Examination of the incarnation doctrine.

[Baker]

Quote (Paladin @ April 15 2011,17:49)

Hello dear Sister; Why are you so angry? You were not called into question for posting a response to Karmarie when she asked if anyone had read the shepherd of Hermas, and she was not called in question for asking – And in fact you felt free to introduce Tertullian and others onto the board. Quote (Baker @ Mar. 28 2011,20:18) Quote (karmarie @ Mar. 28 2011,19:37) Hi All, Has anyone here read the Sheppard of Hermas and have an understanding of it? In 'The Sheppard'  (One of the most popular readings of the early church) it goes something like this; Jesus was a virtuous man filled with the Holy Spirit and adopted as the son. Theres more to it than that though. Is this belief here similar to that in any way? Just wondering. Thanks. Hi!  I just read some of it.  One person who was in conflict with that believe is Quintus Septimus Florence Tertullian.  He is the one who is known as bringing to light the trinity doctrine.  Constantine went along with Him, and the trinity became the law of the first council of Nicaea in AD 325   It will take me a lot to read through all of what Sheppard of H. believed.  Since you did, tell us did He believe in the preexisting or not. You said that you are “very annoyed” by Whispering and I when we speak of things we like to discuss when we take a break to cool down. Quote (Baker @ April 14 2011,06:33) Paladin and Wispring! Ich muss anfangen deusch zu sprechen,  Ich finde es sehr ungezogen when man uber was sprechen tut, wo keiner was verstehen kann.  Zahlen bis 123 und weiter, kann man wohl verstehen.  Aber so weiter machen wenn keiner versteht bloss der jenige der auch das weist, ist ungezogen…. Did you understand anything I just wrote?  I doubt it.  So when you and Paladin speak of hyperbolic geometry, I don;t understand what you are talking about.  I find it very annoying to do so…. This site is for debating.  And sometimes you have to repeat in order for some to get it….its called a Chat-room… Got it….If you want to chit-chat there is a place for it….Irene And you wrote: Quote (Baker @ April 15 2011,01:02) kerwin!  That is so ridiculous.  I don't care what any other man thinks of John and The Word of God.  You agreed that The Word of God in Rev. 19 is speaking of Jesus, but yet deny that in John 1:1 it is not Jesus who became flesh.  Now you go the the extreme to quote a Philosopher.  I care less what they believe.  I go by the Bible ONLY. We take Scriptures to apply to what WE believe. You just ignore them.  And I for one have no idea why? Since you ignore them, you are also calling Jesus a liar…… And why?? Jesus said He came down from Heaven to do the will of His Father who SEND Him. Just take this Scripture alone, and tell me what I don't see? Or you don't see? Irene I do not accuse you of anything at all dear sister, I am just wondering why you are so angry at some who post, when you post the same way. And you say you go by scriptures only, but still quote tertullian and discuss shepherd of hermas, and no one faults you for that. So why do you fault others for it? You say you Quote We take Scriptures to apply to what WE believe. Yet you get upset when we do the same – Why? That is all I am asking.

Paladin!  What are you talking about?  Me angry?    
Yes, I was somewhat annoyed of you and Wispring conversation, but have you ever been frustrated here?  I think so….but angry I am not.  Not at you or Wispring….Do I agree with your believes, no…As far as Karmaria is concerned then I was not upset with Her.  But what do you have to do with that?  Go to another site sometimes, especially Kathy's ” Firstborn of all creation” in Other writings tread.  And don't assume what I feel….
Peace and Love Irene

[Paladin]

Quote (Baker @ April 16 2011,01:57)

