Original post modified.
The way I understand 1Co 15:26 the last enemy is done away--death;
Until we are drawn to the Father, yes, death is an enemy.
"Death is not the end of this journey, it's the beginning."
Now there is something that will let one sleep with good thoughts.
We need, have to, and must come to that wonderous thought that death holds no fear....... unless one holds on to deceite, trys to hold back the very thing that keeps joy from ones life.
Joh 12:24 verily, verily, I say to you, if the grain of the wheat, having fallen to the earth, may not die, itself remaineth alone; and if it may die, it doth bear much fruit;
Rev 1:8 `I am the Alpha and the Omega, beginning and end, saith the Lord, who is, and who was, and who is coming--the Almighty.'
Rom 8:11 If, moreover, the Spirit of him that raised Jesus from among the dead dwelleth in you, he that raised from among the dead Christ Jesus, shall make alive [even] your death–doomed bodies, through means of his indwelling Spirit within you.
(Rotherham)
Micah,
For me it's not clear if death is just a door as in stepping from one life into another.
For me it just as well can mean death is going to sleep and be waked up after X years.
But because in sleep you have no awareness of time instantly or 1000 years just feels the same.
So imo a very minor point to think about.
But I think I would prefer teh long sleep variation. Then you wake up with all your family and friends.
No waiting a few decades before your friend dies so you can finally have a chat with him again.
So either way there is no fear in death.
The only 'fear' I have is getting old. I don't want to be dependant. I rather die 30 years earlier....
But death itself. Passing a door. A long sleep. Or nothing. Neither way there is fear in death.
:2c:
Wished I would have left the "door" part out, or used death is going to sleep.
Still, on this site I have been informed of sleep in several different ways that I aint so sure how to discipher the meanings.
Yet I like your thoughts. :bigGrin:
I actually had planned to do some research on this tonight and perhaps start a thread on it. So good job. :thumbsup:
To the OP; I believe all things new, especially of a new age, necessitate an ending - so there can be a new beginning.
Some other thoughts that bounce around in my head - I understand some differ, and we're still bro's and sis's and can remain in spiritual unity despite some different doctrinal understandings. With God's help, I won't argue. I'll present my views, maybe expound a time or two, and go on to something else. God will show all of us more, later, as we go. "The greatest of these is love." Amen.
From my personal view, without pulling specific scriptures together, I personally don't see earthly death as any longer being the enemy of a born again believer on Yesu. A non-believer, in which the victory over death that Jesus obtained has not yet become life in them, and they are facing judgment; but for a believer? A saved child of God will not spiritually die, just because this body stops working. IMO, this body dying, and what Jesus won for us spiritually, are 2 different things. We WILL live forever, the part of us that's really us. This temporary shell of clay? Not necessarily.
In the OT, it says God delights in the death of his saints. Paul looked forward to it. "Death/grave, where is your victory/sting?" Jesus conquered the grave. We will be resurrected, in a new spiritual body (I Cor. 15 - "there is an earthly body, and there is a spiritual body - [paraphrase] the seed must be planted before the plant can grow").
Now if some have the hope and do attain some sort of place of immortality in this life, then IMO, that's up to God/between them and God, and ALL according to His will. It will be a blessing to them and be to God's glory and purpose. They shouldn't be discouraged, but a balanced perspective may be in order. Many will obtain their immortality without falling asleep, those "who are alive and remain" at His glorious appearing, changed in the twinkling of an eye. There'll be no guesswork - it will be miraculous and clear for all to see. But besides that, I believe BY FAR most will enter the next life/age by way of the grave, and that's the way God planned it. That's how I understand it right now.
"If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable." I Cor. 15:19
I like it! Get the thread a goin! :grin:
You already have brother! :thumbsup:
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 20, 2010, 11:17:12 PM
Micah,
For me it's not clear if death is just a door as in stepping from one life into another.
For me it just as well can mean death is going to sleep and be waked up after X years.
But because in sleep you have no awareness of time instantly or 1000 years just feels the same.
So imo a very minor point to think about.
But I think I would prefer teh long sleep variation. Then you wake up with all your family and friends.
No waiting a few decades before your friend dies so you can finally have a chat with him again.
So either way there is no fear in death.
The only 'fear' I have is getting old. I don't want to be dependant. I rather die 30 years earlier....
But death itself. Passing a door. A long sleep. Or nothing. Neither way there is fear in death.
:2c:
Who said you had to be weak when your old? This is a jumble of lies, many old people are in great shape, refuse the lies of the enemy and one can live a healthy life even when one is deemed old. There is no condemnation for being old before ones time, but one must contend for the promises of the lord YAH and overcome the conditioning of the world that conditions people through media and what they witness with their eyes to believe that when they hit a certain age then they must become weak.
Exodus 15:26
And said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the Lord thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the Lord that healeth thee
Here's something you wont find the prosperity teachers teach
proverbs 3
3My son, forget not my law; but let thine heart keep my commandments: 2
For length of days, and long [1] life, and peace, shall they add to thee. 3 Let not mercy and truth forsake thee: bind them about thy neck; write them upon the table of thine heart: 4 So shalt thou find favour and good [2] understanding in the sight of God and man. 5 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. 6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
7 Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the Lord, and depart from evil. 8
It shall be health [3] to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones. 9
Honour the Lord with thy substance, and with the firstfruits of all thine increase: 10 So shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy presses shall burst out with new wine. 11 My son, despise not the chastening of the Lord; neither be weary of his correction: 12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.
I refuse to grow old and weak in the name of Yahshua aka Jesus Christ for his word is true, health and prosperity belong to the people of YAH and no destruction shall befall us, praise his name YAH.
I agree that as long as I'm here, I want to be vital and living the Lord's promises. Then I hope He'll quickly take me home. If He keeps me around into the next age, great! His will be done.
Quote from: jabcat on September 21, 2010, 02:33:08 AM
I agree that as long as I'm here, I want to be vital and living the Lord's promises. Then I wanna quickly go home. If He keeps me around into the next age, great! His will be done.
I do know though, there are many who watch a family member suffer, and that's not easy. Or some may even have a thorn in their flesh, be born with a crippled up or infirm body that in some way just doesn't work right. God's will, and mercy prevail.
Being "alive" "having life" "living" has nothing at all to do with walking out the time in this body of flesh (DEATH). This body of flesh was NEVER meant to not die, and return to dust...it has its calling.
Jesus said Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, `Verily, verily, I say to thee, If any one may not be born from above, he is not able to see the reign of God;'
Now, I am in the mind set (thank you Jesus) that this is the realm of my thought of living.
All the "stuff" in this world that I have, is but nothing ....Php 3:8 yes, indeed, and I count all things to be loss, because of the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, because of whom of the all things I suffered loss, and do count them to be refuse, that Christ I may gain, and be found in him,
When is it that those who believe in Jesus the Saviour of the world, begin to realize we are dead and ONLY alive in Him, and that this "death" is not for...WE ARE ALIVE IN CHRIST.
True but while we are here in the world lets live in health and abundance as the lord promises.
A healthy christian can do more for the kingdom of God than a sick one.
John 17
15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. 16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Quote from: thinktank on September 21, 2010, 09:02:23 PM
True but while we are here in the world lets live in health and abundance as the lord promises.
A healthy christian can do more for the kingdom of God than a sick one.
Jesus was often sick....
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 21, 2010, 09:11:01 PM
Quote from: thinktank on September 21, 2010, 09:02:23 PM
True but while we are here in the world lets live in health and abundance as the lord promises.
A healthy christian can do more for the kingdom of God than a sick one.
Jesus was often sick....
No, why would Jesus be sick :laughing7:?
Becaus ethe Bible says so. Good reason I think? :winkgrin:
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 21, 2010, 09:56:40 PM
Becaus ethe Bible says so. Good reason I think? :winkgrin:
where?
Quote from: micah7:9 on September 21, 2010, 07:59:12 AM
Being "alive" "having life" "living" has nothing at all to do with walking out the time in this body of flesh (DEATH). This body of flesh was NEVER meant to not die, and return to dust...it has its calling.
Jesus said Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, `Verily, verily, I say to thee, If any one may not be born from above, he is not able to see the reign of God;'
Now, I am in the mind set (thank you Jesus) that this is the realm of my thought of living.
All the "stuff" in this world that I have, is but nothing ....Php 3:8 yes, indeed, and I count all things to be loss, because of the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, because of whom of the all things I suffered loss, and do count them to be refuse, that Christ I may gain, and be found in him,
When is it that those who believe in Jesus the Saviour of the world, begin to realize we are dead and ONLY alive in Him, and that this "death" is not for...WE ARE ALIVE IN CHRIST.
I join you in prayer that we all come to the full understanding of this beautiful TRUTH!
Quote from: micah7:9 on September 21, 2010, 11:25:13 PM
Quote from: thinktank on September 21, 2010, 09:59:24 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 21, 2010, 09:56:40 PM
Becaus ethe Bible says so. Good reason I think? :winkgrin:
where?
Where?
I'll post the verses tonight. The verse says something similar to He has to experience all human "negativities". I think it is in John. But it must also be in the OT because for example current day Jews reject Jesus because they expect an ill person.
Was Jesus Ever Sick?
by Ernest L. Martin, Ph.D., 1999
The title of this Doctrinal Report is plain enough and it is vitally important that we understand the answer. So essential is the proper answer to this question. It was one of the first queries in my initial theological quest that I began to ask myself. I also asked ministers of the Gospel for their answers. All of us should want to know (and we need to know) if Jesus was ever ill? Was he ever violently sick or perhaps mildly infirm for even a day in his life? The principal reason we ask such a question is because Jesus is defined in the New Testament as the very Son of God, the firstborn member of the Godhead (Colossians 1:15-22). So, can God get sick? Can a person without personal sin (such as Jesus) ever bear the consequences of sin that result in sicknesses and infirmities? Recall what the apostle Peter taught under divine inspiration. He wrote: "Who [Jesus] did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: Who [Jesus], when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: Who his own self [Jesus] bare our sins in his own body on the tree [a real live tree, not some dead planks of cut timber], that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes [by the cuts and the wounds of Jesus] ye were healed" (I Peter 2:22-24).
There is also something else to consider. Not only should we ask "Was Jesus Ever Sick?" but we should also ask "Can True Christians Get Sick Because of Their Sins?" Why should we inquire of such a question? Because Peter said that because Christ bore our sins on the tree of crucifixion, that "ye were healed." It seems to say in this inspired word that if Christ suffered for us on the tree (and also dying for each of us) and that Jesus actually paid for the sins that made us sick, then none of us should ever get sick because of our sins. Yes, that is correct. That is the proper interpretation. Note that Peter said without equivocation to all Christians: "ye are healed"? True, that is what Peter dogmatically states. The simple truth is, biblical teaching shows the practicing of sin can bring on sicknesses, and the greater the sins the worse the sicknesses to which humans can be subject. Note what Christ taught after he miraculously healed a man of his malady: "Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more lest a worse thing come unto thee" (John 5:14). Yes, but this event happened BEFORE Christ bore our sins for us and died for us on the tree. The fact is, NOW that Christ Jesus has borne our sins and died for us, NONE OF US ever get sick any longer because of our sins (no matter how minor or major they are). Read my new book titled: "The Essentials of New Testament Doctrine" where I place all of the teaching of the Scriptures together in a format that can easily be understood. That book points out the biblical teaching that all Christians are now considered sinless in God's eyes (I John 3:9). God no longer chastises us because of sins that we may commit (and recall, we are sinners – see I John 1:8). He does not use that kind of punishment upon us who are "in Christ." All of us are now healed from such sins (I Peter 2:24).
If this is the case, why do we yet get sick or have infirmities? I just recently had what some people call a "pinched nerve" that gave me severe pains down my right leg into my foot and toes. I could literally not walk except in agonizing pain. I was bedridden for two and a half months. I am now up and around by finding out the problem to my pain and by doing exercises to relieve it. True, God may have been chastising me for some reason (though I have no idea what it could have been), but I know one thing for certain, God was NOT punishing me for some sin or sins that I have been committing. God no longer brings on sickness and afflictions on His people because of their sins. After all, our sins have been taken away by the bearing of Christ of our sins (and those of the world) and because of this "ye are healed" of all sicknesses that were formerly given by God as a result of sins. But why did I become ill if it were NOT for some sin (or sins) that I have supposedly committed? The answer is simple if one will pay close attention to the Holy Scriptures. Note what the apostle Paul said in Romans 8:19-39.
"For the earnest expectation of the creature [that is, the creation, the physical Universe] waiteth for the manifestation of the Sons of God [for the time of our resurrections]. For the creature [again, the creation, the physical Universe] was made subject to vanity [Greek: debilitation, weakness and decay], not willingly [creation did NOT willingly desire to be in a decaying state], but by reason of Him who hath subjected the same [to weakness and decay] in hope, that the creation itself also shall be delivered from that bondage of corruption [of debilitation and decay] into the liberty of the glory of the Children of God [at our resurrections from the dead]. For we know that the whole creation [all the physical Universe] groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they [the physical Universe], BUT OURSELVES ALSO, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, EVEN WE GROAN WITHIN OURSELVES, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.... Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities [our sicknesses and weaknesses in the flesh]: for we know not what we should pray for: but the Spirit itself makes intercession for us [that Spirit who intercedes in Romans 8:34 is identified as Christ] with groanings which cannot be uttered.... And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his [God's] purpose."
Listen, that sciatic nerve pain that I experienced for two and a half months was not God chastising me for a sin or sins that I have done, are doing, or will do. Since Christ bore our sins in His body during His life (John 1:29) and on the tree of crucifixion, the Father no longer reckons us as sinners and we are accounted to be completely righteous as is Christ because we are now reckoned to be "in Him" (II Corinthians 5:21). We have no sins on us or in us (that is, reckoned to us by God) so we do not get sick because of sins (any type of sin that we might commit). But why do we who are "the Firstfruits of the Spirit [Christ]" still get sick – and quite often and sometimes severely? It is simply because we are still fleshly in body. We have not yet inherited our spiritual body that we will obtain in the redemption [the resurrection]. We are no different than all other physical things in the Universe that God has made subject to debilitation, weakness and decay. Indeed, look at the animals. Cattle and horses cannot sin, but they get sick just like we humans do. Dogs and cats cannot sin in any way, but they also get sick. Look at the Flora World (all plants). They also can become plagued and even die, and they do not sin in the least. And so it is with us. God no longer allows us to get sick because of our various sins (of course, if you call eating a green apple and the consequent stomach ache a sin, then your designation of "sin" can cause discomfort).
The simple truth is, all sicknesses and infirmities that people now experience (even we who are the Firstfruits of the Spirit) are because we are a part of the physical Universe that has not yet been redeemed from its debilitation and decay. Now, you can overeat, undereat, not eat the right things, overwork, underwork, and get banged up in a football game and you (or I) can suffer for such actions. But God does not reckon that these are sins that bring on your sicknesses. Indeed, as far as those sins are concerned (as Peter said) "ye are healed" (I Peter 2:21-24). All our sicknesses now are a result of our weak body frames (being made of tenuous flesh) and they are subject to decay and ruin (and finally death, see Hebrews 9:27). True, God can show mercy and heal us of our afflictions, or He can let us continue to be ill, but we can rest assured that none of our infirmities is brought on us by God because of our sins or our evil ways. God has eliminated our sins in Christ. Read my book on the "Essentials."
As for Jesus and sickness, the question should be rephrased: "Was Jesus Ever Well?" Though Jesus was never a sinner, He was bearing our sins during His entire life on earth. This made Him continually sickly (read Isaiah 53:1-12). People were always saying to Him: "Physician, heal yourself" (Luke 4:23). For a full account of the sicknesses that plagued Jesus during His lifetime, read chapter 23* of my book "Secrets of Golgotha." Recall, Jesus was sickly not because of His sins, but because He was bearing our sins (and the world's). So, sins are no longer a factor in Christian illnesses. "Ye are healed."
http://www.askelm.com/doctrine/d990701.htm
* I'll scan and post that tonight
Quote from: micah7:9 on September 21, 2010, 07:59:12 AM
Being "alive" "having life" "living" has nothing at all to do with walking out the time in this body of flesh (DEATH). This body of flesh was NEVER meant to not die, and return to dust...it has its calling.
:cloud9: Some reflections......and what if the "dust" it is we are to return to has nothing to do with the earthen clay you see out there, but is a different kind of "dust", like say, the dust of GOLD?
This body shall PUT ON immortality, and gold is represented as the higher nature of God in the golden instruments of the Tabernacle and the ark of the covenant in type. If God was going to make a man in His image, why did we assume that meant a vessel of clay ORIGINALLY, when the pattern shows GOLD which comes out of the earth? For we are to be SWALLOWED UP of immortality (gold), just like the craptim wood of the ark was covered in gold.
This has been running thru me lately because I was given spiritual eyes to see my "glorified inner man" and it looked like LIVING GOLD CELLS that were "vibrating" really, really fast, when I first came to the Lord. I knew nothing of the bible that day, didn't know it said He quickens your mortal body. Quickens means to speed up or give life to. Well, I saw the life it was given within myself and it looked like a body made of cells of gold that was alive with the Spirit. This would explain why His glory is described as brighter than the sun (which appears golden).
Since God's judgments are unto victory, pronouncing that fallen man would return to the dust, is more blessing than curse, BUT the walking out of it would be hard labor (excuse the pun) "mining" the GOLD out of the earthen vessels that contain it.
Also, the day He showed me there was no rapture, I had a little crying jag telling him that night, "Lord, I feel like I'm losing my mind! Everything I thought was the truth was a lie and everything I thought was a lie was the truth!" And plain as day, He spoke to me, "I'm returning you to the dust!"
I had no understanding on that whatsoever at the time, couldn't figure out how my "dying" was a comfort, LOL. Just some of my thoughts......Blessings...
Beautiful thoughts.
Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these you might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. (2 Pet 1:4)
Sown corruptible. Raised incorruptible.
For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.
(2Co 4:16-18)
I do not know how we got here in the thread, but since its here and not "Death: and ending," Ill add my 2 cents
What I find that there is always this collision of man in Gen.1 and man in Gen. 2.
Man seems to fold them together, I contend they are very seperate.
The man of Gen. 1 is man of prophecy, still being created (mankind) being made in the image and likenss of "us." What I find is that we take this conception of image and likeness, bring the characteristics down to our level of understanding, so that we have "us" looking like human beings.
This is my understanding of image and likeness, which is SPOKEN (the WORD)
Image Gen. 1:26
H6754 to shade; a phantom, that is, (figuratively) illusion, I Believe that IMAGE is Spirit, God is Spirit. (Jo. 4:24)
Likeness Gen.1:26
H1823 resemblance; concretely model, shape; I believe that LIKENESS is Nature
God is Love. (IJo.4:8)
The man of Gen.2:7 is a form, a living soul, made up of the "dust of the ground" this dust is the pulverized powder of the ground that covers earth, I would say it is the doormat where all underfoot gets walked on.
Later, in Gen. 3:17 the Lord God curses the ground.
Peace and Love Through Jesus
Jesus didn't have to experience "every" negativity of being human, not in the sense of what we think of it...
I don't think Christ had a check list of every human condition that he had to experience.
He never broke a bone after all, and the angels where given charge over him that he should never even dash his foot against a stone.
All the physical pain, and ailments of weakness where experienced I'd say, in the flogging of his body, and the disrespect towards him - being spit on for example. And then carrying his cross until he was too weak to do so; a man named Simon had to help him.
It would I think, be at that point when Simon was called to carry the yoke of the King - that Christ experienced to the fulfilling of obedience, doing his task despite frail, weak, hopelessness, his body surely sore, and throbbing, still bleeding, and still in such pain - his gashes, and stripes had no time to close. For all intents and purposes, he was sickened then, but he did not "get sick" as the Son of Man in his ministry.
"By his stripes we are healed."
Through the flogging, he bore the sicknesses of man. Not through his ministry in the land.
It is my conclusion that Christ was perfectly healthy throughout all of his life - until the time came to fulfill his hour; starting right after the passover meal.
Lefein..... :thumbsup:
Quote from: Lefein on September 22, 2010, 06:51:19 PMIt is my conclusion that Christ was perfectly healthy throughout all of his life - until the time came to fulfill his hour; starting right after the passover meal.
I wonder what you base that conclusion on?
Some verses perhaps?
Im looking for the verses where Jesus was sick.
Quote from: micah7:9 on September 22, 2010, 07:47:47 PMIm looking for the verses where Jesus was sick.
I already posted a few. More will follow.
The Bible is silent on the health of Christ (from anything I've ever seen regarding his body) - God incarnate until he is beaten half the death, and then nailed the rest of the way.
I'm no longer sure Jesus was beaten half to death...
For the illness give me 10-15 to complete my scanning.
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 22, 2010, 07:44:29 PM
Quote from: Lefein on September 22, 2010, 06:51:19 PMIt is my conclusion that Christ was perfectly healthy throughout all of his life - until the time came to fulfill his hour; starting right after the passover meal.
I wonder what you base that conclusion on?
Some verses perhaps?
It's commons sense, I mean how can a great healer not heal himself?
That's like saying, here's a great teacher of greek the very best in fact, even the inventor, but the man doesn't actually speak greek very well.
"Here's a man who will make you a millionnaire", proudly exclaimed the experienced businessman
"where is he" said the excited young lad
"He's right under your nose on this pavement"
"You mean this tramp has the secrets of becoming a millionnaire" :mshock:
----------------------------------------------
If the master healer cannot live a life of health, then how can we?
This is nothing more than the lies of the devil, you should repent for your foolishness whitewings, championing the cause of death, tut! :mblush:
Quote from: thinktank on September 22, 2010, 08:10:44 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 22, 2010, 07:44:29 PM
Quote from: Lefein on September 22, 2010, 06:51:19 PMIt is my conclusion that Christ was perfectly healthy throughout all of his life - until the time came to fulfill his hour; starting right after the passover meal.
I wonder what you base that conclusion on?
Some verses perhaps?
It's commons sense, I mean how can a great healer not heal himself?
"Physician, heal yourself" (Luke 4:23).
QuoteThat's like saying, here's a great teacher of greek the very best in fact, even the inventor, but the man doesn't actually speak greek very well.
What about a brain surgeon TT? :laughing7:
Click here to open a .pdf file. (http://home.online.nl/spamfree/Ill.pdf)
Read it and then tell me if you still think there is absolutely no reason to believe Jesus was sick during most of His life.
(I'm not repenting)
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 22, 2010, 08:28:15 PM
Click here to open a .pdf file. (http://home.online.nl/spamfree/Ill.pdf)
Read it and then tell me if you still think there is absolutely no reason to believe Jesus was sick during most of His life.
(I'm not repenting)
The argument of Jesus baring our sickness can hold water, because he bore our sins and the weight of the world is literally upon his shoulders, the stress must have been enourmous, but your missing the point here.
In the original post I was stating that we as people of God have the right to be healthy, but you said that Jesus was sick. Implying that because Jesus who was the healer was sick, then we also must be sick.
So I'm annoyed because you are taking away the good seed that I have planted and others and replacing it with the idea that sickness is Gods will for us, when the scriptures desire us to be in good health and promises us good health, if we obey the comandments of God.
QuoteLuk 4:22 And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph's son?
Luk 4:23 And he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country.
Luk 4:24 And he said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted in his own country.
QuoteMat 27:42 He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.
Mar 15:31 Likewise also the chief priests mocking said among themselves with the scribes, He saved others; himself he cannot save.
Luk 23:35 And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God.
By his stripes we are healed.
Quote from: thinktank on September 22, 2010, 08:45:22 PM
The argument of Jesus baring our sickness can hold water, because he bore our sins and the weight of the world is literally upon his shoulders, the stress must have been enourmous,
So you are saying Jesus possibly was sick.
Quotebut your missing the point here.
Really?
QuoteIn the original post I was stating that we as people of God have the right to be healthy,
It's good people of all colors and religions are healty, don't get me wrong. But is it a right given by God?
Quotebut you said that Jesus was sick.
Correct.
QuoteImplying that because Jesus who was the healer was sick, then we also must be sick.
I was not implying that. If you somehow read that in my post I now clearly state: "I was, and am,
not implying that."
QuoteSo I'm annoyed because you are taking away the good seed that I have planted and others and replacing it with the idea that sickness is Gods will for us, when the scriptures desire us to be in good health and promises us good health, if we obey the comandments of God.
So anyone who writes Jesus was crucified implies all people/Christians should be crucified. Maybe that's the opinion of some. But
not my opinion.
In case you wonder it's also
not my opinion being ill must be a punishment for sins.
I hope that clears it up....
Note that save has several meanings. (In very old translations Jesus wasn't called Saviour but Healer)
σώζω
sōzō
Thayer Definition:
1) to save, keep safe and sound, to rescue from danger or destruction
1a) one (from injury or peril)
1a1) to save a suffering one (from perishing), i.e. one suffering from disease, to make well, heal, restore to health
1b1) to preserve one who is in danger of destruction, to save or rescue
1b) to save in the technical biblical sense
1b1) negatively
1b1a) to deliver from the penalties of the Messianic judgment
1b1b) to save from the evils which obstruct the reception of the Messianic deliverance
May I see specific verses that speak of Christ having any illnesses prior to the Passover Sufferings?
Things that Christ would specifically have needed to be healed of, by himself or others? Leprosy for example, or maybe even the common cold if you can manage it.
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 22, 2010, 09:04:06 PM
Quote from: thinktank on September 22, 2010, 08:45:22 PM
The argument of Jesus baring our sickness can hold water, because he bore our sins and the weight of the world is literally upon his shoulders, the stress must have been enourmous,
So you are saying Jesus possibly was sick.
Quotebut your missing the point here.
Really?
QuoteIn the original post I was stating that we as people of God have the right to be healthy,
It's good people of all colors and religions are healty, don't get me wrong. But is it a right given by God?
Quotebut you said that Jesus was sick.
Correct.
QuoteImplying that because Jesus who was the healer was sick, then we also must be sick.
I was not implying that. If you somehow read that in my post I now clearly state: "I was, and am, not implying that."
QuoteSo I'm annoyed because you are taking away the good seed that I have planted and others and replacing it with the idea that sickness is Gods will for us, when the scriptures desire us to be in good health and promises us good health, if we obey the comandments of God.
So anyone who writes Jesus was crucified implies all people/Christians should be crucified. Maybe that's the opinion of some. But not my opinion.
In case you wonder it's also not my opinion being ill must be a punishment for sins.
I hope that clears it up....
Gal 2:20 with Christ I have been crucified, and live no more do I, and Christ doth live in me; and that which I now live in the flesh--in the faith I live of the Son of God, who did love me and did give himself for me;
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 22, 2010, 08:28:15 PM
Click here to open a .pdf file. (http://home.online.nl/spamfree/Ill.pdf)
Read it and then tell me if you still think there is absolutely no reason to believe Jesus was sick during most of His life.
(I'm not repenting)
Wont open for me....
WW just what are trying to say?
:cloud9: If He was in every way a man, then He had to be sick at some point in His life, most likely. That He overcame, IMO is the message, He GREW in wisdom, which means He received what He needed to overcome all things.
IMO, the RCC distorted His image with "mature perfection at birth" idealogy, for lack of words to express what I see. If He was a perfected Son, say at 9, and there were people around him sick and He did nothing but was able to, I see a problem with that. I think the Word saying He GREW in wisdom, shows He was maturing in His training of His Father.
His humanity in no way takes away from His divinity or the message; to me it enhances it, and gives us hope that we too can mature into manifested sons of God able to do the greater works. My :2c: Blessings...
I wonder why I scanned that chapter....
YLTHeb 4:14 Having, then, a great chief priest passed through the heavens--Jesus the Son of God--may we hold fast the profession,
YLTHeb 4:15 for we have not a chief priest unable to sympathise with our infirmities, but one tempted in all things in like manner--apart from sin;
YLTLuke 4:23 And he said unto them, `Certainly ye will say to me this simile, Physician, heal thyself; as great things as we heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country;'
KJV+Isa 53:4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
=> Grief=illness
EBRMatt 21:42 Jesus saith unto them––Have ye, never, read in the Scriptures, A stone which the builders rejected, the same, hath become, head of the corner: From the Lord, hath this come to pass, and is marvelous in our eyes.
EBRMatt 8:17 that it might be fulfilled, which was spoken through Isaiah the prophet, saying,––Himself, our weaknesses, took, and, diseases, bare.
Altho I would offer no conclusion to the "did Jesus ever get sick" debate, I offer this possibility. He bled when whipped. He died when submitted to torture.
He was born of a woman- born under law. That He overcame is His glory, having been tempted in all ways as is common to man- this is why He is our faithful high priest....because He can sympathize with our weaknesses. Yet, how well could He sympathize if He never once was ill. I don't kno but.....Is it possible that His killable flesh had the chicken pox or a cold? I think it is possible. Peace, John
But all of it fulfilled after the Passover events; weakness, infirmity, like a lamb lead to the slaughter.
The Bible is silent on anything regarding Christ's physical well being, I'm sure it would have been mentioned if he had even once gotten sick, the Pharisees would have been all over that like fleas...
Only upon the cross did they mention in essence; You said, why not do?
To be tempted does not mean he was afflicted specifically. His 40 days temptation was as such; I am hungry, but I did not starve to death - Make these stones to bread; No Satan, I won't, it is written...
You can be hungry, without starving to death. You can be tempted by weakness, frailty, pain without being sick.
Sicknesses are caused by three things - invasions of the flesh, infirmity of the flesh, abuse of the flesh, but the powers behind sickness that makes it an evil thing are the symptoms; weakness, pain, frailty, etc.
But I'll ask this-
Was Jesus ever drunk?
Was Jesus ever aroused?
Did Jesus ever lie?
Did Jesus ever say the language of the day's equivalent to the f-word?
Quote from: micah7:9 on September 22, 2010, 09:36:49 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 22, 2010, 08:28:15 PM
Click here to open a .pdf file. (http://home.online.nl/spamfree/Ill.pdf)
Read it and then tell me if you still think there is absolutely no reason to believe Jesus was sick during most of His life.
(I'm not repenting)
Wont open for me....
If it slows down loading this page I'll change the pictures into links. (or the crew can do so)
(http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/3446/illpage1.jpg)
(http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/3669/illpage2.jpg)
(http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/8325/illpage3.jpg)
(http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/3016/illpage4.jpg)
(http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/2665/illpage5.jpg)
(http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/9343/illpage6.jpg)
(http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/2937/illpage7.jpg)
(http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/6123/illpage8.jpg)
(http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/9360/illpage9.jpg)
Quote from: MicahWW just what are trying to say?
Simple. Jesus was sick during His life. Also before the Romans caught Him. No further (hidden) meanings (as I explained TT).
It makes zero sense for God incarnate to have experienced any form of sickness, or illness, or disease until it was meant for him to suffer physical deprivation after Passover (physical, persecuting, mortal harm, weakness, and frailty), and during his 40 days temptation (weakness, and frailty, by poverty of sustenance)...which was only mentioned to be lack of food and water, never infection of any sort.
The fullness of Godhead and life flowed out of Christ in constant, infinite measure...he is God incarnate. Decay of the immune system with such constant life flowing out of him would have been a ludicrous lack of stewardship on the part of God with the body in which he dwelt. For the body of Christ on earth was not like ours is - a cooperative indwelling...it was a flesh indwelt by God alone, and thus under his perfect, complete, total; will, and control - even after Death it was under his control.
"He has the power to lay down his life (die, be dead), and take it up again (raise up, rise to life from being dead, even while being dead)."
To allow yourself to experience weakness before the alotted time, and purpose of the Father (which is only ever mentioned as being during the Passover-Sufferings) is abuse of the body, which is sin.
As far as Christ allowing his body which was under the complete control of his divine faculties to be subject to illness beyond the motion of The Father (himself in Heaven), which is not mentioned as being so - Christ never said "The Father hath said I shalt be sickened by a plague"...It would be the stewardship equivalent of taking your own body, and huffing on purpose a large container marked "Bio-hazard"...which is obviously very poor stewardship.
I dont except it. There seems to be a whole lot of theory and hypothosis and assumption, all of carnal value. But if it is your desire to consider the reasoning. so be it.
The very thought that is summized of Jesus being sick is wasted reasoning. For what purpose would it serve to the saints for this thought of Jesus being sick. HE bore ALL the sicknesses for ALL. Does not mean He was sick. He became a sin-offering, but He did not sin. He very well KNEW of ALL of creations infirmities and ills.
Should we, the saints begin thinking on this matter of Jesus being sick (infirm, ill) I suggest that that jesus that is being spoke of is of the, "another gospel."
And as for one not believing that Jesus the Lamb of God was not beat almost unbearably an unrecognizable.....
Isa 52:14 As astonished at thee have been many, (So marred by man his appearance, And his form by sons of men.)
Quote from: micah7:9 on September 22, 2010, 11:19:34 PM
I dont except it. There seems to be a whole lot of theory and hypothosis and assumption. But if it is your desire to consider the reasoning. so be it.
I consider everything that has at least one verse to support it. Where is your verse to support your view?
Good night. :lazy:
Absolutes, probabilities, possibilities, unknowables. Which are absolute? Only those that can be clearly demonstrated by the Word. "In the mouth of two or three witnesses...."
Perhaps, as a Lamb without spot, and as death could not hold him, sickness could not light on him. Then again, maybe He fell and skinned His knee and it got infected because He played in the dirt. Death could not hold Him, but it absolutely did pierce Him.... maybe sickness did too at some point.
I would love to see some answers out of the Word, but I don't think there are any. The idea that Jesus was deified before His death, burial and resurrection is one I reject tho. He couldn t have become a high priest unless He was "chosen from amongst men"- as a simple man, all He did was done through the obedience of faith. As I see it this obedience is what qualifies Him to overturn death in Adam. I think He was born within the same restraints as Adam, but never disobeyed.
So you are saying Jesus possibly was sick.
I don't believe that Jesus suffered, colds, flu, broken ankles, because his father allways hears his sons request and he is the great healer, but that he suffered emotionally seeing the suffering all around him, he cried when Lazarus died etc, this is the aflictions he came across, the long journeys in the desert going from town to town, fasting with great hunger, the terror of the cross, when he was in the garden he sweated blood, the physical pain of being whipped, by his stripes we are healed, the humiliation of being spat on and struck by mortal man, the humiliation of being cruxified next to two thieves, so the sickness he bore was not the fraility of the flesh but rather the stress and opposition that he encountered on his travels.
The two witnesses in revelation are seen as being dressed in sackcloth, this is not a picture of someone you say would be in great health, but someone you would describe as one who was in affliction and great sorrow, and that is our lord Jesus christ, who was a man of sorrows and griefs and was tempted as we are but yet without sin, the constant temptation would have worn him out and he would need to pray constantly to replenish his strength, but due to the anointing upon him, that sustained him, kept him healthy and allowed others such as the women who had the issue of blood to be completely healed by merely touching him, such is the power of anointing that he had upon him/within him, so how can a cold virus even have any hope to survive in such a powerful anointed body, nay the anointing would vaporize it and any other sickness including cancer.
It's good people of all colors and religions are healty, don't get me wrong. But is it a right given by God?
It is a God given right, but we must fight for it, for not all are born in this world are healthy. But for those, the lord told us to heal the broken hearted, to set the captives free, to set them at liberty, we must also strive to obey the commandments, for there are promises of keeping us in good health and keep us from evil if we obey the commandments.
I was not implying that. If you somehow read that in my post I now clearly state: "I was, and am, not implying that."
Thanks for clearing that up, but I know how the enemy operates and he works behind closed doors without us realizing or coopearating and what you said can potentially plant destructive seed in the minds of Christians if they are not carefull. I am merely being carefull and revealing what's on my mind, so forgive me for any offence caused.
In case you wonder it's also not my opinion being ill must be a punishment for sins.
I hope that clears it up....
Sin does bring it's various results but I believe that repentance and living right can overturn the life of sin, so that smokers etc if they repent and live right can be restored spiritually and their physical lungs, heart, chest restored. But I also agree with you, as Christ said to those people that died, suppose they were siners above all else, nay, but if ya likewise don't repent ya shall also perish.
I really don't understand the whole point here. :dontknow:
Ok maybe I shouldn't participate then. :winkgrin:
But I really wonder...what's the point if he was sick or not?
My opinion is that he may have because he WAS really a regular guy for the people in his town, they saw him as a carpenter son of Mary and Joseph nothing more nothing less. Now that means he had a pretty normal youth which include sickness.
Quote from: Quaesitor on September 23, 2010, 01:04:59 AM
I really don't understand the whole point here. :dontknow:
Ok maybe I shouldn't participate then. :winkgrin:
But I really wonder...what's the point if he was sick or not?
My opinion is that he may have because he WAS really a regular guy for the people in his town, they saw him as a carpenter son of Mary and Joseph nothing more nothing less. Now that means he had a pretty normal youth which include sickness.
well that's the point, you think that sickness is normal and that was so, but Jesus came to restore health to all people and overturn it, so that we are no longer sick, but healed spiritually and physically. If our great master is someone who cannot even have the faith to overcome a cold, how can we hope to achieve better?
Now Jesus healed all the sick who came to him and now he is nol onger limited by his person, but can now operate with the holy spirit to produce healing in any place of the world.
Quote from: eaglesway on September 22, 2010, 11:38:45 PM
The idea that Jesus was deified before His death, burial and resurrection is one I reject tho. He couldn t have become a high priest unless He was "chosen from amongst men"- as a simple man, all He did was done through the obedience of faith. As I see it this obedience is what qualifies Him to overturn death in Adam. I think He was born within the same restraints as Adam, but never disobeyed.
:cloud9: Thanks....that's what I was trying to say, but failed at. :thumbsup: Blessings....
Interesting information in your scan WW, and enjoyed your post, Card. When doing some searching last night, I saw that L. Ray Smith also believes Jesus suffered physical sickness.
I'm just not sure at this point on this topic. Jesus was human as well as divine. Humans have maladies. I would think (this is my mind working - I could be wrong) that Jesus' faith, His direct line to His Father, the Father ensuring His will be done in His Son, etc., would indicate Jesus' victory and authority over things as they came up in His life. "Even the winds and seas obey Him". So I would think He could speak the word and be instantly cured of human problems as soon as He began to experience them, whether that be a cold, allergy problems, heartburn, etc. Or did He allow Himself to suffer those things as part of bearing our sorrows, etc.? Again, I'm just not sure or ready to take any more of a definite stand at this point. Honestly, it's not something I'd thought much about until now. :dontknow:
Quote from: Quaesitor on September 23, 2010, 01:04:59 AM
But I really wonder...what's the point if he was sick or not?
Once upon a time TT wrote
Quote from: thinktank on September 21, 2010, 09:02:23 PMA healthy christian can do more for the kingdom of God than a sick one.
Then I replied with the words below to say the greatest Christian was often sick. Jesus obviously did a lot for the kingdom of God.
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 21, 2010, 09:11:01 PMJesus was often sick....
Even if he was sick, and had reached the end of himself, he still had help in high places. As we see after his 40 day stint in the desert and his battle with Satan--
Mark 1:13
And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.
And, so do we.
Quote from: thinktank on September 23, 2010, 01:22:42 AMwell that's the point, you think that sickness is normal and that was so, but Jesus came to restore health to all people and overturn it, so that we are no longer sick, but healed spiritually and physically. If our great master is someone who cannot even have the faith to overcome a cold, how can we hope to achieve better?
You seem to believe that faith always overcomes illness.
imo that's not the case.
Sin
can be punished with illness.
Illness
can be removed by prayer/faith.
But it's always Father who decides on induvidual basis is the can turns out to be a "yes or no"
So the worst sinner ever can be a healty person. And the greatest saint ever can be sick person.
Quote from: jabcat on September 23, 2010, 07:36:25 AM
Interesting information in your scan WW, and enjoyed your post, Card. When doing some searching last night, I saw that L. Ray Smith also believes Jesus suffered physical sickness.
I'm just not sure at this point on this topic. Jesus was human as well as divine. Humans have maladies.
That doesn't really matter James.
A devine Jesus stepping down into a crappy human body is a great sacrifice.
A Jesus with Godlike powers to heal everyone and kill everyone that even considered to kill Him, did do so. That's great sacrifice to.
Some see illness as proof of not being holy. I don't agree with that view.
QuoteI would think (this is my mind working - I could be wrong) that Jesus' faith, His direct line to His Father, the Father ensuring His will be done in His Son, etc., would indicate Jesus' victory and authority over things as they came up in His life. "Even the winds and seas obey Him". So I would think He could speak the word and be instantly cured of human problems as soon as He began to experience them, whether that be a cold, allergy problems, heartburn, etc. Or did He allow Himself to suffer those things as part of bearing our sorrows, etc.? Again, I'm just not sure or ready to take any more of a definite stand at this point. Honestly, it's not something I'd thought much about until now. :dontknow:
Jesus healed people etc. Gave to the poor etc.
But did Jesus ever do something positive to Himself?
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 23, 2010, 07:58:38 AM
Quote from: jabcat on September 23, 2010, 07:36:25 AM
Interesting information in your scan WW, and enjoyed your post, Card. When doing some searching last night, I saw that L. Ray Smith also believes Jesus suffered physical sickness.
I'm just not sure at this point on this topic. Jesus was human as well as divine. Humans have maladies.
That doesn't really matter James.
I'm just saying He was both, including human; so then how "human" was His humanity, and what did He do with it/about it...I'm personally not absolutely positive.
Quote from: jabcat on September 23, 2010, 07:36:25 AM
Interesting information in your scan WW, and enjoyed your post, Card. When doing some searching last night, I saw that L. Ray Smith also believes Jesus suffered physical sickness.
Can you post the info you found at Ray's site?
I'm not sure I agree with all the reasoning, but here it is; I'd encourage all to read with discernment, keeping in mind Jesus is Lord! (And He and the Father can do whatever they choose to and fits their will.) So what is the Father's will and way in this matter? :scratchhead:
http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php?topic=7791.0
wow that was an amazing post by Rene. Can we copy that over here?
I had never considered those verses before--that he might be carrying our physical illness, that he might be walking about in a body so distressed and stressed by illness that he would hide his face or that we would hide our face from him.
He is always so strong and beautiful to me--but I only see his Spirit--
2For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
3He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
--Isa 53
[a man of] "sorrows"
H4341
מכאבה מכאוב מכאב
mak'ôb mak'ôb mak'ôbâh
mak-obe', mak-obe', mak-o-baw'
From H3510; anguish or (figuratively) affliction: - grief, pain, sorrow.
[and acquainted with] "grief"
H2483
חלי
chŏlı̂y
khol-ee'
From H2470; malady, anxiety, calamity: - disease, grief, (is) sick (-ness).
Luke 4:23
And he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself...
Quote from: Lefein on September 22, 2010, 10:12:19 PM
It makes zero sense for God incarnate to have experienced any form of sickness, or illness, or disease until it was meant for him to suffer physical deprivation after Passover
So you agree that "God incarnate"can/did suffer.
Quoteuntil it was meant for him
The question is when was it meant for Him? In the last hours of His life or much earlier? What verse says it was only meant for His last hours?
Quote from: micah7:9 on September 22, 2010, 11:19:34 PMAnd as for one not believing that Jesus the Lamb of God was not beat almost unbearably an unrecognizable.....
Isa 52:14 As astonished at thee have been many, (So marred by man his appearance, And his form by sons of men.)
What verse states He was
beaten unrecognizable?
What if He was
stoned unrecognizable?
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 23, 2010, 11:12:40 AM
Quote from: micah7:9 on September 22, 2010, 11:19:34 PMAnd as for one not believing that Jesus the Lamb of God was not beat almost unbearably an unrecognizable.....
Isa 52:14 As astonished at thee have been many, (So marred by man his appearance, And his form by sons of men.)
What verse states He was beaten unrecognizable?
What if He was stoned unrecognizable?
Never said stoned, perhpas a different word than beaten , but how else does one get to be "marred my man?"
Then Jesus not only carried sickness and infirmities he also must have sinned to know and relate to us.
That's correct Micah; you didn't say stoned. I said that. Let me explain:
I once thought/assumed Jesus whas beaten half to death by the Romans.
Now I'm no longer sure about that. I think this is perhaps something for another hairy tick thread so only a summary.
The Romans didn't see much harm in Jesus. They very well knew how to deal with enemies of their empire. But the high priests had really to convince the Romans to deal with Jesus.
Anyway the priests tricked the Romans by saying He claimed He was the king of the Jews. And so taking the place of Ceasar. High treason for Romans. Only one answer to that: Crucifixion. And Jesus was crucified.
But.... according to Jewish law a blasphemer (Jesus said He was Son of God) must be stoned to death. And so it happend.
They stoned (marred) Jesus while He was on the cross. :mshock:
:2c:
Then Jesus not only carried sickness and infirmities he also must have sinned to know and relate to us.
I don't understand that Micah?
According to the priests He sinned because He was lying about being the Son of God.
But because it was/is the truth it was no lie/sin.
Quote from: micah7:9 on September 23, 2010, 03:36:20 PM
Then Jesus not only carried sickness and infirmities he also must have sinned to know and relate to us.
That's a real interesting statement. He didn't sin. So he showed us that it is possible to live in this frail flesh and be tempted all the time and not sin.
And, if he was indeed bearing our infirmities in his own body in the way of sickness and pain, then he also showed that sickness and pain, if it is something that we must endure in this life, is no fault of our own, that it does not have to be related to any 'sin' on our part, but is merely a function of living in a flesh body that is subject to disease, decay, and a limited lifespan.
I'm still processing all this.
2Co 5:21 Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him.
Now I was taught that He was a "sin-offering" that He did not become sin, but if He was revealed to all the people that He was in need of a physcian all the time because His physcial appearance revealed all these earthly infirmities in His body than mankind is subject to and must go through and some healed, then perhaps all the sins of mankind that he bore, also were in his body of flesh and He was unable to be healed because of all the sin.
I believe that He was both physically and spiritually AWARE of all the sickness, infirmities, and diseases and that His countanence revealed His LOVE, but no I cannot except that He was infirm nor do I believe that He became sin.
Hi Micah,
I don't know if Jesus was ever sick or not, but I don't think it follows that if He was ever ill He must necessarily have sinned.
Sin is an act of will.
We know as regarding His will He was perfect in obedience to His Father throughout His life- the spotless Lamb.
As to His physicality, we know that there was nothing comely about Him to set Him apart from a typical man.
Jesus was born under the law, subject to death, a mortal man. I still think it is possible He endured colds or whatever......the logic doesn't automatically follow that I must also accept that He sinned.
Micah, I think it's not about sinning but about avoiding sinning. Satan tempeted Him. He resisted. Many other would have made the deal with Satan. So imo Jesus mission was not to bear own sin but resist our sin.
Jesus came to teach us things. We surely didn't need a lesson on how to sin...
