Translation of 2 Thessalonians 2:2

Seems some would introduce anything for the sake of arguing.

 

Since I refer to Christ, it is from a personal standpoint, as in knowing Him. While "the Christ" can only best designate an identity as in one knowing who He is, but nothing in the personal knowledge of Him as in a "personal Saviour" as opposed to "The Saviour".

 

Plain ol' Ralph said "Since I refer to Christ, it is from a personal standpoint, as in knowing Him. While "the Christ" can only best designate an identity as in one knowing who He is, but nothing in the personal knowledge of Him"

Hmmm. Why then do you say "Satan" and not "the Satan", or "the Holy Spirit" and not "Holy Spirit"?

 

POR: "Since I refer to Christ, it is from a personal standpoint, as in knowing Him. While "the Christ" can only best designate an identity as in one knowing who He is, but nothing in the personal knowledge of Him"

I feel sorry for Peter then, since in Mt 16:16; Mk 8:29; Lk 9:20 that which was revealed to him not by flesh and blood but by the Holy Spirit, was that Jesus is “the Christ.” Too bad Peter didn’t really know him....

Likewise, seems like Martha never got the point in Jn 11:27, even if she *believed*: “Yea, Lord, I believe that thou art the Christ....”

And then I wonder why John wrote his gospel only in order that we “might believe that Jesus is the Christ...and that believing ye might have life through his name.” Also 1Jn 5:1, “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God....”

Sorry, POR, but your explanation contradicts Scripture, and I know whom I will believe on this matter.

 

I think you missed the point of my post. I was saying that calling Jesus "The Christ" does not mean one is coming from a New Age viewpoint. I am saying this as one who was a New Ager.

Of course, I don't call Jesus, "The Christ" in casual conversation. I usually say "Jesus." "The Christ" or "Christ" is his title. Jesus is his name.

I was only responding to false accusations, which have come up on other threads, that every time "the Christ" is written or said, it has to be New Age. That is simply not true. You have to examine the context and the beliefs on who that Jesus is to find out.

 

His disciples and many others in years afterwards referred to Jesus as "The Christ" explaining their personal relationship with him. Why would saying "The Christ" or "Christ" make any difference. Oh, and just for reference, POR, as I didn't get to answer your attacks on another thread, I AM your elder by a good number of years, so I don't need to go out and play with children...especially not your age. Got any more rocks you want to hurl? Also, I'm not Catholic by any means...I have been a Baptist pastor, and am a minister.

AVL1984

 

--------------------------------------------------
His disciples and many others in years afterwards referred to Jesus as "The Christ" explaining their personal relationship with him. Why would saying "The Christ" or "Christ" make any difference. Oh, and just for reference, POR, as I didn't get to answer your attacks on another thread, I AM your elder by a good number of years, so I don't need to go out and play with children...especially not your age. Got any more rocks you want to hurl? Also, I'm not Catholic by any means...I have been a Baptist pastor, and am a minister.
--------------------------------------------------


The difference is, that they were not yet indwelt with the Holy Spirit of God. When Paul wrote about the Day of Christ, he was most assuredly indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Christ had already come, and was a person - Jesus who fulfilled the role of and was/is the Christ.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

michelle said "The difference is, that they were not yet indwelt with the Holy Spirit of God."

Baloney. They used both terms both before and after Pentecost.

 

No problem Ralph, I wasn't aware of your high sensitivity. BTW your innuendo against some of the posters here at the BB is also degrading and a mockery against others.

HankD

 

Exactly...that's why I made reference to before and after...again proving that someone is only interested in attacking, not approaching the conversation with sense.

AVL1984

 

--------------------------------------------------
Exactly...that's why I made reference to before and after...again proving that someone is only interested in attacking, not approaching the conversation with sense.

AVL1984
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Are they reading in this context or not? I am really not trying to make an issue out of this, nor am I attacking anyone. But for those of you who continually attack the scriptures, and declare they are in error, this is untrue, and I will defend this until the day our Lord Jesus Christ calls us and takes us home, or if he decides to tarry, then until the day I phyisically die.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

michelle said "But for those of you who continually attack the scriptures, and declare they are in error"

Nobody is attacking the scriptures and declaring them untrue. We are declaring your understanding of them to be untrue.

 

Michelle: “The difference is, that they were not yet indwelt with the Holy Spirit of God. When Paul wrote about the Day of Christ, he was most assuredly indwelt by the Holy Spirit.”

“Turning and turning in the widening gyre, the falcon cannot hear the falconer” -- Yeats

Oh, Michelle, spin as you might, this is simply an untrue claim. Was John indwelt by the Holy Spirit when he wrote Jn 20:31 “that ye might believe that Jesus is THE Christ, the Son of God....”? Or when he wrote “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is THE Christ is born of God” in 1Jn 5:1 ? Hint: both books were written LONG after Pentecost...

Even as you continue to insist on "reading in context" (where have I heard that before?), you keep digging pits for yourself so you can fall in. Why not cut out the nonsense and admit that there is no point in this particular quibble?

 

--------------------------------------------------

Oh, Michelle, spin as you might, this is simply an untrue claim. Was John indwelt by the Holy Spirit when he wrote Jn 20:31 “that ye might believe that Jesus is THE Christ, the Son of God....”? Or when he wrote “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is THE Christ is born of God” in 1Jn 5:1 ? Hint: both books were written LONG after Pentecost...

--------------------------------------------------


And what was the context, and who was the audience? Do you not think this makes a difference?


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Answered by someone who clearly cannot admit that her stands and statements have no validity. Michelle you said they referred to Jesus as "the Christ" before they were indwelt with the Holy Spirit, and after the indwelling referred to Him as Christ. You have been shown wrong, why not act like a Christian lady and admit you were wrong. It is not that hard, we all have to do it sometime.

Bro Tony

 

Michelle: “And what was the context, and who was the audience? Do you not think this makes a difference?”

Context absolutely does make a difference, Michelle.

You appealed to the context of Peter’s confession with a claim that he only said “the Christ” because he was not yet filled with the Holy Spirit.

I cited the context of the concluding chapters of Jn and 1Jn where John unequivocally uses the term “the Christ” when writing to his intended target audience. Did John want those to whom he wrote to believe that Jesus is “the Christ” or not? The answer is simple.

John as easily could have written “that ye might believe that Jesus is Christ, the Son of God” or “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is Christ is born of God.” But John didn’t do that.

In light of a clear and express statement in the Scripture (KJV or any other at this point), *how* can you continue to claim the use of the term “the Christ” as some form of “new age” nonsense? That’s the bottom line. It would be far easier to admit error at this point than to continue to play duck and spin.

 

Either "the Christ" which affirms that he is indeed the Christ, or "Christ" it is the same.

AVL1984

 

We're not even really declaring her understanding of scriptures to be untrue, just not fully developed. There is nothing wrong with that. We are declaring the extra-biblical doctrine of one version onlyism untrue, however. It is divisive and leads to discord among the brethren.

AVL1984

 

sheer unadulterated spin.
Given enough time and convoluted logic, michelle will (as is her practice) redefine/refine and wrestle the terms of debate (after the fact) into a logical pretzel which supports her view alone.

There may also be the melodrama of copious SHOUTING. Accusations (both direct and by implication) will be issued after which she will be mocked, then we will be entertained by one of her tantrums.

She is a tenacious soul and thorougly devoted to her perception of the Word of God.

You will never convince her. You might move her a micrometer or two off of her position, but you will never convince her.

HankD