A Body Hast Thou Prepared Me

N

northwye

New member
A Body Hast Thou Prepared Me

Someone recently implied that in I John 4: 3 on Christ taking on the flesh of man means flesh in the sense of Galatians 5: 17-19, Philippians 3: 3, I John 2: 16 and similar texts. "Walk in the spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh (Galatians 5: 16). "For we are the circumcision,which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Jesus Christ,and have no confidence in the flesh." (Philippians 3: 3) "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." (I John 2: 16)

But in taking on the flesh of man Jesus Christ did not affirm flesh over spirit in the sense of Galatians 5: 16, Philippians 3: 3 and I John 2: 16. Instead Jesus Christ came "...that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly"(John 10: 10). He came to bring spiritual life. And when in Luke 9: 54-56 James and John wanted Christ to call down fire from heaven to kill people in a village, Christ "...rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them." He came also to bring physical life.

"For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
5. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: 6. In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
7. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
8. Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; 9. Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second." Hebrews 10: 4-9

The sacrifice of bulls and goats do not take away sins. And so a flesh and blood body was prepared for Jesus Christ, who as fully God existed before the human body was made for him,"...made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name (Philippians 2: 7-9). As Christ died on the cross and fulfilled his mission to redeem those in him, he did away with the Old Covenant and established the New Covenant.

Jesus Christ came in the volume of the book. "It was written of me." "The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken." Deuteronomy 18: 15

Historically, in the first few centuries after Christ, the Gnostcs and the multitude of Old Covenant Israel who rejected Christ (Romans 11: 15-20) denied that Christ took on the form of man's flesh. Remember that I John 4: 3 says "...and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come, and even now already is in the world."

Valentinian gnostics made a distinction between the human Jesus and the divine Christ. Other gnostics said that Christ, who came from the spiritual world of the Eternal Father, could not have entered the material world and taken on human flesh because the material world and human flesh are evil. See: http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/gnostic.html…

Some gnostics said that the evil material world causes a corruption of the spiritual state and so Christ as pure spirit could not become human flesh in the material world. And people now who claim to be Christians but think that Jesus Christ in appearing in man's flesh is not spiritual is a doctrine similar to the position of the gnostics.

Gnostics did not want to acknowledge that Jesus Christ took on human flesh in the material world. If it was some of the gnostics who removed words and phrases from some verses of the Greek New Testament,
in the copies associated with Alexandria, Egypt then this rejection of the teaching that Christ took on human flesh could account for some of these omissions on the topics of the deity of Christ.

There are a number of words missing in the Westcott-Hort Greek text of 1881, from the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus texts, which is consistent with a gnostic doctrine on the rejecting the coming of Christ in human flesh. These missing words are in the Textus Receptus. For example, For I Corinthians 15: 47 the King James Version says: "The first man
is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven."

The American Standard Version (1901) for I Corinthians 15: 47 has:
"The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is of heaven."

As expected, the New American Standard, the New Revised Standard and
the NIV all follow the Westcott-Hort Greek text and leave out Lord.
The Catholic Douay-Rheims also leaves out Lord. Following the Textus
Receptus the Young's Literal Translation and the Green translation
contain Lord.

The King James version for II Corinthians 4: 6 says "For God, who
commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our
hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the
face of Jesus Christ."

Jesus is not found for II Corinthians 4: 6 in the Vaticanus, the
Alexandrinus (5th century), and in Southern Coptic (Egyptian) Greek
texts. It is found in almost all other Greek texts.

Leaving out Jesus is in agreement with the gnostic separation of the
earthly "Jesus" from the heavenly "Christ." The followers of Julius
Cassianus said the body of Jesus was only an illusion and not real, a
teaching based on the gnostic belief that matter is evil. For the
gnostics Christ or the Christos, but not Jesus, came to free man from
bondage to the material world and to become part of the spiritual
world of the Eternal Father.

Ephesians 3: 9: Textus Receptus: kai photisai pantas tis e
koinonia tou musteriou tou apokekrummenou apo ton aionon en to theo tw
ta panta ktisanti dia ihsou christou

Ephesians 3: 9: Westcott-Hort: kai photisai tis e oikonomia
tou musthriou tou apokekrummenou apo ton aionon en to theo to ta panta
ktisanti

Literally the Textus Receptus says: "and to enlighten all about the
fellowship of the mystery which has been hidden from the ages in the
God, who all things created by Jesus Christ."