Well, I dont believe you can have it both ways. Either we can accept that Jesus was related to man with mans physical infirmities and He had them, then He must have KNOWN sin. (I dont accept that) but thats how I see your reasoning.
If He was as human as all mankind [and I believe He was] then He was aware/realized the fraility of man. And when the phrase "Physican heal thyself," is used it sounds like he didnt/couldnt/wouldnt heal himself, but He did others. The only difference between Jesus and me in this body is He was the Son of God... a quickening spirit, not a living soul. Living souls get sick, I am not so sure about quickening spirits.
I am not so sure either. That's my point. Can you really have it either way? I see no proof in the scriptures that speaks to it conclusively. Is it an absolute extension of logic that if Jesus had a cold as a child He must have sinned as well? I do not see that as following absolutely on the heels of logic at all.....Interesting discussion tho.
We all have the tendency to set the parameters of logic within our own paradigm.
Also, the scripture says
Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.
(Heb 2:17-18)
Did he ever have a pimple? A boil? Did germs die upon touching His holy body? Where do we draw the line. Nails pierced His skin. Perhaps a random flu bug did as well, perhaps not.
I herewith pertaining unto mine own reasoning consign this to the unresolved realm -"olam". Peace brethren, John
The question is --when did he become a quickening spirit?
That is a spirit which brings others alive--gives life to a newborn.
That word, quickening, is associated with the baby coming alive in the womb.
Did this really happen, then, in all its fulness, before his resurrection?
Think of Peter before [clueless] and after Christ's resurrection.
John 7:39
(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
Amen Eaglesway :grin:
:laughing7:
Quote from: micah7:9 on September 23, 2010, 05:15:59 PM
Well, I dont believe you can have it both ways. Either we can accept that Jesus was related to man with mans physical infirmities and He had them, then He must have KNOWN sin. (I dont accept that) but thats how I see your reasoning.
Clear. So you believe Jesus sinned like any mortal man.
That's in your line of reasoning. He died like a mortal man so that also means He was a sinner.
See how flawed such reasoning is?
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 23, 2010, 06:54:07 PM
Quote from: micah7:9 on September 23, 2010, 05:15:59 PM
Well, I dont believe you can have it both ways. Either we can accept that Jesus was related to man with mans physical infirmities and He had them, then He must have KNOWN sin. (I dont accept that) but thats how I see your reasoning.
Clear. So you believe Jesus sinned like any mortal man.
That's in your line of reasoning. He died like a mortal man so that also means He was a sinner.
See how flawed such reasoning is?
I understand that it was your line of reason that began perhaps is flawed. I dont accept that Jesus was infirm nor do I accept that he could possibly sin.
I believe He was aware and felt the emoition of mankind in their infirmities and the presence of the essence of the Father went from the Son and made whole the weak; Jesus could identifiy with mankind, He was meant to KNOW the infirmities, and He certainly KNEW the weakness in the flesh to sin. Knowing, having a full knowledge of something, does not mean one has to have it.
QuoteI understand that it was your line of reason that began perhaps is flawed.
My Jesus is sick thought can be flawed. Same for your view; that can be flawed also. But I tried to back up my view with verses and other writings. But I have yet to read a verse that says that Jesus was healty whole His life. Or at least some proof I read "my" verses wrong.
Jesus also knew what crucifixion, death and resurrection means. Does that mean He experienced them on a "I know the emotion" level?
About my line of reasoning: I have none. I just quote verses.
QuoteThe question is when was it meant for Him? In the last hours of His life or much earlier? What verse says it was only meant for His last hours?
There is not a single verse in the whole of the New or Old Testament (that I have yet to find) that speaks of God incarnate getting a disease, or suffering any form of physical destruction aside from the Fasting in the desert (deprivation of sustenance), and the Passion (violation of his being).
Sola Scriptura.
By his stripes we are healed - During the Passion, the portion where he was beaten, he took our diseases, the ravages of our bodies upon himself.
QuoteBut I have yet to read a verse that says that Jesus was healty whole His life. Or at least some proof I read "my" verses wrong.
If you are not sick, then logically you are well.
If you are not dead, then logically you are alive.
QuoteThen Jesus not only carried sickness and infirmities he also must have sinned to know and relate to us.
Exactly; if he has to get sick to relate to us, he has to sin to relate to us too.
Just because he never got pneumonia doesn't mean he can't relate to us - because he took that pneumonia "in essence" (I wasn't there) during the Passion when he began to fulfill his appointed hour.
But here is another question for the crowd...
Since it is being stated that Christ had to get sick in order to be Human, normal, all that and etc...In order to be a high priest who sympathises and relates to us...going through all things...
Was Jesus ever sexually molested, or raped?
If he wasn't violated like that, then how can he relate to rape victims, or molestation victims? Does he have to have been raped, or molested in order to still relate to us? If not, why does he have to experience sickness then to relate the same?
I wonder why I scanned that chapter....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YLTHeb 4:14 Having, then, a great chief priest passed through the heavens--Jesus the Son of God--may we hold fast the profession,
YLTHeb 4:15 for we have not a chief priest unable to sympathise with our infirmities, but one tempted in all things in like manner--apart from sin;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YLTLuke 4:23 And he said unto them, `Certainly ye will say to me this simile, Physician, heal thyself; as great things as we heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country;'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KJV+Isa 53:4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
=> Grief=illness
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EBRMatt 21:42 Jesus saith unto them––Have ye, never, read in the Scriptures, A stone which the builders rejected, the same, hath become, head of the corner: From the Lord, hath this come to pass, and is marvelous in our eyes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EBRMatt 8:17 that it might be fulfilled, which was spoken through Isaiah the prophet, saying,––Himself, our weaknesses, took, and, diseases, bare.
All these verses are the presumption "Physcian, heal thyself." is assuming that Jesus was sick or infirm. these verses also tell me He was AWARE and could relate to the diseases, had knowledge of. So now you have some verses.
Quote from: Lefein on September 23, 2010, 07:36:10 PM
QuoteThe question is when was it meant for Him? In the last hours of His life or much earlier? What verse says it was only meant for His last hours?
There is not a single verse in the whole of the New or Old Testament (that I have yet to find)
It's good you added "(that I have yet to find)"
QuoteQuoteBut I have yet to read a verse that says that Jesus was healty whole His life. Or at least some proof I read "my" verses wrong.
If you are not sick, then logically you are well.
If you are not dead, then logically you are alive.
So? What's your point? If you can't find a verse about health or sickness you assume health? Then the only proper answer is "I don't know."
QuoteQuoteThen Jesus not only carried sickness and infirmities he also must have sinned to know and relate to us.
Exactly; if he has to get sick to relate to us, he has to sin to relate to us too.
You are twisting things Lefein. Father decided what Jesus had (not) to suffer. So if Father deceided say 10 things that doesn't automaticly mean He also suffered 30 other things. Scripture speaks about Jesus being sinless. And Jesus being ill. How often, the severity and the type of illness I don't know.
Quote from: micah7:9 on September 23, 2010, 07:47:22 PM
All these verses are the presumption "Physcian, heal thyself." is assuming that Jesus was sick or infirm. these verses also tell me He was AWARE and could relate to the diseases, had knowledge of. So now you have some verses.
Micah it's
your assumption that verse means "be aware".
You are accusing me of assuming things but while it's me that is giving verses and explantions while you simple without the tiniest prove state the verse means "be aware".
QuoteYLT Heb 4:14 Having, then, a great chief priest passed through the heavens--Jesus the Son of God--may we hold fast the profession,
YLT Heb 4:15 for we have not a chief priest unable to sympathise with our infirmities, but one tempted in all things in like manner--apart from sin;
Sympathise can indeed mean be aware of. But tempted? Does the verse say the same thing twice?
πειράω
peiraō
Thayer Definition:
1) to make a trial of, to attempt
1a) taught by trial, experienced
2) to test, to make trial of one, put him to proof
2a) his mind, sentiments, temper
2b) in particular, to attempt to induce one to commit some (especially carnal) crime
2c) tempted to sin
QuoteYLTLuke 4:23 And he said unto them, `Certainly ye will say to me this simile, Physician, heal thyself; as great things as we heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country;
So the people ae just saying that He should stop being aware of other people illnesses?
QuoteKJV+Isa 53:4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
=> Grief=illness
Grief is
QuoteEBR Matt 21:42 Jesus saith unto them––Have ye, never, read in the Scriptures, A stone which the builders rejected, the same, hath become, head of the corner: From the Lord, hath this come to pass, and is marvelous in our eyes.
Builder reject a stone because it doesn't look very well. Not because it looks perfect stone.
QuoteIt's good you added "(that I have yet to find)"
You've yet to show anything saying "And so Jesus did become ill with <leprosy, palsy, pox, boils, any of the billions of diseases that exist today>" either.
QuoteSo? What's your point? If you can't find a verse about health or sickness you assume health? Then the only proper answer is "I don't know."
God gave me the ability to infer for a reason.
QuoteYou are twisting things Lefein.
No, I'm using my God given ability to logically reason that if he didn't have to Sin to relate to us Sinners, then he doesn't have to have cancer to relate to cancer patients.
He never broke a bone, does that mean he doesn't can't relate to people with broken bones?
Common sense, if that be twisted, then so be it done, a winding road to the truth is better than a straight road to lies.
QuoteFather decided what Jesus had (not) to suffer. So if Father deceided say 10 things that doesn't automaticly mean He also suffered 30 other things.
The Father never once mentioned that Jesus had to suffer being diseased "in himself" either...So I'll say it quite clearly then based on that fact - He was never diseased by germs, viruses, or the like.
QuoteAnd Jesus being ill.
It Never! Says that Jesus was ever ill...it only ever, and I repeat, absolutely-
ever says that he
bore our illnesses, it never said he was ever by his own contraction "ill" in or of himself.
IE: He never woke up one morning, looked at Peter and said; "Ugh! I feel like I got hit by a chariot...Oh dear Father! I have the measles!"
QuoteHow often, the severity and the type of illness I don't know.
That is because it is never, ever, ever mentioned in all of the scriptures "I Jesus was indeed sick with the pox, and thus healed mine self of mine infirmity" or any variation of thus.
You have no scriptural ground what so ever to say that Jesus was ever once under the affects of any disease a day in his life outside of the Passion when he basically got the whole fist of God's wrath flung at him, I've seen scriptures stretched to near breaking to try and cover such a far flung limb of thought...but to even touch it with the light of Truth and Reason snaps it half way across the universe.
Again, did Jesus have to be raped in order to relate to rape victims? Did he have to learn by experience what it is like to be violated sexually? It is never mentioned, he never did...Yet he relates to victims of sexual abuse and trafficking all across the globe and beyond.
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 23, 2010, 04:35:23 PM
Micah, I think it's not about sinning but about avoiding sinning. Satan tempeted Him. He resisted. Many other would have made the deal with Satan. So imo Jesus mission was not to bear own sin but resist our sin.
Jesus came to teach us things. We surely didn't need a lesson on how to sin...
I agree with everything you say here Tony, but I also believe it's a crucial fundamental of the faith to believe that Jesus did bear our sin. But I agree, I don't believe that necessarily means "all throughout His earthly life".
I feel pretty confident that when Jesus bore our sin, it was on the cross. He understood our sin because of temptation (and because He is the Son of God so already technically knows everything - though not necessarily had experienced it). But I believe when He prayed in the Garden "Father not my will but Yours be done", another phase of the process kicked into motion, and at some point during the crucifixion period, all our sins were put upon Him - thus the great sacrifice.
"It is through union with Him that we have liberation by means of the ransom payment of His blood, the forgiveness of our offenses..." Ephesians 1:7 TCB
Quote from: Lefein on September 23, 2010, 09:13:48 PM
QuoteIt's good you added "(that I have yet to find)"
You've yet to show anything saying "And so Jesus did become ill with <leprosy, palsy, pox, boils, any of the billions of diseases that exist today>" either.
If you want exact names of diseases; no in that case I didn't give a verse.
QuoteNo, I'm using my God given ability to logically reason that if he didn't have to Sin to relate to us Sinners, then he doesn't have to have cancer to relate to cancer patients.
It's not about have to or why? It's only (for me) about what's written. Of course we can find certain things odd. But that doesn't make those things more or less odd.
QuoteHe never broke a bone, does that mean he doesn't can't relate to people with broken bones?
If believe He can relate to people with broken bones.
But I also believe He can relate to crucified people without being crucified.
QuoteCommon sense, if that be twisted, then so be it done, a winding road to the truth is better than a straight road to lies.
Question: Who is on teh straight road?
QuoteQuoteFather decided what Jesus had (not) to suffer. So if Father deceided say 10 things that doesn't automaticly mean He also suffered 30 other things.
The Father never once mentioned that Jesus had to suffer being diseased "in himself" either...So I'll say it quite clearly then based on that fact - He was never diseased by germs, viruses, or the like.
Then I state based on several verses and many Jewish scholars I state: Jesus was ill.
QuoteYou have no scriptural ground what so ever
:laughing7:
QuoteAgain, did Jesus have to be raped in order to relate to rape victims?
Did Jesus have to die to understand death?
Did He have to be crucified to to know how it feels?
Did He even have to be born to know how our life is?
Did He ..... etc
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 23, 2010, 07:49:55 AM
Quote from: thinktank on September 23, 2010, 01:22:42 AMwell that's the point, you think that sickness is normal and that was so, but Jesus came to restore health to all people and overturn it, so that we are no longer sick, but healed spiritually and physically. If our great master is someone who cannot even have the faith to overcome a cold, how can we hope to achieve better?
You seem to believe that faith always overcomes illness.
imo that's not the case.
Sin can be punished with illness.
Illness can be removed by prayer/faith.
But it's always Father who decides on induvidual basis is the can turns out to be a "yes or no"
So the worst sinner ever can be a healty person. And the greatest saint ever can be sick person.
I already said that one must obey the commandments to avoid sickness i.e follow the commandments and one does not sin.
I often find that you repeat the same things I say when we discuss but in a different way. :dontknow:
I perceive that you are prone to arguing for argument sake. It is good to ask questions and discuss but there's a time one needs to humble ourself and not try and 'win'. If you know what I mean.
Remember that we are discussing Jesus here and not people who sin, Jesus according to the scriptures did not sin ,even though he was tempted as we are.
The argument that he needs to experience our sickness to know what it's like, is not proven in scripture and is counteracted with the scripture that says
by his stripes we are healed. It doesn't say, by him experiencing our sickness we are healed.
Think it through, if Jesus did indeed experience our sickness, then who's sickness?
Did he experience cancer
Aids
Fungus
Broken knees
Sprained wrist
Anorexia
Depression
you get the picture? did Jesus walk around for 3 mins, then say
" hold on chaps here's a big one coming, my next disease I must experience is diarrhea"
And in about 3 mins it will be constipation, then hemmoroids, so I think we better avoid the towns and camp here in the mountains, oh no"
"What now" said John
Jesus "My knee has snapped, could you carry me to the mountain, i'm about to be transfigured, oh and bring some toilet tissue"
"Oh look its Moses and Elijah" said Jesus
"John" I think he's experiencing shchizophrenia
"I am the lord" said Jesus
"Yep, he's deffinetly going through that" Said Peter
"Ha your a bright one, mr I am the leader of Christ" said Thomas
Peter "lets focus on our lord, any minute now he's about to experience the agonizing disease of pregnancy"
Thomas "Is that a really a disease?"
Peter "Well its an affliction, how else would Jesus know what it feels like for a pregnant woman if he did not go through the same.
Thomas "It's gonna be a long night"
Quote from: jabcat on September 23, 2010, 09:28:08 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 23, 2010, 04:35:23 PM
Micah, I think it's not about sinning but about avoiding sinning. Satan tempeted Him. He resisted. Many other would have made the deal with Satan. So imo Jesus mission was not to bear own sin but resist our sin.
Jesus came to teach us things. We surely didn't need a lesson on how to sin...
I agree with everything you say here Tony,
James, even if I sound that way sometimes/often it's not about me being right. It's the statement my views (well not really my as you know) is based on nothing. And to prove that assumptions are made and used against me. That just won't work.
Quotebut I also believe it's a crucial fundamental of the faith to believe that Jesus did bear our sin. But I agree, I don't believe that necessarily means "all throughout His earthly life".
But what exactly is
bearing our sin? Sin means nothing. It's extremly easy to do. At least for me it is. So what is baring? Doing the sin?-No because it's very very clearly stated Jesus never sinned. Everyone on this forum agrees with that so lets no longer spend time on that point. Some say sin is death and that's being "disconnected" for Father. Jesus was "disconnected" for a short while. So could that be it?
Or is it in the word bare. I don't remember the exact ritual (I'm sure Cardinal will correct me if needed) The Jews had a goat. A scape goat. They layed all the sins on that goat. So the goat bared/carried their sins. Then they pushed the goat over the cliff. Understand what I mean?
QuoteI feel pretty confident that when Jesus bore our sin, it was on the cross.
Agreed. Me too.
QuoteHe understood our sin because of temptation (and because He is the Son of God so already technically knows everything - though not necessarily had experienced it).
True. He knew that and much much more. Father also knew it. So I think it's safe to say Father and Son didn't do it to learn something about creation. Father already knew what crucifixion feels like before the universe was created.
QuoteBut I believe when He prayed in the Garden "Father not my will but Yours be done", another phase of the process kicked into motion, and at some point during the crucifixion period, all our sins were put upon Him - thus the great sacrifice.
Again agreed. But
perhaps His illness was also part of of that process. But surely the whole thing went into the extreme in that last day.
---
I think I'll quit posting in this thread for today because I hear hearts pounding and blood rushing across the Atlantic. It's not very productive and I want to know the proven answer before this thread gets locked :icon_jokercolor:
Quote from: thinktank on September 23, 2010, 09:43:02 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 23, 2010, 07:49:55 AM
Quote from: thinktank on September 23, 2010, 01:22:42 AMwell that's the point, you think that sickness is normal and that was so, but Jesus came to restore health to all people and overturn it, so that we are no longer sick, but healed spiritually and physically. If our great master is someone who cannot even have the faith to overcome a cold, how can we hope to achieve better?
You seem to believe that faith always overcomes illness.
imo that's not the case.
Sin can be punished with illness.
Illness can be removed by prayer/faith.
But it's always Father who decides on induvidual basis is the can turns out to be a "yes or no"
So the worst sinner ever can be a healty person. And the greatest saint ever can be sick person.
I already said that one must obey the commandments to avoid sickness i.e follow the commandments and one does not sin.
I often find that you repeat the same things I say when we discuss but in a different way. :dontknow:
I repeat things because I don't agree TT.
Being 100% saint doesn't guarantee that you stay healty. A good example is Job. Job avoided sin but still got ill.
QuoteI perceive that you are prone to arguing for argument sake. It is good to ask questions and discuss but there's a time one needs to humble ourself and not try and 'win'. If you know what I mean.
I know what you mean TT. I also know I didn't wrote my previous message and this one to win. I just don't agree with your conclusion. I prercieve you start answering before your even have read my post. :winkgrin:
QuoteRemember that we are discussing Jesus here and not people who sin, Jesus according to the scriptures did not sin ,even though he was tempted as we are.
Then why you mentioned sin in relation to illness if everyone knows Jesus never sinned.
<...snipped comedy...>
Quoteabout what's written.
Problem is, it
isn't written.
QuoteBut I also believe He can relate to crucified people without being crucified.
Then it is settled, he never had to get sick, and for Sola Sciptura's mentioning; he never was.
QuoteQuestion: Who is on teh straight road?
Not to sound arrogant, but I'd believe based on a system of two or three witnesses that it is I who am on the road to truth, straight or not.
1: Logical reasoning says that God incarnate can't get sick if he's able to heal people by his very shadow.
2: Common sense says that if no scriptures mention him being specifically ill, then it must be assumed that he was healthy.
3: Sola Scriptura
4: He has the power to lay down his life, and take it up again, heal the sick, raise the dead, make crumbs of bread and filet of fish into a buffet for thousands, he created the Earth, he transfigured before his disciples, he was pretty darn smart...he turned water into wine...
I think I can have a great deal of faith in the fact that he can keep himself from getting a sniffle or two in his lifetime.
I have four witnesses right off the top of my head, one of which is the whole span of holy writ. You have stretched verses, and a few scholars that I don't even think I can trust.
QuoteThen I state based on several verses and many Jewish scholars I state: Jesus was ill.
Those verses are so far stretched that I'd have an easier time proving that Peter was Satan incarnate...
And Jewish Scholars? Are these Judaic scholars who would do anything to prove Christ
isn't the Messiah?
QuoteDid Jesus have to die to understand death?
Did He have to be crucified to to know how it feels?
Did He even have to be born to know how our life is?
Did He ..... etc
He's God, he did not. But you are the one claiming he had to get sick in order to fulfill obedience...Not me.
So your point is moot.
Im done. Peace and Love Through Jesus.
As am I.
willieH: Hi Lefein... :cloud9:
You have noted you are done here, ...but I have a few questions, which others might consider...
Quote from: Lefein on September 22, 2010, 07:55:07 PM
The Bible is silent on the health of Christ (from anything I've ever seen regarding his body)
Before I get into my questions...
I do not think it is as "
silent" as you might propose... Here is a bit of what
L. Ray Smith has written on this ...the entire article is quite extensive and can be found here:
http://bible-truths.com/23-minutes-in-hell.html
L. Ray Smith (Hell is a Christian hoax):Here's how the Concordant Literal Old Testament translates Isa. 53:2:
"NO shape has He NOR honor when we shall see Him, And NO appearance NOR loveliness that we will covet [desire] Him."
See what I mean? "Who has believed our [Isaiah's] report?" We just read it, but will you believe it? God said through Isaiah that the coming Messiah (Jesus the Christ) would be fragile and have absolutely NO COMELINESS, NO GOOD LOOKS, that anyone would ever "desire Him."
Say, has anyone ever noticed Isa.53, verse 3? "He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief" [Heb: 'choliy,' also defined as, "malady, disease, and sickness" (Dr. Strong's Hebrew Dictionary). Let's look at a couple of other translations of verse 3:
"A Man of pains and knowing ILLNESS." (Concordant Literal Old Testament).
"Man of pains, and familiar with SICKNESS" (Rotherham's Emphasized Bible).
"A Man of suffering, accustomed to INFIRMITY" (The New American Bible For Catholics).
"A Man of pain, Who knew what SICKNESS was" (James Moffett Translation).
Of the 38 times that this Hebrew word 'choliy' and it's root appear in Scripture, 33 times it is translated as "sick, sickness, or disease." Are you beginning to see something about Jesus you didn't know before? Imagine that: Not only was Jesus not handsome, but was also familiar with and accustomed to "sickness & disease." Let's look at some New Testament proof of Jesus' sickness & disease:
And He [Jesus] said unto them [religious leaders and congregation], "Ye ['Ye' means 'ALL of you'] will surely say unto ME this proverb, Physician [Jesus is the Great Physician], heal Thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country [Jesus healed many in Capernaum, and now they want to see Jesus HEAL HIMSELF].
"And He said... No prophet is accepted in his own country... many widows were in Israel in the days of Elijah... But unto none of them was Elijah sent, save unto Sarepta... a widow. And many lepers... and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman... And all they in the synagogue [the congregation and Church leaders], when they heard these things, were filled with wrath... and thrust Him out of the city, and led Him unto the brow of the hill where their city was built, that they might cast Him down headlong" (Lk. 4:23-28). Now for my questions... :winkgrin:
Quote from: Lefein on September 22, 2010, 07:55:07 PMGod incarnate until he is beaten half the death, and then nailed the rest of the way.
1. Where does it SAY in the
WORD, that
JESUS (the man) was "God incarnate"?
2. The
WORD says that GOD is EVERLASTING...
CHRIST died, therefore was not "everlasting", as He spent time in DEATH (interrupting LIFE) and was not ALIVE... How can it therefore be said that He was GOD which is EVER LASTING (without interruption of LIFE)?
3. The
WORD says that GOD cannot be tempted with evil --
James 1:13 -- yet also says that
CHRIST was tempted --
Heb 4:15 -- is the
WORD contradictory? Or maybe indeed, the understanding of men as they observe that
WORD, that is in contradiction? :dontknow:
4. The
WORD says via the
WORDS of
CHRIST Himself, that He has a "god" --
Mark 15:34 -- How can GOD have a "god"? (I do not mean this in ANY WAY, to sound at all disrespectful toward the Lord
JESUS CHRIST), ...But are you saying that
CHRIST is His own "God"? :dontknow:
5. How can
CHRIST be a SON of God, and GOD also (a SON being an "offspring")?
6. The
WORD says that GOD
is not a MAN --
Num 23:19 -- but also notes that
CHRIST was a MAN --
1 Tim 2:5 -- and that this MAN was a mediator between GOD and MAN... If He is GOD, then does He "mediate" between Himself and Himself?
7. Did a portion of GOD, die? If so, then that portion of God (Him/them) is NOT PERFECT... for PERFECTION (which means COMPLETE) does not change (nor does it need to)...
CHRIST (the man) went from LIFE to DEATH then back to LIFE, which is a notation and progression of
change.
Quote from: LefeinI think I can have a great deal of faith in the fact that he can keep himself from getting a sniffle or two in his lifetime.
Also... above, you maintain that
CHRIST was never "sick"... Then how can He relate? :dontknow: It is one thing to observe others suffering from disease... it is an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THING to suffer it yourself.
Please explain how it can be stated that He was
TOUCHED "with the
FEELING of our infirmities" --
Heb 4:15 -- when (according to you) He had no experience with them at all?
That is just like a MAN, stating to a WOMAN amidst childbirth -- "I know" what you're going through"... :rolleye:
Crucifixtion, beatings, humiliations are definitely sorrowful endurings, but are not the SAME as enduring the INFIRMITIES of disease. I got my butt kicked more than once being raised in East Los Angeles... :swordfight: ...but those beatings, as sorrowful as they were, do not compare to, nor are they the SAME
experience as the CANCER that I am presently battling! :mnah:
...willieH :cloud9:
A new topic to discuss would be a good idea. Something worth while and edifying that doesn't insult Jesus's divinity might be nice...
:cloud9: @ Willie......something jumped out at me in your L. Ray excerpt......did you notice that the Greek word "choliy" was used THIRTY EIGHT times??? :mshock:
I heard a long time ago that all disease comes from 38 "root" diseases, which someone else (don't remember who) pointed out corresponds with 38 stripes He received.... and thus we are HEALED BY HIS STRIPES. Wow.....Blessings....
willieH: Hi Lefein... :cloud9:
Quote from: Lefein on September 24, 2010, 01:59:41 AM
A new topic to discuss would be a good idea. Something worth while and edifying that doesn't insult Jesus's divinity might be nice...
This is nothing but an attempt to enflame and bait... :thumbdown:
As far as the "divinity" of
JESUS, ...it is a matter of perception as well as CAREFUL examination of the Scriptures and what they
SAY, as to whether
JESUS is "God" or not.
I asked legitimate questions, which you are either unwilling or unable to answer... and to be honest, it does not matter to me, one way or the other. :nod: You had noted you were done with this thread, ...I was posting for others to consider... :dontknow:
In the asking the questions, I did not insult anyone or anything... ESPECIALLY the Lord
JESUS CHRIST...
Maybe you missed it:
Quote from: willieH4. The WORD says via the WORDS of CHRIST Himself, that He has a "god" -- Mark 15:34 -- How can GOD have a "god"? (I do not mean this in ANY WAY, to sound at all disrespectful toward the Lord JESUS CHRIST), ...But are you saying that CHRIST is His own "God"?
As is EASILY seen, ...I was quite
specific in carefully noting that I meant no disrespect to the Lord
JESUS CHRIST... I have the utmost respect and LOVE for Him... but I do not give unto Him that which even HE noted Himself, was not His --
Matt 19:17 -- Mark 10:18 -- Luke 18:19:Peace: brother Lefein... :winkgrin:
...willieH :cloud9:
Quote from: Cardinal on September 24, 2010, 03:29:37 AM
:cloud9: @ Willie......something jumped out at me in your L. Ray excerpt......did you notice that the Greek word "choliy" was used THIRTY EIGHT times??? :mshock:
I heard a long time ago that all disease comes from 38 "root" diseases, which someone else (don't remember who) pointed out corresponds with 38 stripes He received.... and thus we are HEALED BY HIS STRIPES. Wow.....Blessings....
WOW! Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreat stuff!!! :bgdance:
I was unaware of this sis... Thanks for posting it! Gotta say it one more time...
WOW! :cloud9:
...willieH :cloud9:
QuoteThis is nothing but an attempt to enflame and bait...
My apologies...I suppose saying that God the Healer was disease riddled isn't destructive, faith killing blasphemy that kicks Jesus right in the face like the rest of the Pharisees who tried to bring God down to their dead, filthy, sin encrusted level...
Forgive me Father, for the next time I want the topic to be changed to something that is WORTH your attention...rather than pale attempts to make your almighty majesty after the image of sinful, powerless Man. Forgive me Father, for being bold enough to stand for you, and to stand for who you are! That great I AM!
QuoteAs far as the "divinity" of JESUS, ...it is a matter of perception as well as CAREFUL examination of the Scriptures and what they SAY, as to whether JESUS is "God" or not.
If Jesus isn't divine, then Christianity is a liar, and a whore...
I'll thank you not to come so close to blaspheming my Father.
QuoteI asked legitimate questions, which you are either unwilling or unable to answer... and to be honest
No, its because of your post format. I refuse to answer them until I can read them.
...peace...
Quote from: Lefeinabout what's written.
Problem is, it
isn't written.[/quote]According to you.
QuoteQuoteBut I also believe He can relate to crucified people without being crucified.
Then it is settled, he never had to get sick, and for Sola Sciptura's mentioning; he never was.
Do you truely don't have a clue what I mean?
You say Jesus doesn't have to have an infection to understand what an infection is (I agree with that)
I say Jesus doesn't have to be crucified to understand how horrible it is.
But He was crucified. So knowing crucifixion didn't mean He wouldn't be crucified.
So it simply means Jesus knew about countless diseases and crimes but that doesn't mean He had to literally endure them all.
But neither does it mean He had to endure none.
QuoteQuoteQuestion: Who is on teh straight road?
Not to sound arrogant, but I'd believe based on a system of two or three witnesses that it is I who am on the road to truth, straight or not.
1: Logical reasoning says that God incarnate can't get sick if he's able to heal people by his very shadow.
Seems your logic is flawed Lefein.
Logic reasoning says God incarnate can't die.
Logic reasoning says God incarnate wouldn't let Himself be treated like dirt.
Logic reasoning says God incarnate wouldn't be a servant.
Logic reasoning says God incarnate wouldn't let Himself to be denied access to the Holy of Holies.
Etc.
But still all those things happened.
Quote2: Common sense says that if no scriptures mention him being specifically ill, then it must be assumed that he was healthy.
Good you used the word "if".
Quote3: Sola Scriptura
I gave you that. That you reject that is something different.
Quote4: He has the power to lay down his life, and take it up again, heal the sick, raise the dead, make crumbs of bread and filet of fish into a buffet for thousands, he created the Earth, he transfigured before his disciples, he was pretty darn smart...he turned water into wine...
See point 1
QuoteI think I can have a great deal of faith in the fact that he can keep himself from getting a sniffle or two in his lifetime.
Can, yes. He also could have avoid to get crucified. So "can" is not the discussion. I fully agree He could have cured Himself or even avoid to get ill at all.
QuoteI have four witnesses right off the top of my head,
Seems you just lost them :winkgrin:
QuoteYou have stretched verses, and a few scholars that I don't even think I can trust.
What a suprise.
QuoteQuoteQuoteThen I state based on several verses and many Jewish scholars I state: Jesus was ill.
Those verses are so far stretched that I'd have an easier time proving that Peter was Satan incarnate...
And Jewish Scholars? Are these Judaic scholars who would do anything to prove Christ isn't the Messiah?
That's not relevant. What what is relevant is that they did and still do believe one of the signs of the Messiah is that He is ill and weak.
(BTW not only Jewish)
QuoteQuoteDid Jesus have to die to understand death?
Did He have to be crucified to to know how it feels?
Did He even have to be born to know how our life is?
Did He ..... etc
He's God, he did not. But you are the one claiming he had to get sick in order to fulfill obedience...Not me.
a] I didn't mention obedience.
b] I didn't say He had to be sick for whatever reason.
I just said He was sick.
QuoteHe's God, he did not.
Another quote that shows you have no idea what I'm trying to say. You use "He's God" as proof for something. (or to avoid my point). But in reality it proves absolutely nothing. Although He knew all things He still came to earth and first hand experienced many things.
So if you agree that Jesus died on the cross you agree Jesus literally experienced something that He already knew as Son of God.
So that proves that Jesus experienced certain things literally.
Crucifixion for example. I think/hope we can agree on that?
So my point is that because Jesus suffered on the cross proves that knowing many things doesn't equal not having to experience then literally.
So we can't use "He's God incarnate" to (dis)prove things (in this discussion).
QuoteSo your point is moot.
:happygrin:
Quote from: Lefein on September 24, 2010, 03:57:21 AM
QuoteThis is nothing but an attempt to enflame and bait...
My apologies...I suppose saying that God the Healer was disease riddled isn't destructive, faith killing blasphemy that kicks Jesus right in the face like the rest of the Pharisees who tried to bring God down to their dead, filthy, sin encrusted level...
Forgive me Father, for the next time I want the topic to be changed to something that is WORTH your attention...rather than pale attempts to make your almighty majesty after the image of sinful, powerless Man. Forgive me Father, for being bold enough to stand for you, and to stand for who you are! That great I AM!
FIRST --- Be honest brother, ...No apologies are made by you here... :sigh: Just another attempt at flaming... :sigh:
SECOND --- It is not up to
YOU to decide that which GOD finds worthy of His attention...
CHRIST died for the UNGODLY while we were YET SINNERS... which should tell anyone with any observation ability whatsoever, that SINNERS are at the
TOP of His "ATTENTION LIST"... :dontknow:
THIRD --- If you wish a new topic to be generated, then do so, already.
Quote from: willieHAs far as the "divinity" of JESUS, ...it is a matter of perception as well as CAREFUL examination of the Scriptures and what they SAY, as to whether JESUS is "God" or not.
Quote from: Lefein on September 24, 2010, 03:57:21 AMIf Jesus isn't divine, then Christianity is a liar, and a whore...
You have little foundation for such words...
CHRIST is what HE said He was, the SON of GOD, ...NOT... God Himself.
Quote from: Lefein on September 24, 2010, 03:57:21 AMI'll thank you not to come so close to blaspheming my Father.
Not meaning to insult you Lefein, but I don't know who your father is, why would I seek to offend him? :scratchhead:
As for me, my father is
YHVH God... according to
HIM and His
WORD, His SON
JESUS CHRIST and the Apostle Paul, ...
He is the
ONLY GOD that
exists --
Isaiah 46:9 -- 45:18, 21-23 -- 43:10-11 -- Matt 19:17 -- Mark 15:34 -- Eph 1:3Quote from: willieHI asked legitimate questions, which you are either unwilling or unable to answer... and to be honest
Quote from: Lefein on September 24, 2010, 03:57:21 AMNo, its because of your post format. I refuse to answer them until I can read them[/b][/color].
It's really pretty easy, ...if you can't read my posts, then why answer them at all, brother? This is just a post filled with more excuses. :pitiful:
You answer like someone quite embittered...
CHRIST taught to bless and love those that your perception sees as enemy to you --
Matt 5:44-48 -- and thereby you would be PERFECT, ...AS the Father in Heaven, ...is PERFECT... You hardly answer me in alignment with that teaching.
I continue to stand where I stood before... the questions are legitimate, LEGIBLE and Scripturally based. :nod:
If you do not wish to respond to them, ...then don't! :dontknow:
:Peace:
...willieH :cloud9:
Quote from: Cardinal on September 24, 2010, 03:29:37 AMI heard a long time ago that all disease comes from 38 "root" diseases, which someone else (don't remember who) pointed out corresponds with 38 stripes He received.... and thus we are HEALED BY HIS STRIPES. Wow.....Blessings....
So stripes are not (only) marks from a whip? (or nails marks from the cross)
If you can dig up that article.....
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 24, 2010, 07:48:01 AM
Quote from: Cardinal on September 24, 2010, 03:29:37 AMI heard a long time ago that all disease comes from 38 "root" diseases, which someone else (don't remember who) pointed out corresponds with 38 stripes He received.... and thus we are HEALED BY HIS STRIPES. Wow.....Blessings....
So stripes are not (only) marks from a whip? (or nails marks from the cross)
If you can dig up that article.....
Haven't heard this before, but I think there must be literal, symbolic, and spiritual applications.
Well, I for one must admit that I meant good. The way you WillieH brought The Word and set in on the table has caused me to look at my thoughts in a different light. I had read L. Ray Smith and had agreed with him, but never really carried home to my heart. When it was brought out today by WW I became a defender of Jesus and well I was frustrated to read someone say that Jesus was sickly, I knew He had to relate and be aware of infirmity, well I was blind to my own knowledge. Thank you. WillieH WW and Cardnial that about the "38" is beautiful. (I hope I said all that with some clarity)
Peace and Love Through Jesus
I'll just say it plainly...
The Holy Bible never once says that Jesus was sick a day in his life...Therefore, he was healthy.
To say that Jesus Christ, The Healer was riddled with disease - is blasphemy.
And Jesus is God!
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/jesusgd2.htm < a quick reference for guidance...
Quote from: jabcat on September 24, 2010, 08:01:03 AM
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 24, 2010, 07:48:01 AM
Quote from: Cardinal on September 24, 2010, 03:29:37 AMI heard a long time ago that all disease comes from 38 "root" diseases, which someone else (don't remember who) pointed out corresponds with 38 stripes He received.... and thus we are HEALED BY HIS STRIPES. Wow.....Blessings....
So stripes are not (only) marks from a whip? (or nails marks from the cross)
If you can dig up that article.....
Haven't heard this before, but I think there must be literal, symbolic, and spiritual applications.
I Googled a but found very little. Only people making a quick reference to it. No explanations. But >50% write about 39 instead of 38.
The best link I could find isn't even a Bibical based link: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/146885.html
Quote from: Lefein on September 24, 2010, 08:51:34 AM
I'll just say it plainly...
The Holy Bible never once says that Jesus was sick a day in his life...Therefore, he was healthy.
To say that Jesus Christ, The Healer was riddled with disease - is blasphemy.
And Jesus is God!
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/jesusgd2.htm < a quick reference for guidance...
So God, who is eternal, was dead for 3 days and 3 nights?
Was Abraham, Issac, and Jacob dead in Sheol?
Is God not the God of the living? -Jesus vs. Sadducees.
I am pretty sure that Jesus being the Eternal God in Flesh can be devoid of his body, freeing the disembodied who are in Sheol, defeating Death, and still be pretty darn eternal, being a spirit and all.
The body is a garment...not the person...God isn't above running around "Naked" to serve his purposes.
So Jesus died on the cross means Jesus didn't really die but stepped out of His garment and the went to sheol?
And you accuse me of not reading what's plainly written?
It has become very clear to me why you have so much trouble accepting verses that show Jesus was sick.
I just see things otherwise for a very good reason. Let Him decide my view is blaspheme or not. Not you. Ok?
Now let's continue with something useful and worthy of His attention
Quote from: Cardinal on September 24, 2010, 03:29:37 AM
did you notice that the Greek word "choliy" was used THIRTY EIGHT times??? :mshock:
I heard a long time ago that all disease comes from 38 "root" diseases, which someone else (don't remember who) pointed out corresponds with 38 stripes He received.... and thus we are HEALED BY HIS STRIPES. Wow.....Blessings....
Quote from: willieHI do not think it is as "silent" as you might propose... Here is a bit of what L. Ray Smith has written on this ...the entire article is quite extensive and can be found here:
http://bible-truths.com/23-minutes-in-hell.html
L. Ray Smith (Hell is a Christian hoax):
Here's how the Concordant Literal Old Testament translates Isa. 53:2:
"NO shape has He NOR honor when we shall see Him, And NO appearance NOR loveliness that we will covet [desire] Him."
See what I mean? "Who has believed our [Isaiah's] report?" We just read it, but will you believe it? God said through Isaiah that the coming Messiah (Jesus the Christ) would be fragile and have absolutely NO COMELINESS, NO GOOD LOOKS, that anyone would ever "desire Him."
Say, has anyone ever noticed Isa.53, verse 3? "He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief" [Heb: 'choliy,' also defined as, "malady, disease, and sickness" (Dr. Strong's Hebrew Dictionary). Let's look at a couple of other translations of verse 3:
"A Man of pains and knowing ILLNESS." (Concordant Literal Old Testament).
"Man of pains, and familiar with SICKNESS" (Rotherham's Emphasized Bible).
"A Man of suffering, accustomed to INFIRMITY" (The New American Bible For Catholics).
"A Man of pain, Who knew what SICKNESS was" (James Moffett Translation).
Of the 38 times that this Hebrew word 'choliy' and it's root appear in Scripture, 33 times it is translated as "sick, sickness, or disease." Are you beginning to see something about Jesus you didn't know before? Imagine that: Not only was Jesus not handsome, but was also familiar with and accustomed to "sickness & disease." Let's look at some New Testament proof of Jesus' sickness & disease:
And He [Jesus] said unto them [religious leaders and congregation], "Ye ['Ye' means 'ALL of you'] will surely say unto ME this proverb, Physician [Jesus is the Great Physician], heal Thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country [Jesus healed many in Capernaum, and now they want to see Jesus HEAL HIMSELF].
"And He said... No prophet is accepted in his own country... many widows were in Israel in the days of Elijah... But unto none of them was Elijah sent, save unto Sarepta... a widow. And many lepers... and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman... And all they in the synagogue [the congregation and Church leaders], when they heard these things, were filled with wrath... and thrust Him out of the city, and led Him unto the brow of the hill where their city was built, that they might cast Him down headlong" (Lk. 4:23-28).
Alright, I admit I cried all the way through this. I had already accepted that he that was without sin had to bear [carry] our sins--the innocent suffering and dying for the guilty--but this is just too much for me to bear. I'm also sure it's true.
What can I say? Except that how much he loves us never ceases to astonish me.
You know what it says? The LORD laid on him the iniquity of us all, and with his stripes we are healed--made whole--because he carries it all for us. When he said to Paul, why are you doing this to ME, he meant it.
No wonder Paul could never forgive himself.
After reading L.Ray Smith again and the way WillieH layed it out, see things different. I feel I, as I believe many others want to see Jesus as this virile man of men who walked in the midst of God's creation just a little above (not in arrogance) who was not touched by man problems, but that is our(my) carnal err.
Jesus came down in the form and likeness of earthy man, that being true then He would not be above the infirmities of the flesh body. Yet He was and would be tempted, the same as man, but sinned not. No, it now makes me humbly proud to know that Jesus, the man not only knew of my diseases, but probably walked among men having signs of this dying body of earthy man,
and those who met and saw him could see the infirimities. He bore these in His body, ALL of them....by His stripes........
Peace and Love Through Jesus
I don't believe for one second that Jesus got sick. Never.
He could control time and space as the Living Word of God.
He willingly accepted the curse and it was laid upon Him.
QuoteSo Jesus died on the cross means Jesus didn't really die but stepped out of His garment and the went to sheol?
...That is exactly what "physical death"
is. I am not my body, my body is a temple, a garment...it is nothing more than a shell, and a covering for
ME My spirit.
QuoteAnd you accuse me of not reading what's plainly written?
Now I accuse you of not even knowing what it is to be "physically dead"...
QuoteIt has become very clear to me why you have so much trouble accepting verses that show Jesus was sick.
A: You have absolutely no scriptures, you haven't even quoted "them" in any single acceptable manner, for the sake of basic solidity, I'd like to see some KJV...something that the majority of English speaking Christendom would accept. I'm still waiting for a verse that specifically states that Jesus was sick, not your half-twisted assumptions based on Jesus
bearing our illnesses.
B: Because it is blasphemy, and a hideous insult to the power of God to keep his own body properly maintained. It makes the pure manifestation of God in Flesh
unclean.
QuoteI just see things otherwise for a very good reason. Let Him decide my view is blaspheme or not. Not you. Ok?
When I see heinous error. I'll call it out. Truth isn't relevant.
Deu 17:1 Thou shalt not sacrifice unto the LORD thy God any bullock, or sheep, wherein is blemish, or any evilfavouredness: for that is an abomination unto the LORD thy God.
Mal 1:8 And if ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? and if ye offer the lame and
sick, is it not evil? offer it now unto thy governor; will he be pleased with thee, or accept thy person? saith the LORD of hosts.
Mal 1:13 Ye said also, Behold, what a weariness is it! and ye have snuffed at it, saith the LORD of hosts; and ye brought that which was torn, and the lame, and the sick; thus ye brought an offering: should I accept this of your hand? saith the LORD.
That includes the Paschal Lamb - That includes Jesus Christ.
QuoteIt makes the pure manifestation of God in Flesh unclean.
9On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour:
10And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,
11And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending upon him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:
12Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
13And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
14But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
15And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
--Acts 10
Nothing could possibly make Jesus unclean because he is the cleanser. That's the whole point. That's why he is able to minister to those outside the camp. That's why he is able to carry the sin of the world
Isn't it remarkable how reminiscent this vision of Peter's is of the New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven?
Christ was under The Law, the law determined cleanliness until Christ's Passion was settled and he gave up the ghost, not the law of grace and inclusion of gentiles.
A sickly Jesus is an unfit sacrifice - unaccepted sacrifice, and we are dead in our sins.
Quote from: Lefein on September 24, 2010, 05:49:41 PM
A: You have absolutely no scriptures, you haven't even quoted "them" in any single acceptable manner, for the sake of basic solidity, I'd like to see some KJV...something that the majority of English speaking Christendom would accept. I'm still waiting for a verse that specifically states that Jesus was sick, not your half-twisted assumptions based on Jesus bearing our illnesses.
I gave you verses. There is no use to copy and paste them again because I don't know what the Lefein approved way of quoting is.
I could also quote word meanings from Strong, Thayer or Brown-Driver-Briggs. But likely they are not approved by you either.
WillieH and Jabcat both posted links to relevant articles so no need for me to post those links again.
You didn't state the KJV version so I just give you one verse that you can read in your approved version: Luke 4:23
Oh, sorry that verse is half-twisted at best.
Thanks for another entertaining read Lefein :thumbsup:
What I want from you is a solid list of verses that say Jesus was sick, not verses that barely touch on the topic of it by stating that he bore our illnesses. You haven't provided!
I don't want articles that cleverly hide everything under piles of trash. I want it laid out plain, simple, and without garnish.
I say KJV, not because it is what
I approve, it is because it is the
common standard for Christian study.
