- This topic has 1,478 replies, 55 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
I understand what you are saying..but as I said…this is very preteristic interpretation of those scriptures…why can't the scriptures mean what they say?
I'm not saying take the bible as a WHOLE literally…I am saying only try to infuse symbolism where the literal contradicts…
Hi Jodi,
The rock of Christ is the Spirit of Christ.
Jn7
37In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.38He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
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.)
Quote (dirtyknections @ Dec. 16 2008,09:34) I understand what you are saying..but as I said…this is very preteristic interpretation of those scriptures…why can't the scriptures mean what they say? I'm not saying take the bible as a WHOLE literally…I am saying only try to infuse symbolism where the literal contradicts…
Yes this is why the bible is such a piece of work isn't it, trying to make sense of it all and trying to know when things are to be taken literal or under symbolism.The problem here for you is that if we are to take this scripture literally then I believe we must come to the conclusion that I previously stated.
This is because the name Christ specifically draws us not to a pre-existent spiritual son of God, but to the man Jesus, born of Mary who died for our sins.
Good morning all —-
I do believe that Jesus was the prophecied Messiah from birth and the Son of God, just as he was the lamb slain from the beginning of the world – that does not mean that he was actually slain in the beginning —-
Quote (Not3in1 @ Dec. 17 2008,02:30) Quote (Jodi @ Dec. 16 2008,18:05) Quote (Not3in1 @ Dec. 15 2008,22:46) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 16 2008,15:05) Hi mk,
If the first Adam was not why must the second Adam be?
I'm going to sound like a broken record again, but feel it's important to share for Meerkat's consideration.Adam will need to be adopted (along with the rest of us) into his sonship with God.
Jesus belonged at birth.
Hmmmm
You can say that Jesus belonged as the son of God from his birth, but it is ONLY because of the predestination of which God had for him from the beginning, which WAS TO CREATE A RIGHTEOUS HUMAN BEING, (an example for the rest of mankind to follow)! NOT because of him having some sort of different genetics as we do, and certainly not because he was part God part human.
Again, predestination of men doesn't have a whole lot to do with the fact that when Jesus was born…..he was God's ONLY Son. Much like when your daughter's were born…..they were your daughter's. Whether or not they were predestined to be your daughter's, makes little difference in the fact that they are indeed related to you. Their relativeness could even be proven by a blood test!Jesus' relativeness was perhaps “proven”, as you say, by his resurrection.
Mandy,What I keep going back to though is God is a spirit, his relations are spirit – we are told flesh profit nothing – Jesus words are spirit and life.
Hi,
The Spirit of God in Christ was also the fountain of life and wisdom to the prophets.
1Peter1
9Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.10Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:
11Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
12Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.
Hi Jodi,
I am still thinking about the Son of God references,
What do you think of Gal 4:1-7
Gal 4:1Now I say, [That] the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
Gal 4:2But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.
Gal 4:3Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:
Gal 4:4But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
Gal 4:5To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
Gal 4:6And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
Gal 4:7Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.To me this is saying that while Jesus was the heir while he was in the flesh while still being in the flesh he was bound by the law – he was made by the law – under law – a brother with us – made like us, is the woman the same as the law – and not referring to Mary specifically – if he was meaning born of Mary why did Paul not just say that? He seems to be equating “the woman” to “the LAW”
I think that how Jesus was “sent forth” is he was made flesh, then raised by the Spirit. Started the journey physically – then the spiritual. I agree with you not sent forth from heaven to earth.
We are also told the by the deeds of the flesh no one is justified.
It still seems to me that Jesus could not be made like us if God manipulated his conception so that his physical birth was different than our own. That would make him different from us.
Quote (meerkat @ Dec. 16 2008,10:46) Hi Jodi, I am still thinking about the Son of God references,
What do you think of Gal 4:1-7
Gal 4:1Now I say, [That] the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
Gal 4:2But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.
Gal 4:3Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:
Gal 4:4But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
Gal 4:5To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
Gal 4:6And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
Gal 4:7Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.To me this is saying that while Jesus was the heir while he was in the flesh while still being in the flesh he was bound by the law – he was made by the law – under law – a brother with us – made like us, is the woman the same as the law – and not referring to Mary specifically – if he was meaning born of Mary why did Paul not just say that? He seems to be equating “the woman” to “the LAW”
I think that how Jesus was “sent forth” is he was made flesh, then raised by the Spirit. Started the journey physically – then the spiritual. I agree with you not sent forth from heaven to earth.
We are also told the by the deeds of the flesh no one is justified.
It still seems to me that Jesus could not be made like us if God manipulated his conception so that his physical birth was different than our own. That would make him different from us.
Hi Meerkat,Good post, I like what you are saying about the representation of the woman. I have some things I need to sift through my mind.
To your last statement, let's remember that neither Adam or Eve came into this world as we did either. I see us as being the same not according to how our conception or existence came about, but rather that we are all genetically human beings.