But the Westcott-Hort Greek text says "and enlighten about the
stewardship of the mystery which has been hidden from the ages in the
God who created all things."

Gnostics thought that since the Christ was a spiritual "emanation"
from the Eternal Father, he was totally removed from the material
creation. To the gnostics, the Christ as an Aeon entered our
material world only as a spiritual being to bring enlightenment and
liberation to a few from the evil material universe. Christ, to
gnostics, would not have created the material world. Gnostics taught
that the evil Demiurge created the material world. And so saying for Ephesians
3: 9 that God created all things instead of saying Jesus Christ created all things
is more consistent with gnostic theology.

Scripture - Philippians 2: 5-9 - says that in taking on the form of the flesh of man, and being obedient to the death of the cross, Christ was then exalted by God. This contradicts the gnostic teaching against Christ having come in the flesh. Gnostics believed that Christ came only in a spiritual way.

And, while the remnant of Old Covenant Israel (Romans 11: 1-5) accepted Christ, and also accepted his coming in the flesh, the multitude of Old Covenant Israel rejected his coming in the flesh and are antichrist. Almost all in Talmudic Judaism continue to reject Christ and his coming in the flesh.
 
Nick M

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
northwye said:
Scripture - Philippians 2: 5-9 - says that in taking on the form of the flesh of man, and being obedient to the death of the cross, Christ was then exalted by God. This contradicts the gnostic teaching against Christ having come in the flesh. Gnostics believed that Christ came only in a spiritual way.
Click to expand...

Many people stick to this doctrine in one form or another.
 
Desert Reign

Desert Reign

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
northwye said:
A Body Hast Thou Prepared Me
Scripture - Philippians 2: 5-9 - says that in taking on the form of the flesh of man, and being obedient to the death of the cross, Christ was then exalted by God. This contradicts the gnostic teaching against Christ having come in the flesh. Gnostics believed that Christ came only in a spiritual way.
Click to expand...

The subject of this passage is Jesus Christ. I.e, the one whom the apostles saw, listened to and touched with their own hands.

5 aHave this attitude 1in yourselves which was also in bChrist Jesus, 6 who, although He aexisted in the bform of God, cdid not regard equality with God a thing to be 1grasped,
7 but 1aemptied Himself, taking the form of a bbond-servant, and cbeing made in the likeness of men.
8 Being found in appearance as a man, aHe humbled Himself by becoming bobedient to the point of death, even cdeath 1on a cross.
9 aFor this reason also, God bhighly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him cthe name which is above every name,
Click to expand...
Jesus Christ himself - the one presented to the apostles - was in the form of God. They all knew this, or they came to believe it. Vss 6 and 7 tell us that although he had rights as God, he did not take them up. Vss 7-8 tell us that since he had accepted manhood as his ministry, he would be consistent in that choice even though the consequence would be death on a cross.
The apostles new that he could do anything to avoid his suffering. They had seen his miracles. He himself said that he could call down 20 legions of angels to help him he wanted. But this was not his choice. He wanted to associate with humanity and to share the future of men. And not even just that but the humblest of men, the slave of all.

Given this, it is not really possible to get a gnostic reading from the passage. So your problem is at once solved. Although others might arise.
But consider the alternative:
Supposing this passage means that Christ emptied himself of his god-ness in order to become a man.
Apart from the gross illogicality of that concept, consider the purpose of the passage, that we should think in the same way!
How can we think in the way requested of us? In order to do so, we would have to empty ourselves of our human nature and become a dog, or a cat. Sound ludicrous? That is the consequence of interpreting this passage to mean that Christ emptied himself of his god-ness.
On the contrary, it means that Christ Jesus, even though he could have exercised his power and authority to overcome suffering and evil, he chose not to. He chose to take the path of weakness. This is excellent and spiritual advice for all his disciples. It makes complete sense, even if it is one of the farthest reaching of all NT injunctions on believers and hence so often goes undiscussed, because people are afraid of it. They would rather discuss kenotic theology than come to terms with radical Christian discipleship.
 