As for the proverb from Luke; That is exactly what I'm talking about, you base your doctrinal statement of Jesus being sickly on a pure assumption that I am quite confident has nothing to even do with him being sick, but has everything to do with his display of
power based on the context of the surrounding verses.
I want some common sense, basic Biblical understanding, and I'd really like to see at least half an effort on your part to A: actually study the word, and B: Present it properly.
This whole sham of Jesus being sick is pure assumption, based on bad inferences, and bad doctrinal reasoning. Any sicknesses that where in, or on the body of Christ in flesh was during the Passion when by his stripes where where healed. That has Biblical standing...Saying he was a sickly man? Is a lie.
To slander Jesus Christ by saying he was a sickly man is to try and pull him down to our own sin encrusted level, and to make him after our own image instead of Jesus Christ coming down on his own Father given volition, to do his own Father given purposes as he and Father see fit; as should be!
It is dis-edifying to make Jesus The Healer a victim of disease.
QuoteThanks for another entertaining read Lefein
May The Lord deal with you.
Quote from: Lefein on September 24, 2010, 06:46:23 PM
Christ was under The Law, the law determined cleanliness until Christ's Passion was settled and he gave up the ghost, not the law of grace and inclusion of gentiles.
A sickly Jesus is an unfit sacrifice - unaccepted sacrifice, and we are dead in our sins.
I know what you mean. But so is a sinful Jesus? Yet he was without sin even though, even as, he bore our sins.
There is a chemistry or a metaphysics going on here. You put your finger on it. He is cleansing that which is unclean by coming into direct contact with it.
You remember YHWH sent Cain away from his presence because of what Cain had done. Cain could no longer be in the presence of God. God can not be in the presence of sin. But, now Cain could be in the presence of Jesus and cleansed, yes? Jesus tells his disciples he needs to wash their feet because that is only part of them that is still unclean.
John 13:10
Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all.
There is a difference between bearing something, and being invaded/diseased by it.
I can bear the burden of depression, but that doesn't mean the depression is from within my own being.
I can bear the sin of a person, but that doesn't mean the sin is from within my own being, or resides in my being.
Quote from: Lefein on September 24, 2010, 06:46:23 PM
Christ was under The Law, the law determined cleanliness until Christ's Passion was settled and he gave up the ghost, not the law of grace and inclusion of gentiles.
A sickly Jesus is an unfit sacrifice - unaccepted sacrifice, and we are dead in our sins.
As far as I know having a illness, being sick, having infirmities of the body(flesh) having nothing to do with being "without spot or wrinkle" Eph.5:27 (I believe the spot and wrinkle have to do with sin) Jesus died for the SINS of the world. If being sick in body disqualifies for salvation then we do have a problem. You said right this body is a garment to take off, being sick in body has nothing to do with sin. It seems to me you are looking at Jesus more as your superhero than the Saviour of the World
QuoteThere is a difference between bearing something, and being invaded/diseased by it.
But, that again is the point. I'm not saying you have to accept this. It's just something for you to consider. For myself, I've never understood those passages in Isa 53 so clearly before.
If the body of Jesus was carrying our [propensity for] illness, it is clear he was not invaded by it. It didn't stop him from what he needed to do.
I forget, are you the doctor? Regardless, I have a doc friend who is chronically ill himself, and yet he ignores it and goes about healing everyone else in his characteristically brilliant fashion. It doesn't stop him from doing what he has to do. I immediately thought of him when this subject was brought up.
You know, again, a doctor interacts with very sick people all day, and then he washes his hands. It doesn't affect him or make him unclean to interact with them.
Quote from: Molly on September 24, 2010, 07:08:08 PM
QuoteThere is a difference between bearing something, and being invaded/diseased by it.
But, that again is the point. I'm not saying you have to accept this. It's just something for you to consider. For myself, I've never understood those passages in Isa 53 so clearly before.
If the body of Jesus was carrying our [propensity for] illness, it is clear he was not invaded by it. It didn't stop him from what he needed to do.
I forget, are you the doctor? Regardless, I have a doc friend who is chronically ill himself, and yet he ignores it and goes about healing everyone else in his characteristically brilliant fashion. It doesn't stop him from doing what he has to do. I immediately thought of him when this subject was brought up.
You know, again, a doctor interacts with very sick people all day, and then he washes his hands. It doesn't affect him or make him unclean to interact with them.
:thumbsup:
QuoteAs far as I know having a illness, being sick, having infirmities of the body(flesh) having nothing to do with being "without spot or wrinkle" Eph.5:27 (I believe the spot and wrinkle have to do with sin)
Deu 17:1 Thou shalt not sacrifice unto the LORD thy God any bullock, or sheep, wherein is blemish, or any evilfavouredness: for that is an abomination unto the LORD thy God.
Mal 1:8 And if ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? and if ye offer the lame and sick, is it not evil? offer it now unto thy governor; will he be pleased with thee, or accept thy person? saith the LORD of hosts.
Mal 1:13 Ye said also, Behold, what a weariness is it! and ye have snuffed at it, saith the LORD of hosts; and ye brought that which was torn, and the lame, and the sick; thus ye brought an offering: should I accept this of your hand? saith the LORD.
QuoteJesus died for the SINS of the world. If being sick in body disqualifies for salvation then we do have a problem.
Nothing disqualifies one for Salvation - save being righteous. But being sick disqualifies one for being a holy sacrifice under The Law - Christ was
that sacrifice which allowed Salvation.
If he was sickly, then his sacrifice was, and is in absolute vanity, and we are dead in our sins.
QuoteYou said right this body is a garment to take off, being sick in body has nothing to do with sin.
It has everything to do with cleanliness under The Law.
QuoteIt seems to me you are looking at Jesus more as your superhero than the Saviour of the World
Aside from him being my hero in general; it is not a shame to me to stand for the cleanliness, holiness, and power of My Father incarnate.
and also:
QuoteIt seems to me you are looking at Jesus more as your superhero than the Saviour of the World
What do you think super heroes do?! o_o
<>----<>----<>----<>
He is the Saviour of the world, he isn't a pitiful wretch riddled with disease like some here would make him out to be.
Christ is God in the Flesh - I'll accept nothing less than his perfection, and perfect cleanliness, because that is what God himself expects and calls men to strive for.
________________
QuoteIf the body of Jesus was carrying our [propensity for] illness, it is clear he was not invaded by it.
You can carry the sickness of someone, without being sick. That is my whole point.
Christ carried the sentence of guilt, yet he was not guilty.
Quote
I forget, are you the doctor? Regardless, I have a doc friend who is chronically ill himself, and yet he ignores it and goes about healing everyone else in his characteristically brilliant fashion. It doesn't stop him from doing what he has to do. I immediately thought of him when this subject was brought up.
The difference is, your doctor friend isn't Jesus. Your doctor friend is not a clean sacrifice, under The Law, or over it - for the sins of humanity.
I'd never accept the sacrifice of your doctor friend for my sins, because he doesn't have the power to forgive himself (let alone others) by reason of being unclean under The Law - providing we where still under The Law, and such a thing was required.
Bitterness, anger, and weaknes is what I am hearing. Jesus was no weaker because He became sick. Jesus is the ultimate OVERCOMER.
G3528
From G3529; to subdue (literally or figuratively): - conquer, overcome, prevail, get the victory.G3529
Apparently a primary word; conquest (abstractly), that is, (figuratively) the means of success: - victory.
one cant overcome, subdue, conquer, prevail,get victory UNLESS ONE HAD SOMETHING TO overcome, subdue, conquer, prevail,get victory.
I understand what you are saying, Lefein.
He has to be physically as well as morally [spiritually] without spot or blemish to fulfill the law.
So now the question becomes --would a Jesus carrying the sickness of the world make him any more blemished or spotted than a Jesus carrying the moral sin of the world?
We have to look to scripture for that answer.
Don't forget, he also has to be a Lamb. That is a young sheep. A baby. Not full grown.
Lots of questions.
QuoteBitterness, anger, and weaknes is what I am hearing.
Then you are unfortunately, quite deaf.
QuoteJesus was no weaker because He became sick. Jesus is the ultimate OVERCOMER.
Sickness
is a corruption, and distortion of the body. Jesus was never corrupt, or corrupted.
QuoteG3528
From G3529; to subdue (literally or figuratively): - conquer, overcome, prevail, get the victory.G3529
Apparently a primary word; conquest (abstractly), that is, (figuratively) the means of success: - victory.
one cant overcome, subdue, conquer, prevail,get victory UNLESS ONE HAD SOMETHING TO overcome, subdue, conquer, prevail,get victory.
It still doesn't mean he was ever once corrupted by any disease, for any length of time, any more than bleach is stained by the dirt that it overwhelms, and destroys.
Molly:
It all comes down to Jesus being a cleansing agent. Jesus is for all intents and purposes, the world's Bleach. Bleach does not become stained by the stain it engulfs and removes.
QuoteMolly:
It all comes down to Jesus being a cleansing agent. Jesus is for all intents and purposes, the world's Bleach. Bleach does not become stained by the stain it engulfs and removes.
Yes, bleach. Great metaphor! So you add bleach to the wash and everything comes out white and clean. The bleach is still bleach even though it is now mingled with the stain it has removed.
Jesus is my superhero, too.
If you don't add the bleach to the wash, it will never become clean. Isn't it possible that the wash is also the [diseased] body as well as the [diseased] spirit?
How did God survive being mingled with our [diseased and fallen] bodies that are dying all day long?
Hebrews 2:9
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.Philippians 2:8
And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
YLTActs 10
12 in which were all the four-footed beasts of the earth, and the wild beasts, and the creeping things, and the fowls of the heaven,
13 and there came a voice unto him: `Having risen, Peter, slay and eat.'
14 And Peter said, `Not so, Lord; because at no time did I eat anything common or unclean;'
15 and there is a voice again a second time unto him: `What God did cleanse, thou, declare not thou common;'
So things that are unclean because the law states so, are no longer unclean if cleansed by God.
People avoided all kind of things and people because there were many ways to become unclean. But Jesus didn't avoid such people.
Could it be that Jesus was cleansed by God?
A normal, animal, lamb needed to be healty and not deformed in any way.
But what if God cleansed that lamb? Wouldn't that override the law?
Even if Jesus was not sick He didn't look hansom.
EBRIsa 53
2 When he came up as a sapling before him, And as a root–sprout out of dry ground, He had neither beauty nor majesty,––When we beheld him, there was nothing to behold, that we should desire him;
Only good looking/"hansom" animal lambs were allowed to be sacrificed.
Does that mean Lamb Jesus was unfit for sacrifice? Or was it ok because He was cleansed by God...
he...became obedient to death.
How many times could you read that and not see it? In my case, a lot, because I never saw it before today.
If God chose to give him a body that was supersensitive to all the disease in the world, even riddled with disease, he could no more cure himself than he could strike down the centurions that came to arrest him--and still be obedient...in this case, to death.
QuoteSo things that are unclean because the law states so, are no longer unclean if cleansed by God.
When you're under The Law and planning on being a sacrifice...you'd best obey The Law to the fullest, and Jesus didn't err in a single point of it - that includes cleanliness.
You can't wash a garment with dirty water.
Sickness is corruption, you can't uncorrupt something if you yourself are corrupted. It is as impossible as hating your brother and at the same time supposedly being full of love.
QuotePeople avoided all kind of things and people because there were many ways to become unclean. But Jesus didn't avoid such things/people.
Jesus is Holy, Jesus is the "Bleach of the World", he is uncorruptable, Emmanuel, without the "Original Sin" being born of a virgin, the only begotten son of God, God - The Word in flesh.
God is perfect, you can't corrupt God, God is an all consuming fire, sin has no ability to infect him in any way. Hence he can heal the sick and be clean, even keeping The Law.
QuoteCould it be that Jesus was cleansed by God?
That insinuates that he'd even need "cleansing" in the first place. Jesus isn't some mere prophet I'll remind you. He isn't the Jesus of Islam.
QuoteA normal, animal, lamb needed to be healty and not deformed in any way.
But what if God cleansed that lamb? Wouldn't that override the law?
Even if Jesus was not sick He didn't look hansom.
Put it into context; Jesus was scourged, and whipped, and shamed - That is why people didn't "desire him", who would want to follow a king that has been seemingly dethroned and not just dethroned but disgraced?
None, to Few.
Quote...who would want to follow a king that has been seemingly dethroned and not just dethroned but disgraced?
Nobody! And, nobody did! lol
Every word out of your mouth is just blessing me more and more, Lefein.
I so wish I could return the favor. :gangel:
This is why the Jews missed him [along with just about everyone else]. They weren't expecting what they were seeing as the Messiah.
Luke 18:32
For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on:
And kneeling before him, they mocked him, saying, "Hail, King of the Jews!" 30And they spit on him and took the reed and struck him on the head.
--Mat 27
Quote
Every word out of your mouth is just blessing me more and more, Lefein.
I so wish I could return the favor.
It is my honour, and privilege for God to bless you through me. :)
A little reminder for us all; doesn't hurt to do this once in awhile in case some have missed it. :thumbsup:
Posting - http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/index.php?topic=8684.msg105066#msg105066
Quote from: Lefein on September 24, 2010, 08:45:16 PM
QuoteCould it be that Jesus was cleansed by God?
That insinuates that he'd even need "cleansing" in the first place.
I was not insinuating such a thing. I mean He didn't get unclean when he touched/cured ill people.
QuoteWhen you're under The Law and planning on being a sacrifice...you'd best obey The Law to the fullest, and Jesus didn't err in a single point of it - that includes cleanliness.
One of those laws in not to touch sick people or even come near them.
QuoteA normal, animal, lamb needed to be healty and not deformed in any way.
But what if God cleansed that lamb? Wouldn't that override the law?
Even if Jesus was not sick He didn't look hansom.
QuotePut it on context; Jesus was scourged, and whipped, and shamed - That is why people didn't "desire him", who would want to follow a king that has been seemingly dethroned and not just dethroned but disgraced?
So according to you Isa 53:2 is describing the last hours of His eartly life?
If so we disagree again.
QuoteJesus is Holy, Jesus is the "Bleach of the World", he is uncorruptable, Emmanuel, without the "Original Sin" being born of a virgin, the only begotten son of God, God - The Word in flesh.
YLTHeb 27 Thou didst make him some little less than messengers, with glory and honour Thou didst crown him, and didst set him over the works of Thy hands,
Although He was a great man, teacher and Son of God when on earth He was not 'at His full power'.
He was a made a little
less than messengers. Before and after His life on earth He was and is far higher than messengers.
To me that means He was here with limited powers.
QuoteI was not insinuating such a thing. I mean He didn't get unclean when he touched/cured ill people.
All the more reason that Jesus was never sick.
QuoteOne of those laws in not to touch sick people or even come near them.
So Jesus sinned? I'll be honest, that punches Christianity in the face and leaves it dead.
...Unless, Jesus was never infected by those whom he touched - or the air, or dirt, or substances he touched...and remained perfectly clean through out his whole life by means of his nature as Godhead/Word in Flesh.
Do recall, he said - "I AM" and he also said - "I am the way, the truth, and the life". He never once said "I will be life". Life is truth, death is distortion, lie, absence, and a void. Life is not destroyed by an absence, truth is not pierced by lies. Hence Life is not pierced by corruption that is the decay of Death.
Jesus did not die until he gave up the ghost -
Gave up the ghost, until he by his own volition laid his life down to three days later take it up again. Death did not invade Jesus, it was Jesus who invaded Death.
I'll be bold to say with great adoration that Jesus Christ my Lord and God, even in his dying bleeding, broken flesh could have hung on that cross for eons still alive if he so chose to. It was he who controlled the war with Death and Sin, it was not the other way around.
QuoteSo according to you Isa 53:2 is describing the last hours of His eartly life?
If so we disagree again.
Scripture interprets Scripture - and by that it is far more likely that it was a prophecy about his Passion...Not about his ministry where throngs of people literally followed him everywhere he went - if that isn't desire, then nothing is.
People don't follow a no body.
QuoteAlthough He was a great man, teacher and Son of God when on earth He was not 'at His full power'.
He was a made a little less than messengers. Before and after His life on earth He was and is far higher than messengers.
To me that means He was here with limited powers.
None of which where not by his own volition and cooperation - limited. He was at his full power, he had the power to lay down his life and take it up again, call down legions of angels, raise the dead, transfigure on the mount to reveal his glory, feed the multitudes, and heal uncounted droves of the sick, dead, and maimed, turn water into wine, he even had the power to forgive sins. He wasn't nearly as constrained as we'd like to believe, he volunteered himself to meek use of his might, but lost none of it even in the womb.
Quote from: Lefein on September 24, 2010, 09:35:37 PM
QuoteOne of those laws in not to touch sick people or even come near them.
So Jesus sinned? I'll be honest, that punches Christianity in the face and leaves it dead.
My conclusion is different. Jesus never sinned.
QuoteQuoteSo according to you Isa 53:2 is describing the last hours of His eartly life?
If so we disagree again.
Scripture interprets Scripture - and by that it is far more likely that it was a prophecy about his Passion...Not about his ministry where throngs of people literally followed him everywhere he went - if that isn't desire, then nothing is.
People don't follow a no body.
Jesus wasn't a nobody. Many were amazed by His teachings and healings. But that doesn't automaticly mean they desire Him for His great looks.
KJV+Isa 532 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground @: he hath no form nor comeliness ; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
He was also that way when He grew up. So that that verse is not about the last hours of His life.
QuoteAlthough He was a great man, teacher and Son of God when on earth He was not 'at His full power'.
He was a made a little less than messengers. Before and after His life on earth He was and is far higher than messengers.
To me that means He was here with limited powers.
None of which where not by his own volition and cooperation - limited.
He was at his full power,[/quote]
"He was MADE a little lower..." To me that sound different from: "He was much higher but didn't use the powers."
Quotehe had the power to lay down his life and take it up again.
YLTActs 224 whom God did raise up, having loosed the pains of the death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it,
So Father raised the Son. Jesus didn't do that Himself.
Quote from: Lefein on September 24, 2010, 08:51:34 AM
I'll just say it plainly...
The Holy Bible never once says that Jesus was sick a day in his life...Therefore, he was healthy.
To say that Jesus Christ, The Healer was riddled with disease - is blasphemy.
FIRST --- I do not see anyone other than
YOU suggesting that -- He was RIDDLED" with disease... Neither is it "up to you" to decide what IS or IS NOT, ..."blasphemy"!! :dontknow:
Many in this discussion are contending that He did deal with infirmities while living upon the earth... having experienced human life in detail, which familiarizes Him and ACQUAINTS Him with us and our predicament... in DETAIL.
SECOND --- As far as the "silence" of The
WORD, it also does not
SAY that He
breathed air... or that He
ate brocolli... or that He went
to the toilet... But He likely did all these things and much more...
However, in His own words,
He proposed that the pharisees would request that He HEAL HIMSELF... now logically, ...WHY would HE suggest that
they make such a request, unless there was OBVIOUS evidence that HE needed healing? :dunno2: (In this passage, He had just referred to HEALINGS which had been done in Capernaum, as well as to Himself as a
PHYSICIAN)...
Luke 4:23Quote from: Lefein on September 24, 2010, 08:51:34 AMAnd Jesus is God!
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/jesusgd2.htm < a quick reference for guidance...
FIRST --- Guidance? All we need is the
WORD and the Holy Spirit, for "guidance"... :idea2:
SECOND --- Why did you use a computer link as your verification? Why not QUOTE the
WORD? ...Maybe because, ...The
WORD does not
SAY that
JESUS is "God incarnate"?
THIRD --- The
WORD does not SAY that
JESUS IS GOD...
You believe this (theological proposition) irregardless of the fact that this is NOT WRITTEN, then insist that other things concerning His experience with infirmities cannot be so, because you claim no mention is made of them... whattupwidat? :dunno:
Please do not attempt to refer to
"But unto the Son, thy throne O God, is forever and ever" --
Heb 1:8 -- for in this, is the HEART of
YHVH (which
IS the Father) ...giving the SPOKEN
WORD (which IS the Son) its rightful due, for it is the EXACT audible and written
EXPRESSION of the HEART of
YHVH, as is noted in the context which also specifically notes the Son to be the
EXPRESS IMAGE of HIS PERSON --
Heb 1:3 -- NOT another "person"... an IMAGE is NOT the person, it is a projection
OF the PERSON.
The FATHER is the emergent point of ORIGIN of the Son... which makes the Son an OFFSPRING which emerged from Him --
Heb 1:5He is NOT giving due to the
MAN JESUS CHRIST, who did
NOTHING OF HIMSELF --
John 5:19 -- rather,
CHRIST did EVERYTHING that GOD directed Him, via PROPHECY, to do... :nod:
The HEART of
YHVH is
Father to the
WORD which is SPOKEN...
Just as it is with you or I. The words you speak are NOT a separate person from yourself... they are a PROJECTION of the person you ARE (in your heart), conveyed in audible or written expression, to others. :dontknow:
All men are GODS --
Psalm 82:6 -- because
YHVH says we are... and it is because we ETERNALLY have our ORIGIN within Him... He does NOT CHANGE... so all Creation amounts to, is a REVELATION of Himself, and that which is within Him.
We have always been, as has Creation, for the "Creation" is the revelation of the KNOWLEDGE of GOOD and EVIL which is a portion of ETERNAL KNOWLEDGE known by, and NOW being EXPRESSED by
YHVH God who is WORKING ALL THINGS --
Eph 1:11 The REVELATION of ALL THINGS has been withheld by
YHVH... And we are amidst that "ALL" being presently
revealed...
You are welcome to remain where you are brother Lefein... and disagree all you like... but I challenge you to refute what I have just said. :dontknow:
...willieH :cloud9:
QuoteJesus wasn't a nobody. Many were amazed by His teachings and healings. But that doesn't automaticly mean they desire Him for His great looks.
You assume I'm talking about looks, that is incorrect.
I am talking about Power, Presence, Authority.
Quote"He was MADE a little lower..." To me that sound different from: "He was much higher but didn't use the powers."
Made; as in "I was made in my mother's womb".
QuoteSo Father raised the Son. Jesus didn't do that Himself.
Son = God = Father
QuoteYou are welcome to remain where you are brother Lefein... and disagree all you like... but I challenge you to refute what I have just said.
Not until I can actually read it, and not get a splitting headache.
willieH: Hi Lefein... :happygrin:
Quote from: willieHYou are welcome to remain where you are brother Lefein... and disagree all you like... but I challenge you to refute what I have just said.
Quote from: Lefein on September 24, 2010, 10:27:31 PM
Not until I can actually read it, and not get a splitting headache.
More excuses... :pitiful: You live in a world of color, you must have headaches all the time...
I guess its a shame for you that God didn't make the world Black & white, so you wouldn't have to cope with the color in it.
Doesn't matter to me if you respond or not... :dontknow:
Bottom line, ...this means my post shall stand unopposed by you... for without the benefit of excuses, you do not have the ability to refute it. :dontknow:
:Peace:
...willieH :cloud9:
Quote from: Lefein on September 24, 2010, 09:05:54 PM
Quote
Every word out of your mouth is just blessing me more and more, Lefein.
I so wish I could return the favor.
It is my honour, and privilege for God to bless you through me. :)
:mfriends:
:hithere: Hello Willie it's your friendly neighbourhood nemesis :laughing7:
It seems you got yourself in a sticky situation by denying the divinity of Jesus, I can't believe you said that :mshock: But then again :laughing7:
But your entitled to your opinion which is UNFOUNDED in the WORD, which you seemingly know a great deal about, but not enough it seems. I hope my word will be a blessing to you and to others as the holy spirit guides them.
1. Where does it SAY in the WORD, that JESUS (the man) was "God incarnate"?
Romans
3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, [1] condemned sin in the flesh:
So here we have God sending his son in the likness of flesh. So this confirms that the son did indeed exist before entering the world in the likness of human flesh.
Again the same here
Romans
32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
So God spared his son. So Jesus is not simply a product/created being that God created during the time of Mary, but rather he existed before incarnating inside Mary's womb.
2. The WORD says that GOD is EVERLASTING... CHRIST died, therefore was not "everlasting", as He spent time in DEATH (interrupting LIFE) and was not ALIVE... How can it therefore be said that He was GOD which is EVER LASTING (without interruption of LIFE)?
I do not have a precise answer to this :mshock: but I have two possible answers
1. God died in flesh and his earthly tabernacle, or his temple was destroyed but he continues to exist in spirit, by preaching to the spirits in prison and also meeting the thief on the cross in spirit.
2. If Jesus ceased to exist, God still exists (Father and holy spirit) albeit missing one of their members but still operational. The promise given to Jesus is that God will not leave his soul in hell and thus God is resurected again to life. God dying, seems impossible, but didn't the father say, SACRIFICE my only son.
3. The WORD says that GOD cannot be tempted with evil -- James 1:13 -- yet also says that CHRIST was tempted -- Heb 4:15 -- is the WORD contradictory? Or maybe indeed, the understanding of men as they observe that WORD, that is in contradiction? :dontknow:
God cannot be tempted with evil, neither can God tempt, but yet Abraham was tempted by God.
Two possible answers
1. Jesus was God yet, he came in the form of a man and man can be tempted with evil. Good example of Jesus is imagine a F40 ferrari engine stuffed inside a mini, now the ferrari engine can only do so much inside the limitations of the mini and in all sense and purposes the car is not called a ferrari but a mini.
2. God is not limited by his word for he can do the impossible, the temptations of Jesus were there to prove him
Luke 4:13
And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season
1 Corinthians 10:13
There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye
may be able to bear it.
4. The WORD says via the WORDS of CHRIST Himself, that He has a "god" -- Mark 15:34 -- How can GOD have a "god"? (I do not mean this in ANY WAY, to sound at all disrespectful toward the Lord JESUS CHRIST), ...But are you saying that CHRIST is His own "God"? :dontknow:
Jesus has a question for you willie
Mathew
Jesus Willie, 42, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. 43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, 44 The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? 45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
5. How can CHRIST be a SON of God, and GOD also (a SON being an "offspring")?
John 5:18
Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God
Is Jesus God?
Philippians 2:6
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God :dsunny: :icon_king:
Who else can claim to be equal with God? and don't say David Beckam :soccer: :laughing7:
Man and woman? Isn't the wife regarded as the weaker sex, but yet equal to the husband?
Feminist theology can wait for another day. We are dealing with the common factor here, not the potentials or the unique woman who can compete with men.
Also women bring in their own unique strengths, which do not compete with men, but a strength which is not so much valued today, but that's another story.
6. The WORD says that GOD is not a MAN -- Num 23:19 -- but also notes that CHRIST was a MAN -- 1 Tim 2:5 -- and that this MAN was a mediator between GOD and MAN... If He is GOD, then does He "mediate" between Himself and Himself?
He mediates between man and his father who is greater than all. The problem is that you deny the three therefore it is imposible to come to an adequate answer. It is only when men accept the teachings of Christ above the doctrines of men, that they can understand the relationship between the three. Whom do you choose this day, men or Christ?
Here is a powerful revelation I received only recently
Genesis
18And the Lord appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; 2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground, 3 And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
I'd like to see you intellectually wriggle your way through this one :laughing7:
Who do you suppose the three represent? And please don't say the three wise men :grin:
7. Did a portion of GOD, die? If so, then that portion of God (Him/them) is NOT PERFECT... for PERFECTION (which means COMPLETE) does not change (nor does it need to)... CHRIST (the man) went from LIFE to DEATH then back to LIFE, which is a notation and progression of change.
This is your opinion of what perfection represents, you have used this argument many times but doesn't really add up as proof as such. But if we take on board what you say, then perhaps it means that Jesus when he died continued to live, so it means your idea of perfection continues (As I explained on one of my answers previously).
Please explain how it can be stated that He was TOUCHED "with the FEELING of our infirmities" -- Heb 4:15 -- when (according to you) He had no experience with them at all?
There's a big difference between experiencing our infirmity, in let's say the garden of gethsame, where he was in such pain that he sweated blood, perhaps here he experinced some kind of disease or suffering, but that does not mean that Jesus spent his lifetime being sick, oh no Jesus was a man of faith the scriptures say that the child grew and had great knowledge of the scriptures, even going to the temples to learn.
You see that Jesus since his childhood was taught and he grew, this means he was not God, but yet was God. In other words he was God but yet became like us, in order to bethe perfect sacrifice without blemish.
The faith he had is the same faith that we have access to, we can in fact do the same miracles he did and even more, but living a holy life the same as Jesus did is paramount to achieving these kinds of miracles, the other major difference between us and him is that he was created sinless and never sinned not once throughout his life.
Please explain how it can be stated that He was TOUCHED "with the FEELING of our infirmities" -- Heb 4:15 -- when (according to you) He had no experience with them at all?
That is just like a MAN, stating to a WOMAN amidst childbirth -- "I know" what you're going through"... :rolleye:
Like I explained in the "comedy section" I did, how can Christ say I know what you going through to a woman in child birth? Please answer that?
He sweated blood in the garden of gethsame, isn't that enough? Hasn't the lord suffered enough already, but yet you want to say he suffered sickness throughout his life, even though he never sinned?
Crucifixtion, beatings, humiliations are definitely sorrowful endurings, but are not the SAME as enduring the INFIRMITIES of disease. I got my butt kicked more than once being raised in East Los Angeles... :swordfight: ...but those beatings, as sorrowful as they were, do not compare to, nor are they the SAME experience as the CANCER that I am presently battling! :mnah:
I'm sure that cancer is a tough disease to battle and only sufferers know what it's like, but :mshock: cruxification not the same? How can you boast and say your disease is far worse than what the lord had to go through?
Here's a scripture for you
1 Peter 4:12
Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you:
Also the old testament saints
Hebrews 11:36
And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment:
To finish on a positive note heres a scripture of encouragment
3 John 1:2
Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth.
Quote from: Lefein on September 24, 2010, 10:27:31 PM
QuoteJesus wasn't a nobody. Many were amazed by His teachings and healings. But that doesn't automaticly mean they desire Him for His great looks.
You assume I'm talking about looks, that is incorrect.
I am talking about Power, Presence, Authority.
I know that. But it seems you misunderstood me .
Surely Jesus was followed by many for because He did healings and gave great teachings.
Isa 53:2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness ; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
Does the blue part sound like "Presense"
Or the red part as "Power
QuoteQuote"He was MADE a little lower..." To me that sounds different from: "He was much higher but didn't use the powers."
Made; as in "I was made in my mother's womb".
But still lower.
QuoteQuoteSo Father raised the Son. Jesus didn't do that Himself.
Son = God = Father
Trinity is a forbidden subject on this forum. But I think you already know my view on the Trinity. I also know your view and understand that "forces" you into a certain way of reasoning. I have no illusion I can change your view.
You speak your mind because I'm a blasphemer according to you. That doesn't bother me a bit BTW.
I speak my mind because I would be a lie if I said "great words Lefein".
What more can I do? I show verse of illness. I showed verses of His appearance during whole/most of His life.
Quote from: Lefein on September 24, 2010, 10:27:31 PM
Not until I can actually read it, and not get a splitting headache.
Just copy a paste....
Quote from: Lefein on Today at 07:51:34
I'll just say it plainly...
The Holy Bible never once says that Jesus was sick a day in his life...Therefore, he was healthy.
To say that Jesus Christ, The Healer was riddled with disease - is blasphemy.
FIRST --- I do not see anyone other than YOU suggesting that -- He was RIDDLED" with disease... Neither is it "up to you" to decide what IS or IS NOT, ..."blasphemy"!!
Many in this discussion are contending that He did deal with infirmities while living upon the earth... having experienced human life in detail, which familiarizes Him and ACQUAINTS Him with us and our predicament... in DETAIL.
SECOND --- As far as the "silence" of The WORD, it also does not SAY that He breathed air... or that He ate brocolli... or that He went to the toilet... But He likely did all these things and much more...
However, in His own words, He proposed that the pharisees would request that He HEAL HIMSELF... now logically, ...WHY would HE suggest that they make such a request, unless there was OBVIOUS evidence that HE needed healing? (In this passage, He had just referred to HEALINGS which had been done in Capernaum, as well as to Himself as a PHYSICIAN)... Luke 4:23
Quote from: Lefein on Today at 07:51:34
And Jesus is God!
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/jesusgd2.htm < a quick reference for guidance...
FIRST --- Guidance? All we need is the WORD and the Holy Spirit, for "guidance"...
SECOND --- Why did you use a computer link as your verification? Why not QUOTE the WORD? ...Maybe because, ...The WORD does not SAY that JESUS is "God incarnate"?
THIRD --- The WORD does not SAY that JESUS IS GOD...
You believe this (theological proposition) irregardless of the fact that this is NOT WRITTEN, then insist that other things concerning His experience with infirmities cannot be so, because you claim no mention is made of them... whattupwidat?
Please do not attempt to refer to "But unto the Son, thy throne O God, is forever and ever" -- Heb 1:8 -- for in this, is the HEART of YHVH (which IS the Father) ...giving the SPOKEN WORD (which IS the Son) its rightful due, for it is the EXACT audible and written EXPRESSION of the HEART of YHVH, as is noted in the context which also specifically notes the Son to be the EXPRESS IMAGE of HIS PERSON -- Heb 1:3 -- NOT another "person"... an IMAGE is NOT the person, it is a projection OF the PERSON.
The FATHER is the emergent point of ORIGIN of the Son... which makes the Son an OFFSPRING which emerged from Him -- Heb 1:5
He is NOT giving due to the MAN JESUS CHRIST, who did NOTHING OF HIMSELF -- John 5:19 -- rather, CHRIST did EVERYTHING that GOD directed Him, via PROPHECY, to do...
The HEART of YHVH is Father to the WORD which is SPOKEN...
Just as it is with you or I. The words you speak are NOT a separate person from yourself... they are a PROJECTION of the person you ARE (in your heart), conveyed in audible or written expression, to others.
All men are GODS -- Psalm 82:6 -- because YHVH says we are... and it is because we ETERNALLY have our ORIGIN within Him... He does NOT CHANGE... so all Creation amounts to, is a REVELATION of Himself, and that which is within Him.
We have always been, as has Creation, for the "Creation" is the revelation of the KNOWLEDGE of GOOD and EVIL which is a portion of ETERNAL KNOWLEDGE known by, and NOW being EXPRESSED by YHVH God who is WORKING ALL THINGS -- Eph 1:11
The REVELATION of ALL THINGS has been withheld by YHVH... And we are amidst that "ALL" being presently revealed...
You are welcome to remain where you are brother Lefein... and disagree all you like... but I challenge you to refute what I have just said.
Removed by Micah
QuoteDoes the blue part sound like "Presense"
Or the red part as "Power
The people expected a king dear friend, a glorious shining king, wrapped in cherubim, and calling down the Angels of Heaven to tear off the shackles of the political oppression of Rome, to set up Israel as the dominating empire on the earth, with a king on the throne who would reign over men, and make the sons of Jacob rich, and glorified beyond their wildest dreams...
Yet he came as a shepherd for the people, and a carpenter's son...Dying on a cross, spit on, and shamed, disgraced.
None of it had anything to do with him being sickly throughout his life, or even the colour of his hair or eyes, or the shape of his face, his weight, or anything for that matter.
QuoteBut still lower.
The fullness of God is indwelt in cohabitation with my spirit, I am still beneath the angels not being raised to glory myself - yet all things are under my feet in Christ.
Christ is infinitely greater, and was indeed infinitely greater than any Christian today even while he was in the womb.
"I believe" (for you Jab ^^)
QuoteI also know your view and understand that "forces" you into a certain way of reasoning.
I am no slave to any doctrine, so don't assume it. It is an offense to me to say it. I am a child of Truth, and Truth is my guide. Do not insinuate otherwise.
QuoteI have no illusion I can change your view.
And neither is it your place to try.
QuoteYou speak your mind because I'm a blasphemer according to you. That doesn't bother me a bit BTW.
It isn't my goal to "bother you". I have left you in the Lord's hands for that.
QuoteI speak my mind because I would be a lie if I said "great words Lefein".
I'm not here for your approval. I'm here to show myself approved from above.
QuoteWhat more can I do?
For starters, you can try to find valid verses, and list them in a way that isn't disguised under articles.
QuoteI show verse of illness. I showed verses of His appearance during whole/most of His life.
None of them showed a sickly Jesus, not one, not once.
QuoteJust copy a paste....
I refuse, I am protesting WillieH's format entirely. I will
not go through hoops to try and get bread out of "piles upon piles of unnecessary...stuff".
I've been observing for a while and I think this thread has went to a point of no longer edify anyone and it could get worse.
My personal opinion is that it should be closed.
Please brothers respect where each of us are by the grace of God in our understanding of the Word and of God.
It is not our place nor do we have the capacity to change each others views, it is by God's Spirit only.
Peace
If Jesus could get sick, could he catch a fatal disease?
Or could He only catch non-fatal diseases?
Indeed Beloved Servant - At any rate, he certainly should have caught leprosy if he was so disease-able...The whole reason lepers where ostracised was because it was so contagious.
Yet another reason I believe it was highly, highly unlikely that he ever got sick, or was "capable" (if such a word could be used properly) of getting sick / being corrupted bodily.
Quote from: Lefein on September 24, 2010, 11:25:57 PM
QuoteDoes the blue part sound like "Presense"
Or the red part as "Power
The people expected
I'm not speaking about the people but the verse.
QuoteQuoteBut still lower.
The fullness of God is indwelt in cohabitation with my spirit, I am still beneath the angels not being raised to glory myself - yet all things are under my feet in Christ.
Christ is infinitely greater, and was indeed infinitely greater than any Christian today even while he was in the womb.
"I believe" (for you Jab ^^)
James and I believe the verse that says lower than an angel.
<... snipped flamebait, assumptions and answers based not based on my posts ...>
:Peace:
Quote from: Beloved Servant on September 24, 2010, 11:53:10 PM
If Jesus could get sick, could he catch a fatal disease?
Or could He only catch non-fatal diseases?
Maybe He could/did but didn't die from it.
QuoteI'm not speaking about the people but the verse.
The verse is a prophecy about the people's view of him...
QuoteJames and I believe the verse that says lower than an angel.
I'm going to ask you bluntly - What do you believe Jesus is?
"A god (Divine), or a man (Created)?"
Quote<... snipped flamebait, assumptions and answers based not based on my posts ...>
I've grown really weary of you.
Until you provide valid evidence for Jesus being sickly I am finished with this nonsense "debate" between you, and I in that field.
That is my final word on this matter.
WhiteWings,
If you please, your answer does not make any sense to me.
Could Jesus catch a fatal disease?
Quote from: jabcat on September 23, 2010, 07:36:25 AM
Jesus was human as well as divine. Humans have maladies. I would think (this is my mind working - I could be wrong) that Jesus' faith, His direct line to His Father, the Father ensuring His will be done in His Son, etc., would indicate Jesus' victory and authority over things as they came up in His life. "Even the winds and seas obey Him". So I would think He could speak the word and be instantly cured of human problems as soon as He began to experience them, whether that be a cold, allergy problems, heartburn, etc. Or did He allow Himself to suffer those things as part of bearing our sorrows, etc.?
I imagine this post got lost in the shuffle somewhere along the line. Either way in the above scenario, this sees God and Jesus in control - which I'd think we pretty much all could believe.
Does this bridge any gaps for anyone (if you'd let it)? :2c:
Quote from: Quaesitor on September 24, 2010, 11:35:31 PM
I've been observing for a while and I think this thread has went to a point of no longer edify anyone and it could get worse.
My personal opinion is that it should be closed.
Please brothers respect where each of us are by the grace of God in our understanding of the Word and of God.
It is not our place nor do we have the capacity to change each others views, it is by God's Spirit only.
Peace
Q, your thoughts are noted - the thread is being monitored, and very well may have a fatal disease with a prognosis of a very short continued life span. :crywipe:
**I've made a little change to the 'Posting' note I linked to in an earlier post;
TM Discussion Forum is a DISCUSSION forum - moderated with consideration to the following definition of discussion;
dis-cus-sion
an act or instance of discussing;
consideration or examination by argument,
comment, etc., esp.
to explore solutions;
informal debate.
If anyone wants to have outright confrontational debates, frankly, take it somewhere else - even to PM if you want to "have it out with someone". That way the rest of us don't have to experience it.
A word to the wise. There
are some wise amongst us, right? :winkgrin:
Quote from: Lefein on September 24, 2010, 11:58:31 PM
Indeed Beloved Servant - At any rate, he certainly should have caught leprosy if he was so disease-able...The whole reason lepers where ostracised was because it was so contagious.
Yet another reason I believe it was highly, highly unlikely that he ever got sick, or was "capable" (if such a word could be used properly) of getting sick / being corrupted bodily.
Myth: leprosy is not contagious.
QuoteMyth: leprosy is not contagious.
Biblical leprosy =/= Modern leprosy
I really hate it when people miss the whole point over semantics. I really, really do.
This thread has so blessed me, I've already told 3 people about it, including one total stranger.
Quote from: Molly on September 25, 2010, 01:22:27 AM
This thread has so blessed me, I've already told 3 people about it, including one total stranger.
:bigGrin: A lot of good content/food for thought. I too was blessed by what you earlier said so blessed you - the love of God, the love of Jesus for us - being willing to suffer, know what we face, and give His life for us. He's not a God that's afar off and "can't be touched by the feelings of our infirmities". He came and walked and lived amongst us. Amen. :HeartThrob:
Quote from: jabcat on September 25, 2010, 12:14:29 AM
Quote from: jabcat on September 23, 2010, 07:36:25 AM
Jesus was human as well as divine. Humans have maladies. I would think (this is my mind working - I could be wrong) that Jesus' faith, His direct line to His Father, the Father ensuring His will be done in His Son, etc., would indicate Jesus' victory and authority over things as they came up in His life. "Even the winds and seas obey Him". So I would think He could speak the word and be instantly cured of human problems as soon as He began to experience them, whether that be a cold, allergy problems, heartburn, etc. Or did He allow Himself to suffer those things as part of bearing our sorrows, etc.?
I imagine this post got lost in the shuffle somewhere along the line. Either way in the above scenario, this sees God and Jesus in control - which I'd think we pretty much all could believe.
Does this bridge any gaps for anyone (if you'd let it)? :2c:
Bridging the gap--that's what Jesus does--he is the intermediary between us and the Father.
The total stranger pointed out that he wasn't healing people, they were healed by their faith. [imagine how this surprised me lol] But--he is standing in the gap between their faith and the Father, as a perfect conductor. The ability to conduct--the thing that makes him perfect--is his complete obedience [alignment with God's will.]
Now--someone please tell me what it would mean if you were living in a flesh body and finding it necessary to be obedient to death. Would you cure yourself if [it was God's will that] you were sick?
Hebrews 2:10
For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
"sufferings"G3804
πάθημα
pathēmapath'-ay-mah
From a presumed derivative of G3806;
something undergone, that is, hardship or
pain; subjectively an emotion or influence: - affection, affliction, motion,
suffering.PathosThe emotion of compassion
How possible is it for us to have compassion for another if we haven't suffered ourselves?
Oh! He suffered!
Oh! How He suffered!
Quote from: Beloved Servant on September 25, 2010, 01:38:13 AM
Oh! He suffered!
Oh! How He suffered!
But what does it mean to be obedient to death?
If I were obedient to death [which I am not since it is not required of me], then if I got sick I would not lift not one finger to cure myself--no doctor, no chicken soup, no vitamin C, no operation, no supernatural healing of myself.
He lived in a flesh body.
Molly..."The total stranger pointed out that he wasn't healing people, they were healed by their faith. [imagine how this surprised me lol]
That person has SEEN what orthodox religion and christian theology has made a "holy thing to man."
Luk 18:8 I say to you, that He will execute the justice to them quickly; but the Son of Man having come, shall he find the faith upon the earth?'
Mat 16:8 And Jesus having known, said to them, `Why reason ye in yourselves, ye of little faith, because ye took no loaves?
Wonderful and Beautiful Molly...Thank you and God Bless
But isn't Jesus the author and perfector of our faith?
Molly,
I believe it is required of us to be obedient unto death. Resurrection comes by way of the grave.
Resurection comes by the way of death.
Quote from: Molly on September 24, 2010, 06:58:09 PM
There is a chemistry or a metaphysics going on here. You put your finger on it. He is cleansing that which is unclean by coming into direct contact with it.
:cloud9: Going to read the last few pages after this one, but didn't want to lose my "place" with this quote. Molly, you put YOUR finger on it, it's a precept He opened my eyes to awhile back.
Romans 8:3
King James Version
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin,
condemned sin in the flesh: The flesh He condemned the sin in, WAS HIS OWN.
And before I go "there", let me go "here"...... :winkgrin:
Please note that God sent His own Son IN THE LIKENESS OF, sinful flesh. That means that God's Son IS NOT THE LIKENESS OF THE SINFUL FLESH HE CAME IN. God was in Christ reconciling all men unto Himself. Every seed bears fruit after it's own kind, and God is a Spirit and His "seed" therefore, IS SPIRIT.
It said He was without sin (sin used here as in wrong MOTIVE OF THE HEART, ie. without sinful motive), BUT He was in the likeness of sinful flesh. That flesh, as we read above, had sin in it (sin used here as the residue of curses since the fall).
So because He had no wrong motive of the heart sin (He said He only said and did that which came from/pleased His Father), the "residue sin" that is empowered by the law, WAS CONDEMNED IN HIS FLESH.
That means in that "residue sin", He took on some which cause sickness, but because He had no "wrong motive sin" THAT SEED of "residue sin" could not produce fruit ="The prince of this world cometh, but he hath nothing in Me".
Hard to put this one into words, hope it struck a chord in someone. :happy3: Blessings.....
Quote from: Lefein on September 24, 2010, 06:46:23 PM
Christ was under The Law, the law determined cleanliness until Christ's Passion was settled and he gave up the ghost, not the law of grace and inclusion of gentiles.
A sickly Jesus is an unfit sacrifice - unaccepted sacrifice, and we are dead in our sins.
:cloud9: The flesh profiteth nothing. Flesh and blood cannot enter the Kingdom, so His natural blood was not required or used to cleanse the heavenly things, either. Blessings....
I "see" it, Card.
But that does not mean that it ever took hold in his flesh.
Though on earth, He was in heaven, body, soul and spirit.
"I and the Father are one."
wow, Cardinal! It's the sin offering. There's your scapegoat, ww.
Leviticus 16:5
5And he shall take from the congregation of the people of Israel two male goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering.
But, the law is weakened by the flesh, until Jesus condemns sin in the flesh.
wow and wow :mshock:
2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
--Rom 8
He made the flesh irrelevant!
:cloud9: Meant to add this......I read many years ago, an account of a woman who said she was taken to heaven and talked with Jesus. The thing that stood out to me in her account that I have never forgotten (and maybe now I know why), was that she said He let her feel what He feels regarding humanity's PAIN, SICKNESS, AND SUFFERINGS.
