." The word "pais" means "son." But the New King James translators chose "servant." Why? They were not alone. The New World Translation, created by the Jehovah's Witnesses who deny the deity of Jesus, translated this word "servant" also. So do the NIV, ASV, NASB and other modern Bible translations.

Could it be that these modern translators disagree that "pais" can be translated "son?" No, the NKJV committee translates this very word as "boy," "child" or "son" in Matthew 2:16; 17:18; 21:15; Luke 2:43; 9:42; and John 4:51. Yet they refused to translate the word as "son" in this powerful sermon where Peter presents Jesus as Messiah and Son of God.

One has to ask, why were these translators so determined to deny the deity of Jesus in this passage? Is this a Bible you can trust with your eternal destiny?
http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/articles/saviororservant.asp

in Hebrew, "Son of God" can also be translated as "Servant of God" --- Now guess who is wrong????? bible translators use words of their own choice to make their belief eternal

There is no point in throwing lumps of 'biblical' material all over the place to somehow make a point that does not address the issues. The issue is that Jesus described himself as the "Son of Man", and this designation is represented as a title, not simply a phrase. He did not describe himself as a 'Son of God", so I would suggest that he would have known best, as he was quite crafty with his use of words, for those with ears to hear.

The 'Bible', as it is commonly known, has been edited, altered, translated and then even, more than 1500 years later, finally compiled in the form of the King James Version, been copyrighted in 'approved' form, by the king of the time, King James of England and Scotland, calling it his 'version'. Truth has no 'version', as it it is what it is. Beliefs, on the other hand are make to suit the idologies of the age where such belief proves suited to the political culture. Even the Queen of England admitted this in her Christmas Day speech last year. Here is part of it:

Over 400 years ago King James VI of Scotland inherited the throne of England at a time when the Christian church was deeply divided.

Here at Hampton Court in 1604, he convened a conference of churchmen of all shades of opinion to discuss the future of Christianity in this country.

The king agreed to commission a new translation of the bible that was acceptable to all parties.

This was to become the King James, or Authorized, Bible, which next year will be exactly four centuries old.

Acknowledged as a masterpiece of English prose and the most vivid translation of the scriptures, the glorious language of this bible has survived the turbulence of history and given many of us the most widely recognised and beautiful descriptions of the birth of Jesus Christ which we celebrate today.

There you have it, in bald and blatant facts:the King "....convened a conference of churchmen of all shades of opinion to discuss the future of Christianity in this country. The king agreed to commission a new translation of the bible that was acceptable to all parties.

This was to become the King James, or Authorized, Bible, which next year will be exactly four centuries old.


Link

Can you honestly expect anyone to accept that truth, which is fact, is anything that can be decided by a group of people who are of different opinions, amlost 1600 years after the fact, with different political oulooks, a different language and a different religion?
The Royal family still receive copyright royalities for the KJV as published in the UK, so it's just another example of how people's 'faith' is simply used to profit rulers who would not be seen in the same company as the 'commoners', unless it proves 'appropriate' for the image of their position. It's all smoke and mirrors.

If this is the case, even a mere 400 years ago, how may times do you really think that the 'bible' would have been edited, altered and 'approved' in the previous 1600, never mind the 1000 or more years previously, when wandering Hebrew scribes fought with each other over what the 'true word of God' was?

JimiTime

Festus wrote: »

Are you suggesting this is a direct reference to Judas

It WAS a reference to Judas. Look at the context. Its not the only reference.

While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled. John 17:12

It could equally refer to anyone who betrays the Son of Man, Reformists included.

Isn't it great though that we have scripture, and like the Bereans, we can use it as a reference for winnowing out any spurious teachings and identifying wolves in sheeps clothing. It is truly a blessing to be free in Christ isn't it? Just imagine if we were all just ignorant, blind followers of some monolith? Scary.

gimmebroadband

Peter's Confession of Christ:

Peter confessed that Jesus Is the Son of God, then Jesus told the disciples not to breathe a word until after the Resurrection, when the Son of Man must suffer and be put to death, and 3 days later rise again.

Luke 9: 18-27

dead one

F12 wrote: »

Truth has no 'version', as it it is what it is.

What is truth????, Is it truth that Jesus is "Son of God" --- Is it what you are trying to say, Truth has no 'version' --- but how do we know the truth without versions?