N

northwye

New member
5 "Have this attitude 1in yourselves which was also in bChrist Jesus, 6 who, although He aexisted in the bform of God, cdid not regard equality with God a thing to be 1grasped,
7 but 1aemptied Himself, taking the form of a bbond-servant, and cbeing made in the likeness of men.
8 Being found in appearance as a man, aHe humbled Himself by becoming bobedient to the point of death, even cdeath 1on a cross.
9 aFor this reason also, God bhighly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him cthe name which is above every name,"

τουτο γαρ φρονεισθω εν υμιν ο και εν χριστω ιησου Philippians 2: 5 φρονεισθω is present, passive, imperative of φρονέω, phroneo, Strong's number 5426. See: http://biblehub.com/greek/5426.htm

φρονέω, phroneo means "to have understanding, to think."

Since the utterances of Jesus Christ are absolute truth - and if you don't believe this, you do not have faith - why translate a form of phroneo as attitude?
Attitudes are the way and the spirit of the world, and the elite control people through the manipulation of their attitudes. The present day culture emphasizes attitude more than cognitive knowing because attitudes, which are often based on feelings, are thought to be more subject to manipulation in a population not trained in knowing - and in a culture in which communication is often through the dialectic.

The NIV has "In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:" But there are no Greek words in the sentence about relationships.

The New King James Version says "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus"

And the New American Bible says "Have among yourselves the same attitude that is also yours in Christ Jesus"

Although the New American Bible is from the Westcott-Hort Greek text of 1881, the Westcott-Hort Greek for Philippians 2: 5 is essentially the same as the Textus Receptus and so the Westcott-Hort text is not the reason phroneo is translated as attitude rather than mind in the New American.
 
Last edited:
D

daqq

Well-known member
northwye said:
A Body Hast Thou Prepared Me

Someone recently implied that in I John 4: 3 on Christ taking on the flesh of man means flesh in the sense of Galatians 5: 17-19, Philippians 3: 3, I John 2: 16 and similar texts. "Walk in the spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh (Galatians 5: 16). "For we are the circumcision,which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Jesus Christ,and have no confidence in the flesh." (Philippians 3: 3) "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." (I John 2: 16)

But in taking on the flesh of man Jesus Christ did not affirm flesh over spirit in the sense of Galatians 5: 16, Philippians 3: 3 and I John 2: 16. Instead Jesus Christ came "...that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly"(John 10: 10). He came to bring spiritual life. And when in Luke 9: 54-56 James and John wanted Christ to call down fire from heaven to kill people in a village, Christ "...rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them." He came also to bring physical life.

"For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
5. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: 6. In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
7. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
8. Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; 9. Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second." Hebrews 10: 4-9

The sacrifice of bulls and goats do not take away sins. And so a flesh and blood body was prepared for Jesus Christ, who as fully God existed before the human body was made for him,"...made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name (Philippians 2: 7-9). As Christ died on the cross and fulfilled his mission to redeem those in him, he did away with the Old Covenant and established the New Covenant.

Jesus Christ came in the volume of the book. "It was written of me." "The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken." Deuteronomy 18: 15

Historically, in the first few centuries after Christ, the Gnostcs and the multitude of Old Covenant Israel who rejected Christ (Romans 11: 15-20) denied that Christ took on the form of man's flesh. Remember that I John 4: 3 says "...and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come, and even now already is in the world."

Valentinian gnostics made a distinction between the human Jesus and the divine Christ. Other gnostics said that Christ, who came from the spiritual world of the Eternal Father, could not have entered the material world and taken on human flesh because the material world and human flesh are evil. See: http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/gnostic.html…

Some gnostics said that the evil material world causes a corruption of the spiritual state and so Christ as pure spirit could not become human flesh in the material world. And people now who claim to be Christians but think that Jesus Christ in appearing in man's flesh is not spiritual is a doctrine similar to the position of the gnostics.

Gnostics did not want to acknowledge that Jesus Christ took on human flesh in the material world. If it was some of the gnostics who removed words and phrases from some verses of the Greek New Testament,
in the copies associated with Alexandria, Egypt then this rejection of the teaching that Christ took on human flesh could account for some of these omissions on the topics of the deity of Christ.