She said it was only for a few seconds, or she would have lost her mind, but it gave her such a deep reverence and compassion for what He suffered/SUFFERS, being TOUCHED WITH OUR INFIRMITIES. Blessings....
MARK 15:25-37
25 And it was the THIRD hour, and they crucified him.
26 And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS.
27 And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other on his left.
28 And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.
29 And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, and saying, Ah, thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days,
30 Save thyself, and come down from the cross.
31 Likewise also the chief priests mocking said among themselves with the scribes, He saved others; himself he cannot save.
32 Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him.
33 And when the SIXTH hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the NINTH hour.
Perhaps for those 3 hours there was no light in His flesh.
:cloud9: Wow, are we in sync, Beloved......this was just running thru my spirit, too.....
And Molly something else you posted above struck me and is resonating in me as I wait for understanding here....it's this.....
Leviticus 16:5
5And he shall take from the congregation of the people of Israel two male goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering.
Never noticed this before.......two male goats/two thieves, one ram/one Christ. Also, can see this as, wherever two of you are gathered in My name/nature, there I am in the midst of you. I just saw this connection in a whole new way, because the goat nature IS the one of taking on the image of sinful flesh.
This is hard to express because it's not formed in ME fully yet, but this "looks" like another UR validation because it points to Him being the mediator (in the midst) for ALL MEN again, even those with the goat nature ("unsaved"). Wow..... :mshock:
Also; it was brought to my remembrance this week about the tent having GOATS skins as covering. Which is interesting as well, since the Tabernacle is not only a pattern of Him, but of ALL OF MANKIND. Blessings....
Quote from: Cardinal on September 25, 2010, 04:28:33 AM
Hard to put this one into words, hope it struck a chord in someone.
(http://dl9.glitter-graphics.net/pub/1218/1218669ydecv16h9f.gif) (http://www.glitter-graphics.com)
Love Struck peacemaker
More grist for the mill...
4For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
5Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
6In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
7Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
8Above 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;
9Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
14For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
15Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
16This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
17And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
18Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
19Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
20By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
21And having an high priest over the house of God;
22Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
--Heb 10
All I can gather is that getting sick has to do with sin and sin has to do with getting sick.....I think that is BS
For you micah7:9,
www.youtube.com/watch?v=riu-9y3SkjY&feature=related
Quote from: peacemaker on September 25, 2010, 05:28:54 AM
Quote from: Cardinal on September 25, 2010, 04:28:33 AM
Hard to put this one into words, hope it struck a chord in someone.
(http://dl9.glitter-graphics.net/pub/1218/1218669ydecv16h9f.gif) (http://www.glitter-graphics.com)
Love Struck
peacemaker
:cloud9: :goodone: :laughing7: :thumbsup:
Quote from: micah7:9 on September 25, 2010, 05:39:44 AM
All I can gather is that getting sick has to do with sin and sin has to do with getting sick.....I think that is BS
:cloud9: This is what I've seen to be true. At the very least, some sickness is caused by sin. Some is from generational curses where the sick person did not themselves commit the sin, but the fruit of it was passed down.
The elementary principle of the laying on of hands (prayer for the sick), comes from the mandates pertaining to the sin offering . The tabernacle was their "doctor's office". The people confessed their sin, brought their sacrifice, laid hands on it, and the sin was remitted and they were healed.
Same principle as the Israelites who had to look to the brazen serpent on the pole to receive healing, after serpents bit them for their sin. Check this out....
John 5:4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had . 5 And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years. 6 When Jesus saw him lie , and knew that he had been now a long time in that case, he saith unto him, Wilt thou be made whole? 7 The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled , to put me into the pool: but while I am coming , another steppeth down before me. 8 Jesus saith unto him, Rise , take up thy bed, and walk . 9 And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed, and walked : and on the same day was the sabbath. 10 The Jews therefore said unto him that was cured , It is the sabbath day: it is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed. 11 He answered them, He that made me whole, the same said unto me, Take up thy bed, and walk . 12 Then asked they him, What man is that which said unto thee, Take up thy bed, and walk ? 13 And he that was healed wist not who it was : for Jesus had conveyed himself away , a multitude being in that place. 14 Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole:
sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee. :cloud9: @ Willie......look at what I never noticed before in verse 5!!!
John 5:5 And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity
thirty and eight years. :mshock:
Quote from: jabcat on September 25, 2010, 12:23:02 AM
Quote from: Quaesitor on September 24, 2010, 11:35:31 PM
Please brothers respect where each of us are by the grace of God in our understanding of the Word and of God.
It is not our place nor do we have the capacity to change each others views, it is by God's Spirit only.
Peace
Q, your thoughts are noted - the thread is being monitored, and very well may have a fatal disease with a prognosis of a very short continued life span. :crywipe:
Thanks fam. :HeartThrob: http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/index.php?topic=8688.msg105164#msg105164
:cloud9: Amen "Q"....I was going to thank you too, but had to run last night unexpectedly. A good word in season. :thumbsup:
Absolute, probabilities, possibilities and unknowables
I will say this from time to time.
I would rather acknowledge the possibility that your position may be absolutely true (while nevertheless holding the probability that what I am seeing is true) than to act as tho I am sure that my position is an absolute- when I cannot provide scriptures that demonstrate it is so.
And when discussing things that we cannot be absolutely sure about via the testimony of scripture, I would rather see brothers and sisters maintain the speculative air of possibilities than to see them bang each other over the head with absolutes they may not have the scriptural authority to wield.
Nor would I want to damage the faith of one who is walking in the elementary principles (no one can move on to maturity without them, and not all of us who think we have them complete,do...1 Cor 2,3; He 5 & 6) by insisting that what they see is "wrong" or "carnal" rather than to simply suggest that perhaps there is something else/more there if we dig a little deeper together.
Let the child grow at a natural pace. Forcefeeding is harmful to the family(2 Tim 2:23-26) and a testimony that we are not as "deep" as we think we are.
The scriptures testify of themselves that somethings are not knowable, somethings are only partly known, and somethings are known- but far inferior in God's priority list to our unity and love for one another(Above all put on love Col 3:14 1 Pet 4:8).
Assertions of logic based on your paradigm may not seem enforceable to me...... and vice versa. Who can I to say their perspective is unlimited? Who has known the mind of the Lord?
These are just the observations of an old man who has spent way to many years rolling around wrestling in the dust- and still finds himself doing so once in awhile. Peace, John
Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,
According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness,
through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.
For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. (2Pe 1:2-8)
Quote from: jabcat on September 25, 2010, 11:05:01 AM
Quote from: jabcat on September 25, 2010, 12:23:02 AM
Quote from: Quaesitor on September 24, 2010, 11:35:31 PM
Please brothers respect where each of us are by the grace of God in our understanding of the Word and of God.
It is not our place nor do we have the capacity to change each others views, it is by God's Spirit only.
Peace
Q, your thoughts are noted - the thread is being monitored, and very well may have a fatal disease with a prognosis of a very short continued life span. :crywipe:
Thanks fam. :HeartThrob: http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/index.php?topic=8688.msg105164#msg105164
I'm happy things turned around.
Wen reading this I thought about the place of "ancient" in church as being the moderator of it.
Because in the body, everyone is free to share what the Spirit is giving them but that will most likely causes frictions. Now we are on a message board but if we were together to share in flesh, it would take someone or more to stay focused on keeping people aware of the liberty we ALL have in Christ.
Thank you mods for ministering for peace.
This board always give me hope that the BODY CAN be united when its HEAD is right where it sould be!
But back on topic, I find this discussion to be getting somewhere, love the 38 symbolism.
Expanded Internet Edition - June 27, 1999
Was Jesus Ever Sick?
by Ernest L. Martin, Ph.D., 1999
The title of this Doctrinal Report is plain enough and it is vitally important that we understand the answer. So essential is the proper answer to this question. It was one of the first queries in my initial theological quest that I began to ask myself. I also asked ministers of the Gospel for their answers. All of us should want to know (and we need to know) if Jesus was ever ill? Was he ever violently sick or perhaps mildly infirm for even a day in his life? The principal reason we ask such a question is because Jesus is defined in the New Testament as the very Son of God, the firstborn member of the Godhead (Colossians 1:15-22). So, can God get sick? Can a person without personal sin (such as Jesus) ever bear the consequences of sin that result in sicknesses and infirmities? Recall what the apostle Peter taught under divine inspiration. He wrote: "Who [Jesus] did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: Who [Jesus], when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: Who his own self [Jesus] bare our sins in his own body on the tree [a real live tree, not some dead planks of cut timber], that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes [by the cuts and the wounds of Jesus] ye were healed" (I Peter 2:22-24).
There is also something else to consider. Not only should we ask "Was Jesus Ever Sick?" but we should also ask "Can True Christians Get Sick Because of Their Sins?" Why should we inquire of such a question? Because Peter said that because Christ bore our sins on the tree of crucifixion, that "ye were healed." It seems to say in this inspired word that if Christ suffered for us on the tree (and also dying for each of us) and that Jesus actually paid for the sins that made us sick, then none of us should ever get sick because of our sins. Yes, that is correct. That is the proper interpretation. Note that Peter said without equivocation to all Christians: "ye are healed"? True, that is what Peter dogmatically states. The simple truth is, biblical teaching shows the practicing of sin can bring on sicknesses, and the greater the sins the worse the sicknesses to which humans can be subject. Note what Christ taught after he miraculously healed a man of his malady: "Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more lest a worse thing come unto thee" (John 5:14). Yes, but this event happened BEFORE Christ bore our sins for us and died for us on the tree. The fact is, NOW that Christ Jesus has borne our sins and died for us, NONE OF US ever get sick any longer because of our sins (no matter how minor or major they are). Read my new book titled: "The Essentials of New Testament Doctrine" where I place all of the teaching of the Scriptures together in a format that can easily be understood. That book points out the biblical teaching that all Christians are now considered sinless in God's eyes (I John 3:9). God no longer chastises us because of sins that we may commit (and recall, we are sinners – see I John 1:8). He does not use that kind of punishment upon us who are "in Christ." All of us are now healed from such sins (I Peter 2:24).
If this is the case, why do we yet get sick or have infirmities? I just recently had what some people call a "pinched nerve" that gave me severe pains down my right leg into my foot and toes. I could literally not walk except in agonizing pain. I was bedridden for two and a half months. I am now up and around by finding out the problem to my pain and by doing exercises to relieve it. True, God may have been chastising me for some reason (though I have no idea what it could have been), but I know one thing for certain, God was NOT punishing me for some sin or sins that I have been committing. God no longer brings on sickness and afflictions on His people because of their sins. After all, our sins have been taken away by the bearing of Christ of our sins (and those of the world) and because of this "ye are healed" of all sicknesses that were formerly given by God as a result of sins. But why did I become ill if it were NOT for some sin (or sins) that I have supposedly committed? The answer is simple if one will pay close attention to the Holy Scriptures. Note what the apostle Paul said in Romans 8:19-39.
"For the earnest expectation of the creature [that is, the creation, the physical Universe] waiteth for the manifestation of the Sons of God [for the time of our resurrections]. For the creature [again, the creation, the physical Universe] was made subject to vanity [Greek: debilitation, weakness and decay], not willingly [creation did NOT willingly desire to be in a decaying state], but by reason of Him who hath subjected the same [to weakness and decay] in hope, that the creation itself also shall be delivered from that bondage of corruption [of debilitation and decay] into the liberty of the glory of the Children of God [at our resurrections from the dead]. For we know that the whole creation [all the physical Universe] groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they [the physical Universe], BUT OURSELVES ALSO, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, EVEN WE GROAN WITHIN OURSELVES, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.... Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities [our sicknesses and weaknesses in the flesh]: for we know not what we should pray for: but the Spirit itself makes intercession for us [that Spirit who intercedes in Romans 8:34 is identified as Christ] with groanings which cannot be uttered.... And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his [God's] purpose."
Listen, that sciatic nerve pain that I experienced for two and a half months was not God chastising me for a sin or sins that I have done, are doing, or will do. Since Christ bore our sins in His body during His life (John 1:29) and on the tree of crucifixion, the Father no longer reckons us as sinners and we are accounted to be completely righteous as is Christ because we are now reckoned to be "in Him" (II Corinthians 5:21). We have no sins on us or in us (that is, reckoned to us by God) so we do not get sick because of sins (any type of sin that we might commit). But why do we who are "the Firstfruits of the Spirit [Christ]" still get sick – and quite often and sometimes severely? It is simply because we are still fleshly in body. We have not yet inherited our spiritual body that we will obtain in the redemption [the resurrection]. We are no different than all other physical things in the Universe that God has made subject to debilitation, weakness and decay. Indeed, look at the animals. Cattle and horses cannot sin, but they get sick just like we humans do. Dogs and cats cannot sin in any way, but they also get sick. Look at the Flora World (all plants). They also can become plagued and even die, and they do not sin in the least. And so it is with us. God no longer allows us to get sick because of our various sins (of course, if you call eating a green apple and the consequent stomach ache a sin, then your designation of "sin" can cause discomfort).
The simple truth is, all sicknesses and infirmities that people now experience (even we who are the Firstfruits of the Spirit) are because we are a part of the physical Universe that has not yet been redeemed from its debilitation and decay. Now, you can overeat, undereat, not eat the right things, overwork, underwork, and get banged up in a football game and you (or I) can suffer for such actions. But God does not reckon that these are sins that bring on your sicknesses. Indeed, as far as those sins are concerned (as Peter said) "ye are healed" (I Peter 2:21-24). All our sicknesses now are a result of our weak body frames (being made of tenuous flesh) and they are subject to decay and ruin (and finally death, see Hebrews 9:27). True, God can show mercy and heal us of our afflictions, or He can let us continue to be ill, but we can rest assured that none of our infirmities is brought on us by God because of our sins or our evil ways. God has eliminated our sins in Christ. Read my book on the "Essentials."
As for Jesus and sickness, the question should be rephrased: "Was Jesus Ever Well?" Though Jesus was never a sinner, He was bearing our sins during His entire life on earth. This made Him continually sickly (read Isaiah 53:1-12). People were always saying to Him: "Physician, heal yourself" (Luke 4:23). For a full account of the sicknesses that plagued Jesus during His lifetime, read chapter 23 of my book "Secrets of Golgotha." Recall, Jesus was sickly not because of His sins, but because He was bearing our sins (and the world's). So, sins are no longer a factor in Christian illnesses. "Ye are healed."
Ernest L. Martin
http://www.askelm.com/doctrine/d990701.htm
I Earnestly Disagree
Appendix: Was Jesus Ever Sick?
We ended the above article with the Divine principle that says "God's power is being perfected or matured in infirmity or weakness" (2 Corinthians 12:9-10). If this is the case (and it is), then this principle must have been manifested to its greatest extent in Jesus' life on earth. Of course, many would say this is evident in the things He endured during the final hours of His life, but is there a greater, more deeper fulfillment of this principle in Jesus' life? I believe there is.
It is often true to say that a medical doctor, or a nurse, tends to be less caring and sympathetic to a patient if they themselves have hardly ever been sick in their life, and therefore they don't know what it is like to be a sick patient. I think that you will find that the best doctors and carers are those who have experienced pain and sickness for themselves. This is true of most experiences in life - we don't really know something until we've experienced it. This has to apply to Jesus as well.
The common, traditional belief, widely held today, particularly in the 'prosperity movement,' is that Jesus was never, ever sick in any way whatsoever - not even a cold! I tended to believe this also for many years. But on a closer examination of a few key scriptures, I found this belief to be false. This has given me real comfort, especially as I have often been plagued by various infirmities (and at the time of writing, I have been suffering with M.E./C.F.S. for many years). No wonder Paul could glory in his infirmities because he was following the pattern of Christ! Jesus truly knows our pains and sicknesses, and He can therefore sympathise with us, because He took them upon Himself and experienced them! His servants also are to experience these things to some extent, for though He has taken the curse of the Law away in His death on the cross, we nevertheless have not received the full adoption and inheritance as yet - that is, the glorification of our bodies. In the meantime, believers in Christ have a deposit of the Spirit as we walk by faith. This treasure is still hidden in jars of earthen clay. Yet the glory is coming at the coming of Christ, when our bodies shall be transformed at the First Resurrection.
The Suffering Servant
The following texts from the letter to the Hebrews reveals that Christ is indeed the Physician who has experienced pain, infirmity and sickness, so He can truly sympathise with us. (It is possible, as some have suggested, that when Jesus said that His fellow Nazarenes should say to Him, "Physician, Heal yourself!" this is indicating that Jesus was known to be physically weak and sick and needed healing Himself (Luke 4:23). Others would say that He was referring to those in Nazareth, and not Himself).
"For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses ('infirmities' CV), but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin. Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need."
(Hebrews 4:15-16 NIV)
"During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he learned obedience from what he suffered and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him..."
(Hebrews 5:7-9 NIV)
Here we are clearly told that Jesus was tested or tried in every way as we are through the infirmities of the flesh - yet He was without sin. In His heart and mind, in His spirit, He was without sin. He never, ever disobeyed His God and Father, and He fulfilled the Divine Law in every sense. He was perfectly righteous in everything He did and said. But in His fleshly body, He nevertheless suffered the same things that we do as humans. We'll see why He suffered from sickness shortly. Yet we are also told in the second text above that during the days of Jesus' life as a human (the Greek literally reads 'in the days of His flesh') He learned obedience from what He suffered. The writer of Hebrews is not referring to the final hours of Jesus life and ministry alone, when Christ's obedience was made perfect or complete when He died on the cross for our salvation, but he is referring to Jesus' whole life on earth, the days of His flesh during which He suffered. Even from the beginning of His life on earth, Jesus took up the wreath of thorns that is the curse upon this Old Creation.
The apostle Matthew confirms this fact by quoting from one of the greatest texts of all that describes the character and ministry of the Messiah as the suffering servant of God - Isaiah 53.
"When Jesus came into Peter's house, he saw Peter's mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever. He touched her hand and the fever left her, and she got up and began to wait on him. When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: "He took up our infirmities and carried our diseases." "
(Matthew 8:14-17 NIV)
Matthew is not just telling us that the prophet Isaiah's words were fulfilled because Jesus healed all the sick by the power of the Lord and got rid of all the diseases, he's telling us something deeper. The above quote of Isaiah literally reads in the Greek "He got our infirmities, and He bears the diseases." That is to say, in some measure or other, Jesus got the illnesses and took upon Himself the diseases. This was fulfilled throughout His ministry and not just at the end when He greatly suffered and died. Without sounding mystical, it would appear as though Jesus absorbed in His flesh something of the diseases or illnesses of others so that He could experience them. I know from experience that to work or minister under an infirmity takes greater strength and endurance and pushes our spiritual stamina further than if we were a specimen of health and vitality. Infirmity also keeps us humble.
This theme of transference of sickness through love and sacrifice is often portrayed in many movies, TV shows and books. It usually involves a hero-type figure being willing to lay aside his or her well-being or even their own life to save another from dying. This is love - and it is this kind of love that Jesus has, and which He showed in His earthly life.
Isaiah 53
The following portion of Isaiah 53 clearly reveals the nature and experience of the Messiah as the One who suffers on behalf of others, particularly for the sake of His people. The words in italics are a more literal Hebrew rendering.
He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows (pains), and familiar with suffering (knowing illness).
Like one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Surely he took up our infirmities (illnesses)
and carried our sorrows (burdened with our pains),
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.
(Isaiah 53:3-4 NIV)
These verses prophesied that the Messiah would be a man of pains, and that He would be knowing illness during His days on earth; He would be burdened with the pains of humanity and He would bear our illnesses; and He would be despised and rejected as though He were judged and afflicted by God Himself. This doesn't sound like the modern Jesus of Christendom who is said to have never caught a cold or had a headache; and it doesn't tie up with the modern version of the 'health and wealth gospel' proclaimed by many today as well as the lives of those who preach it, where emphasis is arrogantly placed on fitness, strength, fleshly ease, worldly wealth, etc. This is not to say that health and well-being should not be important to believers - of course it should, for we are temples of God's Holy Spirit, but this applies more to our character and walk rather than the flesh itself. Jesus said "A man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions" (Luke 12:15) - and this includes our health as well. Paul also said that physical exercise is beneficial for some things, but the most important thing is not our physical health as such but our way of life - our godliness or devoutness. The righteous holy life has promises for this life as well as the one to come (1 Timothy 4:7-8).
This religious picture of Jesus as a kind of Greek super-hero is one of the reasons why many Jewish Rabbi's and scholars have disregarded Him as being the Messiah prophesied by Isaiah. Ernest L. Martin, in his book Secrets of Golgotha (Pages 335-341), gives a list of quotes from well known Jewish Rabbi's dating back to before the time of Christ showing that the above depiction of the Messiah being familiar with illness was the common Jewish understanding of Isaiah 53. Here is a quote from page 339:
Rabbi Jacob Ben Reuben (The Rabbanite, 12th Century) is even more specific. He wrote: "The prophet declares that he was 'despised and forlorn of men,' a 'man of pains and known to sickness.' It seems to me [said Jacob Ben Reuben] that no one would be called 'known to sickness' or a 'man of pains' except a man who suffered from severe sickness continually.
Another says (page 341):
"...now there are two species of sickness, one when a man is in pain but is still able to move about, the other when he is attacked by some such disease as consumption of fever, when he is prostrated upon his bed but free from pain; in the latter case he is said to be 'broken by sickness.' The prophet Isaiah says that both descriptions unite against the man spoken of."
Martin also says that Smith's Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, among other references, gives historical evidence to show that the early church fathers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries (before the era of Constantine in the 4th century) believed that Jesus was quite frail in His appearance and even quite repulsive to look at. Apart from His teaching and His miracles there wouldn't have been anything about His appearance that would've attracted people to Him. It's only from the 4th century onwards that we get the picture of Jesus as a handsome, strong, fair man, not unlike depictions of the Greek gods.
The New Testament reveals that the real Jesus of Nazareth was one and the same as Yahweh of the Hebrew Scriptures, the very Image and Form of God. Yet He was given a body of flesh that was especially prepared for Him so that He could descend to this earth as a human being, laying aside all of His heavenly glory and majesty and power, and take the form of a Servant. Through a life of love, compassion and mercy, and the ultimate humiliating sacrifice of the cross, He took the punishment and chastening, the sicknesses and the pains that rightly belong to us and bore them Himself. And it is this 'weakness' that is the power and wisdom of God. How can anyone reject such a wonderful Redeemer and Messiah - as Jesus Christ is.
Yet it is interesting to note that in the gospel accounts, after His resurrection, when Jesus appeared to His disciples, none of them recognised Him at first - until their eyes were opened or they saw His five remaining wounds in His hands, feet and side. This would suggest that the resurrected, glorified Jesus looks a little different in appearance now than when He walked this earth as the Suffering Servant. He is the King of kings and Lord of lords, who will return as the victorious King, the Son of David, in power and glory - the Lion who is also the wounded Lamb.
http://www.purposeoflife.org.uk/infirmity.htm
I never could figure out why they couldn't recognize him after his resurrection. Mary thinks he's the gardener [surely that would be a physically strong and healthy looking man] and doesn't recognize him until he talks to her.
On the road to Emmaus, the disciples walk and talk with him and never recognize him, although their hearts are burning within them.
I've always known he suffered during his life [Isa 53], but never understood why or how. He's always going off by himself to pray and rest, he falls asleep in an open boat in the middle of a storm, total peace or exhaustion? The women are always fussing over him like mother hens, feeding him, washing his feet. Was it because they alone could empathize with his pain? Because they understood what it meant to be to be deplete of physical strength?
During the three years of his ministry he is like a workhorse, walking everywhere, preaching, healing, taking on the Pharisees. Does this come from superhuman strength or the weakness that is made perfect in God?
2 Corinthians 12:10
Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.
2 Corinthians 12:9
But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me.
Because they hadn't eaten at His table.
"He appeared to be going further, but they constrained him, saying, "Stay with us, for it is toward evening and the day is now far spent." So he went in to stay with them. When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them. And their eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight."
Quote from: eaglesway on September 25, 2010, 05:13:02 PM
Absolute, probabilities, possibilities and unknowables
I will say this from time to time.
I would rather acknowledge the possibility that your position may be absolutely true (while nevertheless holding the probability that what I am seeing is true) than to act as tho I am sure that my position is an absolute- when I cannot provide scriptures that demonstrate it is so.
And when discussing things that we cannot be absolutely sure about via the testimony of scripture, I would rather see brothers and sisters maintain the speculative air of possibilities than to see them bang each other over the head with absolutes they may not have the scriptural authority to wield.
Nor would I want to damage the faith of one who is walking in the elementary principles (no one can move on to maturity without them, and not all of us who think we have them complete,do...1 Cor 2,3; He 5 & 6) by insisting that what they see is "wrong" or "carnal" rather than to simply suggest that perhaps there is something else/more there if we dig a little deeper together.
Let the child grow at a natural pace. Forcefeeding is harmful to the family(2 Tim 2:23-26) and a testimony that we are not as "deep" as we think we are.
The scriptures testify of themselves that somethings are not knowable, somethings are only partly known, and somethings are known- but far inferior in God's priority list to our unity and love for one another(Above all put on love Col 3:14 1 Pet 4:8).
Assertions of logic based on your paradigm may not seem enforceable to me...... and vice versa. Who can I to say their perspective is unlimited? Who has known the mind of the Lord?
These are just the observations of an old man who has spent way to many years rolling around wrestling in the dust- and still finds himself doing so once in awhile. Peace, John
Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,
According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness,
through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.
For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. (2Pe 1:2-8)
:first:
Quote from: Beloved Servant on September 25, 2010, 05:57:06 AM
For you micah7:9,
www.youtube.com/watch?v=riu-9y3SkjY&feature=related
Thank you..it would seem that the person who wrote those words has been listening in on my daily and evening prayers, almost word for word. Thank you again and I pray that all goes well for you and yours.
Quote from: micah7:9 on September 25, 2010, 12:45:38 AM
Quote from: Lefein on September 24, 2010, 11:58:31 PM
Indeed Beloved Servant - At any rate, he certainly should have caught leprosy if he was so disease-able...The whole reason lepers where ostracised was because it was so contagious.
Yet another reason I believe it was highly, highly unlikely that he ever got sick, or was "capable" (if such a word could be used properly) of getting sick / being corrupted bodily.
Myth: leprosy is not contagious.
I think there are two forms of it, contagious and non contagious, in history the lepors were outcasts because they had to avoid all people to stop spreading the disease. I remember in the film papayon that steve mcqueen thought he got infected, but the lepor explained how he had a version of it that was not contagious.
Quote from: thinktank on September 25, 2010, 08:22:35 PM
I think there are two forms of it,
, in history the lepors were outcasts because they had to avoid all people to stop spreading the disease. I remember in the film papayon that steve mcqueen thought he got infected, but the lepor explained how he had a version of it that was not contagious.
That's correct. There is wet and dry leprosy.
Also known as Hansen's disease; it is a chronic bacterial infection that damages the nerves (especially in the limbs and facial area) and can cause severe skin damage. If left untreated, very serious complications occur including blindness and disfigurement. Leprosy is spread through droplets of nasal mucus only in the first stages of the disease. Leprosy is not highly contagious as most people believe.
http://www.mckechnies.net/family/_references/medical.htm
Leprosy is very weakly transmissible (by sneezes), and in almost all cases there has been extensive contact with a victim of lepromatous leprosy during childhood. However, its victims (and imagined victims) have inspired fear and loathing, and do so to this day (i.e., children's sick jokes). Drug treatment is effective but takes several years to work, and there are political and economic obstacles to its widespread use. * Minocycline (!) for leprosy: Br. Med. J. 304: 91, 1992.
willieH: Hi Tank! :cloud9:
Long time, no
refute! :laughing7:
PART #1Quote from: thinktank on September 24, 2010, 11:04:05 PM
:hithere: Hello Willie it's your friendly neighbourhood nemesis :laughing7:
It seems you got yourself in a sticky situation by denying the divinity of Jesus, I can't believe you said that :mshock: But then again :laughing7:
But your entitled to your opinion which is UNFOUNDED in the WORD, which you seemingly know a great deal about, but not enough it seems. I hope my word will be a blessing to you and to others as the holy spirit guides them.
As are YOU entitled to your "opinion" Tank... I hope the very same for ALL, in this answer to you. :winkgrin:
FIRST --- I have hardly placed myself in a "sticky situation"... :laughing7: I have spent many years in the study of the state of YHVH and His WORD bears out via His TESTIMONY and His Sons TESTIMONY, and the TESTIMONY of the Apostles... that HE ALONE is GOD...
SECOND --- No one ever responded to the OT Scriptures I have noted that
YHVH claims not only to be the ONLY GOD that EXISTS, but notes the DETAIL that there are NO "co-God's"
beside Him, nor will there EVER BE! Here they are if you care to look them up and learn --
Isaiah 43:10-11 -- Isaiah 44:6 -- Isaiah 45:5-7 -- Isaiah 45:18 -- Deut 4:35 -- Isaiah 44:8 -- Hosea 13:4 -- Have fun! :bgdance:
willieH --- 1. Where does it SAY in the WORD, that JESUS (the man) was "God incarnate"?Quote from: TankRomans
3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, [1] condemned sin in the flesh:
So here we have God sending his son in the likness of flesh. So this confirms that the son did indeed exist before entering the world in the likness of human flesh.
Again the same here
Romans
32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
So God spared his son. So Jesus is not simply a product/created being that God created during the time of Mary, but rather he existed before incarnating inside Mary's womb.
FIRST -- These verses say NOTHING of
JESUS being "God incarnate"...
SECOND -- I have never suggested that
JESUS is a product or creation... But as are ALL, He was/is emergent from
YHVH, not from Himself. Your view of the "Creation" is that it somehow was non-existent before it came to BE manifest, yet emerged from an UNCHANGING entity. This is CONTRARY thinking.
The Creation is a REVELATION of an UNREVEALED portion of the
WORD of
YHVH God... which has ALWAYS BEEN within that
WORD... a bit more study and prayer might reveal this to you.
THIRD --- (and you shall surely not accept this) We ALL pre-existed this realm Tank --
Job 38:7 -- note ...
ALL the SONS of GOD were shouting...
JESUS was 'MADE" in the LIKENESS of SINFUL flesh, but OVERCAME that FLESH in which He (as do we) resided. Try again, ...this does not prove
JESUS was God. :dontknow:
willieH --- 2. The WORD says that GOD is EVERLASTING... CHRIST died, therefore was not "everlasting", as He spent time in DEATH (interrupting LIFE) and was not ALIVE... How can it therefore be said that He was GOD which is EVER LASTING (without interruption of LIFE)?Quote from: TankI do not have a precise answer to this :mshock: but I have two possible answers
1. God died in flesh and his earthly tabernacle, or his temple was destroyed but he continues to exist in spirit, by preaching to the spirits in prison and also meeting the thief on the cross in spirit.
Lots of assuming in this offering...
FIRST --- To say GOD DIED is contrary to who and what He IS... for it proposes CHANGE from EVER LIVING, to DEATH...
SECOND --- You grab a LITERAL interpretation of SPIRITUAL text once again...
CHRIST died and was
DEAD for 3 days and 3 nights... He wasn't appearing at the "pulpit" of a "prison" preaching to others which are
DEAD. This is talking about US, Tank... You and I and all other humans are the SPIRITS IN PRISON... and until the
WORD of God is revealed to us, we remain
DEAD and IN the PRISON of SIN --
Matt 8:22THIRD --- You cling to THEOLOGICAL mythology... The Lord did not "meet" with the THIEF... the THIEF is yet to realize paradise, just as are ALL those mentioned in
Heb 11 (faith chapter)... as well as the ENTIRE balance of the human race.
The Lord simply made a PROMISE to the THIEF on the DAY of
their deaths, that the THIEF would BE with Him in paradise... Heck, when Mary encountered Him
after His RESURRECTION, He had, ...YET to ASCEND to the Father!! --
John 20:17Quote from: Tank2. If Jesus ceased to exist, God still exists (Father and holy spirit) albeit missing one of their members but still operational. The promise given to Jesus is that God will not leave his soul in hell and thus God is resurected again to life. God dying, seems impossible, but didn't the father say, SACRIFICE my only son.
What a load of DOUBLE-TALK! :omg: You have a habit of employing fiction in your answers (if, coulda, woulda, shoulda, maybe, possibly, etc)...
Yes
YHVH said "SACRIFICE my only SON"... not "SACRIFICE" a portion of MYSELF and My GODHOOD"... It is not rocket science to note that a "SON" is preceeded by His FATHER.
GOD is ever-lasting and EVER LIVING... which means that NO PORTION of Him can EVER find INTERRUPTION...
The
WORD which was
YHVH living IN the MAN,
JESUS CHRIST (godhead/divinity) REMOVED Himself before
CHRIST died, to which
CHRIST reacted --
Mark 15:34 -- He reacted in this manner, for He (like the 1st Adam) came directly from, and was manifest into this realm completely CONSCIOUS of
YHVH and knew HIM intimately having NEVER been separated from Him previously.
willieH --- 3. The WORD says that GOD cannot be tempted with evil -- James 1:13 -- yet also says that CHRIST was tempted -- Heb 4:15 -- is the WORD contradictory? Or maybe indeed, the understanding of men as they observe that WORD, that is in contradiction? :dontknow:
Quote from: TankGod cannot be tempted with evil, neither can God tempt, but yet Abraham was tempted by God.
More CONTRARY words... "neither can God tempt, but yet Abraham was tempted by God" -- Abraham was
ORDERED to sacrifice His son without QUESTIONING
YHVH... no "tempatation" was done... Any more than the 10 Commandments are a set of "temptations"... :rolleye:
Gen 22:1 translates the word
TEMPTATION which is the word
#H5254 - HUPECHO which means to SUFFER or ENDURE... it does not carry the meaning to propose WRONGDOING... as is the modern perception of
TEMPTATION. God was
TESTING Abraham...
Genesis 22:1 (American Standard Version)
1 And it came to pass after these things, that God did prove Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham. And he said, Here am I.
Genesis 22:1 (Young's Literal Translation)
1And it cometh to pass after these things that God hath tried Abraham, and saith unto him, `Abraham;' and he saith, `Here [am] I.'
Genesis 22:1 (New American Standard Bible)
1Now it came about after these things, that God tested Abraham, and said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am."
Genesis 22:1 (English Standard Version)
1After these things(A) God tested Abraham and said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here am I."The picture of
YHVH and
JESUS CHRIST is embodied in this portrayal...
A "temptation" of Abraham would be more on the order of telling him, "either YOU will die or your Son will, ...pick one"
More FICTION:
Quote from: TankTwo possible answers
1. Jesus was God yet, he came in the form of a man and man can be tempted with evil. Good example of Jesus is imagine a F40 ferrari engine stuffed inside a mini, now the ferrari engine can only do so much inside the limitations of the mini and in all sense and purposes the car is not called a ferrari but a mini.
2. God is not limited by his word for he can do the impossible, the temptations of Jesus were there to prove him
"POSSIBLE"? You note here, that you are completely UNSURE of what you believe...
You falsely place LIMITATION on the
WORD of TRUTH... how can we therefore DEPEND upon it?
:omg: --- Are you serious, Tank? In stating the above, you take the
WORD of
YHVH and propose that there can be SEPARATIONS between Himself and HIS
WORD, ...if He so chooses! :wacko2:
You trip over your own words, brother Tank... How can
YHVH and His
WORD be ONE? And UNCHANGING, ...if there is "POSSIBILITY" that they can be CONTRARY? That is (no offense) NONSENSE and you know it. (or, at least, you should know it :dunno:)
If YOUR PROPOSAL is so... then GOD can LIE... and His
WORD is only subject to being TRUTH, if He decides to remain within its "limitations" :mnah:
You are welcome to this SELF deception if you like...
Quote from: TankLuke 4:13
And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season
1 Corinthians 10:13
There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.
Not sure what you think you have proposed in these verses, but these hardly prove that
JESUS was God... only that He was MAN... As HE noted of Himself MANY times --
Luke 22:69 (and many others) -- and His Apostles followed suit --
1 Tim 2:5I'll stop here and finish in another post... :nod:
...willieH :cloud9:
Quote from: Beloved Servant on September 25, 2010, 06:41:47 PM
Because they hadn't eaten at His table.
"He appeared to be going further, but they constrained him, saying, "Stay with us, for it is toward evening and the day is now far spent." So he went in to stay with them. When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them. And their eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight."
Wow.....Thank You Lord Jesus.
WillieH, if Jesus isn't God, then who is he?
Is he Divine, or is he not?
If he is Divine, he must be God - only God is divine.
If he is human...then how can he say that before "Abraham was, I am"
If he is not a human, then how is he our Christ?
If he is an angel, then why does he allow himself to be worshiped? When Thomas said; "My lord, my God"
If he is not God, then how did Thomas make that confession and not be a heathen?
If he is not God, and is then only Human...how is he Life, and Truth? Only God is Life (the absolute source and maintainer of it), and only God is Truth (the one who determines what is Reality, what is. Deu 30:20 "God is thy life."
John 6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
In essence; What is Jesus, if he is not God himself?
willieH: Hi Tank... :cloud9:
continuing...
PART #2willieH --- 4. The WORD says via the WORDS of CHRIST Himself, that He has a "god" -- Mark 15:34 -- How can GOD have a "god"? (I do not mean this in ANY WAY, to sound at all disrespectful toward the Lord JESUS CHRIST), ...But are you saying that CHRIST is His own "God"? :dontknow:Quote from: TankJesus has a question for you willie
Mathew
Jesus Willie, 42, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. 43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, 44 The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? 45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
Where have you found me arguing this point?
CHRIST is sired by
YHVH, ...but is decendent of DAVID.
Who is
CHRIST's Father, Tank? The Scriptures say it is the HOLY SPIRIT --
Matt 1:20 -- Luke 1:35 -- if there are multiple "Gods" which are God... who and what is "the Father" (
YHVH)? And if the "Holy Spirit" portion of God is the FATHER of
CHRIST, then why is
YHVH referred to as "the FATHER"?
The
WORD plainly states that He is child of the HOLY GHOST, ...not (according to you), "the Father" (
YHVH) :dontknow:
Because of the CLOUDS of RELIGIOUS Theology dim your vision, you fail to realize is that
YHVH ...
IS... the HOLY GHOST (Spirit)
YHVH IS SPIRIT and
IS HOLY...
willieH --- 5. How can CHRIST be a SON of God, and GOD also (a SON being an "offspring")?Quote from: TankJohn 5:18
Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God
Is Jesus God?
Philippians 2:6
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God :dsunny: :icon_king:
GOD ...IS... ALL in ALL... which means that HE permeates ALL... If every trace of who and what we are is HIM... then how can it be said that we are NOT God?
YHVH even calls men who are sinners and which shall ALL DIE -- gods --
Psalm 82:6-7That MEN (including
JESUS CHRIST who was a MAN --
1 Tim 2:5) Are ORDERED by the will of
YHVH to be who and what they ARE... does not remove them from being "gods"... and also does not mean that they ARE (in origin),
YHVH...
They (men) ARE
YHVH because (on Eternal, not temporal basis)
YHVH chooses to PERMEATE them (men, beginning with
JESUS)... not because they (men) ARE of themselves, ..."gods".
Quote from: TankWho else can claim to be equal with God? and don't say David Beckam :soccer: :laughing7:
Man and woman? Isn't the wife regarded as the weaker sex, but yet equal to the husband?
Feminist theology can wait for another day. We are dealing with the common factor here, not the potentials or the unique woman who can compete with men.
Also women bring in their own unique strengths, which do not compete with men, but a strength which is not so much valued today, but that's another story.
This is just a lot of irrelevant meandering... :faint:
willieH --- 6. The WORD says that GOD is not a MAN -- Num 23:19 -- but also notes that CHRIST was a MAN -- 1 Tim 2:5 -- and that this MAN was a mediator between GOD and MAN... If He is GOD, then does He "mediate" between Himself and Himself?Quote from: TankHe mediates between man and his father who is greater than all. The problem is that you deny the three therefore it is imposible to come to an adequate answer. It is only when men accept the teachings of Christ above the doctrines of men, that they can understand the relationship between the three. Whom do you choose this day, men or Christ?
Here is a powerful revelation I received only recently
Genesis
18And the Lord appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; 2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground, 3 And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
I'd like to see you intellectually wriggle your way through this one :laughing7:
Who do you suppose the three represent? And please don't say the three wise men :grin:
FIRST --- I do not "wriggle" any more than do you, Tank... I believe what I believe, because I have dedicated the last 34 years of my life to the study of the
WORD. I have never stated that I know EVERYTHING... on the contrary... I believe there is an ETERNITY's worth of learning before me. So as I answer you... it is disingenuous for you to assume that I answer just as a hobby to find ways to confound
YOU. How self-centered is that? Get over yourSELF!
I answer according to that which I have, within my
incomplete knowledge... found to be in alignment with the Scriptures as well as LOGIC and REASON... BOTH of which we are called unto --
Isaiah 1:18 -- Rev 22:17...
We are made in the IMAGE of GOD. How many PERSONS are YOU, Tank? And if you would be so kind, please identify which of the THREE, ...I am presently speaking to! :laughing7:
SECOND --- I think it is a very creative proposal that you have made, but unfortunately it requires much ASSUMPTION, to declare these THREE as manifestations of the "Father, Son & HS"... Only TWO went down into Sodom... why was that? Where did the other one go? Was He not concerned or involved in the coming destruction of these cities?
THIRD --- I propose that GOD is UNSEEN to ALL SINFUL men... as the Scriptures note... and that NO MAN has EVER SEEN GOD at ANY TIME (except
CHRIST) --
John 6:46 -- 1:18 -- 1 John 4:20 -- (this "at ANY TIME" includes Abraham in this Scripture)
(maybe
YOU can do a little "wriggling" now, eh? :laugh:)
I propose these 3 to be ANGELS of GOD... bearing the
WORD of GOD to Abraham. Wherever and whenever the
WORD is present,
YHVH is present... and in the presence of 2 or MORE, (
THREE) WITNESSES is the TRUTH (which is the
WORD --
John 14:6) ...established.
Your turn... :laughing7:
willieH --- 7. Did a portion of GOD, die? If so, then that portion of God (Him/them) is NOT PERFECT... for PERFECTION (which means COMPLETE) does not change (nor does it need to)... CHRIST (the man) went from LIFE to DEATH then back to LIFE, which is a notation and progression of change.Quote from: TankThis is your opinion of what perfection represents,you have used this argument many times but doesn't really add up as proof as such.
So says you, with NO FOUNDATION provided for your words...
Let's see if it is "my opinion" or the actual meaning of the WORD as used in the
WORD... The word
PERFECT in the Greek is --
#5046 TELEIOS -- according to STRONGS means -- COMPLETE/PERFECT -- these words are interchangeable.
This word is used in
Matt 5:48 -- instructing us to BE (complete/perfect) -- "TELEIOS" -- as IS the Father in Heaven, which is (complete/perfect) "TELEIOS"... :declare:
Quote from: TankBut if we take on board what you say, then perhaps it means that Jesus when he died continued to live, so it means your idea of perfection continues (As I explained on one of my answers previously).
No it does not mean that at all...
JESUS the man DIED... the
WORD which
IS YHVH, removed Himself from the
MAN,
JESUS, that the sacrifice be completed in the DEATH of INNOCENCE on behalf of the GUILTY.
willieH --- Please explain how it can be stated that He was TOUCHED "with the FEELING of our infirmities" -- Heb 4:15 -- when (according to you) He had no experience with them at all?Quote from: TankThere's a big difference between experiencing our infirmity, in let's say the garden of gethsame, where he was in such pain that he sweated blood, perhaps here he experinced some kind of disease or suffering, but that does not mean that Jesus spent his lifetime being sick,
I have never suggested that
JESUS was continually SICK... I have stated that there were moments in His life that He experienced variations of ALL the things (including disease), which need HEALING. He was tempted, because we are, He got hungry because we do, He experienced work, play, humor, sorrow, ...all the things we experience...
Quote from: Tankoh no Jesus was a man of faith the scriptures say that the child grew and had great knowledge of the scriptures, even going to the temples to learn.
You see that Jesus since his childhood was taught and he grew, this means he was not God, but yet was God. In other words he was God but yet became like us, in order to bethe perfect sacrifice without blemish.
The faith he had is the same faith that we have access to, we can in fact do the same miracles he did and even more, but living a holy life the same as Jesus did is paramount to achieving these kinds of miracles, the other major difference between us and him is that he was created sinless and never sinned not once throughout his life.
There are several flaws in your observation bro...
FIRST --- GOD does NOT need to "learn"... He KNOWS ALL... If
JESUS was God, then "learning" was not necessary. He displayed that He did not possess all knowledge, when He asked if it were possible, that the CUP be removed... :dontknow: As well as asking GOD, why He had WITHDRAWN --
Mark 15:34 -- If He were GOD, then He would have KNOWN the answer to this question. :dontknow:
SECOND --- ALL men are "created" sinless... What baby has SINNED? Sin is a conscious involvement in the TRANSGRESSION of the LAW --
1 John 3:4 -- No child
purposes SIN until he/she becomes aware of the choices being either GOOD or EVIL. The word SIN means "missing the mark"... Try looking it up.
willieH --- Please explain how it can be stated that He was TOUCHED "with the FEELING of our infirmities" -- Heb 4:15 -- when (according to you) He had no experience with them at all?
That is just like a MAN, stating to a WOMAN amidst childbirth -- "I know" what you're going through"... :rolleye: Quote from: TankLike I explained in the "comedy section" I did, how can Christ say I know what you going through to a woman in child birth? Please answer that?
If
YHVH chose to reveal the experience in the mind of the man
JESUS... then He could hold the perception... that did not necessarily take place, for He experienced the ENTIRE human condition... successfully, ...I do not believe
CHRIST experienced EVERY disease or EVERY type of pain... but neither does any other man.
We share the human experience with sufferings of disease, injury, disappointment, dispair, etc... but each experience varies concerning which of these we encounter (not everyone experiences cancer, aids, heart disease, war, physical beatings, mental disorder, etc), but we ALL get our portions of them.
No
other man (other than
JESUS, if the Father decided He should know) is capable of "knowing" what a woman experiences in childbirth. :winkgrin:
Quote from: TankHe sweated blood in the garden of gethsame, isn't that enough? Hasn't the lord suffered enough already, but yet you want to say he suffered sickness throughout his life, even though he never sinned?