Quote (Paladin @ April 15 2011,17:49) Hello dear Sister; Why are you so angry? You were not called into question for posting a response to Karmarie when she asked if anyone had read the shepherd of Hermas, and she was not called in question for asking – And in fact you felt free to introduce Tertullian and others onto the board. Quote (Baker @ Mar. 28 2011,20:18) Quote (karmarie @ Mar. 28 2011,19:37) Hi All, Has anyone here read the Sheppard of Hermas and have an understanding of it? In 'The Sheppard'  (One of the most popular readings of the early church) it goes something like this; Jesus was a virtuous man filled with the Holy Spirit and adopted as the son. Theres more to it than that though. Is this belief here similar to that in any way? Just wondering. Thanks. Hi!  I just read some of it.  One person who was in conflict with that believe is Quintus Septimus Florence Tertullian.  He is the one who is known as bringing to light the trinity doctrine.  Constantine went along with Him, and the trinity became the law of the first council of Nicaea in AD 325   It will take me a lot to read through all of what Sheppard of H. believed.  Since you did, tell us did He believe in the preexisting or not. You said that you are “very annoyed” by Whispering and I when we speak of things we like to discuss when we take a break to cool down. Quote (Baker @ April 14 2011,06:33) Paladin and Wispring! Ich muss anfangen deusch zu sprechen,  Ich finde es sehr ungezogen when man uber was sprechen tut, wo keiner was verstehen kann.  Zahlen bis 123 und weiter, kann man wohl verstehen.  Aber so weiter machen wenn keiner versteht bloss der jenige der auch das weist, ist ungezogen…. Did you understand anything I just wrote?  I doubt it.  So when you and Paladin speak of hyperbolic geometry, I don;t understand what you are talking about.  I find it very annoying to do so…. This site is for debating.  And sometimes you have to repeat in order for some to get it….its called a Chat-room… Got it….If you want to chit-chat there is a place for it….Irene And you wrote: Quote (Baker @ April 15 2011,01:02) kerwin!  That is so ridiculous.  I don't care what any other man thinks of John and The Word of God.  You agreed that The Word of God in Rev. 19 is speaking of Jesus, but yet deny that in John 1:1 it is not Jesus who became flesh.  Now you go the the extreme to quote a Philosopher.  I care less what they believe.  I go by the Bible ONLY. We take Scriptures to apply to what WE believe. You just ignore them.  And I for one have no idea why? Since you ignore them, you are also calling Jesus a liar…… And why?? Jesus said He came down from Heaven to do the will of His Father who SEND Him. Just take this Scripture alone, and tell me what I don't see? Or you don't see? Irene I do not accuse you of anything at all dear sister, I am just wondering why you are so angry at some who post, when you post the same way. And you say you go by scriptures only, but still quote tertullian and discuss shepherd of hermas, and no one faults you for that. So why do you fault others for it? You say you Quote We take Scriptures to apply to what WE believe. Yet you get upset when we do the same – Why? That is all I am asking. Paladin!  What are you talking about?  Me angry?     Yes, I was somewhat annoyed of you and Wispring conversation, but have you ever been frustrated here?  I think so….but angry I am not.  Not at you or Wispring….Do I agree with your believes, no…As far as Karmaria is concerned then I was not upset with Her.  But what do you have to do with that?  Go to another site sometimes, especially Kathy's ” Firstborn of all creation” in Other writings tread.  And don't assume what I feel…. Peace and Love Irene

I was misled by your smiley faces in your post to Kerwin. Just trying to cheer up a sister. It seemed like you were angry at others fro doing what we all are doing.

Sorry sister.

[Baker]

Paladin!  Again, I wa not angry.  The smile faces come on there automatically I don't put those on in the middle of a post.  I might put smile faces on the end…I think anytime you make a statement like I did to kerwin, they appear….You know what would me really cheer up, tight?….
Peace and love irene

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Baker @ April 15 2011,12:35)

Paladin!  Again, I wa not angry.  The smile faces come on there automatically I don't put those on in the middle of a post.  I might put smile faces on the end…I think anytime you make a statement like I did to kerwin, they appear….You know what would me really cheer up, tight?…. Peace and love irene

Quote (Baker @ April 15 2011,12:35)

I think anytime you make a statement like I did to kerwin, they appear

Hi Irene

No they appear because you put 4 question marks together after the sentence.

3 ? =

4 ? = ?

5 ? = ??

I hope that helps!
WJ

[Paladin]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 16 2011,04:48)

Quote (Baker @ April 15 2011,12:35) Paladin!  Again, I wa not angry.  The smile faces come on there automatically I don't put those on in the middle of a post.  I might put smile faces on the end…I think anytime you make a statement like I did to kerwin, they appear….You know what would me really cheer up, tight?…. Peace and love irene Quote (Baker @ April 15 2011,12:35) I think anytime you make a statement like I did to kerwin, they appear Hi Irene No they appear because you put 4 question marks together after the sentence. 3 ? = 4 ? = ? 5 ? = ?? I hope that helps! WJ

Well it certainly helps me, my friend.

What happens if you put a minus-?

