Who is the creator

[charismaticlady]

Yes, he does! He uses the plural “we” and “us” in the passage as a whole, and the audience to whom he is writing are believers.


Doug

That is the problem with reading the eastern style with a western mindset. It is talking about all mankind before accepting Christ as well as gnostics (4:1-3).

Paul does it too. In Romans 7:14-25 he contradicts verses 5-6, and Romans 8:2. Romans 8:2 is actually being freed from Romans 7:14-25 and all personal present tense. And what about Paul seemingly being there in Romans 7:9 when Moses was given the law, and even before! Paul wasn't anywhere near 1,500 years old!

CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT!

The writing style of contrasts is why verses 8 and 10 are one verse apart. One before confession and the other after confession. Nope! Start with verse 5 and end with verse 10; you'll see a contrast between light vs. dark.

 

[charismaticlady]

Acts2:14Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: “Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say. 15These people are not drunk, as you suppose. It’s only nine in the morning!

Peter was not speaking to the 120, but to those outside of the house where the 120 had been and where they, the outer crowd, heard the sound of the mighty rushing wind.

I know he wasn't speaking to the fellow believers in Christ, the 120. He was addressing the crowd who HEARD their own languages being spoken in tongues, not just the wind. Note they were "devout Jews." They were still saving Jews first. It appears the Gentile Romans heard gibberish and mocked they were drunk.

 

[TibiasDad]

That is the problem with reading the eastern style with a western mindset. It is talking about all mankind before accepting Christ.

Paul does it too. In Romans 7:14-25 he contradicts verses 5-6, and Romans 8:2. Romans 8:2 is actually being freed from Romans 7:14-25 and all personal present tense. And what about Paul seemingly being there in Romans 7:9 when Moses was given the law, and even before!

CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT!

The writing style of contrasts is why verses 8 and 10 are one verse apart. One before confession and the other after confession. Nope! Start with verse 5 and end with verse 10; you'll see a contrast between light vs. dark.

That’s the problem with not knowing Greek or apparently English either. It’s not an eastern or western concept. It is koine Greek language which can be interpreted at face value. Using “we” “us”, includes John as a member of the group being spoken of in the present tense, subjunctive mood (If we). Was John a believer? Were those he wrote to presumably the church?

5This is the message we ( the Apostles) have heard from him and declare to you: (the Christian church) God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. 6If we ( the whole of the church, including the Apostles) claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we (whoever claims him yet walks in darkness) lie and do not live out the truth. 7But if we (whoever claims to be in fellowship with him) walk in the light, as he is in the light, we (ibid) have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.

8If we ( who claim to be in fellowship with him) claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9If we ( ibid) confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us ( those who claim to be in fellowship with him and confess) our (ibid the church as a whole ) sins and purify us (ibid) from all unrighteousness. 10If we (ibid) claim we (ibid) have not sinned, we (ibid) make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us. (Those who claim to be in fellowship with him.)

John is writing to those who are presumed to be believers about those who claim to be believers, but who may not be believing the correct things.


Doug

 

[FreeInChrist]

Sorry, honey, but John is not contradicting himself in the same letter. He didn't say that 1 John 1:8 is a Christian. Shocker!

I hope you enjoyed your popcorn, but you missed some. What, no emoji for a potty break? LOL You didn't "add." I'm not on your road. Where did you go. I thought we were on the same road.

Believing John is describing all levels of Christians, even the highest who never stumble in 1 John 1:8 is the key mistake the western Church makes in their understanding of an eastern writing style, so they cannot believe 1 John 3:9 as stated. They must change the second to keep their warped understanding of the first.

The Church also rolls over the first sentence of 1 John 2:1 to get to the second, as if it were a lie. "My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin." Period. Believing 1 John 1:8 in the way the western Church does currently, makes this sentence obsolete. A lie in itself.

Jesus is the Advocate to the Father for the whole world, not just baby Christians still immature in some of the fruit of the Spirit. "And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. 2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world.

1 John 1:7 shows that while walking in the Spirit, the immature fruit of the Spirit keeps getting cleansed as we grow and all other slight mishaps that we don't even know we are doing. They are unintentional because of the Spirit within. What it is not saying is that Christ automatically cleanses us of lawless willful sins unto death as the Reformation taught and OSAS began. Luther even wrote a letter saying SIN BOLDLY. Exactly what Paul spoke against in Romans 6:1 "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?"

What John is NOT saying anywhere is "believers may commit sin, but they cannot practice sin as a settled way of life." No where does John give permission to willfully sin. Just the opposite.

I'm not sure who invented the term "sinless perfection," do you? I've never heard anyone teach that doctrine as such. But I've heard plenty of pastors on the radio speak against it. That term consists of two words that are a lifetime apart, but both possible."