There are a number of words missing in the Westcott-Hort Greek text of 1881, from the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus texts, which is consistent with a gnostic doctrine on the rejecting the coming of Christ in human flesh. These missing words are in the Textus Receptus. For example, For I Corinthians 15: 47 the King James Version says: "The first man
is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven."

The American Standard Version (1901) for I Corinthians 15: 47 has:
"The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is of heaven."

As expected, the New American Standard, the New Revised Standard and
the NIV all follow the Westcott-Hort Greek text and leave out Lord.
The Catholic Douay-Rheims also leaves out Lord. Following the Textus
Receptus the Young's Literal Translation and the Green translation
contain Lord.

The King James version for II Corinthians 4: 6 says "For God, who
commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our
hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the
face of Jesus Christ."

Jesus is not found for II Corinthians 4: 6 in the Vaticanus, the
Alexandrinus (5th century), and in Southern Coptic (Egyptian) Greek
texts. It is found in almost all other Greek texts.

Leaving out Jesus is in agreement with the gnostic separation of the
earthly "Jesus" from the heavenly "Christ." The followers of Julius
Cassianus said the body of Jesus was only an illusion and not real, a
teaching based on the gnostic belief that matter is evil. For the
gnostics Christ or the Christos, but not Jesus, came to free man from
bondage to the material world and to become part of the spiritual
world of the Eternal Father.

Ephesians 3: 9: Textus Receptus: kai photisai pantas tis e
koinonia tou musteriou tou apokekrummenou apo ton aionon en to theo tw
ta panta ktisanti dia ihsou christou

Ephesians 3: 9: Westcott-Hort: kai photisai tis e oikonomia
tou musthriou tou apokekrummenou apo ton aionon en to theo to ta panta
ktisanti

Literally the Textus Receptus says: "and to enlighten all about the
fellowship of the mystery which has been hidden from the ages in the
God, who all things created by Jesus Christ."

But the Westcott-Hort Greek text says "and enlighten about the
stewardship of the mystery which has been hidden from the ages in the
God who created all things."

Gnostics thought that since the Christ was a spiritual "emanation"
from the Eternal Father, he was totally removed from the material
creation. To the gnostics, the Christ as an Aeon entered our
material world only as a spiritual being to bring enlightenment and
liberation to a few from the evil material universe. Christ, to
gnostics, would not have created the material world. Gnostics taught
that the evil Demiurge created the material world. And so saying for Ephesians
3: 9 that God created all things instead of saying Jesus Christ created all things
is more consistent with gnostic theology.

Scripture - Philippians 2: 5-9 - says that in taking on the form of the flesh of man, and being obedient to the death of the cross, Christ was then exalted by God. This contradicts the gnostic teaching against Christ having come in the flesh. Gnostics believed that Christ came only in a spiritual way.

And, while the remnant of Old Covenant Israel (Romans 11: 1-5) accepted Christ, and also accepted his coming in the flesh, the multitude of Old Covenant Israel rejected his coming in the flesh and are antichrist. Almost all in Talmudic Judaism continue to reject Christ and his coming in the flesh.
Click to expand...

Philippians 2:7 says, "in the likeness of men", just as Romans 8:3 says, "in the likeness of sinful flesh". This is a critical difference from simply stating "was made a man" or "in sinful flesh" which in both cases would have been simpler to write because the word for likeness would not have been necessary. In other words this fact cannot be ignored because in both cases the word for likeness must indeed be placed in the contexts for critical reasons: and saying "likeness of flesh", (whether sinful or not), is not the same thing as simply saying "flesh". In addition all flesh is not the same flesh in the doctrine of Paul but you have already quoted from 1 Cor. 15 so I need not go into it and surely everyone else here has also read the passage. If there is a natural body, (soma psuchikos), then there is a spiritual body, (soma pneumatikos). And what then should we understand from the word somatiko found in Luke 3:22? It is found three times in total: Luke 3:22, once adverbially in Colossians 2:9, and again as an adjective clearly showing the meaning intended by Paul as corporeal-physical where he employs it in 1 Timothy 4:8a. By your doctrine then you now have two forms of Elohim descending from the heavens in corporeal physical bodily form, (because, no doubt, you believe as most that John 3:13 speaks of a literal physical virgin birth). However, if you decide to deny what Luke 3:22 clearly says, "Remember that I John 4: 3 says", (to quote you), "every spirit that confesses not that Messiah Yeshua is come in flesh is not of Elohim: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof you have heard that it should come, and even now already is in the world." :)