[Baker]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 16 2011,04:48)

Quote (Baker @ April 15 2011,12:35) Paladin!  Again, I wa not angry.  The smile faces come on there automatically I don't put those on in the middle of a post.  I might put smile faces on the end…I think anytime you make a statement like I did to kerwin, they appear….You know what would me really cheer up, tight?…. Peace and love irene Quote (Baker @ April 15 2011,12:35) I think anytime you make a statement like I did to kerwin, they appear Hi Irene No they appear because you put 4 question marks together after the sentence. 3 ? = 4 ? = ? 5 ? = ?? I hope that helps! WJ

Oh, that's it…Thank you for telling me….???
Irene

[Paladin]

Quote (942767 @ April 13 2011,11:33)

Quote (Paladin @ April 13 2011,09:03) Very Good! Now, if we can get the meaning of John's “Beginning” defined in scripture I'll be almost happy. It still leaves me with having to show why “incarnation” is a figment of  religious philosophy rather than theology. Hi Paladin: In the beginning? Quote 1Pe 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, Quote Jhn 17:24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world. Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Hbr 4:3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. Quote 2Cr 3:17   Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord [is], there [is] liberty.   2Cr 3:18   But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, [even] as by the Spirit of the Lord. Does this help? Love in Christ, Marty

WHICH BEGINNING?
John 1:1 “In the beginning God…”

Argument is often made that John's “beginning” is a reflection of the Genesis account – “In the beginning God…”
But does scripture demonstrate this to be the case?

Two arguments show that this is not so.

1). Argument is made that John is saying that in the beginning was Jesus, wearing the name “logos.” But the logos was not a name in the beginning of creation. It was still a “new” name in 69 a.d. when John penned the apokalypse which God gave to Jesus. And in it, he introduced the logos as a “NEW NAME,” where John used the Greek word “kainon” which is an accusative neuter singular adjective which means “New, not previously known, unused. So Jesus could NOT have been understood in scripture to be the logos of God in the beginning of creation.

2) The Holy spirit inspired New Testament writers to reference the “beginning of creation” when it was applicable.

Mark 10:6 But from the [arxees ktisews] beginning of the creation God [epoieesen] made them male and female.

Mark 13:19 For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the [arxees ktisews] beginning of the creation which God [ektisen] created unto this time, neither shall be.

2 Peter 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the [arxees ktisews] beginning of the creation.

Revelation 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the [ee arxee tees ktisews tou theou] beginning of the creation of God;

Mark, Peter, and yes, even John had already had experience referencing the “beginning of creation.” They already knew from prior authorship and from inspiration, how to express “arxees ktisews” if the beginning of creation is what they want to express.

But John made two changes when he wrote his gospel.
1). He wrote [en arxee] and left off [ktisews] which he had previously expressed, because he now has a different [arxee] in mind.

It is the same [arxee] he references in John 15:27 “And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the [arxees] beginning.”

It is the same [arxee] he references in John 16:4 “But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them. And these things I said not unto you at the [arxees] beginning, because I was with you.”

John is here recording Jesus own testimony. Do you really think Jesus doesn't know how to reference “arxees ktisews?” Or do you really think John is not being inspired by the Holy Spirit to write what he means to express?

2) Remember back up the page, in Mark 10:6, the reference to “made?” He “made them male and female.”  “Made” in that reference is [epoieesen].

Compare it with John 1:3 and you will see it is not the same meaning. John 1:3 records “All things were [egeneto] made by him; and without him was not any thing [egeneto] made that was [gegonen] made.

egeneto and gegonen both derive from ginomai, which means to become, as in “Herod and Pilate were made friends, for they had been at enmity before that day.”

John is not saying the same thing in 1:1-3 that he expresses elsewhere in his writings, and he knows the difference.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ April 14 2011,22:45)

So according to you Jesus is not a human being but rather looks like a human being.

Hi Kerwin,

I didn't say that.    Jesus took on sinful flesh because the children were also of sinful flesh.  So yes, Jesus was made as a human being.  He was different from the start though, because he didn't have a human father like we all do.

Quote (kerwin @ April 14 2011,22:45)

Are you perhaps trying to say that the Spirit being that would be named Jesus changed kind by transforming into a human being in Mary's womb?

Not so much that HE “changed kind”, but that he WAS MADE as a human after already existing as a spirit being who was “in the form of God” and who had glory in the presence of his God before the creation of the world.  And it's not “me” saying it, but the scriptures themselves.

Quote (kerwin @ April 14 2011,22:45)

How then do you conclude that human being Jesus decended from David?

Mary was a descendant of David, making Jesus a hereditary offspring of David.  And Joseph was also a descendant of David, giving Jesus the legal claim to the throne.

Quote (kerwin @ April 14 2011,22:45)

What I have heard explained instead is that the Spirit being that would be named Jesus came and inhabited the flesh body that was a decendant of David.

I'm not sure if you're saying that's MY claim, or YOUR claim.  I don't say the spirit being that might have already been named “Jesus” for billions of years “inhabited” a  flesh body.  I say he was made as a human being, thereby no longer existing as a spirit being for a while.

Quote (kerwin @ April 14 2011,22:45)

Your doctrine is not scriptural as Jesus is said to be human in scripture, even after his ascention of heaven, 1 Timothy 2:5.