As I have already noted... I have not suggested that He was "sick" His entire life. I said that He could not be "touched" with the "feeling", unless in fact, He was.
willieH --- Crucifixtion, beatings, humiliations are definitely sorrowful endurings, but are not the SAME as enduring the INFIRMITIES of disease. I got my butt kicked more than once being raised in East Los Angeles... :swordfight: ...but those beatings, as sorrowful as they were, do not compare to, nor are they the SAME experience as the CANCER that I am presently battling! :mnah:Quote from: TankI'm sure that cancer is a tough disease to battle and only sufferers know what it's like, but :mshock: cruxification not the same? How can you boast and say your disease is far worse than what the lord had to go through?
I did not say that cancer was "far worse" then "crucifixtion"... It is YOU which have said this.
I have just stated that recieving BEATINGS is NOT the same as suffering of DISEASE. Mental dispair is suffering which cannot be compared to BEATINGS, ...STARVATION is suffering which cannot be compared to BEATINGS, ...LOSS of LOVED ones is suffering which cannot be compared to BEATINGS... etc, etc.
Quote from: TankHere's a scripture for you
1 Peter 4:12
Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you:
What revelence has this verse?
Quote from: TankAlso the old testament saints
Hebrews 11:36
And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment:
These men during the course of their lives, surely also suffered various "bouts" with HEALTH issues (disease) as well as the mentioned, scourgings.
Quote from: TankTo finish on a positive note heres a scripture of encouragment
3 John 1:2
Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth.
Why would John wish this, if HEALTH issues would not arise in believers? Just because we have FAITH, does not exempt us from the various sufferings which must be encountered on the PATHWAY to PERFECTION (completeness!) --
Heb 2:10:Peace: Tank...
...willieH :happygrin:
willieH: Hi Rebecca... :hithere:
Quote from: Cardinal on September 25, 2010, 08:02:38 AM
Quote from: micah7:9 on September 25, 2010, 05:39:44 AM
All I can gather is that getting sick has to do with sin and sin has to do with getting sick.....I think that is BS
:cloud9: This is what I've seen to be true. At the very least, some sickness is caused by sin. Some is from generational curses where the sick person did not themselves commit the sin, but the fruit of it was passed down.
The elementary principle of the laying on of hands (prayer for the sick), comes from the mandates pertaining to the sin offering . The tabernacle was their "doctor's office". The people confessed their sin, brought their sacrifice, laid hands on it, and the sin was remitted and they were healed.
Same principle as the Israelites who had to look to the brazen serpent on the pole to receive healing, after serpents bit them for their sin. Check this out....
John 5:4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had . 5 And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years. 6 When Jesus saw him lie , and knew that he had been now a long time in that case, he saith unto him, Wilt thou be made whole? 7 The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled , to put me into the pool: but while I am coming , another steppeth down before me. 8 Jesus saith unto him, Rise , take up thy bed, and walk . 9 And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed, and walked : and on the same day was the sabbath. 10 The Jews therefore said unto him that was cured , It is the sabbath day: it is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed. 11 He answered them, He that made me whole, the same said unto me, Take up thy bed, and walk . 12 Then asked they him, What man is that which said unto thee, Take up thy bed, and walk ? 13 And he that was healed wist not who it was : for Jesus had conveyed himself away , a multitude being in that place. 14 Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.
:cloud9: @ Willie......look at what I never noticed before in verse 5!!!
John 5:5 And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years. :mshock:
WOW sister Card... The Lord is indeed using you to reveal a very unique observation about disease... :thumbsup:
...willieH :cloud9:
willieH: Hi Lefein... :cloud9:
Do you really wish to READ my answers to your questions, brother Lefein? Won't you be getting headaches? :dontknow:
Hope you don't get a headache... :friendstu:
I have been a believer in the "ONENESS" of God for 34 years. :Book:
I spent much time (25 years) in the "trinitarian" church system as well... Believing that our human perceptions can be incorrect, and fellowshipping with many that I firmly disagreed with on this subject. They indeed were loving and wonderful people, and I have nothing negative to report of any of them... all of them however, were just like me... SINNERS. I wished to get experience with their theological viewpoint, and concerning "church", there were very few alternative Christian fellowship options available (still are very few)...
TRUTH is a revelation that must be sought, not just taught and then promptly "believed".
Most "church going" Christians are taught their "beliefs"... I took a different route.
I studied, then discussed with leaders, that which I discovered. They himmed & hawwed until it just became redundant futility. In any conversation with any which hold
JESUS as GOD, ...I hold nothing against them OR YOU... As I said previously... I hold the deepest respect and LOVE for Him... and always will.
But when the TRUTH is discussed, and then debated from UNBIBLICAL and/or UNREASONABLE and/or ILLOGICAL positions... Those who cling to that which has been TAUGHT them without investigation of those "teachings", will have to bear that insistence, before the throne.
Most Christianity thinks the sorrowfully behaved drunks, drug users, whores, or murderers have the worst to look forward to in facing GOD... I believe it is those who IGNORE the truth of the
WORD, that shall bear WORSE SHAME than any of these "outcasts".
Quote from: Lefein on September 26, 2010, 12:11:19 AM
WillieH, if Jesus isn't God, then who is he?
He was who He said He was -- Son of MAN, ...Son of GOD...
The HUMAN Son of Man (born into sinful flesh)... the emergent Son of GOD (permeated by the almighty
YHVH)...
He is the FIRSTBORN of many (other SONS of GOD)... FIRST to RISE from DEATH... FIRST to live WITHOUT SIN (adhereing PERFECTLY to the 10 commandments, which are not only the "law of the judgment of SIN", but are
prophetic as well)
Quote from: Lefein on September 26, 2010, 12:11:19 AMIs he Divine, or is he not?
ALL are emergent of the DIVINE... only ONE is GOD, that is
YHVH... all others are emergent SONS of GOD. There are NO other "gods" beside Him, or in cooperation with Him... but there are INNUMERABLE "gods" which are EMERGENT of
YHVH, beginning with
CHRIST.
Quote from: Lefein on September 26, 2010, 12:11:19 AMIf he is Divine, he must be God - only God is divine.
JESUS is NOT divine of Himself... He is divine, because He is the Son of GOD... ALL shall, in the ETERNAL be "divine" for
YHVH ...IS... ALL in ALL in that setting...
Quote from: Lefein on September 26, 2010, 12:11:19 AMIf he is human...then how can he say that before "Abraham was, I am"
JESUS spoke both as a MAN, and from the position of
YHVH during which He bore audibly and physically, the UNSEEN, and SILENT God of ALL men... (including
CHRIST) which (with His own voice) noted
YHVH as HIS GOD --
Mark 15:34 -- and which the Apostle Paul also noted under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit --
Eph 1:3Quote from: Lefein on September 26, 2010, 12:11:19 AMIf he is not a human, then how is he our Christ?
It is
YHVH God which puts all things under His feet --
1 Cor 15:28 -- and once this is COMPLETE... then so shall
CHRIST be subject to the ONE which has done this... HIS GOD, ...
YHVH Quote from: Lefein on September 26, 2010, 12:11:19 AMIf he is an angel, then why does he allow himself to be worshiped? When Thomas said; "My lord, my God"
Never said He was an "angel"... He was a MAN... but we no longer KNOW Him after the flesh --
2 Cor 5:16 -- we KNOW Him as the WORSHIP WORTHY,
first SON of GOD... and we are to cast ourselves at His feet, for
YHVH has called us to do so.
He is worthy at this point bro... and THOMAS is "put under His feet" in this verse...
JESUS, had already ascended to the Father (for before, Mary was instructed NOT to touch Him --
John 20:17 -- and in this instance He invited THOMAS to do so --
John 20:27) ...by this time, He was permeated with
YHVH... as He is now back in the ETERNAL state in which
YHVH ...is... [UNCHANGINGLY] ALL in ALL...
Quote from: Lefein on September 26, 2010, 12:11:19 AMIf he is not God, then how did Thomas make that confession and not be a heathen?
Just answered that Lefein...
JESUS is "KING of Kings"... LORD of Lords... which means that ALL men shall be known as KINGS, and LORDS... :dontknow:
Why is
JESUS, KING? or LORD? Because the FULLNESS of
YHVH permeates Him.
Quote from: Lefein on September 26, 2010, 12:11:19 AMIf he is not God, and is then only Human...how is he Life, and Truth? Only God is Life (the absolute source and maintainer of it), and only God is Truth (the one who determines what is Reality, what is. Deu 30:20 "God is thy life."
As I have just said...
CHRIST did NOTHING (here's the key) --
OF HIMSELF --
John 5:19 -- where He notes that He is the WAY, TRUTH and LIFE... is the MAN (which asked the cup to pass) manifesting the voice of the SPIRIT of
YHVH... who marks the
WAY of MEN --
Jer 10:23 -- Prov 20:24 -- Prov 21:1Quote from: Lefein on September 26, 2010, 12:11:19 AMJohn 6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
In essence; What is Jesus, if he is not God himself?
JESUS is the manifest HUMAN vehicle [Son] in which
YHVH GOD visited the earth, and walked amongst men... via His SON, who was SENT and who was DIRECTED in all ways by
YHVH...
It is the WORD of the Heart of GOD which was manifest in the doings and speech of
CHRIST...
The
WORD is "SON" to the knowledge of the HEART which is FATHER to that
WORD, and from which the
WORD finds its emergent point.
The
WORD and FATHER are not separate entites, ...the
WORD is the spoken/written REVELATION (son) of the HEART of God (father)...
If you care to, it is beneficial to investigate the actual meaning of the words
JESUS CHRIST...
#G2424 -- IESOUS [
JESUS] is an emergent derivitive of the Hebrew word --
#H3091 YeHOWSHUA -- which means
YHVH SAVES.
#G5547 CRISTOS [
CHRIST] which means -- anointed one
The
MAN --
JESUS CHRIST (the man) -- is not the Savior, He is the
mediator between MEN and GOD --
1 Tim 2:5 YHVH God --- is the Savior and creator of the human race...
Isaiah 43:11 -- I [
even] I, [
am]
YHVH and beside ...
ME... there is NO -- SAVIOR.
Hosea 13:4 -- Yet I [
am]
YHVH thy GOD from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt KNOW NO GOD but
ME; for [
there is] NO SAVIOR BESIDE ...
ME.
JESUS CHRIST was the vehicle and sacrifice which
YHVH God (who is SPIRIT), utilized to SAVE men, by sacrificing that which was INNOCENT, to restore the GUILTY.
...willieH :cloud9:
QuoteDo you really wish to READ my answers to your questions, brother Lefein? Won't you be getting headaches?
I'll suffer them this once.
Quote
The HUMAN Son of Man... the emergent Son of GOD... The FIRSTBORN of many (other SONS of GOD)... FIRST to RISE from DEATH... FIRST to live WITHOUT SIN (the 10 commandments are not only the "law of the judgment of SIN", but are prophetic as well)
In short; Just another homo-sapien prophet, nothing divine (Being the person of God) about him, Adam as he should have been...?
QuoteALL are emergent of the DIVINE... only ONE is GOD, that is YHVH... all others are emergent SONS of GOD. There are NO other "gods" beside Him, or in cooperation with Him... but there are INNUMERABLE "gods" which are EMERGENT of YHVH, beginning with CHRIST.
So...Jesus is a deity?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deity
QuoteJESUS is NOT divine of Himself... He is divine, because He is the Son of GOD... ALL shall, in the ETERNAL be "divine" for YHVH ...IS... ALL in ALL in that setting...
So you're Divine? You are a divinity, you are a deity?
QuoteJESUS spoke both as a MAN, and from the position of YHVH during which He bore audibly and physically, the UNSEEN, and SILENT God of ALL men... (including CHRIST) which (with His own voice) noted YHVH as HIS GOD -- Mark 15:34 -- and which the Apostle Paul also noted under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit -- Eph 1:3
Is he merely human or not? He can't be the Spirit of God, and his voice incarnate (in-fleshed) and not be God at the same time.
QuoteIt is YHVH God which puts all things under His feet -- 1 Cor 15:28 -- and once this is COMPLETE... then so shall CHRIST be subject to the ONE which has done this... HIS GOD, ...YHVH
Emmanuel shall be called Everlasting Father, and Holy God.
QuoteNever said He was an "angel"... He was a MAN... but we no longer KNOW Him after the flesh -- 2 Cor 5:16 -- we KNOW Him as the WORSHIP WORTHY, first SON of GOD... and we are to cast ourselves at His feet, for YHVH has called us to do so.
So I'll be worshiping you in Heaven because you'll be a worship worthy deity when you are glorified? Just like Jesus...being the first fruits of us gods?
We'll be equal heirs with Christ afterall, doesn't that include deityship and worship under this theological system you are presenting?
And how is Christ worship worthy, if he is just a man? Doesn't IEUE(YHVH) say that he won't share his glory with anyone, that he is a jealous God?
QuoteWhy is JESUS, KING? or LORD? Because the FULLNESS of YHVH permeates Him.
Yet Thomas clearly calls him "My Lord, My God" I think that's pretty bold and clear as to the exact identity of Jesus Christ.
QuoteAs I have just said... CHRIST did NOTHING (here's the key) -- OF HIMSELF -- John 5:19 -- where He notes that He is the WAY, TRUTH and LIFE... is the MAN (which asked the cup to pass) manifesting the voice of the SPIRIT of YHVH... who marks the WAY of MEN -- Jer 10:23 -- Prov 20:24 -- Prov 21:1
The Spirit, and voice of The Father made manifest in flesh, sounds alot like Jesus being GOD to me...
QuoteJESUS is the manifest HUMAN vehicle [Son] in which YHVH GOD visited the earth, and walked amongst men... via His SON, who was SENT and who was DIRECTED in all ways by YHVH...
...in short; Jesus is God...just like my character here, "Lefein" is ME. Lefein and I are one.
I really don't get how you can say that Jesus isn't God, when Lefein is Me.
This post of yours has been full of teeter tottering between saying that Jesus is, and isn't God/YHVH...
QuoteThe WORD and FATHER are not separate entites, ...the WORD is the spoken/written REVELATION (son) of the HEART of God (father)...
But you're going a completely separate route by saying that Jesus wasn't YHVH at all...that's pretty separate if you ask me.
With one lip you say he's just a man, with the other you say he's God incarnate (GASP!) The Spirit and Voice of God in a human vehicle = God incarnate.
See your words below:
QuoteJESUS is the manifest HUMAN vehicle [Son] in which YHVH GOD visited the earth,
Jesus = God (YHVH GOD) incarnate (made manifest in human flesh - the vehicle)
____________
I need say no more. The people rest your honour.
Judge: Court is adjurned for recess!
Quote from: Lefein on September 26, 2010, 03:40:32 AM
Quote from: willieHDo you really wish to READ my answers to your questions, brother Lefein? Won't you be getting headaches?
I'll suffer them this once.
:laughhand: ..."suffering"? :laughing7:
Don't have time to respond tonight, gotta go play a gig... but I'll answer tomorrow...
And
NO... :mnah:
Of Himself,
JESUS and no other human being ever was, or ever will be, GOD.
Only
YHVH is God, as was
made known by the Prophets, His Son, and the Apostles... (for those with the ears to hear)... :dontknow:
...willieH :happygrin:
QuoteAnd NO... Nah
Of Himself, JESUS and no other human being ever was, or ever will be, GOD.
Only YHVH is God, as was made known by the Prophets, His Son, and the Apostles... (for those with the ears to hear)...
..but...you just said...
QuoteJESUS is the manifest HUMAN vehicle [Son] in which YHVH GOD visited the earth,
:mshock:
God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself.
For so it pleased the Father to make all the fulness dwell in Him, and to reconcile all things to Himself through the blood of His cross
My Father is greater than I.... I can do nothing without Him....He does the works
He is the out-shing(apaugasma) of the Father's glory and the engraving of His nature Heb 1:1-3
Act 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
So he was basically just an indwelt sinless prophet? >_>
Acts 20:28
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
Sometimes we limit our own perceptions. I just posted scriptures. I said nothing out of my own words to indicate that I was saying Jesus was just a sinless prophet.
Jesus was God's own blood. The seed that germinated in Mary's womb was the Logos of God, so of course....
He was MUCH more than a sinless prophet. He was the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON. The blood comes from the seed. Abraham was the friend of God because He was united with the Father in the spirit of sacrifice. They shared the fellowship of yielding up a beloved son, a Lamb unto slaughter.
Jesus was unique. The only begotten. He walked as a man by faith in trusting obedience and learned obedience through the things He suffered, growing in wisdom and stature as He lived His life.
Jesus was a son by birth. Therefore He was the firstborn of creation, and the He was placed as a son over His Fathers house because He showed Himself faithful....a man approved of God. Declared to be the Son of God by the resurrection of the dead. Appointed heir of all things by His Father(Heb 1). We are also sons by birth, born not of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man- but of the will of God. Born by an incorruptible seed- translated into a new vine, the vine of the new creation in Christ Jesus- the one new man.
He is the fountainhead of deity. He has revealed the invisible God. No prophet ever made that claim or could.
Why is that when a group of verses suggest a different possibility than the one we are familiar with,,,, we jump to conclusions and run to extremes.
There are several possibilities presented from the scriptures concerning the nature of the relationship between the Father and the Son. I enjoy discussing them and I am honing in on some interesting conclusions- but I rarely debate the entrenched positions because they allow each other no discovery. I think Willie has presented some wonderful insights in His post, but it is hard to hear when we have a filter already in place- which you may, if you think those verses I posted were saying Jesus is only a sinless prophet.
They are all verses- they recommend another possibility perhaps than the one you currently consider to be an absolute.
Jesus was God manifest in the flesh- because IT PLEASED THE FATHER TO MAKE ALL THE FULNESS DWELL IN HIM.
Jesus has all authority in heaven in earth BECAUSE THE FATHER GAVE IT TO HIM, as a reward for faithful service, as well as because of His inheritance right as the firstborn.
Jesus must reign until all the enemies are subject to His feet because THE FATHER HAS SUBJECTED ALL THINGS TO HIM, His beloved only begotten son, the Lamb.
For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
(1Co 15:27)
YHVH doesnt need anyone to put anything under Him. Jesus, our Lord, the first-born among many brethren rules because of the will of YHVH- which He fulfilled in His life by faith.
I am primarily trying to suggest that there are other possibilities than "co-equal, co-eternal" that can be read from the scriptures and it is not a sin to test that sacred cow. :o)
:cloud9: I agree Eaglesway; there are many sacred cows to BBQ, probably more to discover even yet, with the Spirit's opening of our eyes.
BUT; as much as I personally enjoy reading different viewpoints on this, please be mindful that the board owner does not want any food fights started over the trinity issue.
EVERYONE please keep it RESPECTFUL towards each other, remembering that what you believed yesterday SHOULD always be open to be changed today, if you're heart is open to the Spirit, and of course I include myself in that, as I have had to lay down many things I thought were true over the course of time.
Yesterday's "heresy" may be tomorrow's banquet for us, complete with a healthy serving of crow, if the past track record is any indication. :mshock: :laughing7: Blessings....
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2The same was in the beginning with God.
3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
--John 1
Amen Molly. :thumbsup:
On a side note; I think the assembly is misunderstanding what I mean with my responses...
My goal is to boil it all down to its point. That point is the identity of Jesus without any of the theological garnish, whether tradition of religion, or the tradition (individual ideas) of free men.
Unique son of God or not...if Jesus is not God he is only a prophet in the original sense. That is what it boils down to.
I am not looking at Jesus the Flesh, I am looking at Jesus the Person.
The body of Jesus is not Jesus, any more than my body is me, in the sense of my body being my "individual person", it is my garment, and it is a part of me, but it is not my essence; the body of Jesus is not the essence of Jesus either.
My goal is to find the essence of Jesus, untainted by explanation, theory, theology, conjecture, and otherwise.
This is not a discussion on the doctrine of the Trinity either, this is a discussion on the very identity of Jesus, since his identity has everything to do with whether or not all men are saved.
I like Molly's post, since it sums it up conclusively (being a verse of course). Jesus is The Word, and The Word is God.
There is a reason I am against the idea that Jesus's essence is a "gifted man", because unique or not, he'd be only a man, and I would therefore refuse to give him any part of my worship...and I'd have to "find God" all over again. But if he is God incarnate...
(and yes I do continue to use that term WillieH, and I highly doubt God will be angry with me for "ignoring the truth of the word", I am not pleased that you have condemned me with the threat of judgement for not embracing your ideas under the premise that you are the one who is holding truth, implying that I am lying, embracing lies, or that I am totally false...This is something I think we need to discuss later, and I plan on doing so in due time)
...But if he is God incarnate...Then I can rest assured knowing that I need never doubt the promises that I am victorious through him.
At the very root, boiled down to, elemental level; Jesus (the person) can only be four things theoretically.
1: God incarnate.
2: An indwelt homo-sapien.
3: A false light-pretender-liar of any kind.
4: Insane, detached from reality.
3, and 4 are obvious.
If it is 2, then I have to go out and "search" for the True God again...most likely I'll never find him, and will die. I am not a Muslim, nor am I Baha'i. I will not follow a fellow homo-sapien (merely homo-sapien, created being - first fruits or not); prophet, or not, indwelt or not, sinless or not, unique or not.
If it is 1, then my faith is secured.
As it stands though, the verse Molly showed has stated that it is indeed 1.
For Christianity to be valid; as in "not just another holy man's philosophy" then Jesus must be Ieue. (Ieue is YHVH by the way, another spelling of it.)
Jesus said that before Abraham was, I Am, Father and I are one, Thomas said that Jesus was Lord and God, John said that he was the Word, and God, people bowed to him, and worshiped him as God, Isaiah says that he will be called the Everlasting Father, and Holy God, Jesus pre-incarnate was the Angel of the Lord, of whom Gideon said was God.
"I believe"
Jesus the Person is not just some unique, gifted, indwelt man.
Jesus the Person is not just some portal through which "The Real God" can flow through.
Jesus the Person is Emmanuel: Everlasting Father, The Spirit and Word of the Holy God - Ieue; who is Love, Truth, Life, and the way to these things. And if I may be bold to use an eastern religious term...Jesus the Person being the Godhead, is the Avatar (as in collective essence in one container) of God, his flesh is the Avatar (as in container) of the Godhead.
Godhead verses; Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20, Colossians 2:9
My displeasure is over the people despairing against "Trinity" doctrine, saying it is a lie, and falsehood (and in WillieH's case believes is a thing good Christians will be judged harshly for believing, more so than predatory sinners).
While the Trinity is not what I am discussing, there is a point that I am trying to make. People in the assembly despair against Trinity doctrine, saying that it separates the one God, but then separate God anyway by diminishing the divinity of Jesus to that of a portal, or indwelt unique homo-sapien who God shined "through"...but is not God the Father himself, despite the word of witness, or in Eaglesway's case the (possible) interpretations of said witness.
At least, that is what I have been reading from a lot of these posts that are, or seemingly are anti-trinity/anti Father-Son-Personage;Oneness (again, not discussing trinity...I am grouping here).
I want it to be clear, that upon accepting the doctrine of Universal Reconciliation as Biblical - a doctrine which is against Orthodoxy and Tradition; it did not mean that I tossed out everything that the theologians had studied, and taught. Just because the church didn't get Hell right doesn't mean we should become extreme, and toss out everything that is solid just because of its source being the "organised church".
People can become so zealous about getting rid of legalism, and legalistic traditions, that they become legalistic at being "non-legalistic". Legalistically despairing and condemning those for example; who celebrate Christmas because it isn't "Biblical", or "What Jesus would have wanted".
Of course, there must always be a solid foundation - that is The Rock.
But this legalistic expression of anti-legalism goes the same for matters of Doctrine, as well as it does for matters of practice in one's walk with God.
<<Edited some of the grammar>>
TCBJohn 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was face to face with God, and the Word represented God
2 He was face to face with God in the beginning.
3 Everything came into being through Him; and apart from Him not even one thing came into being, that has come into being.
4 It was by Him that life began to exist, and the Life was the Light of humans
:cloud9: There are many things I love about that translation, WW. For one, "face to face" speaks of a mirror image, waters above looking "down" upon waters "below", and in another application, the High Priest ever being before Him interceding as in coming in face to face in the Holy of Holies as we are admonished to do, ie. come before the throne of grace boldly. Blessings....
Original Greek Text.
John 1:1
En arche en o logos kai o logos en pros ton theon kai theos en o logos.
In original(beginning) was the saying(word) and the saying(word) was pros(toward) the God and God was the saying(word)
Lefeinian Translation; In the begining was the word, and the word was toward God, and God was the word/the word was God.
John 1:2
Outos en en arche pros ton theon.
This was in original(begining) toward the God.
John 1:3
Panta di autou egeneto kai choris auto egeneto oude hen o gegonen.
All through him :became-came to be; and apart from him not yet one which has :become-has come to be;
Lefeinian Translation; Everything through him came to be, and apart from him not one has come to be.
Whitewings; there is nothing in the Greek text that says he was only a representative, "face to face", even the original says "theos en o logon", "God was the word/word was the God/the word was God".
the secret name of God
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wiBtYITrxM&feature=related
27Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
28And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.
--John 20
Cardinal,
Yeah, makes me also think about "Adam being created in the image" acrtually means something like a shadow in a outline of light.
If you want other relevant verses ask. But not to many please because I only have this Bible in printed format any my typing is sloooow :winkgrin:
Quote from: Molly on September 26, 2010, 05:26:35 PM
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2The same was in the beginning with God.
3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
--John 1
:cloud9: More food for thought....
1 In the beginning was the Word (outer court), and the Word was with God (inner court/Emmanuel, God WITH us), and the Word was God (Holy of Holies).
:cloud9: Now if you consider that the Word is Spirit (origin/alpha), and that that Word "lowered" itself into/as the natural creation including man, and then was God (end result/omega), note that the alpha and the omega are the same. We were one with Him from the foundation and we shall be again. Blessings....
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 26, 2010, 07:16:57 PM
Cardinal,
Yeah, makes me also think about "Adam being created in the image" acrtually means something like a shadow in a outline of light.
If you want other relevant verses ask. But not to many please because I only have this Bible in printed format any my typing is sloooow :winkgrin:
:cloud9: Makes perfect sense because "shade" or shadow are connected in there with "image". In a very real sense, the creation including man is a shadow of Him because it is a slowed down version of the Spirit, which is why it needs "quickening".
I saw the creation in a dream/vision when He took me in Spirit and opened my eyes to the beginning of creation. I saw the whole of creation outside as darkness outlined by what looked like living red light. Red, the blood, Christ and wisdom are all connected, and it says He framed the worlds with wisdom. I saw the frames. It was stunning. Blessings....
TCBJohn 11 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was
face to face with God, and the Word
represented God
2 He was face to face with God in the beginning.
3 Everything came into being through Him; and apart from Him not even one thing came into being, that has come into being.
4 It was by Him that life began to exist, and the Life was the Light of humans
Quote from: Lefein on September 26, 2010, 07:14:40 PM
Original Greek Text.
John 1:1
En arche en o logos kai o logos en pros ton theon kai theos en o logos.
In original(beginning) was the saying(word) and the saying(word) was pros(toward) the God and God was the saying(word)
Lefeinian Translation; In the begining was the word, and the word was toward God, and God was the word/the word was God.
......
Whitewings; there is nothing in the Greek text that says he was only a representative, "face to face", even the original says "theos en o logon", "God was the word/word was the God/the word was God".
To be with someone/thing means there is another person/thing/animal
with=toward
toward sounds like: facing toward/face to face
WITH
πρός
pros
Thayer Definition: -> my Stong's give the same meaning
1) to the advantage of
2) at, near, by
3) to, towards, with, with regard to
Part of Speech: preposition
A Related Word by Thayer's/Strong's Number: a strengthened form of G4253
Citing in TDNT: 6:720, 942
G4253
πρό
pro
Thayer Definition:
1) before
Part of Speech: preposition
A Related Word by Thayer's/Strong's Number: a primary preposition
Citing in TDNT: 6:683, 935
Before = standing before God.
Towards = facing God
Near by = near but not the 100% same spot
the advantage of = In a non disrespectful way the Son was Fathers tool to reveal His plan.
In the above part of this post I showed a translation that consistently shows Father and Son being two.
Now let's look at what I think the key words in the KJV is.
TVMJohn 11 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Was and with sounds like a contradiction unless you look at it in the "Trinity way"
But there is another way of looking at it....
2258 h=n en {ane}
Meaning: 1) I was, etc.
Origin: imperfect of 1510;; v
Usage: AV - was 266, were 115, had been 12, had 11, taught + 1321 4, stood + 2476 4, misc 41, vr was 1; 455
A Related Word by Thayer's/Strong's Number: imperfect of G1510
Thaught about God
Stood before God
εἰμί
eimi
Thayer Definition:
1) to be, to exist, to happen, to be present
I don't know know how something like that is called in English.
In my own language we would say "swallowed half of the word/sentence"
So the word was represents "was standing", "was present".
:2c:
Quote from: Lefein on September 26, 2010, 06:11:42 PM
1: God incarnate.
2: An indwelt homo-sapien.
3: A false light-pretender-liar of any kind.
4: Insane, detached from reality.
What about 1a....
1] Jesus was not God (imo)
2] What exactly is a homo-sapien?
When two humans mate the result is a human.
When two horses mate the result is an horse.
When two donkeys mate de result is a donkey.
But when a horse and a donkey mate the result is a mule.
What if a human (Mary) mates with a HS? --> Jesus
Isn't that a new "breed" the second Adam.
So:
1a] Second Adam
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 26, 2010, 07:43:02 PM
Quote from: Lefein on September 26, 2010, 07:14:40 PM
Original Greek Text.
John 1:1
En arche en o logos kai o logos en pros ton theon kai theos en o logos.
In original(beginning) was the saying(word) and the saying(word) was pros(toward) the God and God was the saying(word)
Lefeinian Translation; In the begining was the word, and the word was toward God, and God was the word/the word was God.
......
Whitewings; there is nothing in the Greek text that says he was only a representative, "face to face", even the original says "theos en o logon", "God was the word/word was the God/the word was God".
To be with someone/thing means there is another person/thing/animal
with=toward
toward sounds like: facing toward/face to face
WITH
πρός
pros
Thayer Definition: -> my Stong's give the same meaning
1) to the advantage of
2) at, near, by
3) to, towards, with, with regard to
Part of Speech: preposition
A Related Word by Thayer's/Strong's Number: a strengthened form of G4253
Citing in TDNT: 6:720, 942
G4253
πρό
pro
Thayer Definition:
1) before
Part of Speech: preposition
A Related Word by Thayer's/Strong's Number: a primary preposition
Citing in TDNT: 6:683, 935
Before = standing before God.
Towards = facing God
Near by = near but not the 100% same spot
the advantage of = In a non disrespectful way the Son was Fathers tool to reveal His plan.
..the Word was God."was"G2258
ην
ēnane
Imperfect of G1510; I (thou, etc.)
was (wast or were): - + agree, be, X have (+ charge of), hold, use, was (-t), were.
G1510
ειμί
eimii-mee'
First person singular present indicative; a prolonged form of a primary and defective verb;
I exist (used only when emphatic): -
am, have been, X it is I, was.
"I AM"17And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
18I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
--Rev 1
[behold]
"I am" [alive]
G1510
ειμί
eimii-mee'
First person singular present indicative; a prolonged form of a primary and defective verb;
I exist (used only when emphatic): -
am, have been, X it is I, was.
He is conjugating the verb TO BE here [I AM] and combining it with erchomai [to come or go]
8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
--Rev 1
"which is, and which was, and which is to come"
G3801
ο ων ο ην ο ερχόμενος
ho ōn ho ēn ho erchomenos
ho own ho ane ho er-khom'-enos
A phrase combining G3588 with the present participle and imperfect of G1510 and the present participle of G2064 by means of G2532; the one being and the one that was and the one coming, that is, the Eternal, as a divine epithet of Christ. (Each "and" (G2532) was ommited from the phrase because of limited space.): - which art (is, was), and (which) wast (is, was), and art (is) to come (shalt be).
Quote..the Word was God.
To avoid getting into a battle of semantics; God was the Word/The Word was God.
A child can understand it, as it should be understandable.
Jesus = The Word, God = The Word, God = Jesus.
The Word = Jesus, The Word = God, Jesus = God.
---
QuoteWhat about 1a....
Not acceptable.
A half-breed is still 2.
I won't give worship, which belongs to God alone, to Adam 1.0, nor will I give it to Adam 2.0
A "half-breed" a merely "Adam 2.0" that is not God - is not God, and is therefore not worthy of worship, and to worship him is to set up an idol, and Christianity would be the faith of monotheistic pagans.
Worship can and should be given to Adam 2.0 only if he is the avatar of, and is the Godhead, being God, and therefore being worthy of the worship which is his alone. Only when this criteria is met, does Christianity remain valid.
Quote from: Lefein on September 26, 2010, 08:20:54 PM
Quote..the Word was God.
To avoid getting into a battle of semantics; God was the Word/The Word was God.
A child can understand it, as it should be understandable.
Jesus = The Word, God = The Word, God = Jesus.
The Word = Jesus, The Word = God, Jesus = God.
Assuming was is the correct translation.
A child can also understand being with someone doesn't mean to be that someone.
I added a part to post #217
8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is,
"which is"
I AM
"the one being"
...and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
--Ex 3
Quoteunless you look at it in the "Trinity way"
Just a thought...What if it 'is' the "Trinity way"?
Remember; God is/is like light, and light has many shades of colour, green is "separate" from red, contrasting before each other, yet both are one light all the same.
You might think of it as;
In original(beginning) was the [colour] blue and the [colour] blue was pros(toward) the Light and [the] Light was blue.
The "limitations" of the categorical shade, hue, and colour "Blue" does not hinder the "unlimited expanse" of "Light". Yet the shade, hue, and colour Blue is Light by its very nature of being Light - a part of the spectrum, and prism of it.
Every colour in the universe is the reflection, refraction, shade, and hue of a single entity; Light. Is light limited because the tree outside is green, while the flower next to it is purple? Are these shades of light somehow, not each other, and not Light?
There are multiple contrasting shades of colour in a single rainbow. Does the colourfulness of a rainbow diminish the glory of it, or make it no longer a single entity, a single bend of refracting colours of one light? Is the rainbow not itself, light?
QuoteAssuming was is the correct translation.
If you want to get into that...all we have of Greek scripture then must be assumption in translation of its sentences.
I have to draw the line somewhere. And "was" is perfectly acceptable as far as I, and a great many others are concerned. This isn't a word like Aion, which has been translated wrongfully into Eternity-Infinite duration of time through the Latinisation process. This is a word that at its root, at the least has the capacity to mean "was", and at its best
means it.---
Out of curiousity...
It is important that Jesus be God, since he is worshiped. Hence my position.
But, why is it important that Jesus not be God? Your position.
Quote from: Lefein on September 26, 2010, 08:20:54 PM
QuoteWhat about 1a....
Not acceptable.
A half-breed is still 2.
I won't give worship, which belongs to God alone, to Adam 1.0, nor will I give it to Adam 2.0
Isn't Jesus the Second Adam?
A whole new type I should add.
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 26, 2010, 08:30:54 PM
Quote from: Lefein on September 26, 2010, 08:20:54 PM
Quote..the Word was God.
To avoid getting into a battle of semantics; God was the Word/The Word was God.
A child can understand it, as it should be understandable.
Jesus = The Word, God = The Word, God = Jesus.
The Word = Jesus, The Word = God, Jesus = God.
Assuming was is the correct translation.
A child can also understand being with someone doesn't mean to be that someone.
I added a part to post #217
ww, If you think that Jesus stood before God, you might as well become a Jehovah's Witness because they believe Jesus was an angel.
They have even changed their Bible to read
..the Word was a god.
Point received Cardinal
I have no problem with modalists, biblical unitarians or trinitarians- or anything in between.
These theological positions did not develop fully until centuries after the glory of God was fading from the "church".
I don't think anyone fully understands it..... I certainly will not throw any food at anyone over it :o)
Nor will I discuss it with anyone who demonstrates a propensity for throwing food at me :o)
If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart God raised Him from the dead you will be saved- good enough for Paul.....
If we walk in the light as He is in the light we have fellowship with one another.
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 26, 2010, 08:37:10 PM
Quote from: Lefein on September 26, 2010, 08:20:54 PM
QuoteWhat about 1a....
Not acceptable.
A half-breed is still 2.
I won't give worship, which belongs to God alone, to Adam 1.0, nor will I give it to Adam 2.0
Isn't Jesus the Second Adam?
A whole new type I should add.
Yes. He's also the alpha and the omega and the beginning and the end and the root of David and Counselor, the Mighty God, the everlasting Father, the prince of Peace.
If you could actually keep it in your head all at the same time, your head would explode. Which is why we try to put him in nice little [small] box.
Whitewings, I edited my posts;
#221
#224
---
Molly :thumbsup: Amen once more!
Quote from: Lefein on September 26, 2010, 08:35:04 PM
Quoteunless you look at it in the "Trinity way"
Just a thought...What if it 'is' the "Trinity way"?
Then it is the Trinity way. Don't care. But I still have seen a conclusive answer.
QuoteQuoteAssuming was is the correct translation.
If you want to get into that...all we have of Greek scripture then must be assumption in translation of its sentences.
Agreed.
But I quoted my word meaning from Strong and Thayer. I think they are repected scholars. Also in mainstream church.
And they give several word meanings. Are they wrong? Are there really that much meanings for one word? Certainly that opens the door for pick and choose for all readers of Thayer/Strong/Bible
QuoteI have to draw the line somewhere. And "was" is perfectly acceptable as far as I, and a great many others are concerned. This isn't a word like Aion, which has been translated wrongfully into Eternity-Infinite duration of time through the Latinisation process. This is a word that at its root, at the least has the capacity to mean "was", and at its best means it.
In my right hand I have a pencil to draw my lines and in the left hand I hold my eraser to correct the wrong lines. I've drawn my Trinity line but not with a permanent marker.
My interpretation is let's call it possibly supported by lexicon. It doesn't conflict with for example the verses WillieH quoted. And is less problematic in relation to the Jesus was ill discussion. :2c:
:help:
QuoteOut of curiousity...
It is important that Jesus be God, since he is worshiped. Hence my position.
But, why is it important that Jesus not be God? Your position.
My position is simple.
Jesus is what the Bible says. Should I fight the Bible?
BTW Jesus said 'pray in this manner'.....
You my like to read this (http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~cmadd01/worshipjesus.html) article.
Summary:
God is worshipped as the creator.
Jesus is worshipped, not as the creator, but as the one who redeemed men TO GOD.
Finally, at the end of the chapter, God and Christ are worshipped together, but as two distinctly different beings.
Quote from: wwJesus is worshipped, not as the creator, but as the one who redeemed men TO GOD.
Jesus is the Creator.
For by Him [Jesus] all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. (Colossians 1:16).
10He was in the world, and
the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
--John 1
QuoteAnd they give several word meanings. Are they wrong? Are there really that much meanings for one word? Certainly that opens the door for pick and choose for all readers of Thayer/Strong/Bible
One of those words, is "was".
QuoteIn my right hand...
The line I was drawing was not in regards to interpretation, but was in regards to the validity of Scriptural translations, and their reliability. In a world where things may not mean what they mean, I have to draw the line somewhere and say; "No more, 1=1, and a fish is indeed a fish."
QuoteMy position is simple.
Jesus is what the Bible says. Should I fight the Bible?
From what I've read, it says Jesus is God.
QuoteFinally, at the end of the chapter, God and Christ are worshipped together, but as two distinctly different beings.
That is bi-theism (polytheism but with two worshiped deities)
Quote from: Cardinal on Today at 08:31:32 AM
I agree Eaglesway; there are many sacred cows to BBQ, probably more to discover even yet, with the Spirit's opening of our eyes.
BUT; as much as I personally enjoy reading different viewpoints on this, please be mindful that the board owner does not want any food fights started over the trinity issue.
EVERYONE please keep it RESPECTFUL towards each other, remembering that what you believed yesterday SHOULD always be open to be changed today, if you're heart is open to the Spirit, and of course I include myself in that, as I have had to lay down many things I thought were true over the course of time.
Blessings....
-----------------
Amen Card. Can we all agree that Jesus is God's Son, and the Savior of the world? Further, please consider this. At the very basic level, if someone is someone else's son, they are of the same substance of the Father. My own son has my spit, my blood, my skin.
Jesus called the Father His God, but as I understand, that doesn't mean Jesus isn't also Divine. He's the Son OF THE Father - a part of Him - not just an acquaintance of the Father. Again, can that bridge any gaps for anyone and get the focus back on Who He is - the Savior? God bless.
Quote from: JabAgain, can that bridge any gaps for anyone and get the focus back on Who He is - the Savior? God bless.
As a Catholic said to me, 'You mean Jesus existed before he was born in the manger?"
Isaiah 43:11
I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
Isaiah 45:15
Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour.
Quote from: Lefein on September 26, 2010, 09:35:13 PM
QuoteAnd they give several word meanings. Are they wrong? Are there really that much meanings for one word? Certainly that opens the door for pick and choose for all readers of Thayer/Strong/Bible
One of those words, is "was".
#217
QuoteQuoteIn my right hand...
The line I was drawing was not in regards to interpretation, but was in regards to the validity of Scriptural translations, and their reliability. In a world where things may not mean what they mean, I have to draw the line somewhere and say; "No more, 1=1, and a fish is indeed a fish."
But what if the Greek actually reads dog? And that exactly is the point. Not to change a fish into a dog but tho figure out if HS inspired dog or fish.
Not what the pope, newspaper, Oprah etc said about that verse.
QuoteQuoteFinally, at the end of the chapter, God and Christ are worshipped together, but as two distinctly different beings.
That is bi-theism (polytheism but with two worshiped deities)
Yeah, but not at the same level. And for the same things.
Jesus Himself always said things like "thanks to Father" "by Father" "Bless Father" "Worship Father" etc. But He never said "Worship me"
Mainstream theology provides me with no comfort or consolation because it is mainstream religion that rejects the mysteries of God including UR.
Only the Word (unencumbered by terms that have come to be equated with truth- but never were spoken by the apostles or prophets) comforts me. Mainstream Christianity is a desert.
The doctrine of the trinity was mainly started by Origen(254 ad). He was the first to really define it in a systematic way and attach the understanding of it to salvation. However, he was later made a heretic. In his trinity there was a hierarchy- the Father being supreme and the Son being subservient(Certainly some scriptures allow for that possibility). To this day there are those who believe that way and have tried to get Origen "rehabilitated" and his view allowed. Origen also happened to believe in Universal Reconiliation.
So what do you say? Origen, who believed in the trinity concept- maybe even invented(or recognized it, or defined it, depending on your point of view) did not believe the Son to be co-equal with the Father. Who decided a couple of decades or centuries later that he was a heretic. Was it God? the Holy Spirit? hmmmmmm I dunno- makes no sense to me. The doctrine did not reach its contemporary form until nearly 500 AD. Took God awhile to figure out what He wanted His people to teach and He brought that final icon(the Trinity) to His people via Rome- murders and expellers of all that is holy- (well, at least in those times and for at least 1000 years more).
From the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
http://www.iep.utm.edu/origen-of-alexandria/ (http://www.iep.utm.edu/origen-of-alexandria/)
On First Principles
In this work Origen establishes his main doctrines, including that of the Holy Trinity (based upon standard Middle Platonic triadic emanation schemas); the pre-existence and fall of souls; multiple ages and transmigration of souls; and the eventual restoration of all souls to a state of dynamic perfection in proximity to the godhead.
This next web-site presents most of the different views on the Godhead. There is some interesting info in there -if anyone is interested in any other view than their own(joke heh heh)
http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/trinity1.html (http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/trinity1.html)
Quote#217
En = State of being, for all intents and purposes.
John 1:1
En arche en o logos kai o logos en pros ton theon kai theos en o logos.
In original(beginning) was the saying(word) and the saying(word) was pros(toward) the God and God was the saying(word)
---<>---
Regarding: "En"
Matthew 1:18
tou de iesou christou he gennesis houtos (en) mnesteutheisis.
of-the yet Jesus anointed the generating/birth thus (was) of being espoused
Matthew 2:9
heos elthon heste epano hou (en) to paidion
till soming it-stood where (was) the little-boy
Matthew 2:15
kai (en) ekei heos tes teleutes herodou
and he-(was) there til of-the decease of herod
Matthew 3:4
he de trophe autou (en) akrides
the yet nuture[nourishment] of-him (was) locusts
Matthew 7:27
kai epesen kai (en) he ptosis autes
and it/she-falls and (was) the fall of her
Was = state of being, it doesn't matter how you mix it.
QuoteBut what if the Greek actually reads dog? And that exactly is the point. Not to change a fish into a dog but tho figure out if HS inspired dog or fish.
Not what the pope, newspaper, Oprah etc said about that verse.
You've missed the point.
QuoteYeah, but not at the same level. And for the same things.
Jesus Himself always said things like "thanks to Father" "by Father" "Bless Father" "Worship Father" etc. But He never said "Worship me"
It is still then bi-theism, and idolatry, and paganism; sinful, offensive to God to worship Jesus in any way, if Jesus is not God. Since Jesus
is worshiped
in the Bible.
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 26, 2010, 10:02:30 PM
Quote from: Lefein on September 26, 2010, 09:35:13 PM
The line I was drawing was not in regards to interpretation, but was in regards to the validity of Scriptural translations, and their reliability. In a world where things may not mean what they mean, I have to draw the line somewhere and say; "No more, 1=1, and a fish is indeed a fish."
But what if the Greek actually reads dog? And that exactly is the point. Not to change a fish into a dog but tho figure out if HS inspired dog or fish.
Another related thing to translation and trinity is the this article: Did Jesus create? (http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/trinity/articles/jesuscreate.html)
Another thing that points to Father and Son as two is this verse:
TCBJohn 110 He was in the world, and the world came into being through Him, but the world didn't know Him.
For me through means via. Meaning at least 2 things. This is not the only translation that uses through. Below all electronic verses I use:
EBR 10 In the world, he was, and, the world, through him, came into existence, and, the world, knew him not.
KJV 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
YLT 10 in the world he was, and the world through him was made, and the world did not know him:
ACV 10 He was in the world, and the world came to be through him, and the world knew him not.
ASV 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world knew him not.
BBE 10 He was in the world, the world which came into being through him, but the world had no knowledge of him.
BSV 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
CAB 10 He was in the world, and the world came to be through Him, and the world did not know Him.
CLV In the world He was, and the world came into being through Him, and the world knew Him not.
CPDV 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world did not recognize him.
Darby 10 He was in the world, and the world had its being through him, and the world knew him not.
DRC 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
ECB 10 He was in the cosmos and through him the cosmos became; and the cosmos knows him not:
ERRB 10 He was in the world cosmos , and the world was made by cosmos became through him, and the world cosmos knew him not.
ERV 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
HNV 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world didn't recognize him.
JST 10 Even the Son of God. He who was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
jubl2000 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
NET 10 He was in the world, and the world was created by him, but the world did not recognize him.