Sinless is righteous, having no desire to break God's laws. Again, I repeat, that is what Jesus as the Author of our faith begins our walk with Him. That is freedom from lawlessness, John also calls sins unto death.

And perfection is holy as Peter stated where we come to the place of no immaturity also in the fruit of the Spirit and "never stumble," even any sins not unto death, both found in 1 John 5:16-17. This concept has not been upheld in the church since it was taken over by Rome and the dark ages began. And didn't get repaired during the Reformation; in fact, they brought back to life a whole new meaning of grace and made it again a license to sin, unmerited favor. Jude 1:4.

1 John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

I wrote... because I do not see John saying "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin" ever again.
In 1 John 3:9, John writes (literal sense):

“No one born of God does not keep on sinning.”

John is not saying a believer never commits a sin.
He is saying a believer cannot live in sin as a settled pattern.

I John 1:8 KJV If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

I see 1 John 1:8 basically saying that also...

So what am I missing?

 

[TibiasDad]

I know he wasn't speaking to the fellow believers in Christ, the 120. He was addressing the crowd who HEARD their own languages being spoken in tongues, not just the wind. Note they were "devout Jews." They were still saving Jews first. It appears the Gentile Romans heard gibberish and mocked they were drunk.

Yes, Jews from every nation.

5Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. 6When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken. 7Utterly amazed, they asked: “Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? 8Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language? 9Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,10Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome 11(both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!” 12Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, “What does this mean?”

13Some, however, made fun of them and said, “They have had too much wine.” (“Some”, grammatically points back to the “Jews from every nation under heaven) not “Roman Gentiles” who did not understand what was being said.)

This is more evident when we see Peter respond to the Jews to answer the “drunk” accusation.


Doug

 

[Keiw1]

He returned to that which was left behind while on earth. Appointed is in relation to us, for our point of reference, not God’s point of reference. He was returning to the glory he had with God in the beginning. (John 17:5) It was a shared glory, equally possessed by both Father and Son. He had made himself “a little lower than the angels” to become human for his earthy mission, but now returned to assume his rightful place and position that God the Father had assigned for him, though equally God, to have to the Father’s glory.


Doug

Jesus is not God--You are being mislead to destruction. Its 100% undeniable fact-Catholicism created the trinity at their councils. What dont you understand about its recorded history fact read the council of Nicea-they added Jesus 325ce)--381 ce they added the holy spirit--ITS FACT.
They mistranslated to fit those false council teachings-Catholicism= 2Thess 2:3--Jesus was NEVER with them.

 

[TibiasDad]

Jesus is not God--You are being mislead to destruction. Its 100% undeniable fact-Catholicism created the trinity at their councils. What dont you understand about its recorded history fact read the council of Nicea-they added Jesus 325ce)--381 ce they added the holy spirit--ITS FACT.
They mistranslated to fit those false council teachings-Catholicism= 2Thess 2:3--Jesus was NEVER with them.

I base everything I believe on scripture first, middle and last. I’ve never depended on the various councils opinions as my reason to believe, and my agreement with them is not a determining factor as to why I believe what I believe.

Titus 2:13 and 2Pet 1:1 cannot be more clear in Greek or English that Jesus Christ is both God and Savior! There is no controversy in these verses; no possible alternative translation of the Greek.

The only reason for the council’s to gather was because of the Arian heresy which you now employ. The teachings were clear and decisive up to Arius, his deviation left unchecked until 325 AD, when all but two of the 318 (or 314 according to some) Bishops in attendance voted against Arius’s proposal. (Some say that there were originally 17 bishops that supported Arius, but that is less than 10% of all the Bishops to side with Arius. In the end, 15 of the 17 changed their thinking.)


Doug

 

[FreeInChrist]

Jesus is not God--You are being mislead to destruction. Its 100% undeniable fact-Catholicism created the trinity at their councils. What dont you understand about its recorded history fact read the council of Nicea-they added Jesus 325ce)--381 ce they added the holy spirit--ITS FACT.
They mistranslated to fit those false council teachings-Catholicism= 2Thess 2:3--Jesus was NEVER with them.

I thought you were Calvenist. That you are Tulip believing.....YET the very one who brought you that you deny... almost the same as you denying Jesus.....

Here is another one you wont read for fear of learning.... MGHMOYS

The claim that Jesus was “added” to Godhood at church councils is historically inaccurate and ignores pre-Nicene Christian writings and Scripture itself.

The Council of Nicaea (325 CE) did not invent the deity of Christ. It addressed a dispute already raging in the church—whether Jesus was of the same divine nature as the Father. The council clarified doctrine; it did not create it.
Long before Nicaea, Christians worshiped Jesus as divine: See the following 5 points as a mini example of what we know.