I hope you see now that my doctrine IS scriptural, because I understand that Jesus was human while on earth.  And you are mistaken about 1 Tim 2:5, as it contradicts Galatians 1:1, 1:11, and 1 Cor 15:45.  Try reading 2:5 along with 2:6 once.  Paul is saying that the MAN who gave himself as a ransom is NOW our mediator.  It is a tricky wording I admit.  But if Paul was saying Jesus was STILL a man in heaven, he would be contradicting CLEAR scriptures he himself wrote.  

So you must weigh the CLEAR “received it NOT FROM ANY MAN, but from Jesus Christ” wording, and the CLEAR “flesh and blood CANNOT enter the Kingdom of God” wording against 2:5-6, which at best might be implying that Jesus is STILL a man, and might not be saying that at all.  And since it's a toss-up, you must go with the understanding of 2:5-6 that best matches the rest of scripture, IMO.

Nice chat Kerwin……….thanks,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Paladin @ April 15 2011,01:14)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 15 2011,10:40) Hi Paladin, It seems to me that your understanding of John 6:62 is that Jesus is speaking of “ascending” from Sheol to where he was before on the earth, right? Breifly acknowledge if this is what you're saying please. mike John is asking what the Jews will do – “What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?” [John 6:62] Paul talks about what Jesus ascends to and from – “Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?” [Eph 4:9] And Paul describes it perfectly – “For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:” Paul says Jesus descended, then ascended. John asked what they would do if they saw Jesus ascend to where he was before. The son of man was descended to the lower part of the earth before. It is not Paladin who originated this. It is John and Paul.

Hi Paladin,

I didn't suggest you “originated” anything.  I asked about “YOUR understanding” of John 6:62.  Surely you know what your own understanding is, right?  

Since you didn't actually answer the question I asked, I'll just assume that your understanding is that Jesus was speaking of ascending from Sheol back to the earth – where he was before.  Now let's see if that understanding fits the context:

John 6 NIV
33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

What IS this “bread that came down FROM heaven”?

35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life.

He says, “bread of life”, but does that mean he is the aforementioned “bread that came down FROM heaven”?

38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.

Hmmm…………..now we know that Jesus is the “bread of life” and that he “came down from heaven”, but should we take this to mean he is the aforementioned “bread that came down FROM heaven”?  Apparently that's the way the Jews he was speaking to took it:

41 At this the Jews there began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42 They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”

We can see here that the Jews didn't really understand the teaching Jesus was giving them, but they were certainly clear about what he was claiming, right?  They were not one bit confused about the fact that this man, who's father and mother they knew, was for some reason now claiming that he CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN.

46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.

I include this scripture for one main reason – to show you that believing in the pre-existence of Jesus does NOT equate to believing in the trinity doctrine.  Jesus is NOT God, but the only one who has SEEN God, because he is the only one who is FROM God, in this particular sense.  It would be stupid for “God” to say he's the only one who has “seen God” and was “FROM God”.

48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven.

Ahhhhh………….question answered.  Jesus IS in fact the aforementioned “bread that came down FROM heaven”.

60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

Once again, the Jews voiced their disbelief that this man they knew “came down from heaven”.  (Sound like anyone you know?    )

Which brings us to the scripture in question:

61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!

Keep in mind that Jesus didn't once talk about “Jonah” or “rising after three days” in this teaching.  Keep in mind that “came down from” means exactly the same thing as “descended from”, and this is what Jesus was teaching his disciples – that he CAME DOWN from, or DESCENDED from heaven.

I can't see how anyone could honestly deny the teaching here.  Even those who heard the words at least knew what he was saying to them, even if they couldn't grasp what it meant at the time.

So think about it for a minute.  If Jesus spent all that time teaching his disciples that he came DOWN from heaven, and they found the teaching hard to accept, then what do you think is clearly implied by him saying, “Well, if it offends you to think I came DOWN from heaven, what are you going to think when you see me go back UP to there?”

Paladin, certain people here think I'm too “hard” or too “authoritarian” or whatever.  But this is how I come to be this way.  IMO, a person would have to totally ignore the clear teaching of John 6:30-65 and just PRETEND things to make this mean something else.  I deal with this same mentality with the Trinitarians here on a daily basis.  I don't say these exact words to them, but I think to myself, “What kind of MORON would be DUMB ENOUGH to believe that the Son OF God could possibly BE the God he is the Son OF?”

And these are the same thoughts I have now, but I refrain from “saying them out loud”.  How in the world could any sensible person think “ascend to where I was before” could mean anything but heaven considering the context in which those words were said?