F12 wrote: »

Beliefs, on the other hand are make to suit the idologies of the age where such belief proves suited to the political culture. Even the Queen of England admitted this in her Christmas Day speech last year. Here is part of it:

Jesus, as son of God, isn't it belief? on the other hand, Jesus, Prophet/servant of God, Isn't it belief --- Isn't it true that Jesus as son of God suits you and Jesus as servant of God doesn't suit you..... Isn't it true translator of KJV used "Son of God" because Son of God suited them, Isnt it true that translator of NKJV used "Servant of God" because servant of God suited them,

F12 wrote: »

Can you honestly expect anyone to accept that truth, which is fact, is anything that can be decided by a group of people who are of different opinions, amlost 1600 years after the fact, with different political oulooks, a different language and a different religion?
The Royal family still receive copyright royalities for the KJV as published in the UK, so it's just another example of how people's 'faith' is simply used to profit rulers who would not be seen in the same company as the 'commoners', unless it proves 'appropriate' for the image of their position. It's all smoke and mirrors.

anyone can accept the truth if any knows the truth, but first thing is do we know what is truth?

antiskeptic

Weaving a path through the hyperbolic language:

F12 wrote: »

There you have it, in bald and blatant facts:the King "....convened a conference of churchmen

People who could be expected to have a nodding aquaintance with the material under examination. What possible problem..

of all shades of opinion

What would you be saying if they were all of one opinion. One denomination. Bold/underline/red there too?

discuss the future of Christianity in this country.

Where it appears that future would be served by a new translation. Presumably they recognised the potential for flaws in existing translations. You don't believe in evolution?

The king agreed to commission a

Happens all the time. NIV / NLT / The Message

of the bible that was acceptable to all parties

With no single party permitted to hold sway, the chances of a single subjective opinion misperceiving what was there (and so polluting the outcome) woudl be reduced.

Science works on the same principle. |This doesn't mean science it truth (it's always a tentative punt at the truth). That said, nobody seriously thinks the world is flat anymore. Or at least no one takes those people seriously.

I hope.

This was to become the King James, or Authorized, Bible, which next year will be exactly four centuries old.

A good title. Given such authority (and the manner in which it was assembled) we are better off than a translation by say one of our more vocal Catholic members here. In that case we'd be reading "you are Peter the first bishop, and from this source I will apostolically succeed in building a church seeded in Rome"

Can you honestly expect anyone to accept that truth, which is fact, is anything that can be decided by a group of people who are of different opinions, amlost 1600 years after the fact, with different political oulooks, a different language and a different religion?

It would be accepted that original autographs were truth and that by a considered process, that truth can be translated into various languages. The fact that there are doubtlessly translational errors isn't considered the biggest problem in the world

a) the bible is a large volume of books. It's not unusual for the same idea to be built up over a large body of material making it harder for all to rest on a word.

b) there is such a thing as the Holy Spirit who guides to all necessary truth. The fact that everyone is individual and will (through immaturity of understanding, sin, intellect) have a different take/emphasis isn't considered a problem. The main issue for God is the sanctification of the Christian - not that they can all repeat their 10 times tables in perfect unison.

The Royal family still receive copyright royalities for the KJV as published in the UK, so it's just another example of how people's 'faith' is simply used to profit rulers who would not be seen in the same company as the 'commoners', unless it proves 'appropriate' for the image of their position. It's all smoke and mirrors.

Now that's what I call a leap! Perfectly intelligent and ratonal people down the ages duped so requires better explanation that simplistic conspiracy theories like this.

If this is the case, even a mere 400 years ago, how may times do you really think that the 'bible' would have been edited, altered and 'approved' in the previous 1600, never mind the 1000 or more years previously, when wandering Hebrew scribes fought with each other over what the 'true word of God' was?

edit / alter / approve have been argued to be other than dirty words above.

mcmoustache

Alex gave a pretty concise answer and what I think is the correct one from a Christian perspective. Refusing to forgive Judas would have been out-of-character.

So.......what are we discussing now? I didn't think that the divinity of Christ was a controversial topic among Christians. In fact, I thought that it was one of the core beliefs that Christians share.

ISAW

mcmoustache wrote: »

So.......what are we discussing now? I didn't think that the divinity of Christ was a controversial topic among Christians. In fact, I thought that it was one of the core beliefs that Christians share.

I think the Judas reference was made in reply to someone going to Knock. But another thread has already continued the Knock issue elsewhere. the whole fundamentalist bible discussion is an off topic development. The thing is that most Christians don't think it is all about the written word in the bible. they rely on others to interpret the message of the Bible as well as reading it themselves. just as early christians didnt have a widely available single bound copy of the bible for about five centuries. and one in their own language available to all people for another ten centuries after that.