1. Philippians 2:6–11 (written ~AD 60): Jesus existed in the form of God and receives worship due to God alone.

2. John 1:1–3 (~AD 90): “The Word was God… all things were made through Him.”

3. Thomas calls Jesus “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28).

4. Pliny the Younger (Roman governor, ~AD 112) records Christians singing hymns to Christ as to a god.

5. Ignatius of Antioch (~AD 107), a disciple of John, repeatedly calls Jesus “our God.”

These sources predate Catholic councils by centuries.

As for the Holy Spirit, Scripture already presents Him as divine long before 381 CE:

Fact... Lying to the Spirit is lying to God (Acts 5:3–4)
Fact...The Spirit speaks, wills, teaches, and can be grieved—personal attributes, not impersonal force.


Citing 2 Thessalonians 2:3 against Catholicism is ironic, because Paul also warns against rejecting apostolic teaching (2 Thess 2:15). The earliest Christians—long before medieval Catholicism—already held these beliefs.


Disagreeing with the Trinity is one thing. Claiming it was “invented” in the 4th century contradicts both Scripture and documented history.

 

[101G]

Disagreeing with the Trinity is one thing. Claiming it was “invented” in the 4th century contradicts both Scripture and documented history.

Greeting to all, claiming and disagreeing is the same animal. if something was not invented how can one disagree?

the following verses, (and 101G stick only with scripture), do not show a trinity. only ONE PERSON diversified.
1. Philippians 2:6–11 (written ~AD 60): Jesus existed in the form of God and receives worship due to God alone.

2. John 1:1–3 (~AD 90): “The Word was God… all things were made through Him.”

3. Thomas calls Jesus “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28).

the bible never teaches a trinity, nor support it. so there should be no disagreeing nor any claiming on something that the bible do not support or teach.

101G.

 

[Jim]

Greeting to all, claiming and disagreeing is the same animal. if something was not invented how can one disagree?

the following verses, (and 101G stick only with scripture), do not show a trinity. only ONE PERSON diversified.
1. Philippians 2:6–11 (written ~AD 60): Jesus existed in the form of God and receives worship due to God alone.

2. John 1:1–3 (~AD 90): “The Word was God… all things were made through Him.”

3. Thomas calls Jesus “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28).

the bible never teaches a trinity, nor support it. so there should be no disagreeing nor any claiming on something that the bible do not support or teach.

101G.

What do you mean only one person "diversified"?

 

[charismaticlady]

1 John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

I wrote... because I do not see John saying "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin" ever again.
In 1 John 3:9, John writes (literal sense):

“No one born of God does not keep on sinning.”

John is not saying a believer never commits a sin.
He is saying a believer cannot live in sin as a settled pattern.

I John 1:8 KJV If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

I see 1 John 1:8 basically saying that also...

So what am I missing?

There are two different types of sin:
sins unto death
sins not unto death

1 John 3 is only about sins unto death, not sins not unto death.

Lawlessness is breaking any of the Ten Commandments of God. verse 4 and 24

When the New Covenant was prophesied in the Old Testament, and repeated in the New, it said God would literally write His laws on our hearts. They would become part of us, our new nature. For instance, think of something you would never do, like suicide, or murder. Then look at what you said:

John is not saying a believer never commits a sin.
He is saying a believer cannot live in sin as a settled pattern.

Understand?

Now look at 1 John 1:7 about sins not unto death. While walking in the Spirit/Light after all our sins unto death have been taken away from our nature (1 John 3:5) and He's made us righteous (not holy yet where we never stumble even unintentionally, 2 Peter 1:5-11) the unintentional slight imperfections still abhorrent to the perfect Father, Jesus as our Advocate, still cleanses them as He is still in the process of maturing every one of the fruit of the Spirit, just as He cleansed sins unto death from us before we repented as one in the unsaved world. As the Finisher of our faith, even those He will complete, Phil. 1:6.

1 John 1:7 shows also we now have fellowship with the Father because of the complete cleansing from Jesus and His powerful blood. This is not talking about recommitting a sin unto death. In fact, in 1 John 5:16-17 we are not even suppose to pray for a brother or sister that has gone back to sins unto death. Because we still have free will, those sins are willful disobedience, not slight imperfections. Read Hebrews 10:26-31. I've heard many false teachers even try to twist that passage to being only to Jews. Nope! It is our apostasy. Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.:

This problem with misunderstanding the two types of sin started in the Reformation when instead of teaching what I just explained, they lumped the two types of sin together in the doctrine, "sin is sin." And even though there is no such thing as a real doctrine of sinless perfection, righteousness is sinlessness of only sins unto death, and holiness is perfection of even slight imperfections from immature fruit of the Spirit. Only after that (Phil. 1:6) could we ever say we are in a state of "sinless perfection."