NHEB 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world did not recognize him.
NHEBME 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world did not recognize him.
Noyes 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world knew him not.
Nsb.zefania 10 The world was made through him. He was in the world and the world did not recognize him.
RWebster 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
SLT 10 He was in the world, and the world was by him, and the world knew him not.
WEB 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world didn't recognize him.
Webster 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
And that fits nicely with image=outline of light -> We are created
in the image/outline of Jesus
Blue is still Light.
Jesus is still God.
Quote from: EagleswayThe doctrine of the trinity was mainly started by Origen(254 ad). He was the first to really define it in a systematic way and attach the understanding of it to salvation. However, he was later made a heretic. In his trinity there was a hierarchy- the Father being supreme and the Son being subservient(Certainly some scriptures allow for that possibility).
You could certainly give me scripture to show the hierarchy. And, for every scripture you give, I could give you one to show they are the same and they are equal.
I worship one God.
The problem with any doctrine is that it tries to give a summary, a definition, and with God, that seems to fail.
That's why we read the Bible, because it has to knead into our spirit, until everything is revealed.
Quote from: wwTCBJohn 1
10 He was in the world, and the world came into being through Him, but the world didn't know Him.
That verse and Colossians 1--everything was created by him, through him, for him, in him--
How many ways can you slice an apple?
Did we cover all the bases?
Quote from: Lefein on September 26, 2010, 10:35:57 PM
Blue is still Light.
Jesus is still God.
And who was the Light...
YLTJohn 16 There came a man--having been sent from God--whose name is John,
7 this one came for testimony, that he might testify
about the Light, that all might believe through him;
8 that one was not the Light, but--that he might testify about the Light.
9 He was the true Light, which doth enlighten every man,
coming to the world;
Quote from: jabcat on September 26, 2010, 09:42:01 PM
Quote from: Cardinal on Today at 08:31:32 AM
I agree Eaglesway; there are many sacred cows to BBQ, probably more to discover even yet, with the Spirit's opening of our eyes.
BUT; as much as I personally enjoy reading different viewpoints on this, please be mindful that the board owner does not want any food fights started over the trinity issue.
EVERYONE please keep it RESPECTFUL towards each other, remembering that what you believed yesterday SHOULD always be open to be changed today, if you're heart is open to the Spirit, and of course I include myself in that, as I have had to lay down many things I thought were true over the course of time.
Blessings....
-----------------
Amen Card. Can we all agree that Jesus is God's Son, and the Savior of the world? Further, please consider this. At the very basic level, if someone is someone else's son, they are of the same substance of the Father. My own son has my spit, my blood, my skin.
Jesus called the Father His God, but as I understand, that doesn't mean Jesus isn't also Divine. He's the Son OF THE Father - a part of Him - not just an acquaintance of the Father. Again, can that bridge any gaps for anyone and get the focus back on Who He is - the Savior? God bless.
:thumbsup:
Quote from: wwAnd who was the Light...
Keep going..
9That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
John was the [angelic] witness to Jesus. That was his only function. He did it. And, then he died.
Take a look at this prophecy--
Isaiah 40:3
The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.And who does John say he is?
Matthew 3:3
For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
Quote from: jabcat on September 26, 2010, 09:42:01 PMthe board owner does not want any food fights started over the trinity issue.
What about fire and brimstone? I'll behave in the last hour before I'll go into darkness again :icon_jokercolor:
Jesus called the Father His God, but as I understand, that doesn't mean Jesus isn't also Divine. He's the Son OF THE Father - a part of Him - not just an acquaintance of the Father. Again, can that bridge any gaps for anyone and get the focus back on Who He is - the Savior? God bless.
jabcat
You know I refer to my God as father and women often call me "divine" :msealed: :Whistle:
:Chinscratch: do you think :mshock: no.. it can't be.. surely.. nah.. im much to evil to care for all of humanity :beerburp: :soccer: :icon_joker:
QuoteAnd who was the Light...
That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
-KJV
True Light = Jesus = Light = God = Light = Jesus = True Light
1Jn 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that
God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 26, 2010, 10:59:44 PM
Quote from: jabcat on September 26, 2010, 09:42:01 PMthe board owner does not want any food fights started over the trinity issue.
What about fire and brimstone? I'll behave in the last hour before I'll go into darkness again :icon_jokercolor:
Chained :msealed: for a thousand years? :msealed: Perhaps that's a bit too long :laughing7:
Quote from: thinktank on September 26, 2010, 11:03:02 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 26, 2010, 10:59:44 PM
Quote from: jabcat on September 26, 2010, 09:42:01 PMthe board owner does not want any food fights started over the trinity issue.
What about fire and brimstone? I'll behave in the last hour before I'll go into darkness again :icon_jokercolor:
Chained :msealed: for a thousand years? :msealed: Perhaps that's a bit too long :laughing7:
Usally I :lazy: 4-6 hours (during night :winkgrin:)
But be honest with me Mr. T. You would like it to be a thousand years. And after that EDified :popout:
But be honest with me Mr. T. You would like it to be a thousand years. And after that EDified popout
Nah I'd miss my competition, jokes wise and.. ok maybe not jokes wise...but my competition on...ok I'd just miss your pics. :icon_joker:
Quote from: thinktank on September 26, 2010, 11:12:28 PM
But be honest with me Mr. T. You would like it to be a thousand years. And after that EDified :popout:
Nah I'd miss my competition, jokes wise and.. ok maybe not jokes wise...but my competition on...ok I'd just miss your pics. :icon_joker:
Mmm, sounds like someone secretly sneaked out of Sodom. :winkgrin:
:lazy:
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 26, 2010, 11:41:46 PM
Quote from: thinktank on September 26, 2010, 11:12:28 PM
But be honest with me Mr. T. You would like it to be a thousand years. And after that EDified :popout:
Nah I'd miss my competition, jokes wise and.. ok maybe not jokes wise...but my competition on...ok I'd just miss your pics. :icon_joker:
Mmm, sounds like someone secretly sneaked out of Sodom. :winkgrin:
:lazy:
Don't flatter yourself, I prefer black birds! :grin:
:cloud9: I think we're all missing a deeper understanding of it, that has to be revealed by the Spirit yet, to put us on a equal par with the early church, IMO. Mainstream CANNOT have it right, as there is FEW there be that find it, and they are not the few, and I can't think of one thing they teach, as is, that is accurate. My :2c: Blessings....
Amen to every word in the post above mine :ilu:
willieH: Hi Lefein... :cloud9:
As promised, here is my answer...
Quote from: willieHThe HUMAN Son of Man... the emergent Son of GOD... The FIRSTBORN of many (other SONS of GOD)... FIRST to RISE from DEATH... FIRST to live WITHOUT SIN (the 10 commandments are not only the "law of the judgment of SIN", but are prophetic as well)
Quote from: Lefein on September 26, 2010, 03:40:32 AMIn short; Just another homo-sapien prophet, nothing divine (Being the person of God) about him, Adam as he should have been...?
FIRST --- You just read my answer (or did you?) and you saw my notation of Him as "just another homo-sapien"? Please!
He is the PREEMINENT homo-sapien! The KING of Kings... FIRST in all things...
As far as DIVINITY... ALL MEN are SONS of God, and therefore emergent of DIVINITY... Of themselves NO... but because of
YHVH, ALL are "gods" --
Psalm 82:6SECOND --- The
WORD notes Him as the -- Last ADAM
1 Cor 15:45 -- His life was lived COMPLETELY from a SPIRITUAL perspective... until He arrived, man existed and LIVED in CARNALITY and a CARNAL perspective, which is WHY the Pharisees did not understand Him and WHY most men STILL do not understand Him.
Quote from: willieHALL are emergent of the DIVINE... only ONE is GOD, that is YHVH... all others are emergent SONS of GOD. There are NO other "gods" beside Him, or in cooperation with Him... but there are INNUMERABLE "gods" which are EMERGENT of YHVH, beginning with CHRIST.
Quote from: Lefein on September 26, 2010, 03:40:32 AMSo...Jesus is a deity?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deity
I have already answered this several times... but for those who have trouble... OF HIMSELF, ...
JESUS CHRIST was not "a" diety... He was emergent of the ONLY DIETY, ...
YHVH God, the Father of ALL SPIRITS --
Heb 12:9Quit tiptoeing around it, Lefein... :dontknow:
If you really wish to address this, please explain the Scriptures I have provided which CLEARLY note in the
WORDS of
YHVH, that there is NO "god" beside Him... and He (who knows everything) "knows
NOT of ANY" others --
Isaiah 44:8 - Deut 4:35Quote from: willieHJESUS is NOT divine of Himself... He is divine, because He is the Son of GOD... ALL shall, in the ETERNAL be "divine" for YHVH ...IS... ALL in ALL in that setting...
Quote from: Lefein on September 26, 2010, 03:40:32 AMSo you're Divine? You are a divinity, you are a deity?
Yes, ...because
YHVH SAYS that I am --
Psalm 82:6 -- but that "divinity" is NOT
of Myself, it is because I am emergent of Him who IS the only DIETY
OF HIMSELF.
It is HIS DOING, not mine... for like my Savior, I do
Nothing OF Myself... I do as IS DIVINELY Foreknown of me, and my steps are ORDERED by that DIVINITY...
Isaiah 46-10 -- Eph 1:11 -- Jer 10:23 -- Prov 20:24 YHVH makes BOTH the vessel of HONOR as well as the vessel of DISHONOR, and we have no right to complain of the process --
Rom 9:21How about you, Lefein? Not that you shall answer, for it is your method to ignore, ...but are you a SON of God? If you are offspring of GOD, then you are a "god"... If you do not KNOW this... then you are ignorant of TRUTH which so names you.
Essentially, this IS the reason the Pharisees sought to KILL
CHRIST... because He had named Himself as the OFFSPRING of
YHVH...
Quote from: willieHJESUS spoke both as a MAN, and from the position of YHVH during which He bore audibly and physically, the UNSEEN, and SILENT God of ALL men... (including CHRIST) which (with His own voice) noted YHVH as HIS GOD -- Mark 15:34 -- and which the Apostle Paul also noted under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit -- Eph 1:3
Quote from: Lefein on September 26, 2010, 03:40:32 AMIs he merely human or not? He can't be the Spirit of God, and his voice incarnate (in-fleshed) and not be God at the same time.
You are welcome to your common conclusions... the TRUTH however is UNCOMMON --
Matt 7:22-23 -- Matt 24:5 The "god" of this world is ADVERSITY... and it is not my concern what you do or do not embrace.
I write words and leave them to
YHVH to use or not use as HE so chooses... If you disagree, then concerning YOU, He chooses not to use them, it is as simple as that.
The SPIRIT of
YHVH dwelt in fullness IN Him... He was not that spirit... He was emergent, and SON of that Spirit... BEGOTTEN of the Holy ONE...
Quote from: willieHIt is YHVH God which puts all things under His feet -- 1 Cor 15:28 -- and once this is COMPLETE... then so shall CHRIST be subject to the ONE which has done this... HIS GOD, ...YHVH
Quote from: Lefein on September 26, 2010, 03:40:32 AMEmmanuel shall be called Everlasting Father, and Holy God.
Which is
YHVH...
GOD with us... made manifest in the Life of His SON who is the express
IMAGE of His [invisible] person... which in LIFE was submitted entirely to Him, doing
NOTHING OF HIMSELF.
You do not "see" this? Fine with me. :happygrin:
Quote from: willieHNever said He was an "angel"... He was a MAN... but we no longer KNOW Him after the flesh -- 2 Cor 5:16 -- we KNOW Him as the WORSHIP WORTHY, first SON of GOD... and we are to cast ourselves at His feet, for YHVH has called us to do so.
Quote from: Lefein on September 26, 2010, 03:40:32 AMSo I'll be worshiping you in Heaven because you'll be a worship worthy deity when you are glorified? Just like Jesus...being the first fruits of us gods?
Maybe? That is not my call, nor within my knowledge, ....for I make plain admission that I do not know that which shall take place in HEAVEN, do you? :dontknow: ...if you DO, then let's hear the "play-by-play" :drama: :laughing7:
If you (or possibly I) in obstinance do not embrace the TRUTH in the moments it is presented to us, ...then we shall LOSE portions of who we shall be "in Heaven" --
1 Cor 3:11-15 -- This is the decision of
YHVH God, for
HE is working ALL THINGS according to HIS WILL --
Eph 1:11 -- not according to your and my decisions and/or vanities.
Quote from: Lefein on September 26, 2010, 03:40:32 AMWe'll be equal heirs with Christ afterall, doesn't that include deityship and worship under this theological system you are presenting?
I am not presenting any... "theological system"... You as a person of religion, are in need of "labels", so you are about creation of them, for any and everything. I believe GOD is IMPARTIAL to ALL MEN.
That does not mean that HE does not decide who is "captain" and who is a "lieutenant"... it means that He does not give special favor to anyone, treating every SON equally.
The ONLY Son that was in perfect submission to Him was
JESUS... and which is WHY He is noted KING of Kings, LORD of Lords, the CAPTAIN of our Salvation. This was NOT accomplished by the MAN
JESUS CHRIST, rather it was accomplished by the DIVINITY that was present WITHIN Him, guiding Him, strenghtening Him in every way guidance and strength was needed.
JESUS walked every step that was PROPHESIED of Him, which "prophecy" was the call of
YHVH --
Isaiah 46:10 -- The DECLARATION of ALL things end to beginning, is now traveling beginning to end... part of which were the steps of
JESUS CHRIST, which had not been taken, at the time they were DECLARED.
It is pretty obvious that GOD has decided there shall be leadership and followers in His Creation... If you are blind to this as well, then I cannot help you. There are so many examples of it, that one has to be literally BLIND not to see them.
God has set positionally, the lives of all, within the setting up of leadership in all phases of life, and those who contend against it, contend against Him --
Rom 13:1-5 -- Rom 9:18-21Quote from: Lefein on September 26, 2010, 03:40:32 AMAnd how is Christ worship worthy, if he is just a man? Doesn't IEUE(YHVH) say that he won't share his glory with anyone, that he is a jealous God?
FIRST --- It is the ultimate ETERNAL destiny of
all to be PERMEATED by
YHVH. This is HIS GLORY... to make KINGS of sinners --
Rom 9:22-23 -- in which are found, His GLORY, which ...IS... the revealing of His SONS, which ARE the RICHES of HIS GLORY.
It does not need to be "shared"... it is an ETERNAL state of HOLINESS which we in this moment, as Earth bound beings cannot behold. We ARE (in the Eternal) HIS GLORY...
SECOND --- He is not "JEALOUS" in the surface sense in which you percieve this word of
YHVH. For "JEALOUSY" is nothing but an emotion of INSECURITY and SELFISHNESS... GOD's "jealousy" is found within His longsuffering of the vessels of DISHONOR, which SIN and which suffer for it... However SUFFERING is in the DIVINE process of PERFECTION --
Heb 2:10Quote from: willieHWhy is JESUS, KING? or LORD? Because the FULLNESS of YHVH permeates Him.
Quote from: Lefein on September 26, 2010, 03:40:32 AMYet Thomas clearly calls him "My Lord, My God" I think that's pretty bold and clear as to the exact identity of Jesus Christ.
Thomas beheld the RESURRECTED and GLORIFIED
CHRIST... which was ASCENDED and no longer an EARTHLY
man... but the GLORIFIED Son of GOD. Permeated by
YHVH... worthy of the address of "God and Lord"... No longer KNOWN after the FLESH (as a MAN) --
2 Cor 5:16 -- rather KNOWN after the SPIRIT of
YHVH which permeated Him...
Quote from: willieHAs I have just said... CHRIST did NOTHING (here's the key) -- OF HIMSELF -- John 5:19 -- where He notes that He is the WAY, TRUTH and LIFE... is the MAN (which asked the cup to pass) manifesting the voice of the SPIRIT of YHVH... who marks the WAY of MEN -- Jer 10:23 -- Prov 20:24 -- Prov 21:1
Quote from: Lefein on September 26, 2010, 03:40:32 AMThe Spirit, and voice of The Father made manifest in flesh, sounds alot like Jesus being GOD to me...
As I have already noted, and you have already ignored...
CHRIST spoke (using His "voice") as a MAN, as well as from the position of
YHVH which dwelt within Him.
How about this, coming from the "voice" of
CHRIST:
Mark 15:34 -- ...My God, My God, why has thou forsaken me?
Does that sound like GOD talking to you? Why would
JESUS (if He were GOD and had OMNISCIENT capacity) ...ask this question? Or request IF POSSIBLE, that the CUP PASS? Put your ears on bro...
Quote from: willieHJESUS is the manifest HUMAN vehicle [Son] in which YHVH GOD visited the earth, and walked amongst men... via His SON, who was SENT and who was DIRECTED in all ways by YHVH...
Quote from: Lefein on September 26, 2010, 03:40:32 AM...in short; Jesus is God...just like my character here, "Lefein" is ME. Lefein and I are one.
I disagree with your (I believe quite faulty) analogy, for
CHRIST and
YHVH are 2 different persons. Whereas, ...Your "character Lefein and I" are the
same person.
Quote from: Lefein on September 26, 2010, 03:40:32 AMI really don't get how you can say that Jesus isn't God, when Lefein is Me.
Just told you. :happygrin:
Quote from: Lefein on September 26, 2010, 03:40:32 AMThis post of yours has been full of teeter tottering between saying that Jesus is, and isn't God/YHVH...
No, it has not. You are examining my words, by using your own theologies as the measure. If you are honest with yourself, you will admit that you have already predetermined to cling to
JESUS as being "god"... so what is the point in persisting in conversation with me about it?
Explain the verses in Isaiah, Hosea and Deuteronomy which I have already presented, that disgree with your notion.
Quote from: willieHThe WORD and FATHER are not separate entites, ...the WORD is the spoken/written REVELATION (son) of the HEART of God (father)...
Quote from: Lefein on September 26, 2010, 03:40:32 AMBut you're going a completely separate route by saying that Jesus wasn't YHVH at all...that's pretty separate if you ask me.
It is plain to see in the Scriptures that
YHVH preceeded the MAN
JESUS CHRIST.
GOD is not MAN as the Scriptures note...
JESUS was a MAN...
GOD cannot be TEMPTED as the Scriptures note...
JESUS was TEMPTED...
GOD is EVERLASTING (ever living)...
JESUS DIED...
You are the one trying to make them the same... I have amply shown this to be a fallacy.
It is not my concern nor my agenda to change you or your thinking. Only to present REASON and TRUTH, and leave it for God to use or not use concerning YOU. If He decides to NOT use my words concerning you, that is fine with me.
Quote from: Lefein on September 26, 2010, 03:40:32 AMWith one lip you say he's just a man, with the other you say he's God incarnate (GASP!)
Please quote where I have said that "He's God incarnate"... If you cannot, then
you have just born a
false witness.
Quote from: Lefein on September 26, 2010, 03:40:32 AMThe Spirit and Voice of God in a human vehicle = God incarnate.
NO... the VOICE of GOD is not limited by ANYTHING, or to any ONE man's AUDIBLE presentation... Has He ever SPOKEN "audibly" to you, Lefein?
His VOICE is in the
WORDS... not in the AUDIBILITY.
The
WORDS of
YHVH God, can be and
ARE SPOKEN vocally (not just by
CHRIST, but are SPOKEN vocally by the Prophets and Apostles), WRITTEN, conveyed via DREAMS, VISIONS, and in PRAYER...
You live in the limitations of EARTHLY parameters and seek to confine GOD to those very same parameters.
Quote from: Lefein on September 26, 2010, 03:40:32 AMSee your words below:
Quote from: willieHJESUS is the manifest HUMAN vehicle [Son] in which YHVH GOD visited the earth,
TWO persons spoke from the "vehicle"...
YHVH from DIVINE position...
CHRIST from human position... I have already shown examples... you are welcome to continue to ignore them. :winkgrin:
Quote from: Lefein on September 26, 2010, 03:40:32 AMJesus = God (YHVH GOD) incarnate (made manifest in human flesh - the vehicle)
Already addressed this, there is no Scripture which notes
CHRIST as "God incarnate"... only theological conjecture... which DECIEVES MANY...
And is just nothing but redundance...
Quote from: Lefein on September 26, 2010, 03:40:32 AMI need say no more. The people rest your honour.
Oh, but you NO DOUBT, will! :laughing7:
So ...YOU... are the "people"? All THREE of you? :laughing7:
Quote from: Lefein on September 26, 2010, 03:40:32 AMJudge: Court is adjurned for recess!
Resorting to a self to self conversation, areya? Are YOU the Judge? You must be, as
YOU just ordered "the court" to "recess". :dontknow:
:Peace:
...willieH :cloud9:
JOHN 17:20-23 (NKJV)
I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in me through their word; that they all may be ONE, as You, Father, are in me, and I in You; that they also may be ONE in us, that the world may believe that You sent me. And the glory which You gave me I have given them, that they may be ONE just as we are ONE: I in them, and You in me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent me, and have loved them as You have loved me.
Creeds promote that of: "I believe," or "We believe."
But it is the ONE in SPIRIT which testifies to the truth.
1 John:
5:6 Jesus Christ is He who came with water and blood; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. And it is the Spirit who gives testimony-- because the Spirit is the Truth.
5:7 For there are three that give testimony-- the Spirit, the water, and the blood;
5:8 and there is complete agreement between these three.
5:9 If we accept the testimony of men, God's testimony is greater: for God's testimony consists of the things which He has testified about His Son.
God in Christ and Christ in us.
Hmmm... Sounds like the Spirit testifies to these two witnesses!
QuoteHe is the PREEMINENT homo-sapien! The KING of Kings... FIRST in all things...
The ultimate Homo-sapien...is still just a Homo-sapien.
Quote
As far as DIVINITY... ALL MEN are SONS of God, and therefore emergent of DIVINITY... Of themselves NO... but because of YHVH, ALL are "gods" -- Psalm 82:6
So Jesus is just another god like you and me?
QuoteSECOND --- The WORD notes Him as the -- Last ADAM 1 Cor 15:45 -- His life was lived COMPLETELY from a SPIRITUAL perspective... until He arrived, man existed and LIVED in CARNALITY and a CARNAL perspective, which is WHY the Pharisees did not understand Him and WHY most men STILL do not understand Him.
Jesus is The Word, just to remind you.
QuoteI have already answered this several times... but for those who have trouble... OF HIMSELF, ...JESUS CHRIST was not "a" diety... He was emergent of the ONLY DIETY, ...YHVH God, the Father of ALL SPIRITS -- Heb 12:9
But you just said that you, I, and Jesus are gods. Gods are deities, deities are deities because they are divine.
Is Jesus a deity or not? If he is divine, he is a deity, if he isn't divine then he's not a god, if he is divine, then he must be God, because only God is divine.
QuoteQuit tiptoeing around it, Lefein...
If you think this is tip-toeing...
QuoteIf you really wish to address this, please explain the Scriptures I have provided which CLEARLY note in the WORDS of YHVH, that there is NO "god" beside Him... and He (who knows everything) "knows NOT of ANY" others -- Isaiah 44:8 - Deut 4:35
Let me try and distill your posts here first...and see if I can get a list that I can comprehend.
God says that he alone is God, as stated by you in;
"I have provided which CLEARLY note in the WORDS of YHVH, that there is NO "god" beside Him"
You turn around to say then, that there are many gods...emergeant in him doesn't matter, because the boiled down to point is that you said there are many gods.
"but because of YHVH, ALL are "gods" -- Psalm 82:6"
Are you a god?
And so you answer that question...
QuoteYes, ...
You just called yourself a deity, a god, a divine being. I'll leave you to the masses. :)
QuoteHow about you, Lefein? Not that you shall answer, for it is your method to ignore, ...but are you a SON of God? If you are offspring of GOD, then you are a "god"... If you do not KNOW this... then you are ignorant of TRUTH which so names you.
If I am a 'god'...I never would claim it is my place to be worshiped.
That is the difference, I do not worship you...
"O' god WillieH, who art so holy, and divine, thou who art a divine being..."
>_>
Neither do I seek to worship me. God alone is worthy of worship - Jesus is worshiped.
QuoteYou are welcome to your common conclusions... the TRUTH however is UNCOMMON
The Truth, o divine willieH, is Truth. The Truth is not about being complex or unknowable, even if it is indeed uncommon or (common dear friend, also means "not noble, of the peasantry").
Truth is this; a fish is a fish, a fish is not a bird. Just because there is are flying fish, doesn't mean it is a half-fish, half-bird.
1=1, and blue=blue.
There is no "secret conspiracy" where blue is actually the left side of a homeless man's tonsil...
God is not ironic, God is not an idiot, God is not Confusion. God is higher than us, but I'll say this dear friend, he is not "un-neccesarily complicated".
God you might say...is "Simply Elegant".
The Gospel is a simple message, God loves you, and saved you. It comes from a simple God, who is not a simpleton, but who isn't a god of babbling or confusing concepts...He isn't a trickster.
He cannot be the Spirit of God, and his voice incarnate (in-fleshed) and not be God at the same time.
It is not a "common" conclusion that says that. It is reasonable knowledge of Truth that any wise young babe or child can understand.
PS: "The Truth is not Uncommon" Not in the Bible. I looked, didn't find it. You're always telling me to stick straight to the word, especially when I say "God incarnate", so don't be a hypocrite and do the same thing you're always yelling me not to do.
QuoteYou are welcome to your common conclusions... the TRUTH however is UNCOMMON
Is not said in the Bible, what-so-ever, not in those verses you just quoted anyway. Dear friend, you have a beam in your eye.
QuoteMaybe?
Now that my friend, is tip-toeing.
Come now friend, let us reason together! You say you are a god here on earth, being a son of God, and that so too am I a god! Do the gods not require to be worshiped? What is a god if he is not worshiped? Wilt thou not bow down to me? O' thou divine WillieH, if thou be a god indeed, and a living god at that, art thou not worth mine worship? How mayest I bow to thee o' thou who art divine?
But yet, do I a god bow to thee? For if thou art a god...and I am a god...why bow to thee...when it is I who art divine!
Why bow to Christ? Is he not merely a man? Is he not merely a god as you and I? If he is but a begotten man, the offspring of God, and not God himself, being just a god, just a god like you and me, then he does not deserve my reverence, for just as he is a god, so too am I.
Now do you see the problem with that sort of mindset?
If indeed we be gods...it is required that Jesus be The God...or else the whole system of who worships who falls apart, considering that Jesus was and is worshiped in the Bible, and outside of it.
QuoteI am not presenting any... "theological system"... You as a person of religion, are in need of "labels", so you are about creation of them, for any and everything. I believe GOD is IMPARTIAL to ALL MEN.
You don't know me, if you think I am a person of religion. :)
You don't know me, if you think I am a person about creating labels.
You don't know me, not in the least it seems.
QuoteThe ONLY Son that was in perfect submission to Him was JESUS... and which is WHY He is noted KING of Kings, LORD of Lords, the CAPTAIN of our Salvation. This was NOT accomplished by the MAN JESUS CHRIST, rather it was accomplished by the DIVINITY that was present WITHIN Him, guiding Him, strenghtening Him in every way guidance and strength was needed.
But according to you...it doesn't matter, I'm still a god...if I am a god, just like Jesus is...why do the angels not worship me? If you are a god just like Jesus is, why do the angels not worship you?
Yet the angels worship Jesus; Jesus must be God incarnate.
Quote
It is pretty obvious that GOD has decided there shall be leadership and followers in His Creation... If you are blind to this as well, then I cannot help you. There are so many examples of it, that one has to be literally BLIND not to see them.
You're very hostile. But since you don't like me "tip-toeing" I'll just come out and say what I believe about you.
I think you want to be a god so badly, that you've brought Jesus down to being a god, instead of being God, so you can be a god, so you can be a leader, so that you'll be a big shot in everyone's heavenly eyes, instead of God being God, and you being a humble servant.
QuoteFIRST --- It is the ultimate ETERNAL destiny of all to be PERMEATED by YHVH. This is HIS GLORY... to make KINGS of sinners -- Rom 9:22-23 -- in which are found, His GLORY, which ...IS... the revealing of His SONS, which ARE the RICHES of HIS GLORY.
It does not need to be "shared"... it is an ETERNAL state of HOLINESS which we in this moment, as Earth bound beings cannot behold. We ARE (in the Eternal) HIS GLORY...
SECOND --- He is not "JEALOUS" in the surface sense in which you percieve this word of YHVH. For "JEALOUSY" is nothing but an emotion of INSECURITY and SELFISHNESS... GOD's "jealousy" is found within His longsuffering of the vessels of DISHONOR, which SIN and which suffer for it... However SUFFERING is in the DIVINE process of PERFECTION -- Heb 2:10
You've created a theological system to explain away a simple fact.
God does not share his glory, he is a jealous God, he will not be worshiped along side any other god. Jesus is worshiped, God is unchanging...Jesus must therefore be God.
QuoteThomas beheld the RESURRECTED and GLORIFIED CHRIST... which was ASCENDED and no longer an EARTHLY man... but the GLORIFIED Son of GOD. Permeated by YHVH... worthy of the address of "God and Lord"... No longer KNOWN after the FLESH (as a MAN) -- 2 Cor 5:16 -- rather KNOWN after the SPIRIT of YHVH which permeated Him...
Another theological system for a simple fact.
Thomas: My Lord, My God.
QuoteAs I have already noted, and you have already ignored... CHRIST spoke (using His "voice") as a MAN, as well as from the position of YHVH which dwelt within Him.
See my posts about God = Light = Jesus = Light = God.
Quote
Does that sound like GOD talking to you? Why would JESUS (if He were GOD and had OMNISCIENT capacity) ...ask this question? Or request IF POSSIBLE, that the CUP PASS? Put your ears on bro...
It came to my heart by the Holy Spirit that Jesus was referencing a prophecy in the psalms.
Psa 22:1
"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?"
QuoteI disagree with your (I believe quite faulty) analogy, for CHRIST and YHVH are 2 different persons. Whereas, ...Your "character Lefein and I" are the same person.
According to you it is faulty. But that is (I believe) because you are so blind to the truth that Jesus is God.
Quote
No, it has not. You are examining my words, by using your own theologies as the measure. If you are honest with yourself, you will admit that you have already predetermined to cling to JESUS as being "god"... so what is the point in persisting in conversation with me about it?
Explain the verses in Isaiah, Hosea and Deuteronomy which I have already presented, that disgree with your notion.
I cling to Truth friend.
QuoteThe WORD and FATHER are not separate entites, ...the WORD is the spoken/written REVELATION (son) of the HEART of God (father)...
The Word = Jesus
You said that The Word, and The Father are not separate entities.
Then you turn around and say:
Quotefor CHRIST and YHVH are 2 different persons. Whereas, ...Your "character Lefein and I" are the same person.
...Dear friend, based on this I can only conclude that you are a man of a divided mind, and wishy washy in your theology.
You're teeter tottering. You are not on a solid foundation. You have built your house on sand. It is about to crumble, unless you repent and build it on The Rock - Jesus Christ, God!
QuoteIt is not my concern nor my agenda to change you or your thinking. Only to present REASON and TRUTH, and leave it for God to use or not use concerning YOU. If He decides to NOT use my words concerning you, that is fine with me.
Your reason and truth is flawed in light of the God of Reason, and Truth.
You have teeter tottered, and wish-washed.
Your theology is a divided house built on sand...Double shall be its fall.
QuotePlease quote where I have said that "He's God incarnate"... If you cannot, then you have just born a false witness.
QuoteQuoteThe WORD and FATHER are not separate entites, ...the WORD is the spoken/written REVELATION (son) of the HEART of God (father)...
Quotefor CHRIST and YHVH are 2 different persons. Whereas, ...Your "character Lefein and I" are the same person.
There you go, a false witness I am not.
QuoteNO... the VOICE of GOD is not limited by ANYTHING, or to any ONE man's AUDIBLE presentation... Has He ever SPOKEN "audibly" to you, Lefein?
Actually, yes he has.
QuoteYou live in the limitations of EARTHLY parameters and seek to confine GOD to those very same parameters.
This is a lie. I believe that Jesus is God, that's about as high as you can get when it comes to tearing down limitations. You believe in an overly complicated theological system of Jesus being this, that, other, and more...except God. A divided house, built on sand, built on your own interpretations of scripture, built (I suspect) on your own emotional need to be a leader, a somebody, a king, a god.
QuoteTWO persons spoke from the "vehicle"... YHVH from DIVINE position... CHRIST from human position... I have already shown examples... you are welcome to continue to ignore them/
Divided house...
And by the way, I've shown numerous examples that show that Jesus = God. So has Molly by the way.
QuoteAlready addressed this, there is no Scripture which notes CHRIST as "God incarnate"... only theological conjecture... which DECIEVES MANY...
Conjecture like yours, and theological systems that complicate the issue like yours, and theological systems that decieve many...like yours.
Deceptions like New Age, the basic tenant of New Age theology is thus;
"Everyone is divine, everyone is God, or a god; everyone is divine - a deity."
And here is what they think of Jesus, which echos awfully too familiar with yours.
"Jesus was just a good man, who obtained - attained - some how by any means gained - oneness with his divine nature, and power; he ascended, resurrected, or evolved. He is a just another god, another spiritual teacher, another ascended guru."
As for scripture...
See my debate with Whitewings a few posts back - there are many verses there that support Jesus = God. See Molly's posts as well.
Behold! If thou art a god...put some effort into it...search them out yourself, do you not have The Law and The Prophets thou divine majesty?
Do note, I only challenge your divinity, because you have challenged the Godhead. Not the scripture's verses that say 'gods'. I believe that if we are to be gods, there is yet The One God, who is Jesus, whom alone deserves worship.
When Jesus was on the cross, could He have been speaking to us;
"My Family, My Family, why has thou forsaken me?"
and
For the joy set before Him He endured the cross, so, perhaps the cup that He prayed could pass Him by was not the cross at all but rather the cup of His humanity.
:cloud9: Some thoughts to consider.....Jesus said, paraphrasing, "Why callest me good, there is none good but the Father."
God is a Spirit, and His Son can be no less than what He is, which was a Holy Spirit clothed in a robe of flesh. Every seed bears fruit after it's own kind, and the Father's kind/seed is SPIRIT.
Jesus, who, as a man, WAS this Spirit, MADE flesh. This is why they said hereafter we'll not know Him after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Why? Because the flesh robe was rent, as it had fulfilled it's purpose in making the invisible God, THE FATHER, visible.
God was IN CHRIST (the Spirit) reconciling all men unto Himself. Which is why the Son WHO IS SPIRIT, said, "When you've seen ME (the Spirit in the robe of flesh), you've seen the Father."
Why? Because the Son who is Spirit, is the express image of His person, and flesh and blood (not even Jesus's) can reveal this to you "Peter", but only My Father, which is in heaven. My :2c: Blessings....
A small warning...I'm going to allow myself to get a wee bit excited.
QuoteTimothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
GOD -
INCARNATE!
YEAAAAH!
:bgdance:
In the Latin Vulgate translation of it: Timothy 3:15-16
Quoteei conversari quae est ecclesia Dei vivi columna et firmamentum veritatis et manifeste magnum est pietatis sacramentum quod manifestatum est in carne iustificatum est in spiritu apparuit angelis praedicatum est gentibus creditum est in mundo adsumptum est in gloria
Manifestatum est in carne!
God manifested
Incarnate!
Why are you so happy, Lefein?
Because WillieH was pretty much spending half his eon here trying to tear my witness as a student of the Bible apart, and trying to tear down the validity of my beliefs (and if he wasn't he sure made it look like he was!) because the phrase "God incarnate" isn't "in the Bible".
Yet, it is thus there. God was manifest in the flesh - which in the Latin Vulgate is written: Manifestatum est in carne. In-carne = Incarnate
Amen,
Without Jesus pouring out His Holy Spirit we are just dust.
His side was pierced so we could get back in.
Quote from: micah7:9 on September 26, 2010, 10:50:15 PM
Quote from: jabcat on September 26, 2010, 09:42:01 PM
Can we all agree that Jesus is God's Son, and the Savior of the world? Further, please consider this. At the very basic level, if someone is someone else's son, they are of the same substance of the Father. My own son has my spit, my blood, my skin.
Jesus called the Father His God, but as I understand, that doesn't mean Jesus isn't also Divine. He's the Son OF THE Father - a part of Him - not just an acquaintance of the Father. Again, can that bridge any gaps for anyone and get the focus back on Who He is - the Savior? God bless.
:thumbsup:
Thanks micah for helping with gap bridging :happygrin:, and for seeing this perspective. :2thumbs:
And!
1st Timothy 3:16 also says:
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
I'll let The Word answer your post WillieH:
QuoteYou are welcome to your common conclusions... the TRUTH however is UNCOMMON
Quote from: Lefein on September 27, 2010, 05:12:20 AM
A small warning...I'm going to allow myself to get a wee bit excited.
QuoteTimothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
GOD - INCARNATE!
YEAAAAH!
:bgdance:
In the Latin Vulgate translation of it: Timothy 3:15-16
Quoteei conversari quae est ecclesia Dei vivi columna et firmamentum veritatis et manifeste magnum est pietatis sacramentum quod manifestatum est in carne iustificatum est in spiritu apparuit angelis praedicatum est gentibus creditum est in mundo adsumptum est in gloria
Manifestatum est in carne!
God manifested Incarnate!
Nice. :thumbsup:
That's why the Catholics use that phrase. They're reading Latin.
Latin Vulgate translation? :mblush:
Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven."
The Latin Vulgate isn't invalid just because of its "eternal" issue, friend. Please don't blush at it. :)
God incarnate, is indeed in the Bible - even if it is a translation in Latin, from which most of our modern bibles derive themselves anyway. :p
Like the KJV, and its variations.
Manifestatum est in carne = Ephanerothe en sarki: They both say, in Latin, and in Greek respectively - God manifested in flesh.
Even the original Greek says that God was manifested in the flesh; "God incarnate". And as far as what we mortally have, the original Greek is as accurate a Bible as you can get.
It is my joy, that God showed me a verse that says indeed that He came incarnate, that Jesus is God incarnate.
:boyheart:
Quote from: Lefein on September 27, 2010, 06:50:07 AM
The Latin Vulgate isn't invalid just because of its "eternal" issue, friend. Please don't blush at it. :)
God incarnate, is indeed in the Bible - even if it is a translation in Latin, from which most of our modern bibles derive themselves anyway. :p
Like the KJV, and its variations.
Manifestatum est in carne = Ephanerothe en sarki: They both say, in Latin, and in Greek respectively - God manifested in flesh.
Even the original Greek says that God was manifested in the flesh; "God incarnate". And as far as what we mortally have, the original Greek is as accurate a Bible as you can get.
God was manifest in the flesh. That's what it says. :thumbsup:
Otherwise stated as
The Word became flesh...
Praise Jesus Molly! Praise God incarnate!
Dance with me with great joy! :bgdance:
Quote from: Lefein on September 27, 2010, 06:58:51 AM
Praise Jesus Molly! Praise God incarnate!
Dance with me with great joy! :bgdance:
I know. :bigGrin: :Sparkletooth:
Hebrews 1:6
And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
willieH: Hi Lefein... :winkgrin:
Quote from: Lefein on September 27, 2010, 05:16:28 AM
Because willieH was pretty much spending half his eon here trying to tear my witness as a student of the Bible apart, and trying to tear down the validity of my beliefs (and if he wasn't he sure made it look like he was!) because the phrase "God incarnate" isn't "in the Bible".
Yet, it is thus there. God was manifest in the flesh - which in the Latin Vulgate is written: Manifestatum est in carne. In-carne = Incarnate
:Yeahright: And YOU are pretty much spending equal time answering (see the length of your last post to me)... :sigh::
FIRST --- I am not seeking to "tear down" anyone. If YOU feel "torn down" then it is a spiritual dealing within...
The truth is that MANY believe as do you... and resultingly, MANY are decieved by those beliefs... and taught by such as YOURSELF...
When are you going to address the verses in Isaiah, Hosea & Deuteronomy? Oh yeah... I forgot, ...because, you can't! :nod: So far you have ignored them in 3 or 4 posts...
Scriptures where
YHVH HIMSELF said there is NO GOD beside "ME" (not "us")... And the ALL KNOWING God, said the He KNOWS NOT any other "god" beside HIMSELF (not OURSELVES)... :dontknow:
If that tears down anything... it tears down the STRONGHOLD of false teaching... :dontknow:
Your beliefs do not intimidate me... I have discussed this issue with many highly educated trinitarians for many years... and NO "trinitarian" has proven the trinity to date... for it does not exist... in the
WORD or otherwise.
SECOND --- The 4th century "Latin Vulgate" is an interpretative translations of the
WORD IN LATIN... it is not (just as the KJV is NOT), the end-all of correct translation of those words. It is as subject to ERROR as is any other translation!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate
I find it interesting that you had scrape & scratch, to look outside the ENGLISH language to find something that resembles your beliefs... Even then, ...if you know anything at all about language, you are aware that ALL language is ever changing and morphing, and when ANY language is translated, it does not allow transferring one WORD in HEBREW or GREEK for another WORD in ENGLISH or LATIN = "this means that"...
Which is why so many
english words are often shown in lexicons as possible meanings of HEBREW or GREEK words... rarely definite (this=that) in many if not MOST cases... :dontknow:
And which is also why even in ENGLISH, there are disagreements one trans to the other.
Stick with what you think you know Lefein... I have no problem with anything you wish to believe... :mnah:
That I believe there is ONE GOD, is Scriptural... That you believe there are THREE GODS in ONE... is not.
Even the 1st commandment dispells this myth...
Ex 20:2-3 ---
"I [not we] am YHVH thy GOD [not "gods"] which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage, ...thou shalt have NO OTHER GODS" [plural] before ...ME... [not US]...willieH :cloud9:
Quote from: Molly on September 27, 2010, 06:57:18 AM
God was manifest in the flesh. That's what it says. :thumbsup:
Otherwise stated as The Word became flesh...
I think the biggest problem lies in the the individual perception of the
WORD of GOD.
What is the
WORD? Is the
WORD a "man"... or is the
WORD a SPIRIT?
The
MAN (Son of man)
JESUS CHRIST was not the
WORD for He DID NOTHING
of Himself --
John 5:19 and
SPOKE NOTHING
of Himself --
John 14:10 -- by His own admission.
If indeed He (of Himself) was DOING the deeds He did and SPEAKING of Himself... then it could be claimed that HE is GOD... but He did NOT
DO or
SAY, anything OF HIMSELF... as pointed out by the Scriptures I just noted.
He was SON of the SPIRIT, which IS the
WORD... And the SON
declared obediently in visible/audible terms, that
WORD in the actions and behaviors and SPEECH of His flesh, thereby MANIFESTING the
WORD IN His flesh, via obedience to the
WORD within,
YHVH.
He was a SEPARATE being from the Father which dwelt in Him... just as YOU and I are separate persons from
YHVH, Yet He in measure, GOD LIVES in us... and DECLARES (manifests) His presence within our works...
When I teach a child that 2+2=4 and they go to school, and get it right on a test, the teaching is MANIFEST in the test. 2+2=4 does not BECOME the TEST, nor does the the teaching BECOME the equation... The equation was prior to the TEST
and the TEACHING.
The word translated "MANIFEST" --
#G5319 - PHANEROO -- in
1 Tim 3:16 means to
DECLARE, or RENDER APPARENT, ...it does not mean, "BECOME"... Look it up!
If this word meant "became" ...then it would've been translated BECAME... however it was not.
The
MAN JESUS CHRIST, "declared" the DIVINITY of
YHVH which dwelt IN Him... and DID
NOTHING of Himself...
If
JESUS were GOD, why was
HE SENT? Why didn't
HE send the Father? Or the Holy Spirit to die?
Who decided that HE would DIE? Was it not the ONE which WITHDREW from Him? And WHO might that be? After all, He requested the "CUP" pass... and it DID NOT... why? And if
JESUS was GOD, then WHO withdrew from Him?
Why did He do NOTHING OF HIMSELF? Was He a puppet? NO... was He a robot? NO... He was a MAN, the FIRST and preeminent and ONLY BEGOTTEN SON of the ONLY GOD,
YHVH... which was made flesh, and obeyed via the POWER of the SPIRIT of GOD within... which DIRECTED His every WORD and DOING.
This SAME procedure is to avail in those who follow Him... They (we) are to DO as did HE... follow the Father... and thereby DECLARE to the world, His presence IN US... by the actions forthcoming FROM us... which are DONE of HIM in us, not of ourselves -- Prov 20:24 -- Jer 10:23 -- THE WAY that YHVH provides each one of us, is HIS WAY for us... we are completely FORKNOWN... and do as HIS foreknowledge states we would END to BEGINNING to END.
Believe what you shall...
...willieH :cloud9:
Mod note;
let's plz work on getting this back to the OP, away from personal issues, and away from banned topics (Trinity).
This thread won't be locked due to the above issues - we need to get back on track so everyone can enjoy and benefit from it.
Thanks, James.
Opening Post;
Quote from: micah7:9 on September 20, 2010, 10:43:27 PM
The way I understand 1Co 15:26 the last enemy is done away--death;
Until we are drawn to the Father, yes, death is an enemy.
"Death is not the end of this journey, it's the beginning."
Now there is something that will let one sleep with good thoughts.
We need, have to, and must come to that wonderous thought that death is a door that holds no fear....... unless one holds on to deceite, trys to hold back the very thing that keeps joy from ones life.
Joh 12:24 verily, verily, I say to you, if the grain of the wheat, having fallen to the earth, may not die, itself remaineth alone; and if it may die, it doth bear much fruit;
Rev 1:8 `I am the Alpha and the Omega, beginning and end, saith the Lord, who is, and who was, and who is coming--the Almighty.'
Quote from: Cardinal on September 27, 2010, 05:03:25 AM
:cloud9: Some thoughts to consider.....Jesus said, paraphrasing, "Why callest me good, there is none good but the Father."
God is a Spirit, and His Son can be no less than what He is, which was a Holy Spirit clothed in a robe of flesh. Every seed bears fruit after it's own kind, and the Father's kind/seed is SPIRIT.
Jesus, who, as a man, WAS this Spirit, MADE flesh. This is why they said hereafter we'll not know Him after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Why? Because the flesh robe was rent, as it had fulfilled it's purpose in making the invisible God, THE FATHER, visible.
God was IN CHRIST (the Spirit) reconciling all men unto Himself. Which is why the Son WHO IS SPIRIT, said, "When you've seen ME (the Spirit in the robe of flesh), you've seen the Father."
Why? Because the Son who is Spirit, is the express image of His person, and flesh and blood (not even Jesus's) can reveal this to you "Peter", but only My Father, which is in heaven. My :2c: Blessings....