Jodi
Adam and Eve needed to be created because they were the first – once they were created, part of that creation was tying everything together so that it was self perpetuating, to me it seems to go against the overall picture of spiritual salvation from physical corruption. Its like God had not actually planned this exactly from the beginning and had to “tweak” things along the way. JMHO
1Co 7:34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world–how she can please her husband.
1Co 11:3 Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
Did God want the virgin birth to keep Mary devoted to the Lord? If she got pregnant from Joseph then the birth of Jesus would have been through her pleasing her husband, rather then her being chosen by God as a virgin being committed to Him!
Quote (Jodi @ Dec. 17 2008,04:49) Quote (dirtyknections @ Dec. 16 2008,09:34) I understand what you are saying..but as I said…this is very preteristic interpretation of those scriptures…why can't the scriptures mean what they say? I'm not saying take the bible as a WHOLE literally…I am saying only try to infuse symbolism where the literal contradicts…
Yes this is why the bible is such a piece of work isn't it, trying to make sense of it all and trying to know when things are to be taken literal or under symbolism.The problem here for you is that if we are to take this scripture literally then I believe we must come to the conclusion that I previously stated.
This is because the name Christ specifically draws us not to a pre-existent spiritual son of God, but to the man Jesus, born of Mary who died for our sins.
The scriptures show me something different…I guess we will have to agree to disagree friend
Quote (Jodi @ Dec. 17 2008,06:23) 1Co 7:34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world–how she can please her husband. 1Co 11:3 Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
Did God want the virgin birth to keep Mary devoted to the Lord? If she got pregnant from Joseph then the birth of Jesus would have been through her pleasing her husband, rather then her being chosen by God as a virgin being committed to Him!
Jodi,
I don't think so – I don't feel that it is about Mary (however the Catholics wanted to make it about Mary) – she still did have to do all the wifely things for Joseph because she was a woman and needed to tend to the physical household tasks. That is just the way it is. Women are the childbearers, homekeepers, nurturers of both husband and children.
This seems to be where the concept of nuns come from.
I just feel that we as humans seem to want physical confirmation of things – I feel the Jews were doing that in the OT – taking the symbols and making them physical.
Hi DK,
Jesus was from a family with at least six siblings
Matthew 13:55
Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?Mark 6:3
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.Quote (dirtyknections @ Dec. 16 2008,11:26) Quote (Jodi @ Dec. 17 2008,06:23) 1Co 7:34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world–how she can please her husband. 1Co 11:3 Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
Did God want the virgin birth to keep Mary devoted to the Lord? If she got pregnant from Joseph then the birth of Jesus would have been through her pleasing her husband, rather then her being chosen by God as a virgin being committed to Him!
O.k. so maybe I didn't say what I was thinking clearly.The scriptures I gave seems to indicate that a separation is created between a woman and God, when she becomes married, because she is now obligated to serve her husband. 1 Corinthians 7:34 seems to declare a significance in being a virgin in that you represent a person who's sole devotion is to the Lord.
Does this bring any meaning to the birth of Jesus, I'm not saying that, it was just a thought.
Quote (meerkat @ Dec. 17 2008,06:08) Jodi Adam and Eve needed to be created because they were the first – once they were created, part of that creation was tying everything together so that it was self perpetuating, to me it seems to go against the overall picture of spiritual salvation from physical corruption. Its like God had not actually planned this exactly from the beginning and had to “tweak” things along the way. JMHO
Hi mK,
Both Adam and Eve were not exactly created from nothing.Their creation is from what is already created.
Adam is of the formed earth into which God's breath is blown and Eve is taken from Adam.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 16 2008,12:11) Quote (meerkat @ Dec. 17 2008,06:08) Jodi Adam and Eve needed to be created because they were the first – once they were created, part of that creation was tying everything together so that it was self perpetuating, to me it seems to go against the overall picture of spiritual salvation from physical corruption. Its like God had not actually planned this exactly from the beginning and had to “tweak” things along the way. JMHO
Hi mK,
Both Adam and Eve were not exactly created from nothing.Their creation is from what is already created.
Adam is of the formed earth into which God's breath is blown and Eve is taken from Adam.
Hi Nick,You know what I find truly amazing, is how everything God formed on earth comes from different combinations of elements from the periodic table. The intelligence and creativeness of God is truly astounding!
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Dec. 17 2008,03:50) DK………Jesus said GOD is the ROCK that was going to build the church, GOD is Spirit as we Know, the word Christ does not mean Jesus all the time it means the Anointing or Spirit of GOD. That was the rock following the children in the wilderness it was the (Christos) or anointing, not the person Jesus as Trinitarians and preexistences want you to believe. In fact there are other place where the word Christos is used by Paul and it is not referring to Jesus at all, this has caused i believe confusion in the text in some places. love and peace to you and yours…………………gene
Hi brother Gene,
Those are apt words on Christ or Spirit of Christ. Please see this verse in 1 Pet 1:11“searching what time or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did point unto, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glories that should follow them”
So the rock that followed Israelites in the wilderness was none but the Spirit of Christ but not the man Jesus who became Christ at Jordan on his anointing by the Spirit of Christ.
Thanks and love to you
Adam
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