For further study on these two types go back to our schoolmaster and study Numbers 15:22-36 about sins not unto death first, and then notice there was no sacrifice for sins unto death for God's people.

 

[charismaticlady]

Yes, Jews from every nation.

5Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. 6When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken. 7Utterly amazed, they asked: “Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? 8Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language? 9Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,10Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome 11(both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!” 12Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, “What does this mean?”

13Some, however, made fun of them and said, “They have had too much wine.” (“Some”, grammatically points back to the “Jews from every nation under heaven) not “Roman Gentiles” who did not understand what was being said.)

This is more evident when we see Peter respond to the Jews to answer the “drunk” accusation.


Doug

Sorry, Doug. I know this scripture, so what are you trying to prove? What do you see it saying that I don't?

 

[charismaticlady]

That’s the problem with not knowing Greek or apparently English either. It’s not an eastern or western concept. It is koine Greek language which can be interpreted at face value. Using “we” “us”, includes John as a member of the group being spoken of in the present tense, subjunctive mood (If we). Was John a believer? Were those he wrote to presumably the church?

5This is the message we ( the Apostles) have heard from him and declare to you: (the Christian church) God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. 6If we ( the whole of the church, including the Apostles) claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we (whoever claims him yet walks in darkness) lie and do not live out the truth. 7But if we (whoever claims to be in fellowship with him) walk in the light, as he is in the light, we (ibid) have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.

8If we ( who claim to be in fellowship with him) claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9If we ( ibid) confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us ( those who claim to be in fellowship with him and confess) our (ibid the church as a whole ) sins and purify us (ibid) from all unrighteousness. 10If we (ibid) claim we (ibid) have not sinned, we (ibid) make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us. (Those who claim to be in fellowship with him.)

John is writing to those who are presumed to be believers about those who claim to be believers, but who may not be believing the correct things.


Doug

I already proved that present pronouns do not always mean us. The problem is your understanding of the context.

Do you also believe that 1 John 1:9 is not to become a Christian, but to keep on sinning and keep on repenting over and over?

 

[JesusFan]

Why? What do you believe was the purpose of speaking in tongues back in the day?


So if I have God's grace, what has He given me?


Are you saying God is a title? Like if you had a complaint at your job you could say, "I'm going to Management." Or, "I'm going to HR."

Tongues fulfilled OT prophecy, as they were a sign to the jews that even foreigners who one time did not know Yahweh now knew Him and called uponHis name

 

[JesusFan]

Perfect answer and correct. So, why do most pastors teach that Christians have a sin nature? Only someone who is born again can be called a Christian.

Personally, I think teaching that heresy is a slap to the face of Jesus and what He went through to give us freedom from lawless sin unto death.

The real heresy is sinless perfection

 

[JesusFan]

So then you believe what is born again is the spirit, making us without a sin nature as other human beings, just a human nature.


We agree.



Were the 120 people speaking in tongues heard on the Day of Pentecost in a public place?

We still have until physical resurrection the flesh that has sinful tendacies and sin principle built within it

 

[JesusFan]

Jesus is not God--You are being mislead to destruction. Its 100% undeniable fact-Catholicism created the trinity at their councils. What dont you understand about its recorded history fact read the council of Nicea-they added Jesus 325ce)--381 ce they added the holy spirit--ITS FACT.
They mistranslated to fit those false council teachings-Catholicism= 2Thess 2:3--Jesus was NEVER with them.

Jesus never denied his deity

 

[charismaticlady]

Tongues fulfilled OT prophecy, as they were a sign to the jews that even foreigners who one time did not know Yahweh now knew Him and called uponHis name

Interesting theory based on 1 Cor. 14:21, but in this case you need to take into consideration verse 23. If ALL of the Christians were speaking in tongues all together, and either an unsaved Gentile or a Jew came in they would think they were all crazy.

 

[charismaticlady]

We still have until physical resurrection the flesh that has sinful tendacies and sin principle built within it

The body is not the cause of sin. Our nature is.

The body is like a floppy puppet and only comes to life when the inward nature pulls its strings. It is the nature that is the cause of sin. That is why only our mind and heart/spirit and soul that is born again of the Spirit NOW, in this lifetime, and the body must wait until the resurrection to be changed. A born again Christian does not have a sin nature any longer. We are clean of sins unto death. The only sin left are the slight impurities of immature fruit that Jesus is finishing maturing in us as we walk in the Spirit, abiding In Him.

 

[TibiasDad]

Sorry, Doug. I know this scripture, so what are you trying to prove? What do you see it saying that I don't?

It wasn’t Roman Gentiles who thought it was “gibberish”, it was some of the “Jews from every nation”.


Doug