Another one to consider:
Exodus 33:20 He saith also, `Thou art unable to see My face, for man doth not see Me, and live;'
"When you've seen ME (the Spirit in the robe of flesh), you've seen the Father." => combined with the verse above that means something like: Looks/acts the same.
If Jesus was really Father then Jesus would have killed thousands instead of teaching/healing them.
If you read that verse in an more spiritual way it won't help either. Because in that case it mean "conversion".
A converted person wouldn't have whiped/crucified/mocked/doubted Father/Son.
http://www.harvestchurch.com/pdf/No%20Man%20Can%20See%20God%20and%20Live.pdf (http://www.harvestchurch.com/pdf/No%20Man%20Can%20See%20God%20and%20Live.pdf)
Quote from: Lefein on September 27, 2010, 06:50:07 AM
Even the original Greek says that God was manifested in the flesh; "God incarnate". And as far as what we mortally have, the original Greek is as accurate a Bible as you can get.
That quoute doesn't do much good to your view imo. Manifest isn't another word for "is".
- The infection manifests itself as a red skin. -> The bacteria/virus can't even been seen. Red skin is just a reaction to it.
- Polluted water manifests itself by dead fish. -> Toxic waste is the pollution not the fish.
- The wrath of God toward Sodom manifested itself as a rain of fire and brimstone. -> God isn't splatered all over the area as little stones.
- Fathers plan/law/wishes were manifested/made known/explained/thaught via His Son Jesus.
That's the definition of manifest in my book.
Below the definition of the word as found in Merriam-Webster, Oxford and Thayer/Strong.
Quote from: Merriam-WebsterMain Entry:2manifest
Pronunciation:*
Function:verb
Inflected Form:-ed/-ing/-s
Etymology:Middle English manifesten, from Middle French or Latin; Middle French manifester, from Latin manifestare, from manifestus
transitive verb : to show plainly : make palpably evident or certain by showing or displaying *manifested precisely the same bone structure as the mask of the great author— Osbert Sitwell* *choice manifests itself in society in small increments— Lewis Mumford*
intransitive verb : to produce a physical disturbance indicating the presence of a ghost or spirit : APPEAR *observe a number of striking phenomena which T were then actively manifesting— Hereward Carrington* *when the atmosphere is heavy, it is hard for the spirits to manifest— M.L.Bach*
synonyms see SHOW
Quote from: Oxfordmanifest, v.
(ˈmænɪfɛst)
Also 5 ma(g)nyfest.
[ad. F. manifest-er, or L. manifest-āre, f. manifest-us (see prec.). Cf. Sp., Pg. manifestar, It. manifestare.]
1.1 trans. To make evident to the eye or to the understanding; to show plainly, disclose, reveal.
c 1374 Chaucer Boeth. ii. pr. vii. 44 (Camb. MS.), Thinken ye to manyfesten yowre renoun and don yowre name to ben born forth? 1483 Caxton Cato E viij, The synnes ben ofte hydde for a tyme but afterward‥they are knowen and manyfestyd. 1484 ― Fables of Alfonce xi. (1889) 281 The yonge man manyfested or descouered vnto her alle his courage and herte. 1508 Dunbar Tua Mariit Wemen 73 To manifest my makdome to multitude of pepill. 1582 N. T. (Rhem.) John ii. 11 He manifested [1611 manifested forth] his glorie. 1598 Shakes. Merry W. iv. vi. 15 The mirth whereof so larded with my matter, That neither (singly) can be manifested Without the shew of both. 1602 Marston Antonio's Rev. iv. iii, Who riseth up to manifest her guilt? 1611 Bible 1 John iv. 9 In this was manifested the loue of God towards vs. 1622 R. Hawkins Voy. S. Sea (1847) 176 The sunnes rising manifested unto us our errour. 1654 Bramhall Just Vind. iii. (1661) 31 Whether the Act‥were operative or declarative, creating new right, or manifesting or restoring old right. 1736 Butler Anal. i. iii. Wks. 1874 I. 49 He manifests himself to us under the character of a righteous governor. 1841 Myers Cath. Th. iv. §3. 188 Nature manifests itself to us only through our senses. 1875 Manning Mission H. Ghost viii. 210 He created our souls to manifest the light of His image.
b.1.b Of things: To be evidence of, prove, attest.
1508 Dunbar Flyting 82 Thy frawart phisnomy Dois manifest thy malice to all men. 1607 Shakes. Cor. ii. ii. 14 For Coriolanus neyther to care whether they loue, or hate him, manifests the true knowledge he ha's in their disposition. a 1674 Clarendon Surv. Leviath. (1676) 125 The instance he makes of a Princes subduing an other people‥should manifest to him the contrary. 1804 Abernethy Surg. Obs. 37 This remark is manifested by the present, as well as by many other cases in surgery.
c.1.c with obj. a clause or accus. with inf., or †compl.
1597 Shakes. 2 Hen. IV, iv. v. 105 Thy Life did manifest, thou lou'dst me not. 1643 Sir T. Browne Relig. Med. i. §22 No man will be able to prove it, when, from the process of the Text, I can manifest it may be otherwise. 1659 Pearson Creed (1839) 324 That it was actually so‥the place itself will not manifest. 1667 in Picton L'pool Munic. Rec. (1883) I. 269 Neither‥bowles or boxe had any inscripcion, manifesting them to be the gift of any p'ticular p'son. c 1680 Beveridge Serm. (1729) I. 476 It is by this chiefly that we manifest ourselves to be christians. 1688 R. Holme Armoury iii. 326/2 The Triangle will presently manifest whether the place be higher or lower than your Eye. 1711 Steele Spect. No. 153 ⁋4 It is thus in the Life of a Man of Sense, a short Life is sufficient to manifest himself a Man of Honour and Virtue. 1756 P. Browne Jamaica 97, I have not yet seen the capsulæ of this plant, and place it here only from the habit, which seems to manifest it of this tribe.
†2.2 To expound, unfold, clear up (a matter).
1530 Palsgr. 632/2, I manyfest, I make a thyng clere or open.‥ It is nat for all men to manyfest this mater. 1629 S'hertogenbosh 5 They‥manifested their Cause also vnto the Burgers of the Brabandish head Towns. 1669 Gale Crt. Gentiles 1. iii. x. 108 An oration, if it does not manifest the mater, loseth its designe.
3. a.3.a To display (a quality, condition, feeling, etc.) by one's action or behaviour; to give evidence of possessing, reveal the presence of, evince.
1567 Satir. Poems Reform. xiv. 67 He Abrahamis Faith, but feir, profest; He Dauidis mercy manifest. 1664 Power Exp. Philos. ii. 103 A large Bladder, full blown, will weigh more then itself emptied, and manifest this inequality upon a ticklish pair of scales. 1782 Cowper Friendship 112 They manifest their whole life through The needle's deviations too, Their love is so precarious. 1801 Med. Jrnl. V. 436 No influence, during that time, was manifested by the medicine. 1814 Cary Dante, Par. ix. 18 The eyes Of Beatrice‥manifested forth Approval of my wish. 1825 Lytton Zicci 8 Glyndon had also manifested a graceful faculty for verse. 1847 Grote Greece ii. xl. (1862) III. 434 The Medes‥manifested great personal bravery. 1853 Bright Sp., India 3 June (1876) 2 When the noble Lord made that announcement, considerable dissatisfaction was manifested on both sides of the House.
b.3.b refl. Of a thing: To reveal itself as existing or operative. Similarly in pass.
1808 Med. Jrnl. XIX. 137 No tendency, in general, to dysentery, manifested itself at this time. 1871 B. Stewart Heat (ed. 2) §303 This heat‥does not as a rule manifest itself by producing any increase of temperature. 1860 Tyndall Glac. i. xx. 142 A strong polar action was manifested at many points of the surrounding rocks. 1876 J. S. Bristowe Th. & Pract. Med. (1878) 151 The first symptoms are said to have manifested themselves on the seventh or eighth day.
4.4 To record or enumerate in a ship's manifest.
1541 Act 33 Hen. VIII, c. 7 The double value of the saide mettall so declared and manifested. 1860 Merc. Marine Mag. VII. 120 Should a Captain manifest more packages than there are on board the ship,‥he shall pay on each package so manifested. 1902 Daily Chron. 6 June 5/2 Every passenger is 'manifested' at the point of departure and various particulars about him set out.
5.5 intr. To make a 'manifestation' or public expression of opinion.
1898 Daily News 21 Feb. 5/6 In this astonishing country a gentleman of repute chooses his own time for going to prison, and is aided by the courtesy of the authorities in manifesting against the Court which condemned him. Ibid. 26 Sept. 4/4 Public opinion in France manifests entirely in the opposite direction. 1899 Ibid. 12 June 7/5 The object of the occupants being to manifest there for Loubet.
6.6 Spiritualism. Of a ghost or spirit (refl. and intr.): To reveal its presence, make an appearance.
1858 Hawthorne Fr. & It. Note-Bks. (1871) II. 171 Other séances were held in her bed-chamber, at which good and holy spirits manifested themselves. 1898 Daily News 29 Mar. 6/1 A certain 'Dr. Phinuit', who, however, for some time has not manifested at all. 1900 Westm. Gaz. 22 Dec. 2/2 She locks the skeleton up in the cupboard, and immediately the ghost manifests with renewed vigour.
7.7 Hist. In Spanish law, to protect (a person) by a 'manifestation'. (See manifestation 4.)
1818 Hallam Mid. Ages iv. (1868) 279 'To manifest any one', says the writer so often quoted [viz. Zurita], 'is to wrest him from the hands of the royal officers that he may not suffer any illegal violence.' Ibid. 280 note [tr. Zurita], In such cases only the Justiciary of Aragon, when recourse is had to him, interposes by manifesting the person arrested.
Quote from: Thayer/Strongφανερόω
phaneroō
Thayer Definition:
1) to make manifest or visible or known what has been hidden or unknown, to manifest, whether by words, or deeds, or in any other way
1a) make actual and visible, realised
1b) to make known by teaching
1c) to become manifest, be made known
1d) of a person
1d1) expose to view, make manifest, to show one's self, appear
1e) to become known, to be plainly recognised, thoroughly understood
1e1) who and what one is
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by Thayer's/Strong's Number: from G5318
Citing in TDNT: 9:3, 1244
φανερός
phaneros
Thayer Definition:
1) apparent, manifest, evident, known
2) manifest i.e to be plainly recognised or known
Part of Speech: adjective
A Related Word by Thayer's/Strong's Number: from G5316
Citing in TDNT: 9:2, 1244
PS#1 it's very scary for me that I seem to agree with WillieH :Chinscratch:
PS#2 WillieH it's good you didn't use huge fontsize in your last few messages. For me, that makes them much more readable.
This is, I think, one of the major sins of Christianity.
All this rabble about being right and wrong.
If there is one thing I've learned since I joined the heretics is that there is the TRUTH and everything else. We have to seek the TRUTH not to possess it but that we may be freed by it.
Everyone has the right to believe what they want, in fact, I believe convictions are placed on our hearts by the Holy Spirit. But when you meet someone who believe otherwise (concerning the Word - I'm not talking about islam or boudhism), it may be time to ask God to open your ears and verify in His Word and with Reason - not Traditions - if it may or may not be the Truth we're seeking.
Let us be cautious about this sin. ( I was a chief sinner in this category before God humbled my heart)
(I'm not taking side because I'm still seeking in this debate)
Quote from: Quaesitor on September 27, 2010, 04:07:03 PM
This is, I think, one of the major sins of Christianity.
All this rabble about being right and wrong.
....
(I'm not taking side because I'm still seeking in this debate)
While I had and still have disagreement with some in this topic I still believe they are also seekers.
They seek in the wrong place but they very likely say the same about me :winkgrin:
But is that a sin?
When you remove all the sugar coating and other excuses seeking is nothing more that splitting all information/thoughts into 2 groups.
True/false. Right/Wrong.
Isn't that what this forum is about? Finding the truth and getting rid of what's false?
I think if people keep that in their mind, and I mean not somewhere far back in their mind, discussion about Trinity and free will can be done.
The discussions may get heated at some point. But as long as people stay polite no harm is done imo.
Calling others heretic, blasphemer, fool, ignorant (of the truth), etc is crossing that boundary and often means "out of arguments". And then... things escalate. Threads get locked. Nobody learned anything. And everyone crawls back under his or her veil....
:2c:
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 27, 2010, 04:27:06 PM
Quote from: Quaesitor on September 27, 2010, 04:07:03 PM
This is, I think, one of the major sins of Christianity.
All this rabble about being right and wrong.
....
(I'm not taking side because I'm still seeking in this debate)
While I had and still have disagreement with some in this topic I still believe they are also seekers.
They seek in the wrong place but they very likely say the same about me :winkgrin:
But is that a sin?
When you remove all the sugar coating and other excuses seeking is nothing more that splitting all information/thoughts into 2 groups.
True/false. Right/Wrong.
Isn't that what this forum is about? Finding the truth and getting rid of what's false?
I think if people keep that in their mind, and I mean not somewhere far back in their mind, discussion about Trinity and free will can be done.
The discussions may get heated at some point. But as long as people stay polite no harm is done imo.
Calling others heretic, blasphemer is crossing that boundary and often means "out of arguments". And then... things escalate. Threads get locked. Nobody learned anything. And everyone crawls back under his or her veil....
:2c:
I'm sorry if I sound like the party breaker, the thing is I wish I'd read more objective writings and less arguments.
It's ok to say we can't answer a point or a question, I see some here answering with vain/void answers just to make a point that they have an answer or just ignoring other's question so they don't have to admit that they don't know.
What's so hard about saying: Ok I don't have an answer for this but I'm gonna seek the Lord for one. And then do not go into this commentary or that translation but into God's presence.
I'm not trying to blame anyone, I have a desire for the edification of the body of Christ which we are and a desire for Truth which is not someone's opinion. The TRUTH will set US free and I desperatly desire freedom.
Now I'm still at lost about this one because I've been TAUGHT by TRADITION that Jesus is God and God is a TRINITY.
Now I think there's arguments on each sides standing.
There is ONE God.
Jesus called God His Father, he sais He could do nothing by Himself.
But...
The disciples worshipped Jesus and called Him my Savior and my God. (only after the resurrection)
And God said that we shouldn't worship anyone but Him, even Jesus said that to the adversary in the desert.
So what I see is that Jesus was a man born of a woman but indwelt with the WORD. The man in Him was just the flesh and blood that composed Him but these died on the cross as all men are appointed to die. So once freed from the flesh and blood which can't see the Kingdom of God, He became ONE with God and thus God by perfect representation. If He speaks it's God speaking and if you adore Him, you adore God because in death, Jesus lost what can never be of God and then became God.
That's just my partial understanding, you are all free to show me anything I've missed.
And I disagree with the point TRADITION brings that if Jesus wasn't God then our faith is void, I don't see where it is written that God had to die on our behalf.
Love you all! :HeartThrob:
Quote from: Lefein on September 26, 2010, 10:35:57 PM
Blue is still Light.
Jesus is still God.
My friend, you say Jesus is God, and I take it then Jesus was "seen" by men, should that be true then what do I do with these verses
(ASV)
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
(YLT)
God no one hath ever seen; the only begotten Son, who is on the bosom of the Father--he did declare.
1Jn 4:12 God no one hath ever seen; if we may love one another, God in us doth remain, and His love is having been perfected in us;
1Jn 4:12 No man hath beheld God at any time: if we love one another, God abideth in us, and his love is perfected in us:
Quote from: Quaesitor on September 27, 2010, 04:59:55 PM
I'm sorry if I sound like the party breaker,
You don't. I would even ask you to join the party.
Quotethe thing is I wish I'd read more objective writings and less arguments.
True. But often there is a grey area between argument and objective.
What some see as solid scriptual reasoning others see as :blahgreen: And vv.
QuoteIt's ok to say we can't answer a point or a question,
Yes but not to soon. Quitting after one message becaus it's hard will teach you nothing.
QuoteAnd God said that we shouldn't worship anyone but Him, even Jesus said that to the adversary in the desert.
And their opion is no opinion but law... :2c:
QuoteThat's just my partial understanding, you are all free to show me anything I've missed.
I just remembered something you may like to add to your conideration. Regarding the rapture (yes I know wrong word... but everyone at least understands my point) Jesus said that even He didn't know when that is. Only Father does....
(Just like a regular Jewish wedding)
QuoteAnd I disagree with the point TRADITION brings that if Jesus wasn't God then our faith is void, I don't see where it is written that God had to die on our behalf.
Saying something is void because <enter a word> is like "you" want to control Fathers way of doing things. Saying He's wrong.
If Father says we should also worship clouds; should a good Christian kneel and start worshipping or start arguing....
Quote from: jabcat on September 27, 2010, 09:49:22 AM
Mod note;
let's plz work on getting this back to the OP, away from personal issues, and away from banned topics (Trinity).
This thread won't be locked due to the above issues - we need to get back on track so everyone can enjoy and benefit from it.
Thanks, James.
I personally its to far gone, who knows. :bigGrin:
Having had to deal with death of family and friends a lot in my lifetime, I can witness that they are not gone, not 'dead;' they are alive in some other dimension, and often very close to us. I have been communicated to in dreams, in waking, in symbols, in words, in just the right thing happening at the right time. Some of the stories I could tell--and you would understand--these things are not accidents, not coincidence, not random.
When Jesus died on the cross, we are told the graves of many righteous opened.
50Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
51And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
52And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
--Mat 27
This is for our edification that we have now entered into a new era. I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would quote Solomon on death after Jesus. Why would anyone think nothing had changed and the Old Testament remained in effect with regards to death? Nevertheless, I have the witness that love is stronger than death, and that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is the God of the living.
31But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
32I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
33And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.
--Mat 22
Hebrews 12
Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,
Quote from: Molly on September 27, 2010, 06:26:11 PM
Having had to deal with death of family and friends a lot in my lifetime, I can witness that they are not gone, not 'dead;' they are alive in some other dimension, and often very close to us. I have been communicated to in dreams, in waking, in symbols, in words, in just the right thing happening at the right time. Some of the stories I could tell--and you would understand--these things are not accidents, not coincidence, not random.
When Jesus died on the cross, we are told the graves of many righteous opened.
50Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
51And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
52And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
--Mat 27
This is for our edification that we have now entered into a new era. I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would quote Solomon on death after Jesus. Why would anyone think nothing had changed and the Old Testament remained in effect with regards to death? Nevertheless, I have the witness that love is stronger than death, and that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is the God of the living.
31But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
32I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
33And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.
--Mat 22
Unbelievable
QuoteUnbelievable
In what sense?
QuoteSaying something is void because <enter a word> is like "you" want to control Fathers way of doing things. Saying He's wrong.
Everything depends on The Father's consistency. I do not control my Father by holding him to his word, he can break it if he so chooses...But to break his word would render him unfit to be God.
QuoteIf Father says we should also worship clouds; should a good Christian kneel and start worshipping or start arguing....
Not if it turns the Father into a hypocrite.
I am not certain about the nature of death - but in the Old Testament; remember Samuel's spirit when Saul used a medium to seek his counsel.
Quote from: Lefein on September 27, 2010, 07:52:05 PM
QuoteSaying something is void because <enter a word> is like "you" want to control Fathers way of doing things. Saying He's wrong.
Everything depends on The Father's consistency. I do not control my Father by holding him to his word, he can break it if he so chooses...But to break his word would render him unfit to be God.
QuoteIf Father says we should also worship clouds; should a good Christian kneel and start worshipping or start arguing....
Not if it turns the Father into a hypocrite.
But I think you don't believe Father breaks His word and/or is a hypocrite?
There are many views of constancy in the Bible. Most goto hell. Most are put out of existance. All are saved. And likely some more 'certainties'.
But obviously only 1 is correct. Is that lack of consistancy of Father or just a limited human brain? I just mentioned the main doctrines but the same is also true for sub-doctrines. For example is our Sabbath day on Saturday or Sunday? New findings sometimes seem to be inconsistant with many other verses.
Father wrong? New finding wrong? Or perhaps "you" misunderstood all those other verses wrong. That one verse is key to a whole new (sub-)doctrine.
Just like that little word Aion has a huge impact on a huge number of verses.
I'll say it again...because it is true...
Truth in order to be Truth must remain consistent. If The Father is not consistent - he is
not God, and our faith is absolute vanity, for God would be a liar, and sin would be the rule of the Cosmos, or else God is unknown to us and we must go out and find him if we can, and then build up some new faith.
Is God a liar? No. That means he is consistent by default.
"Not if it turns God into a hypocrite"
Quoteperhaps "you" misunderstood
Out of curiousity, do you realise how loaded this statement of yours is?
Out of answer; perhaps it is not I, who is wrong.
<>-------<>
Like it or not, everything really does depend on The Father's consistency, and especially his honesty.
Quote from: Lefein on September 27, 2010, 07:54:11 PMI am not certain about the nature of death - but in the Old Testament; remember Samuel's spirit when Saul used a medium to seek his counsel.
Search a bit on this forum and you'll find some threads. But no conclusions. But I can mention the main views.
1] God is the God of the living so no one is really dead.
2] The witch of Endor summoned a evil spirit.
3] One time special event. (Was dead. Spoke a verse and was dead again)
4] Can't be because Jesus is the first one that has gone to heaven.
5] Whatever was said in the OT regarding this question is not relavant because Jesus changed everything.
6] We can't contact the dead.
7] What are the resurrections in Revelation about if people never really die.
Quote from: Cardinal on September 27, 2010, 12:32:17 AM
:cloud9: I think we're all missing a deeper understanding of it, that has to be revealed by the Spirit yet, to put us on a equal par with the early church, IMO. Mainstream CANNOT have it right, as there is FEW there be that find it, and they are not the few, and I can't think of one thing they teach, as is, that is accurate. My :2c: Blessings....
:mshock: How about Jesus is saviour don't you agree with that, what were you thinking!
Quote from: eaglesway on September 27, 2010, 02:03:44 AM
Amen to every word in the post above mine :ilu:
I would'nt say amen to every word she said. For the majority churches say Jesus is saviour, being critical I'd have to say that technically you are saying amen to someone who denies Jesus as saviour. :2c:
Quote from: ww7] What are the ressurection in Revelation about if people never really die.
Paul tells us not all will sleep. So some sleep and some do not.
Quote from: Lefein on September 27, 2010, 08:21:45 PM
Quoteperhaps "you" misunderstood
Out of curiousity, do you realise how loaded this statement of yours is?
No.
I didn't accidently use ""
"you" is every single Bible reader. Including me.
I'm aware my writing and grammar isn't that good. English is not my first language. I just thought "" removes the literal meaning of the word...
Unless it's a quote. :Sparkletooth:
QuoteLike it or not, everything really does depend on The Father's consistency, and especially his honesty.
The question is are we, mankind, smart enough to detect that inconsistancy?
Some people on this forum have spend thousands of hours in the Bible. And still say things like "Wow, never seen that before!"
So my point is can we judge constance if we don't fully understand the Bible?
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 27, 2010, 04:27:06 PM
Quote from: Quaesitor on September 27, 2010, 04:07:03 PM
This is, I think, one of the major sins of Christianity.
All this rabble about being right and wrong.
....
(I'm not taking side because I'm still seeking in this debate)
While I had and still have disagreement with some in this topic I still believe they are also seekers.
They seek in the wrong place but they very likely say the same about me :winkgrin:
But is that a sin?
When you remove all the sugar coating and other excuses seeking is nothing more that splitting all information/thoughts into 2 groups.
True/false. Right/Wrong.
Isn't that what this forum is about? Finding the truth and getting rid of what's false?
I think if people keep that in their mind, and I mean not somewhere far back in their mind, discussion about Trinity and free will can be done.The discussions may get heated at some point. But as long as people stay polite no harm is done imo.
Calling others heretic, blasphemer, fool, ignorant (of the truth), etc is crossing that boundary and often means "out of arguments". And then... things escalate. Threads get locked. Nobody learned anything. And everyone crawls back under his or her veil....
:2c:
I agree, it would be nice. But we've seen that's not what happens. Thus the statement, "we're not even going to approach that level of dischord". Gary himself has suggested things be moderated tightly, because he wants the focus to remain and always be UR - not a bunch of people arguing over doctrines that will never be settled until the next age.
Once again I'll say. THESE TOPICS CAN BE DISCUSSED TO A DEGREE, when we talk about the scriptures, how we personally understand God, etc. But it's shown time and again, we get locked into battles over terminology and semantics. So the old saying goes,
an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. IOW, we just avoid going there, other than letting folks stick their toe in now and then - there's just a real quick limit to it. If folks could only get their minds around the fact that almost anything can be discussed. It's the words we use, how we go about it, whether we just express our understanding vs. getting locked into argumentative debate over terminology and semantics. It's just not what the TM board is about. It's to help us work through some things, yes, but mainly, the focus is to be a clearinghouse of information and assistance, and a witness to the Victorious Gospel of Jesus Christ - UR. Believe me when I say, MANY, MANY things are allowed to be discussed, and indepth, that I personally believe Gary would rather have more UR-directed, but he allows. So I think we probably should be glad we're able to do that. :2c:
QuoteI didn't accidently use ""
My apologies. I did not realise that English wasn't your first language, you are fluent enough to trick me. :p
I'd also like to point out in return, that I am not nearly as "educated/arrogant/haughty" as my posts may portray. I am just trained to write in a certain way that is very "Vulcan" (star trek fans will get it xD).
QuoteThe question is are we, mankind, smart enough to detect that inconsistancy?
We are. We are not primitive savages. The child knew the emperor was naked. -Emperor's New Clothes.
We may not be omniscient in our sense of understanding, but we can tell when something isn't right. God did not make us helpless, even in the innocence of the Garden, Eve knew there was inconsistency in the Serpent's words.
QuoteSome people on this forum have spend thousands of hours in the Bible. And still say things like "Wow, never seen that before!"
That is because the The Word - The Spirit of Truth is living word. In essence; The Bible is a living book. There is always some new thing that The Holy Spirit brings out to our attention.
Quantity of Bible study is useless as a measure for how "Bible smart" someone is. A six year old who can barely read, filled with the Holy Ghost can pick up a Bible for the first time and see a profound, church changing truth - where as someone who has studied the Bible for twenty years cannot...and even refutes it for various reasons.
God reveals things to babes, rather than the wise often times.
It is The Holy Ghost that is our teacher, who often will teach us through our intellect, but it is not our intellect, our years of study, or even our walk with God that is our teacher. It is the Teacher himself.
QuoteSo my point is can we judge constance if we don't fully understand the Bible?
It is the same way, in which we have an instinctive knowing that there is inconsistency between The God of Love, and Eternal Torment. The Holy Spirit is our teacher, who understands the Bible fully having written it - it is he who reveals to us the nature of things about The Father; things such as his consistency.
We judge constance by three things:
1: Instinctive intelligence that God built into us;
We know that if a wife is sneaking out, and coming home sweaty, worn out, and is always talking about how sweet her co-worker is to her, yet she says she is faithful to her husband, yet has no time for him - but has all the time in the world for her co-worker...something is up. It doesn't exactly take a Holy Ghost prophecy, three confirmations, a prayer vigil, and a choir of cherubim with a message from God to know it either. :happy3:
2: The Holy Ghost working through our intelligence, and our capacity to learn, think, comprehend, and process. A good example here, would be Paul's words in Acts 17:28, when he talks of the poets knowing about the relationship between God and Man. The Holy Ghost was using Paul's scholarly knowledge of Greek culture to present the Gospel to the philosophers, and the Athenians. The Holy Ghost works the same way with all aspects of our intelligence.
Just as the Church is a body with many members, every individual is a body with many members, who has a mind with many members - through which God works to further his will.
An example of this in my own life would be when God confirmed to me the Truth of the doctrine "Once saved, always saved" by using a medium that many in Orthodox belief would find shocking - Evolution. (this of course, is prior to my exposure to Ultimate Reconciliation)
3: Witness to our hearts - Inner witness of The Holy Ghost;
Sometimes, you just have that really, really deep knowing about something.
James, we only discussed Father and Son. That not Tri :winkgrin:
But you are right; In the 2? years I'm here I've seen some heated debates and even a few (temp)ban because of it.
And while I agree/accept this is a UR forum I think some none UR things can't be avoided.
But all-in-all (UR!) we all had a 2-3 days to write our views :thumbsup:
:peckblush:
On-topic
Micah, is the 7-point list I gave a few posts above some sort of an answer to your opening post?
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 27, 2010, 09:01:05 PM
James, we only discussed Father and Son. That not Tri :winkgrin:
But you are right; In the 2? years I'm here I've seen some heated debates and even a few (temp)ban because of it.
And while I agree/accept this is a UR forum I think some none UR things can't be avoided.
But all-in-all (UR!) we all had a 2-3 days to write our views :thumbsup:
:peckblush:
Agreed! :thumbsup:
Quote from: Molly on September 27, 2010, 07:47:13 PM
QuoteUnbelievable
In what sense?
" I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would
quote Solomon on death after Jesus. Why would anyone think nothing had changed and the Old Testament remained in effect with regards to death? "(Molly)
Ecc 9:5 For the living know that they die, and the dead know not anything, and there is no more to them a reward, for their remembrance hath been forgotten.
This is obsolete?
Remember the context of Ecclesiastes; it is a book that is almost sarcastic at parts.
Quote from: Lefein on September 27, 2010, 10:14:46 PM
Remember the context of Ecclesiastes; it is a book that is almost sarcastic at parts.
Like Sienfeld? Okay what would be sarcastic about Ecc 9:5 For the living know that they die, and the dead know not anything, and there is no more to them a reward, for their remembrance hath been forgotten.
Micah, I'm quite sure OT teaches that the death are really dead.
But Jesus undid the damage done by Adam.
So if we really know what ecc. means do we then also know if things didn't change almost 2000 years ago?
I think the "death:an ending" answer must be in NT if not, nothing changed. Unless the OT tells us things will change when Jesus ascends back to heaven.....
Revelation is part of NT. It speaks of resurrections. People that don't die can't be resurrected because they are not dead. :dontknow: :dontknow:
BTW I see no sarcasm in that verse or the whole chapther.
Examples of what I mean by almost sarcastic.
Ecc 2:1 I said in mine heart, Go to now, I will prove thee with mirth, therefore enjoy pleasure: and, behold, this also is vanity.
Ecc 2:2 I said of laughter, It is mad: and of mirth, What doeth it?
Ecc 2:16 For there is no remembrance of the wise more than of the fool for ever; seeing that which now is in the days to come shall all be forgotten. And how dieth the wise man? as the fool.
Ecc 2:17 Therefore I hated life; because the work that is wrought under the sun is grievous unto me: for all is vanity and vexation of spirit.
The Book of Ecclesiastes carries an air of "HA! What of this then?! Do you think thus?! Nay tis all in vain, useless and vain!" in variation through out.
It is passive-aggressive towards the thoughts of men, and their ideals of what is good, and their ideas of what will make them full. It should be read as such, I think, in order to get the full scope of it.
Ecclesiastes is a book about life, and the way men live it - supposing their way will make them happier, or wealthier, or better off...when they are far from the truth of what will really make them happiest; God. It is a book about living, not about the nature of what a person's state is after death, as far as I can tell.
Molly,
Did you understand my last post?
It was in response to yours, just above it.
Ecclesiastes is a book about the emptiness of life.
When a living soul dies(expires) its dead, without life.
"the dead know not anything, and there is no more to them a reward, for their remembrance hath been forgotten."
And is only "alive" in the memories of those who bring up or wish to remember that memory.
Rom 6:4 we were buried together, then, with him through the baptism to the death, that even as Christ was raised up out of the dead through the glory of the Father, so also we in newness of life might walk.
Quote from: thinktank on September 27, 2010, 08:32:01 PM
Quote from: eaglesway on September 27, 2010, 02:03:44 AM
Amen to every word in the post above mine :ilu:
I would'nt say amen to every word she said. For the majority churches say Jesus is saviour, being critical I'd have to say that technically you are saying amen to someone who denies Jesus as saviour. :2c:
:sigh: And you came to this conclusion of yours regarding me, based on WHAT, exactly???
I think what's being said (though one might take umbrage with the method) is;
Card, you said this - "I can't think of one thing they teach, as is, that is accurate"
So I think TT is saying, the church DOES believe in Jesus as Savior, so that's something accurate they do believe -
Now, I probably need to go back and read this;
http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/index.php?topic=7297.msg83005#msg83005
:clock: :sweat:
you're right, I haven't learned it yet. :grin:
Quote from: Cardinal on September 28, 2010, 02:50:51 AM
Quote from: thinktank on September 27, 2010, 08:32:01 PM
Quote from: eaglesway on September 27, 2010, 02:03:44 AM
Amen to every word in the post above mine :ilu:
I would'nt say amen to every word she said. For the majority churches say Jesus is saviour, being critical I'd have to say that technically you are saying amen to someone who denies Jesus as saviour. :2c:
:sigh: And you came to this conclusion of yours regarding me, based on WHAT, exactly???
sorry card but I was reading the text you posted like a computer program, not reading your beliefs and that text says that, churches don't teach one thing accurate and so logically that includes the idea of Jesus christ as saviour, so according to the language used here, then eaglesways is saying amen to a text that denies Jesus (indirectly)
My concern was that eaglesway is blessing something that could be bad for his soul, I'm probably being a bit over cautious, but life and death are in the power of the tongue. :2c:
Quote from: jabcat on September 28, 2010, 03:12:08 AM
you're right, I haven't learned it yet. :grin:
You gave an accurate reading of what I meant :thumbsup:
I am just trained to write in a certain way that is very "Vulcan" (star trek fans will get it xD).
lefein
You mean the anti vulcan? what would they be though 'human' I think.
Computer language - 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
That's about the extent of my knowledge.
:winkgrin:
Quote from: thinktank on September 28, 2010, 03:27:03 AM
Quote from: Cardinal on September 28, 2010, 02:50:51 AM
Quote from: thinktank on September 27, 2010, 08:32:01 PM
Quote from: eaglesway on September 27, 2010, 02:03:44 AM
Amen to every word in the post above mine :ilu:
I would'nt say amen to every word she said. For the majority churches say Jesus is saviour, being critical I'd have to say that technically you are saying amen to someone who denies Jesus as saviour. :2c:
:sigh: And you came to this conclusion of yours regarding me, based on WHAT, exactly???
Very convoluted thinking TT, I mean Vulcans are supposed to be logical. A good Vulcan would have never made such a progression to 1)misread and then 2)misinterpret and then 3)regurgitate in deformity. To disagree with certain teachings of the mainline churches has no connection to denying Jesus Christ. Live long and prosper, John
sorry card but I was reading the text you posted like a computer program, not reading your beliefs and that text says that, churches don't teach one thing accurate and so logically that includes the idea of Jesus christ as saviour, so according to the language used here, then eaglesways is saying amen to a text that denies Jesus (indirectly)
My concern was that eaglesway is blessing something that could be bad for his soul, I'm probably being a bit over cautious, but life and death are in the power of the tongue. :2c:
Very convoluted thinking TT, I mean Vulcans are supposed to be logical. A good Vulcan would have never made such a progression to 1)misread and then 2)misinterpret and then 3)regurgitate in deformity. To disagree with certain teachings of the mainline churches has no connection to denying Jesus Christ. Live long and prosper, John
Fascanating, you said 'certain teachings', a true vulcan would look at things accurately, and card being a knowledgable woman of the faith, who also preaches, surely would know that the orthodox or mainstream church regard Jesus as saviour, since this is one of their main teachings. Cardinal said, she can't think of one thing that mainstream church teaches that is accurate. Now if she had said,"certain teachings" then I would agree with you, but in her post she said, not one thing is accurate, so logically that would include the teaching of Jesus as saviour of mankind. :2c:
Now go fly like an eagle :laughing7:
When I said I have a Vulcan manner of speaking...lol, I was talking about my "educated" manner of speech. ^^
I shall fly away like an eagle and enjoy the view from up yonder- grace and peace, John
Quote from: thinktank on September 28, 2010, 03:47:38 AM
I am just trained to write in a certain way that is very "Vulcan"
Rhifv Areinnye daeohre.
Decendent from the Vulcans you mean.
In the episode at star date 152740.728 there is Romulan called TT :winkgrin:
Quote from: eaglesway on September 28, 2010, 04:28:24 AMTo disagree with certain teachings of the mainline churches has no connection to denying Jesus Christ. Live long and prosper, John
:cloud9: Thanks for clarifying for me, Eaglesway; you did get the gist of what I was trying to say. :girlheart:
TT; :spank: :winkgrin:
Quote from: Beloved Servant on September 27, 2010, 11:34:26 PM
Molly,
Did you understand my last post?
It was in response to yours, just above it.
Yes, I did, Beloved Servant.
clouds of witnessesThank you! :cloud9:
:cloud9:
Quote from: jabcat on September 28, 2010, 03:08:32 AM
I think what's being said (though one might take umbrage with the method) is;
Card, you said this - "I can't think of one thing they teach, as is, that is accurate"
So I think TT is saying, the church DOES believe in Jesus as Savior, so that's something accurate they do believe -
And not even that they have correct.
Jesus is Savior of few (instead of all)
Thus, she said: "as is."
Quote from: Lefein on September 27, 2010, 06:50:07 AM
Even the original Greek says that God was manifested in the flesh; "God incarnate". And as far as what we mortally have, the original Greek is as accurate a Bible as you can get.
I found a little more proof it's not....
Several versions translate the verse similar to:
EBR1Tim 3 16 And, confessedly great, is the sacred secret of godliness,––Who was made manifest in flesh, was declared righteous in spirit, was made visible unto messengers, was proclaimed among nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.
I also have an explanation for it....
From: Misquoting Jesus
In 1715 Wettstein went to England (as part of a literary tour) and was given full access to the Codex Alexandrinus, which we have already heard about in relation to Bentley. One portion of the manuscript particularly caught Wettstein's attention: it was one of those tiny matters with enormous implications. It involved the text of a key passage in the book of 1 Timothy.
The passage in question, 1 Tim. 3:16, had long been used by advocates of orthodox theology to support the view that the New Testament itself calls Jesus God. For the text, in most manuscripts, refers to Christ as "God made manifest in the flesh, and justified in the Spirit." As I pointed out in chapter 3, most manuscripts abbreviate sacred names (the so-called nomina sacra), and that is the case here as well, where the Greek word God (ΘΕΟΣ) is abbreviated in two letters, theta and sigma (ΘΣ), with a line drawn over the top to indicate that it is an abbreviation. What Wettstein noticed in examining Codex Alexandrinus was that the line over the top had been drawn in a different ink from the surrounding words, and so appeared to be from a later hand (i.e., written by a later scribe). Moreover, the horizontal line in the middle of the first letter, Θ, was not actually a part of the letter but was a line that had bled through from the other side of the old vellum. In other words, rather than being the abbreviation (theta–sigma) for "God" (ΘΣ), the word was actually an omicron and a sigma (ΟΣ), a different word altogether,
which simply means "who." The original reading of the manuscript thus did not speak of Christ as "God made manifest in the flesh" but of Christ " who was made manifest in the flesh." According to the ancient testimony of the Codex Alexandrinus, Christ is no longer explicitly called God in this passage.
As Wettstein continued his investigations, he found other passages typically used to affirm the doctrine of the divinity of Christ that in fact represented textual problems; when these problems are resolved on text-critical grounds, in most instances references to Jesus's divinity are taken away. This happens, for example, when the famous Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7–8) is removed from the text. And it happens in a passage in Acts 20:28, which in many manuscripts speaks of "the Church of God, which he obtained by his own blood." Here again, Jesus appears to be spoken of as God. But in Codex Alexandrinus and some other manuscripts, the text instead speaks of "the Church of the Lord, which he obtained by his own blood." Now Jesus is called the Lord, but he is not explicitly identified as God.
Alerted to such difficulties, Wettstein began thinking seriously about his own theological convictions, and became attuned to the problem that the New Testament rarely, if ever, actually calls Jesus God. And he began to be annoyed with his fellow pastors and teachers in his home city of Basel, who would sometimes confuse language about God and Christ—for example, when talking of the Son of God as if he were the Father, or addressing God the Father in prayer and speaking of "your sacred wounds." Wettstein thought that more precision was needed when speaking about the Father and the Son, since they were not the same.
Wettstein's emphasis on such matters started raising suspicions among his colleagues, suspicions that were confirmed for them when, in 1730, Wettstein published a discussion of the problems of the Greek New Testament in anticipation of a new edition that he was preparing. Included among the specimen passages in his discussion were some of these disputed texts that had been used by theologians to establish the biblical basis for the doctrine of the divinity of Christ. For Wettstein, these texts in fact had been altered precisely in order to incorporate that perspective: the original texts could not be used in support of it.
The "Johannine Comma" are two manmade verses that were inserted. (Invention of Jerome)
Indeed, as it turns out, these manuscripts were not of the best quality: they were, after all, produced some eleven hundred years after the originals! For example, the main manuscript that Erasmus used for the Gospels contained both the story of the woman taken in adultery in John and the last twelve verses of Mark, passages that did not originally form part of the Gospels, as we learned in the preceding chapter.
There was one key passage of scripture that Erasmus's source manuscripts did not contain, however. This is the account of 1 John 5:7–8, which scholars have called the Johannine Comma, found in the manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate but not in the vast majority of Greek manuscripts, a passage that had long been a favorite among Christian theologians, since it is the only passage in the entire Bible that explicitly delineates the doctrine of the Trinity, that there are three persons in the godhead, but that the three all constitute just one God. In the Vulgate, the passage reads:There are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one; and there are three that bear witness on earth, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one.
It is a mysterious passage, but unequivocal in its support of the traditional teachings of the church on the "triune God who is one." Without this verse, the doctrine of the Trinity must be inferred from a range of passages combined to show that Christ is God, as is the Spirit and the Father, and that there is, nonetheless, only one God. This passage, in contrast, states the doctrine directly and succinctly.
But Erasmus did not find it in his Greek manuscripts, which instead simply read: "There are three that bear witness: the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one." Where did the "Father, the Word, and the Spirit" go? They were not in Erasmus's primary manuscript, or in any of the others that he consulted, and so, naturally, he left them out of his first edition of the Greek text.
More than anything else, it was this that outraged the theologians of his day, who accused Erasmus of tampering with the text in an attempt to eliminate the doctrine of the Trinity and to devalue its corollary, the doctrine of the full divinity of Christ. In particular, Stunica, one of the chief editors of the Complutensian Polyglot, went public with his defamation of Erasmus and insisted that in future editions he return the verse to its rightful place.
As the story goes, Erasmus—possibly in an unguarded moment—agreed that he would insert the verse in a future edition of his Greek New Testament on one condition: that his opponents produce a Greek manuscript in which the verse could be found (finding it in Latin manuscripts was not enough). And so a Greek manuscript was produced. In fact, it was produced for the occasion. It appears that someone copied out the Greek text of the Epistles, and when he came to the passage in question, he translated the Latin text into Greek, giving the Johannine Comma in its familiar, theologically useful form. The manuscript provided to Erasmus, in other words, was a sixteenth-century production, made to order.
Despite his misgivings, Erasmus was true to his word and included the Johannine Comma in his next edition, and in all his subsequent editions. These editions, as I have already noted, became the basis for the editions of the Greek New Testament that were then reproduced time and again by the likes of Stephanus, Beza, and the Elzevirs. These editions provided the form of the text that the translators of the King James Bible eventually used. And so familiar passages to readers of the English Bible—from the King James in 1611 onward, up until modern editions of the twentieth century—include the woman taken in adultery, the last twelve verses of Mark, and the Johannine Comma, even though none of these passages can be found in the oldest and superior manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. They entered into the English stream of consciousness merely by a chance of history, based on manuscripts that Erasmus just happened to have handy to him, and one that was manufactured for his benefit.
"I also have an explanation for it...." I do not see you having an explantion, you found an explantion, correct? Its a cents worth, thats about al I have. No, I did not read it.
I've read it and it's interesting to say the least.
But he did FIND an explanation which is what, I think, is what WW does best. :happygrin:
Thnaks for sharing WW.
Quote from: Quaesitor on December 25, 2010, 05:57:18 AM
I've read it and it's interesting to say the least.
But he did FIND an explanation which is what, I think, is what WW does best. :happygrin:
Thnaks for sharing WW.
I for one am well aware of all the interesting and in depth studying done by the many who do not share all the faith of the bretheren. I know that My God lives and that it was His Son who payed the price. I, by the grace of God will continue to build on what the Lord reveals to me, as part of the growing corporate man from His Word as it has been established. From what I can reason, I have come to know my Saviour and brother through the 66 books of what I consider the Book. I know that there is other works and words that prove my God and Father and Savior, but He saved me with what I had. Bless the Wonderfull Name of JESUS>
Quote from: micah7:9 on December 25, 2010, 04:26:06 AM"I also have an explanation for it...." I do not see you having an explantion, you found an explantion, correct?
Yes, I found information. It's clearly mentioned in the first line of my post. I even mentioned the name of the source of that quote.
QuoteIts a cents worth, thats about al I have. No, I did not read it.
Why not? Why judge when you don't have a clue what I quoted?
Why so hostile when a very likey copy error is pointed out?
Why so hostile toward an book author who wants to base his belief on the word of God instead on the error of man?
Quote from: micah7:9 on December 25, 2010, 06:22:13 AMI for one am well aware of all the interesting and in depth studying done by the many who do not share all the faith of the bretheren.
What makes you think he doesn't share all the faith?
He does. But unless most brethen he's trying to base his faith on the word of God and not the errors/idea's of man.
QuoteI have come to know my Saviour and brother through the 66 books of what I consider the Book.
And you consider that wrongly. The old manuscripts are compared, and still being compared and there are between 200,000-400,000 errors.
The vast majority of those errors are just little spelling errors that change nothing in the understanding of the text. Some errors make a difference. It's simply impossible to claim that 2 manuscripts are right while they clearly differ.
QuoteI know that there is other works and words that prove my God and Father and Savior, but He saved me with what I had. Bless the Wonderfull Name of JESUS>
This is not "other works".
It's a direct quote from the most ancient texts availble. Plus text frequently quoted by the church fathers because there were all kind of pagan (mostly Roman) writers who published other idea's.
Quote from: Quaesitor on December 25, 2010, 05:57:18 AM
I've read it and it's interesting to say the least.
But he did FIND an explanation which is what, I think, is what WW does best. :happygrin:
Thnaks for sharing WW.
If you wonder how Matthew 3:17, Mark 1:11 or Luke 3:23 is written in the oldest/best manuscripts then PM me.
I love this study--the visible and invisible God of the Old Testament. Jesus revealed in the Old Testament.
Gen 15
1After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.
Here Abram both sees [vision] and hears the word of the Lord.
4And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.
5And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.
6And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
Now the word is bringing Abram outside and showing him the stars. Again, there is the idea of a physical presence of God. The next verse makes it clear that Abram is talking to YHWH.
7And he said unto him, I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.