Luke 3:22
22 And the Holy One descended in σωματικω-corporeal-bodily form as a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

G4984 σωματικός
somatikos (sō-ma-tiy-kos') adj.
corporeal or physical.
[from G4983]
KJV: bodily
Root(s): G4983

Yes, you appear to have two corporeal forms of Elohim in your doctrine . . . :confused:
Who therefore is the gnostic? :think: :shocked: :)
 
N

northwye

New member
Quoting Philippians 2: 7 and not Philippians 2: 8 is an invitation to an argument based on that one verse. I won't bite.
 
D

daqq

Well-known member
northwye said:
Quoting Philippians 2: 7 and not Philippians 2: 8 is an invitation to an argument based on that one verse. I won't bite.
Click to expand...

Too late; you already tossed out the implied accusation that those who disagree with your understanding are antichrist(s). Besides, Philippians was the lesser of the multiple problems concerning all that was said. Now you have seen Luke 3:22 in this same context which you apparently had not thought about, but at the same time you should easily understand what Paul likewise means when he uses the same word, (somatiko, it only means corporeal and physical). You can ignore the facts and definitions all you want but it only means that you will be engaging in selection bias when it comes to formulating your doctrine. Essentially that means that if you go down the road of ignoring what Luke 3:22 plainly states then you effectually do not believe what the scripture says; for if truly you did believe it, then you would rework your doctrine accordingly, like most of us who love the Word are doing. There really is no other way to truly grow in the knowledge of Messiah; albeit you did however bite off a rather large chunk when you mistakenly made your accusation. :)
 
Desert Reign

Desert Reign

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
northwye said:
5 "Have this attitude 1in yourselves which was also in bChrist Jesus, 6 who, although He aexisted in the bform of God, cdid not regard equality with God a thing to be 1grasped,
7 but 1aemptied Himself, taking the form of a bbond-servant, and cbeing made in the likeness of men.
8 Being found in appearance as a man, aHe humbled Himself by becoming bobedient to the point of death, even cdeath 1on a cross.
9 aFor this reason also, God bhighly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him cthe name which is above every name,"

τουτο γαρ φρονεισθω εν υμιν ο και εν χριστω ιησου Philippians 2: 5 φρονεισθω is present, passive, imperative of φρονέω, phroneo, Strong's number 5426. See: http://biblehub.com/greek/5426.htm

φρονέω, phroneo means "to have understanding, to think."

Since the utterances of Jesus Christ are absolute truth - and if you don't believe this, you do not have faith - why translate a form of phroneo as attitude?
Attitudes are the way and the spirit of the world, and the elite control people through the manipulation of their attitudes. The present day culture emphasizes attitude more than cognitive knowing because attitudes, which are often based on feelings, are thought to be more subject to manipulation in a population not trained in knowing - and in a culture in which communication is often through the dialectic.

The NIV has "In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:" But there are no Greek words in the sentence about relationships.

The New King James Version says "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus"

And the New American Bible says "Have among yourselves the same attitude that is also yours in Christ Jesus"

Although the New American Bible is from the Westcott-Hort Greek text of 1881, the Westcott-Hort Greek for Philippians 2: 5 is essentially the same as the Textus Receptus and so the Westcott-Hort text is not the reason phroneo is translated as attitude rather than mind in the New American.
Click to expand...

You yourself have quoted various translations, which agree with the one I quoted, which was the NASB. Have this attitude is the same as have this mindset.The text, as you rightly cite, says
τουτο γαρ φρονεισθω εν υμιν ο και εν χριστω ιησου
Click to expand...
which says, therefore think this in yourselves which also Christ Jesus (thought) in himself. So, no, you are wrong, neither I nor the NASB or similar translations translated phroneo as attitude. It is telling us to think the same specific thought as Christ thought. You can call it attitude or mindset or whatever you like but this attitude is the specific thought we are being asked to emulate. It is not the thinking that we are being asked to emulate. These translators are not wrong and quoting Strongs when you know nothing of ancient Greek will not help you - it will only show up your lack of knowledge.