Samuel also both sees and talks to YHWH
1 Sam 3
4That the LORD called Samuel: and he answered, Here am I.
5And he ran unto Eli, and said, Here am I; for thou calledst me. And he said, I called not; lie down again. And he went and lay down.
6And the LORD called yet again, Samuel. And Samuel arose and went to Eli, and said, Here am I; for thou didst call me. And he answered, I called not, my son; lie down again.
7Now Samuel did not yet know the LORD, neither was the word of the LORD yet revealed unto him.
8And the LORD called Samuel again the third time. And he arose and went to Eli, and said, Here am I; for thou didst call me. And Eli perceived that the LORD had called the child.
9Therefore Eli said unto Samuel, Go, lie down: and it shall be, if he call thee, that thou shalt say, Speak, LORD; for thy servant heareth. So Samuel went and lay down in his place.
10And the LORD came, and stood, and called as at other times, Samuel, Samuel. Then Samuel answered, Speak; for thy servant heareth.
11And the LORD said to Samuel, Behold, I will do a thing in Israel, at which both the ears of every one that heareth it shall tingle.
12In that day I will perform against Eli all things which I have spoken concerning his house: when I begin, I will also make an end.
13For I have told him that I will judge his house for ever for the iniquity which he knoweth; because his sons made themselves vile, and he restrained them not.
14And therefore I have sworn unto the house of Eli, that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be purged with sacrifice nor offering for ever.
15And Samuel lay until the morning, and opened the doors of the house of the LORD. And Samuel feared to shew Eli the vision.
http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2009/12/where-did-the-nt-writers-get-the-idea-of-jesus-as-co-creator/
One more--the visible God of the Old Testament--
Jeremiah 1
1The words of Jeremiah the son of Hilkiah, of the priests that were in Anathoth in the land of Benjamin:
2To whom the word of the LORD came in the days of Josiah the son of Amon king of Judah, in the thirteenth year of his reign.
3It came also in the days of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, unto the end of the eleventh year of Zedekiah the son of Josiah king of Judah, unto the carrying away of Jerusalem captive in the fifth month.
4Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
5Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
6Then said I, Ah, Lord GOD! behold, I cannot speak: for I am a child.
7But the LORD said unto me, Say not, I am a child: for thou shalt go to all that I shall send thee, and whatsoever I command thee thou shalt speak.
8Be not afraid of their faces: for I am with thee to deliver thee, saith the LORD.
9Then the LORD put forth his hand, and touched my mouth. And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth.
10See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant.
Who visits Jeremiah, then, --One who is called the word of God, who is called YHWH, who has a hand that touches Jeremiah's mouth...
15Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
--Col 1
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 25, 2010, 10:06:20 AM
Quote from: Quaesitor on December 25, 2010, 05:57:18 AM
I've read it and it's interesting to say the least.
But he did FIND an explanation which is what, I think, is what WW does best. :happygrin:
Thnaks for sharing WW.
If you wonder how Matthew 3:17, Mark 1:11 or Luke 3:23 is written in the oldest/best manuscripts then PM me.
:cloud9: I, for one, want to know......thanks for all your diligent study; you are a treasure to this board. :girlheart:
Quote from: Cardinal on December 25, 2010, 08:54:32 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 25, 2010, 10:06:20 AM
Quote from: Quaesitor on December 25, 2010, 05:57:18 AM
I've read it and it's interesting to say the least.
But he did FIND an explanation which is what, I think, is what WW does best. :happygrin:
Thnaks for sharing WW.
If you wonder how Matthew 3:17, Mark 1:11 or Luke 3:23 is written in the oldest/best manuscripts then PM me.
:cloud9: I, for one, want to know......thanks for all your diligent study; you are a treasure to this board. :girlheart:
You asked for it...... :winkgrin:
You are my Son, today I have begotten you.I want to give some background info because I feel several think/fear I'm somehow minimizing Jesus/the Bible in some way. There is a lot to say buit I'll summerize:
- The Bible is written long after Jesus died.
- The Bible was copied by amateurs (they just did a few lines a day after work)
- Much later proffesional copiers/scribes did the job.
Until that time
real Christians had the most weird idea's
There 1, 3, 12 or even 364 Gods...
Jesus was 100% man
Jesus was 100% man and 100% God at the same time.
Jesus was 100% God and just acted when He was hungry, thirsty or in pain. And acted He died because God don't die.
Many more such things.
All that crept in the translations.
Even Origen admited the massive problems.
So when the professional scribes started they had lots of problems indentifying the real gospels as written by the Mark, Matthew etc.
Today it's proven KJV used one of the worst manuscripts (not on purpose BTW)
As we are all aware the Bible can have tricky passages. Those were used by pagan critics to ridicule Christianity.
So scibes tried to be helpful and did bend the translation a bit at times. Always to make Jesus even better. But still changes.
But there were also little twists that were used for theological battles. Like the above mentione was Jesus 100% man or...
To make a long story (350 page book) short even today the mess isn't fully sorted out. But enornous progress its made.
Ok the voice out of heaven during Jesus'baptism said:
You are my Son, today I have begotten you.I want to note that by this it isn't insinuated Jesus wasn't special for the day He was born.
It was changed because there was a thoelogical battle. So the scibes "fixed"the text.
Some people said that Jesus was born as a very normal man. Just as the other billion of people that live now.
God just liked Jesus and adopted Him during baptism. That was also mocked by pagans. Their half gods all were rich and powerful and always had a god or godess as a parent. Jesus so it seems from that verse was very common.
Although said elsewere in the Scriptures Jesus was divine; the scribes decided to "upgrade" the verse a bit to avoid mockery end debates.
I want to add the writer of teh book has a serious background.
BART D. EHRMAN chairs the department of religious studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. A leading authority on the early church and the life of Jesus, he has been featured in Time magazine and NBC News. He is the author of twenty books and lives in Durham, North Carolina.
:cloud9: Ok, so this particular writer; his opinion is what exactly, which one? :dontknow: I must have missed the point......
Quote from: Cardinal on December 25, 2010, 10:44:56 PM:cloud9: Ok, so this particular writer; his opinion is what exactly, which one? :dontknow: I must have missed the point......
The book isn't about opinions.
In the first half of the book the author just explains what methods scholars use to indentify the most trusted texts.
In the second half of his book he presents a few different readings in the manuscripts; and explains what variant is the most likely based on the method described in the first half of his book.
The verse I quoted is one example of that.
That's it.
The author doesn't make a single doctrinial statement in his book.
It's up to the reader if s/he feels the "new" verse changes understanding of a certain concept/passage.
ww, I wish you would take a look at Michael Heiser's work because he is talking about things that I have been looking at for years and never heard anyone else say, and covering them from the standpoint of the language, culture, and mindset of the OT Hebrews.
From my point of view, there has never been any question who Jesus is, but I understand that people question it, and the questions deserve an answer. I also feel that until people know who Jesus is they will never understand who they are.
Just take a look at some of his work. Here's lecture 4 of a 5 part series. Jesus and the Old Testament.
http://vimeo.com/8792424
While prayerfully drawing conclusions (not to say he may not have some relevant information) Ehrman is reportedly a "de-converted Christian", and is now an agnostic. That may be something to be aware of as one examines these particular issues.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman
I have only read just one book of Bart; but I've read many reviews of his other books. He never seems to push the reader in a direction.
The book I quoted from above just as well could have been about the works of an ancient poet. There are maybe 10 verses in the whole book.
He turned agnostic, kicking and screaming as he puts it, because he has a huge problem with suffering in the world/Bible. And mostly because the Bible gives no real explanation for it.
So does that make his conclusions, which are widely accepted and not refuted, less valid?
I think it can be argued that agnostics are possibly the most unbiased writers.
Atheists tend to only show the proof that the Bible is fake.
Believing authors most often seem to ignore all problems and on top of that lead the reader to his/her denomination. (I'm sure certain writers would never have show the verse I quoted)
Very likely that makes many feel secure but it doesn't work for me.
I just want facts and decide for myself. I also want the best possible Bible translation and then decide what it actually teaches.
In the chapter about translation bias because of (very) strong anti-Jewish sentiments in the early centuries I found a nice UR verse
YLTMatt 1
21 and she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins.'
Originals read "save the world"
Alright, ww, out of love and respect for you I have forced myself to listen to a lecture by this man. Here it is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cK3Ry_icJo
Nothing he says in this lecture at Stanford amounts to a hill of beans. In fact, after making a big deal about all the changes in the different manuscripts, he says that most changes found in the New Testament are 'inconsequential.' His biggest complaint is that the four gospels do not always agree with each other on specific incidents. That's nothing new. Anyone who reads the Bible knows that. For me, it makes a lot of sense because we all know that no 4 witnesses to an event will record the same incident with a photographic memory. One will remember one thing, another will remember something different, and often they might disagree. The fact that they do not all write exactly the same story means that they were telling what they knew and remembered to be true instead of all getting together and fabricating a story.
But, Erhman comes to his 'inconsequential' conclusion in the context of ridiculing the scribes, ridiculing the Bible, ridiculing the South, ridiculing believers, and ridiculing Jesus. In the spirit of true antichrist propaganda he keeps everyone laughing at these inferior people --so that in order to feel superior, you have to take his point of view or you are the one to be ridiculed. This is standard antichrist propaganda, and young people, unfortunately, are very susceptible to it.
I am surrounded by this type of intellect so I know it well.
Notice how in the body of his lecture, he says people today are relying on this errant Book to come to conclusions about abortion, gay rights, and war--implying people are using an unreliable Book to come to equally unreliable conclusions about God's will. But, the first person to question him asks him--are there passages that have been changed in the Bible that would impact our understanding of these subjects? He squirms, buys some time, and then has to admit, no --there are not.
Normally, I would not spend another ten minutes of my time listening to this man, lest I become stupider than I already am. :laughing7:
:cloud9: So at least he did find some mistranslations......obviously his heart motive and heart condition betrayed him, though. God shakes HEAVEN and earth, and only that which cannot be shaken remains. This just tells me he needs a stronger foundation and God isn't finished with him yet. My :2c: Blessings....
Quote from: Cardinal on December 26, 2010, 05:53:48 PM
:cloud9: So at least he did find some mistranslations......
I get the impression that people think his book is about debunking the Bible. Imo it's not. It's more about the history/science of copying the manuscripts.
He even ends his book with saying that when he was young(er) he was angry that the scribes messed up so often. But when he progressed in his carreer and took all problems in account the scribes faced he sorta fully understood why things can get wrong.
Although he clearly admits in his book the vast majority are just spelling errors that have zero relevance on understanding the Bible I think he mentioned a few things of importance.
Obviously a good copy isn't missing a few verses. Other copies have a few extra verses. That's not how it was inspired so that's not right. But even those things do not need to make a huge difference it can't be ignored the diffreneces are there.
That for example is very problematic for those that claim that the Bible, as we have it at this moment, is without errors. (even if teh message is the same)
When is an error of minor importance and when of greater importance? I think that depends on what kind of believer "you" are.
Some doctrines are almost based on one verse. If that one verse seems unreliable.....
For example one alternative rendering is very problematic for those who believe in Trinity. Another rendering is important for those who believe Jesus was God in human form. The rendering of the third verse I posted gives greater support to UR.
Was that good discovery? Yes I think so. Does it make the Bible completely diffrent? I do not think so.
But one has to look deeper. Why was the UR verse changed? The answers according to scholars is that in the 2nd century the Christians hated the Jews for killing Jesus. So it was impossible in their mind Jews would ever get saved. So they changed "saviour of the world" into "saviour of My people".
Then for me the obvious question is on how many other places that anti-Jews sentiment crept in? Without those sentiments the Bible suddenly could become (even) more pro UR.
:2c:
BTW, one of Erhman's more strident claims is that Jesus never claimed to be God in any of the gospels except John. So, for Erhman, this is something that was made up by John. It turns out this is an old argument used by anti-Christians, as the following article describes. And, yes, ww, Erhman's intent is exactly to discredit the Bible in both subtle and direct ways--that is very clear to me. And, he's not even original about it.
DID JESUS CLAIM TO BE GOD?
by Jeffrey J. Harrison
One of the popular ways in which scholars dismiss Christianity is to say that Jesus himself never claimed to be God. Instead, they say, the early church "made" him into a god. Jesus was an engaging, charismatic rabbi—nothing more. One version of this theory, popular in Israel as elsewhere, is that the apostle Paul "divinized" Jesus. Some call this the good Jesus, bad Paul approach. This theory is often supported by the assertion that in the first three gospels, Jesus never claims to be God. Only later, as in the gospel of John, were these claims "added."*
* The first three gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) may have been written as much as twenty or thirty years before the gospel of John.
Arguments of this kind are nothing new. The religion of Islam proposed it's own good Jesus, bad Christian approach more than 1,000 years ago: Mohammed accepted Jesus as a prophet and miracle worker, but not as God. Christians, he claimed, had altered the Injil (the Gospel). Cults like the Jehovah's Witnesses are willing to concede a little more: they accept Jesus as an angel, but not as God. The Mormons go even further: they accept Jesus as a god, but not as the one true God.*
* Mormon belief is polytheistic: they believe that the Father and the Son are two different gods.
As you can see, this is an important issue. In fact, it is the major issue that sets Christianity apart from the other religions of the world. As someone once observed, every other major religion claims that its founder shows the way to God. Only Christianity claims that its founder is God.
Those who claim that Christians simply invented the idea that Jesus is God face a difficult obstacle: Christianity started among the Jewish people, and was for many years an almost exclusively Jewish religion.* Of all the religious groups in the world, the Jews were the least likely to invent such a doctrine: most of them continue to resist it vigorously today. Theirs was the most pure and exclusive monotheism the world had ever known. It was this core belief that set them at odds with the pagan world around them, and contributed to the destructive wars that drove them from Israel and scattered them around the world, where many remain today.
* Gentiles didn't gain an official standing in the Church until the Council of Jerusalem, 19 years after Jesus' crucifixion (Acts 15). They became dominant in the Church only in the 2nd century. By this time, the doctrine of Jesus' divinity was well established, and continued to be proclaimed by the Jewish Christians (the Nazarenes) long after the Jewish and Gentile branches of the Church split (in the 2nd century). The divinity of Jesus is therefore clearly a Jewish Christian doctrine.
Of the different groups within Judaism, the religiously conservative Pharisees are perhaps the last place to look for the creation of a divine Jesus. Yet Paul was a Pharisee, not only before he accepted Jesus as Messiah, but also afterwards. As he cried out before the Sanhedrin Council, the supreme court of the Jews, "I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees!" (Acts 23:6). How could Paul the Pharisee accept the idea that a man was actually God—or to put the Christian belief more accurately, that God had taken on flesh, and walked among us?
According to the New Testament, it wasn't easy. Paul, known originally as Saul, traveled the region arresting and imprisoning believers in Jesus (Acts 8:1-3). He began this rampage soon after hearing Stephen's claim to see Jesus standing at the right hand of God (Acts 7:55). In a Jewish context, this was a claim to Jesus' divine status—considered a blasphemy by the council gathered before Stephen—and which caused them to rush at Stephen in a murderous rage (Acts 7:56-58).
Even Jesus' disciples were initially resistant to the idea. At one point, when Jesus claimed to be sent from heaven (John 6:51), many of his disciples rejected the idea and left (John 6:66). Even after the resurrection, there were some who doubted (Matt. 28:17). This was just not the kind of teaching that could spontaneously emerge from the Jewish people.*
* Recent discoveries have confirmed that in some Jewish apocalyptic circles, the Messiah was expected to have divine qualities. But the jump from this to being God himself was a big one.
Something almost irresistible had to happen to bring any of them to this belief. It was not Jesus' miracles: many miracle workers had appeared in Israel both in ancient and recent history, but none of them was ever thought to be God. It was not even Jesus' resurrection, for others had been raised from the dead and even ascended into heaven, as did Elijah. The thing that made Jesus unique was that he alone claimed to be God, a claim supported both by his miracles and the remarkably long list of prophecies that he fulfilled. As the blind man healed by Jesus said, "If this man were not from God, he could do nothing" (Acts 9:33).
But if Jesus' claims to be God are so important, why are they missing from the first three gospels? In fact, they're not missing, but are cloaked in Jewish thought forms that non-Jews—including many scholars—often misunderstand.
Take Luke 5, for example, where Jesus healed the paralytic. Most of us overlook Jesus' statement to the man, "your sins are forgiven" (Luke 5:20). But the Jewish leaders had a strong reaction: They called his words blasphemy (Luke 5:21). Why? They implied a pardon not just for ordinary man-to-man offenses, but for offenses committed against God, a category of offense that, according to the rabbis, only God himself has the authority to forgive.
They had not misunderstood. Rather Jesus pressed the point, saying, "'But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins,' he said to the paralytic, 'I say to you, get up, pick up your mat, and go home" (Luke 5:24). In a Jewish context, for the "Son of Man" to have the authority to forgive sins can only mean one thing: that the Son of Man is God!
Even Jesus' use of the title "Son of Man," far from referring to his humanity, as is often supposed, points to his divinity, that he is the exalted Messianic figure, the "one like a son of man" coming on the clouds of heaven in Daniel 7:13—clearly something no ordinary mortal can do. It was not simply the miracle that had amazed the people (Luke 5:26). It was Jesus' claim to be God—a claim supported by the miracle that followed!
In Nazareth, the initially enthusiastic reception in his hometown synagogue soon turned into a murderous rage. Why? On the surface, there's nothing particularly dramatic about Jesus' sermon (Luke 4:23-27). He simply observes that in the time of Elijah, many widows in Israel were not helped by the prophet, and that in the time of Elisha many lepers were not healed. Yet at the end of the message, the crowd was ready to kill him (Luke 4:28-29)!
What did he say that upset them so much? His listeners were intimately familiar with the story of these two prophets. Much of their ministry had taken place in the countryside around them. They knew that the lack of miracles at that time was because the nation had fallen into idolatry, led by King Ahab and his Phoenician wife, Jezebel. So they immediately understood Jesus' deeper meaning: that his own lack of miracles in Nazareth was because of their own hardness of heart toward God.
By saying this, Jesus was in effect judging the hearts of the people. And by judging them, from their point of view, he made himself equal to God. As even the New Testament teaches, "There is one lawgiver and judge that is able to save and to destroy: but who are you that judges his neighbor?" (James 4:12). The people of Nazareth did not accept that Jesus was God, so to them, his words were a blasphemy, worthy of death. That's why they marched him out of town to throw him off the cliff. They clearly understood that he was claiming to be God.
The same is true of the other times Jesus pronounced judgment: "Woe to you, Chorazin, woe to you, Bethsaida [both small Jewish villages]: for if the deeds of power that took place in you had taken place in Tyre and Sidon [pagan Gentile cities], they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say to you, it will be more bearable in the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you" (Matt. 11:21,22). Jesus does not speak here using the typical formulas of the Old Testament prophets. Rather, he says "I say to you," relying on none other than his own authority. Here too, Jesus claims to be God.
The ultimate expression of this claim is in Matthew 25, where Jesus describes the coming judgment of Messiah, seated on his "throne of glory"—a phrase that to his disciples would indicate a throne of heavenly glory.* Here the Son of Man judges in his own name and by his own authority, with the ability to condemn the wicked to hell (25:41). This is a power only God has. For Jesus to claim it is a claim to be God.
* As in Psalm 89:36,37, where the throne of the Messiah is described as "a faithful witness in the cloud of the heavens" (in Hebrew, as in the KJV).
Perhaps the most dramatic of these claims took place on the Sea of Galilee, after the disciples had been struggling all night in their boat against a strong westerly wind. Though Jesus had been left behind on the shore, he now suddenly appears, walking on the water (Matt. 14:24,25). Mark adds the detail that "he intended to pass them by" (Mark 6:48). This is a subtle hint to Job 9, which says, speaking of God: "The one who alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the heights of the sea.... See—he passes by me, and I do not see; he goes by, and I do not discern him" (Job 9:8,11).
When they cry out in fear, Jesus turns to talk with them (Matt. 14:26,27). What did he say? Not "it is I" as usually translated; but as Matthew, Mark, and Luke all agree (in the original Greek) "I am." This is not a lapse in grammar: it's a deliberate hint to the personal name of God: "I am that I am" (Ex. 3:14).
How did the disciples react to all of this? They "worshipped" him, a word that means (in Greek) to prostrate yourself, face to the ground, in worship (Matt. 14:33). It was not only Jesus' miracle that impressed them; it was his claim to be God, backed up by the miracles of walking on the sea and calming the wind. This is what made them fall down in worship. They may not have understood how God could become a man. But they saw the result with their own eyes.
By the way, they did not then and never could, as Jews, have believed that Jesus was a god, different than the one true God. For them, there was only one God, so therefore it could only be that one true God that somehow stood before them in human flesh. For this manifestation of God they had a name, the "Son of God"; for it was clear that the world went on, the stars continued to shine, and God in heaven continued to rule the universe as he always had before. God had not vacated heaven to appear before them. But he sent some kind of "extension" or "manifestation" of himself: his Word, his arm, his face, his glory, his likeness, his salvation—whichever of the many Biblical names used to describe this incredible phenomenon you prefer; a personal manifestation of God's presence sent to earth to speak directly to us. That personal manifestation, in the flesh, is Jesus.
http://www.totheends.com/didjesus.html
:cloud9: He told me it had been Helenized, so FOR ME, that says it all, and to me means that the Jewishness of it was "stolen" out of the text, and/or the understanding of it was lost, both occuring because of anti-Jewish sentiment that crept in slowly after the disciples died off. He's been opening my eyes to it for several years now.
I can only wonder how things would have progressed if, for example, Christians would have realized that the so-called (and thus obscured) "last supper" was a Passover Seder, and that because of that, the cup meant something accordingly? And that's only one example. The text is riddled with such inferences, that a Christian audience glosses over unknowingly, or intentionally, because after all, "the OT/law was done away with", inferring either indirectly or outright, why bother to study it. Guess that's why Jesus and the disciples quoted from 24 books of it. :sigh:
Quote from: wwBut one has to look deeper. Why was the UR verse changed? The answers according to scholars is that in the 2nd century the Christians hated the Jews for killing Jesus. So it was impossible in their mind Jews would ever get saved. So they changed "saviour of the world" into "saviour of My people".
Then for me the obvious question is on how many other places that anti-Jews sentiment crept in? Without those sentiments the Bible suddenly could become (even) more pro UR.
How does one passage changed from 'save the world' to 'save my people' make the Bible anti-Jewish? That is if I believe such a thing happened in the first place. Just because an older passage exists in a different form does NOT mean that was the original and correct form. Age is only one variable of many.
However, the passage in our Bible says that Jesus shall save 'his people' from their sins. Well, every school child knows that his people were the Jews. So, if this were a change made deliberately, it is more pro-Jewish in the change. How do you interpret that 'change' as anti-Jewish? It is consistent with other statements such as he has come for the lost sheep of Israel, and so forth. The Jews have been blinded until the fulfillment of the Gentiles, says Paul.
Elsewhere, Jesus is called the Saviour of the World.
So like all of Erhman's arguments, this is just another tempest in a teapot, meant to alienate people from their God, from the religion of their birth, and from each other.
Quote from: Cardinal on December 26, 2010, 07:12:43 PM
:cloud9: He told me it had been Helenized, so FOR ME, that says it all, and to me means that the Jewishness of it was "stolen" out of the text, and/or the understanding of it was lost, both occuring because of anti-Jewish sentiment that crept in slowly after the disciples died off. He's been opening my eyes to it for several years now.
I can only wonder how things would have progressed if, for example, Christians would have realized that the so-called (and thus obscured) "last supper" was a Passover Seder, and that because of that, the cup meant something accordingly? And that's only one example. The text is riddled with such inferences, that a Christian audience glosses over unknowingly, or intentionally, because after all, "the OT/law was done away with", inferring either indirectly or outright, why bother to study it. Guess that's why Jesus and the disciples quoted from 24 books of it. :sigh:
Yes, because the Christian world does not need that to believe.
It's Hellenized because this is a new era, the era of the Gentiles.
Only a few like you and I eat up all the deeper references to the Hebrew [not Jewish] Old Testament. I love that stuff, but I don't need it to believe.
Quote from: Molly on December 26, 2010, 07:52:11 PM
It's Hellenized because this is a new era, the era of the Gentiles.
:thumbsup:
http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/word_studies/the_christian_bible_1991_7876.msg113546.html#msg113546
Quote from: jabcat on December 26, 2010, 08:44:30 PM
http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/word_studies/the_christian_bible_1991_7876.msg113546.html#msg113546
Real sneaky quote James :JCThink:
I'm still waiting for a counter argument. If something doesn't fit a doctrinal bias just pretent the messenger said things he never claimed and hope nobody notices.
QuoteHow does one passage
Another assumption.
Quotechanged from 'save the world' to 'save my people' make the Bible anti-Jewish?
I hope that wasn't meant in a serious way??? :mshock:
It's fine to disagree. But a bonfire of strawmen is not.
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 26, 2010, 10:35:17 PM
Quote from: jabcat on December 26, 2010, 08:44:30 PM
http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/word_studies/the_christian_bible_1991_7876.msg113546.html#msg113546
Real sneaky quote James :JCThink:
I'm still waiting for a counter argument. If something doesn't fit a doctrinal bias just pretent the messenger said things he never claimed and hope nobody notices.
QuoteHow does one passage
Another assumption.
Quotechanged from 'save the world' to 'save my people' make the Bible anti-Jewish?
I hope that wasn't meant in a serious way??? :mshock:
It's fine to disagree. But a bonfire of strawmen is not.
I thought that was what you were saying--that people were changing the scripture on purpose with an agenda--in this case, an anti-Jewish agenda. Isn't that what you said? If not, please clarify.
QuoteBut one has to look deeper. Why was the UR verse changed? The answers according to scholars is that in the 2nd century the Christians hated the Jews for killing Jesus. So it was impossible in their mind Jews would ever get saved. So they changed "saviour of the world" into "saviour of My people".
Then for me the obvious question is on how many other places that anti-Jews sentiment crept in? Without those sentiments the Bible suddenly could become (even) more pro UR.
First of all, the first Christians were Jews. Second of all, who taught Christians to hate anyone? Didn't Jesus teach the opposite?
Third of all, I have yet to see anything from Erhman that changes any doctrinal bias.
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 26, 2010, 10:35:17 PM
Quote from: jabcat on December 26, 2010, 08:44:30 PM
http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/word_studies/the_christian_bible_1991_7876.msg113546.html#msg113546
Real sneaky quote James :JCThink:
I'm still waiting for a counter argument. If something doesn't fit a doctrinal bias just pretent the messenger said things he never claimed and hope nobody notices.
I read that this morning when I got up, and it seems to fit what Molly was saying, so I linked to it. IMO, it's very appropriate to any discussion involving Jewish teachings. They have had a veil placed over their eyes. Some things they're right about - some things they're spiritually blind on. Bias on all sides, agendas to be aware of. Know who's saying what. Approach with care. I tend to be very cautious of someone's opinion who admits they've turned their back on God,
or if the scriptures say they've been blinded.
I personally don't feel led to argue, but I do feel led to inform/exhort/encourage. The scriptures, with Holy Spirit revealing to us, say what they say. Hopefully I have ears to hear - a little at a time.
Quote from: jabcat on December 26, 2010, 11:30:05 PMIMO, it's very appropriate to any discussion involving Jewish teachings.
Since when do Jews use the NT for teachings? He only briefly mentioned the Jews. Half of them converted Christianity. But they waited for the 70th week of Daniel to happen. When it didn't they deconverted. The remaining gentile Christians were not very happy with that. Note that there were also Romans amog the Christians. Romans never liked the Jews very much.
QuoteBias on all sides, agendas to be aware of.
Well put. All sides. Everyone is on a side. For me that means everyone needs to check if they have become biased. And for that checking new information won't do any harm. Even Origen complained about the many variations in the NT copies. Origen even quoted verses we no longer have in that exact wording.
Unless 'you' belong to the group of people that think every letter in the KJV is without any flaw that book does nothing (or tries) to debunk your believes.
It possibly (depends on what you already know) widens your horizon. A solid foundation is never based on tunnel vision.
If someone claims that s/he wants to bases his/her religion on the word of God then for me that means a search for the best possible translation.
A perfect copy will never be found. Or, extremely unlikely, we have that perfect copy but we just don't know.
Neither do those scholars. But they have a whole bag of tricks (age, region, numbers found, margin notes, flow of the passage, etc) to find the verses with the highest probability.
Unless I overlooked something Bart nowhere in his book claims 100% certainty
QuoteKnow who's saying what. Approach with care. I tend to be very cautious of someone's opinion who admits they've turned their back on God,
Is an agnost really someone who turned his back to God? Or just a doubter?
I for example in
some cases put more value in a atheist scholar in Greek than a religious one. For an ET scholar all words lead to hell and for an UR scholar all words lead to salvation.
But an atheist doesn't have a certain doctrine to defend.
So if Bart turned his back to God as you put it what bias does he have?
Let's "my people" and "the world" as an example.
A atheist will have no bias because it's nonsense anyway.
A Calvinist scholar will use "my people" as "elect". (Yes I'm aware the Bible doesn't depend on one verse)
Of course a "the world" can be explained away to just like "all", but it's harder.
Plus conclusions are drawn on basis of nothing. If you read the context (of his) in which that verse is mentioned you will see he's not defending a doctrine.
Neither does he draw a conclusion from the God=who chapther.
An in case of the baptism verse he firmly claims the verse as we know it is very likely not the original.
But it's part of an explanation.
Pagan writers were exploiting such verses. Even if the chapter began with "Son of God" that verse was under attack so the scribes changed it a bit. The pagan attackers were all Roman. So the copies in written in the Roman empire were more effected by that. Scriptures (in Coptic IIRC) were less affected.
Quoteor if the scriptures say they've been blinded.
Not very helpful. It's always the other person that's blinded. So if you, I, or <put a name here> is blinded s/he will never know.
QuoteIs an agnost really someone who turned his back to God? Or just a doubter?
An agnostic
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.
An atheist
someone who denies the existence of God
Listen to Erhman shout his debate summary and tell me what you think he is as he yells about the ten thousands of 'errors' in the New Testament and how unreliable it is. He is wrong about a lot of what he says here that I know about, and exaggerates any 'errors,' so my guess is he is wrong or irrelevant about just about everything he has to say.
Erhman says,
Is the Bible a trustworthy reliable guide?
If so what if we don't know what it originally said?His conclusion is that it is not a reliable guide. That means he has no Biblical guide. And, that means he's an atheist or agnostic. I have not seen him give one good reason why anything in the New Testament is reliable--
because that is not his agenda. Why don't we just throw the book out? That's his agenda.
Personally, I watch the guy yelling and citing Harvard, Yale, Vanderbilt, and on and on, and all I can think is he needs an exorcist. But, no matter, God will exalt every valley and make every mountain low, and the crooked will be made straight, and the rough places plain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HTaVZ1pqRU
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 27, 2010, 01:10:46 AM
Quoteor if the scriptures say they've been blinded.
Not very helpful. It's always the other person that's blinded. So if you, I, or <put a name here> is blinded s/he will never know.
I believe anyone who may be able to see, if even at least a
little bit (hopefully including
myself) all have limited understanding, and the scriptures tell us - "we see through a glass darkly". The scriptures also tell us who is
blinded; in the verse I quoted it's unsaved Jews, and in the following verse it's
anyone who's unsaved;
"What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. But people who aren't spiritual can't receive these truths from God's Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them and they can't understand it, for only those who are spiritual can understand what the Spirit means." I Cor. 2
For the first group (glass darkly - including myself) I try to listen with a healthy dose of discernment.
For the second group (veiled and/or blinded) I tend to listen with a heavy dose of discernment, but more likely, skepticism. As far as their agenda, they are influenced and controlled by the "prince of this world" (JOHN 4:30) :2c:
I can learn from many, some have much (veiled) knowledge and revelation. But IMO, we've been left with One True Teacher - "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." Jn. 14:26
There's a long way to go, but if I can be heavily influenced, have as my "agenda", and be totally consumed and transformed by the Spirit, the Word, and the blood, all the better for it. :bigGrin:
Quote from: Molly on December 26, 2010, 07:52:11 PM
Quote from: Cardinal on December 26, 2010, 07:12:43 PM
:cloud9: He told me it had been Helenized, so FOR ME, that says it all, and to me means that the Jewishness of it was "stolen" out of the text, and/or the understanding of it was lost, both occuring because of anti-Jewish sentiment that crept in slowly after the disciples died off. He's been opening my eyes to it for several years now.
I can only wonder how things would have progressed if, for example, Christians would have realized that the so-called (and thus obscured) "last supper" was a Passover Seder, and that because of that, the cup meant something accordingly? And that's only one example. The text is riddled with such inferences, that a Christian audience glosses over unknowingly, or intentionally, because after all, "the OT/law was done away with", inferring either indirectly or outright, why bother to study it. Guess that's why Jesus and the disciples quoted from 24 books of it. :sigh:
Yes, because the Christian world does not need that to believe.
It's Hellenized because this is a new era, the era of the Gentiles.
Only a few like you and I eat up all the deeper references to the Hebrew [not Jewish] Old Testament. I love that stuff, but I don't need it to believe.
:cloud9: When He said it had been Helenized, it was not a compliment, nor an acknowledgement that it was because of the "Gentile era". It was grievous.
I don't need it to believe in "basic" salvation either (by the grace of God), but my point is, if something was lost from it from BEING Helenized, and He is restoring all things, then it follows that something that was lost, needs to be restored, and He is in the process of doing that.
I don't know this guy from Adam, haven't read his site, watched his videos or whatever (and don't have to if I hear something line up in content that I already know from the Lord's dealings with me), nor want to if the rest of his comments are so far off baseline. As for his spiritual "pedigree", even a blind pig stumbles across an acorn once in awhile. :laughing7:
Guess that one aspect of what he has to say is just his "acorn". Blessings....
:grin:
I think something was just clarified a little bit for me a few minutes ago. Something I wasn't sure about. So it's this; I guess I should say "blind/veiled" individuals can offer information, knowledge, etc., but are often/usually unable to discern what it means, what the spiritual revelations and applications are. Then as well, we do have the "prince of the air's" influence in play. At least with a spiritually renewed and intune individual, there's a likelihood they're "seeing", at least "in part" (as Paul said) - so there's more of an opportunity there to receive truth. :2c:
:cloud9: EXACTLY :thumbsup: In all our getting, we are told to get understanding. "They" can amass information, even of a biblical scriptural nature, but it takes understanding (the kind that is given only by the Spirit) to profit from it, SPIRITUALLY.
He's raising us up in understanding {in part} to be able to go to "them" and "translate" what they have "learned" back to them, but with spiritual understanding. In principle, it's the same as Jesus explaining the parables to the masses, but THEN giving understanding to the disciples, ie. those closest to walking with Him.
"They" see thru a glass darkly (darkenened soul), but "we" with understanding of the Spirit, face/nature to face/nature. Thing is, He's an "equal opportunity employer" :laughing7:........"we" were once a "they" and "they" will be a "we", all day wages and last hour wages are the same. :winkgrin: Blessings...
Ok. I'm not really sure what this has to do with Erhman. But I know it has been a theme recently on the board, with both you and ww stressing the importance of the Hebrew roots of the New Testament, and today somewhere I heard someone say that this will be the bridge that brings the Jews back--that is, the Christians will reflect their Old Testament back to the Jews through their Messiah, Jesus the Christ--bringing everything full circle. And, I can see God raising up people to do that, so maybe we are nearing the fulfillment of the Gentiles.
Romans 11:31
Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
Michael Heiser: Jesus and the Old Testament
http://vimeo.com/8070319
Quote from: jabcat on December 27, 2010, 05:32:04 AM
:grin:
I think something was just clarified a little bit for me a few minutes ago. Something I wasn't sure about. So it's this; I guess I should say "blind/veiled" individuals can offer information, knowledge, etc., but are often/usually unable to discern what it means, what the spiritual revelations and applications are.
Yep.
Doesn't that also extent to all linguists and historians who spend half their life in old libraries? Is a discovery of a old document or coin better if it's done by a Christian. And especially by one of your own denonmination? Is decryphing an old dialect by a Mormon of less value than when a Catholic scholar did it? I think the answer to both questions is that the discovery is equally good.
Another thing is bias. I can accept the view that some scholars look at things in a biased way and that colors their work. That's not good. (but very human)
So the trick is to find a scholar without a bias (in the area of the information you are looking for)
A UR linguist somehow keeps stumbling on evidence aion means age. The ET linguist only finds documents that claim aion mean forever.
In such cases an atheist scholar is ones best choice.
So from that view an agnost is possible a better choice too. But I have to say not in the case of the few verses I presented. Simply none of them even comes close to debunking religion.
They have a different rendering. So what? Maybe it means we have to review what we thought we know.
It's forum policy to use a lot of :2c: simply because none of us is all knowing. But in this case we know for sure?
Is it an assault on religion? No. Simply because long before Bart was born religious people had a different understanding of that verse. So the 'worst' that can happen is that people alter their views a little.
The book is mostly an explanation on how people in that line of work do their jobs. It takes only a small rewrite to release the book as "Misquoting Shakespeare".
The book isn't about debunking Christianity. Or pointing out flaws in Jesus. It's about pointing out flaws in the transmission of the NT. But we already knew that. There are so many translations that are all a little different. Bible publishers often pat themselfs on the back because their translation is based on MSS, Textus Receptus, Vulgate, etc. Are those publishers all debunking Christianity because the mention their source text is better? No. And basicly that's what the whole book is about. Explaining how it can happen that there are different "originals" while there was only one real original.
Quote from: Molly on December 27, 2010, 09:21:15 AM
Ok. I'm not really sure what this has to do with Erhman. But I know it has been a theme recently on the board, with both you and ww stressing the importance of the Hebrew roots of the New Testament, and today somewhere I heard someone say that this will be the bridge that brings the Jews back--that is, the Christians will reflect their Old Testament back to the Jews through their Messiah, Jesus the Christ--bringing everything full circle. And, I can see God raising up people to do that, so maybe we are nearing the fulfillment of the Gentiles.
Romans 11:31
Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
Michael Heiser: Jesus and the Old Testament
http://vimeo.com/8070319
:cloud9: Without a doubt, that's exactly what He's doing.......and yes that era is coming to a close, rapidly.
People like this guy that apparently have found only one "acorn", doesn't bother me. God can feed me whatever He deems fit thru all the dirty birds (ravens/unclean birds) He wants to. As long as the motive of my heart is to seek after Him and His truth and I have the HS dividing assunder the flesh from the Spirit, nothing is unclean to me. My :2c: Blessings....
Quote from: micah7:9 on September 20, 2010, 10:43:27 PM
Original post modified.
The way I understand 1Co 15:26 the last enemy is done away--death;
Until we are drawn to the Father, yes, death is an enemy.
"Death is not the end of this journey, it's the beginning."
Now there is something that will let one sleep with good thoughts.
We need, have to, and must come to that wonderous thought that death holds no fear....... unless one holds on to deceite, trys to hold back the very thing that keeps joy from ones life.
Joh 12:24 verily, verily, I say to you, if the grain of the wheat, having fallen to the earth, may not die, itself remaineth alone; and if it may die, it doth bear much fruit;
Rev 1:8 `I am the Alpha and the Omega, beginning and end, saith the Lord, who is, and who was, and who is coming--the Almighty.'
Rom 8:11 If, moreover, the Spirit of him that raised Jesus from among the dead dwelleth in you, he that raised from among the dead Christ Jesus, shall make alive [even] your death–doomed bodies, through means of his indwelling Spirit within you.
(Rotherham)
... by all my boldness, whether by living or dying, the Anointed One will be magnified in my body. For to me, living means the Anointed One, and death means gain. Yet if to keep on living in flesh means fruit from my work, I can't even make known which I would prefer. Yet I am being pressed between the two, as I have a desire to unloosen [my "tent" (body) to move on (from this world)]
and to be together with the Anointed One (for this is so much better); Phil. 1: 20-23 Christian Bible (1991)
Jesus, the 'Unique' Son
"Only begotten" is an unfortunately confusing translation, especially for modern readers. It does sound to us as though the "only begotten" Son had a beginning because we aren't used to the old English word. The confusion should never have happened, though, since monogenes actually doesn't mean "only begotten." The controversy extends from an old misunderstanding of the root of the Greek word. For many years monogenes was thought to have derived from two Greek terms, monos ("only") and gennao ("to beget, bear"). Scholars of Greek linguistics have discovered, though, that the second part of the word monogenes does not come from the Greek verb gennao, but rather the noun genos ("class, kind"). The term literally means "one of a kind" or "unique" with no connotation of time or origin. The validity of this understanding is borne out by the New Testament itself. In Hebrews 11:17, Isaac is called Abraham's monogenes—but it is crystal clear from the Old Testament that Isaac was not the only son Abraham had begotten, since he had also fathered Ishmael prior to Isaac. The term must mean that Isaac was Abraham's "unique" son, for he was the son of the covenant promises and the line through which Messiah would come. Many of the more recent versions of the Bible have opted to translate monogenes as "only," but this confuses readers when they come across references to other sons of God in the Old Testament.
--Michael Heiser
Quote from: Molly on December 30, 2010, 12:51:36 AM
Jesus, the 'Unique' Son
"Only begotten" is an unfortunately confusing translation, especially for modern readers. It does sound to us as though the "only begotten" Son had a beginning because we aren't used to the old English word. The confusion should never have happened, though, since monogenes actually doesn't mean "only begotten." The controversy extends from an old misunderstanding of the root of the Greek word. For many years monogenes was thought to have derived from two Greek terms, monos ("only") and gennao ("to beget, bear"). Scholars of Greek linguistics have discovered, though, that the second part of the word monogenes does not come from the Greek verb gennao, but rather the noun genos ("class, kind"). The term literally means "one of a kind" or "unique" with no connotation of time or origin. The validity of this understanding is borne out by the New Testament itself. In Hebrews 11:17, Isaac is called Abraham's monogenes—but it is crystal clear from the Old Testament that Isaac was not the only son Abraham had begotten, since he had also fathered Ishmael prior to Isaac. The term must mean that Isaac was Abraham's "unique" son, for he was the son of the covenant promises and the line through which Messiah would come. Many of the more recent versions of the Bible have opted to translate monogenes as "only," but this confuses readers when they come across references to other sons of God in the Old Testament.
--Michael Heiser
Well unique is confusing too, in my understanding at least.
"Unique"
8Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works.
9All nations whom thou hast made shall come and worship before thee, O Lord; and shall glorify thy name.
10For thou art great, and doest wondrous things: thou art God alone.
--Psa 86
Isaac was Abraham's monogenes by right of a supernatural birth, through a promise, or spoken word of God. Jesus was YHWH's mongenes by right of a supernatural birth through a promise, or spoken Word of God. SO much of this involves interpretation, and people of good conscience can come down on different sides of the various controversies surrounding it, because we see through a glass darkly, hence, great is the mystery of holiness :
God was manifest in the flesh (He is the radiance of the Fathers glory and express image of His nature Hebrews 1:1-3),
justified in the Spirit (who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord, Romans 1:4)
seen of messengers (For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty........So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. 2Pe 1:16-19)
proclaimed among the nations ("If I be lifted up I will draw all men unto me" John 12:32)
believed on in the world (he that believes in me, as it is written, "out of his innermost being shall gush rivers of living water John 7:38)
Received into glory (Therefore, repent and turn to him to have your sins blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord and so that he may send you Jesus, the Christ whom he appointed long ago. Heaven must receive him until the time of universal restoration that God announced long ago through the voice of his holy prophets. Act 3:19-21)
Jesus was born of a woman, born under law. He fulfilled the law in His life of obedience to love, then overwhelmed the law by love through His death, then transcended the law in His resurrection- wherein the Father declared His love for the Son and established Him as the fountainhead of overcoming life AND as the center of all creation(YHWH said to my Master, "Sit at My right hand, Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet." Psalm 110:1). Now we are ambassadors of the reconciliation and we will be co-executors of the restoration, if we hold fast our faith till He comes upon the wings of the morning(He that overcomes I will give to sit on my throne and . GLORY!
And He who sits on the throne said, "Behold, I am making all things new." And He *said, "Write, for these words are faithful and true." Then He said to me, "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to the one who thirsts from the spring of the water of life without cost. "He who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son.
(Rev 21:5-7)
For you need endurance, so that after you have done God's will you can receive what he has promised. For "in a very little while the one who is coming will return and will not delay; but my righteous one will live by faith, and if he turns back, my soul will take no pleasure in him."
(Heb 10:36-38)
For this is the love of God: that we keep his commandments; and his commandments are not difficult, because everyone who is born from God has overcome the world. Our faith is the victory that overcomes the world. Who overcomes the world? Is it not the person who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?
(1Jn 5:3-5)
John 13:34 I am giving you a new commandment to love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another.
This magnificent good news, ain't it wonderful !?!?!
Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith; to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be the glory forever. Amen.
(Rom 16:25-27)
People can argue about certain translations all day long, but the truth of Jesus christ as God is revealed throughout the entire bible and not one know all scholar can take that truth away. The scholars are mostly swine, relying on their flesh/brain who trample upon the precious pearls of God, they care not for the things of the spirit.
Quote from: Molly on December 30, 2010, 12:51:36 AM
Jesus, the 'Unique' Son
"Only begotten" is an unfortunately confusing translation, especially for modern readers. It does sound to us as though the "only begotten" Son had a beginning because we aren't used to the old English word. The confusion should never have happened, though, since monogenes actually doesn't mean "only begotten." The controversy extends from an old misunderstanding of the root of the Greek word. For many years monogenes was thought to have derived from two Greek terms, monos ("only") and gennao ("to beget, bear"). Scholars of Greek linguistics have discovered, though, that the second part of the word monogenes does not come from the Greek verb gennao, but rather the noun genos ("class, kind"). The term literally means "one of a kind" or "unique" with no connotation of time or origin. The validity of this understanding is borne out by the New Testament itself. In Hebrews 11:17, Isaac is called Abraham's monogenes—but it is crystal clear from the Old Testament that Isaac was not the only son Abraham had begotten, since he had also fathered Ishmael prior to Isaac. The term must mean that Isaac was Abraham's "unique" son, for he was the son of the covenant promises and the line through which Messiah would come. Many of the more recent versions of the Bible have opted to translate monogenes as "only," but this confuses readers when they come across references to other sons of God in the Old Testament.
--Michael Heiser
If you only knew the mystery that God has revealed to me, you would jump for joy, one of the greatest mysteries of the christian faith, it is an honour to have been given this mystery. I cannot share with general population because the christian community will spit upon it like ignorant swine and I will not allow that to happen. Just realize that there is a great mystery concerning Jesus Christ as the only begotten Son of God.
Can you give a hint?