So why don't you quit talking about nothing and answer the main points I made?
 
N

northwye

New member
The Gnostics opposed the doctrine that Jesus Christ was fully God who took on human flesh in what they considered to be the evil material world.

Mark 1:1: "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." "Son of God" is left out of the Westcott-Hort Greek text. It is in the NIV. The Gnostics did not accept the Biblical teaching that Jesus was fully God.

John 1:18: "No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." While the Textus Receptus and King James have "only begotten Son," the Westcott-Hort text says "only begotten God." The NIV does not translate "monogenes," or "only begotten," but instead says "God the One and Only." The new translations do not clearly say that Jesus is the Son of God, making him fully God. Some Gnostics, especially Arius, said Jesus was a created being.

John 4:42: "And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world." "Christ" is left out of the Westcott-Hort text and the new translations. Gnostics did not want to teach that Christ is the Saviour.

Acts 2: 30: "Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne (II Samuel 7:12)." The Westcott-Hort text leaves out "to raise up Christ according to the flesh." The NIV says "that he would place one of his descendants on his throne," which is not saying that the descendant is Christ. Removing "according to the flesh to raise up Christ" fits the gnosic teaching that Christ was a purely spiritual being. To say that Jesus Christ was incarnated in human flesh as a descendant of David opposes Gnostic theology.

I Corinthians 5:4: "In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ." The Westcott-Hort text leaves out "Christ." The NIV also leaves out "Christ." This omission is in agreement with the Gnostic view that Jesus Christ was not God.

I Corinthians 15: 47: "The first man is of the earth, earthly: the second man is the Lord from heaven." The King James Version identifies the second man or second Adam as Jesus Christ. But the Westcott-Hort text does not say who the second man is. It omits "Lord." The NIV also fails to say who the second man is. It says only "the second man from heaven." That statement is simply not as clear as saying "the second man is the Lord from heaven." Leaving "Lord" out of I Corinthians 15: 47 could weaken faith in the promises of Jesus Christ, who is the second Adam as our head.

Both the New Age Occult Movement and the secret societies, including Freemasonry, derive in part from the Jewish Kabballah and Gnosticism. This is one reason why, if Gnostics did change some New Testament verses in copies leading to the Alexandarian copies, the Westcott-Hort Greek text and its huge number of English translations is an important study. Because so many differences between the King James Version-Textus Receptus and the Westcott-Hort-NIV, etc are consistent with Gnostic theology, this is evidence the Gnostics changed some New Testament copies.

The cause and effect relationship between the Westcott-Hort Greek text (and its huge number of English translations) and lukewarm Churchianity, is likely to be complex. The subject encompasses various end times apostasies, loss of Christian morality, and a widespread loss of the authentic Holy Spirit. Furthermore, it's not just the use of these new translations that can open a door to apostasy, since some who use the King James and actually read it are also in various kinds of false doctrines.

The first American translation based on the Westcott-Hort Greek text was the 1901 American Standard Version. The New Revised Standard Version, also from Westcott-Hort, first appeared in 1952. By 1984 Francis Schaeffer wrote his last book, The Great Evangelical Disaster, noting that evangelicals had lost faith in the authority and inerrancy of the Bible. Maybe to avoid being divisive, Schaeffer did not say that a major cause of this disaster was the new translations based on the Westcott-Hort Geek text.

Sites where comparisons of the wordings of the Greek Textus Receptus, and Westcott-Hort, as well as many English translations are unbound.biola and olivetree.com under bibles. The latter also delves into possible Gnostic influence on omissions of words, phrases and entire verses from the Westcott-Hort Greek text.
 
keypurr

keypurr

Well-known member
northwye said:
The Gnostics opposed the doctrine that Jesus Christ was fully God who took on human flesh in what they considered to be the evil material world.
Click to expand...

You do not seem to know the difference between God and his Son Christ.

God sent his Son (Christ) to become man, now think about what was Christ before he took the form of man?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top