You had to have just pulled your theory out of thin air, since the context in which Jesus said those words had nothing at all to do with Jesus being raised on the third day.

But I have one more “ace in the hole” for your theory, Paladin.  Notice the word “SEE” in Jesus' statement.  What ascension did his disciples actually SEE?  Did anyone SEE him ascend from Sheol back to the earth?  NO.  Did anyone SEE him ascend to heaven?  

Acts 1:9
After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.

Keep in mind that just like “came down” means “descended” in the context of John 6, “taken up” means “ascended” in the context of Acts 1:9.  So I ask you, which “ascension” did the disciples actually eye witness, as was alluded to by Jesus in John 6?

peace,
mike

[Baker]

Paladin, I would like to add to Mike's Post to you/ I don't believe you have considered the verse in John 1:14, and it is in the Greek….
Jhn 1:14 ¶ And 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.

Zero in on (and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Is there another begotten Son, or is the Holy Spirit a begotten Son, some think The Word of God is the Spirit of God. That is not so. It is talking about Jesus. Just like Rev. 19:13-16 is..

Peace and Love Irene

[kerwin]

Mike Boll,

You wrote:

Quote

I didn't say that.    Jesus took on sinful flesh because the children were also of sinful flesh.  So yes, Jesus was made as a human being.  He was different from the start though, because he didn't have a human father like we all do.

The same would be true of a human clone. Still the key point I was getting at is that according to you the Spirit being that would be known as Jesus was not changed into flesh but instead put on flesh.  I am stating that it was not the spirit being that put on flesh but the Spirit of God.  That is the only difference in what we are stating at this point.

You wrote:

Quote

Mary was a descendant of David, making Jesus a hereditary offspring of David.  And Joseph was also a descendant of David, giving Jesus the legal claim to the throne.

If I understand you correctly you believe that the flesh was a descendent of David but the spirit being that dwelled within the flesh is not.  I understand flesh to be a synonym for human being as it is used at times in scripture.  The Spirit of Christ thus put on the human being.

These are scriptures that testify that God dwells in Jesus and Jesus dwells in God through the Spirit of Holiness.  The also state the Jesus petition God and God granted his petition that those that believed would be one with God and Jesus through the Spirit of God.   I believe that John may well be teaching us about the Spirit coming to dwell in Jesus in John 1.

Quote

Romans 8:9 (King James Version) 9But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. Ephesians 2:22 (King James Version) 22In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. John 17:220-23 (King James Version) 20Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 21That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 23I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. Hebrews 9:14(uncertain of version) How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!

[kerwin]

Paladin,

Could you please critique my last post to Mike as far as what I understand about John 1:14. Thank you!

[Baker]

Anyone with a little bit of an open mind would see that John 1:14 is not Gods Holy Spirit, but Jesus that became flesh.

Jhn 1:14 ¶ And 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.  

notice (“and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten Son of the Father,”) full of grace and truth…..Kerwin and Paladin, who is this??  I think it is Jesus   Oh, yes it is in the Greek transcript…..
Peace Irene

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ April 16 2011,03:00)

according to you the Spirit being that would be known as Jesus was not changed into flesh but instead put on flesh.

Hi Kerwin,

What I'm claiming is what the scriptures teach.  Jesus existed in the form of God, meaning “as a spirit being in heaven”.  Then he was made as a human being.  It was not the “spirit being Jesus” being “put into a flesh body”, but rather the spirit being of Jesus being remade as a bonafide flesh and blood human being.

(As a side note, since we have no scriptural reason to think the spirit being who would become Jesus was not already named Jesus in his pre-existence, there is no reason to use the extra words explaining “the spirit that WOULD BE KNOWN AS Jesus”.)

Quote (kerwin @ April 16 2011,03:00)

I am stating that it was not the spirit being that put on flesh but the Spirit of God.

But the Spirit of God is what Jesus said he would send AFTER he ascended.  Does that make sense if the Spirit of God was right there with the disciples at the time Jesus said this?  It would mean that the Spirit of God who had “put on flesh” was saying that after he left, he would send ANOTHER helper……..meaning himself.  

Quote (kerwin @ April 16 2011,03:00)

If I understand you correctly you believe that the flesh was a descendent of David but the spirit being that dwelled within the flesh is not.

Again, no.  I don't claim a spirit being was dwelling withing Jesus.  I claim that Jesus once was a spirit being in heaven, and then was remade as a bonafide human being.

Quote (kerwin @ April 16 2011,03:00)

These are scriptures that testify that God dwells in Jesus and Jesus dwells in God through the Spirit of Holiness.

Kerwin, do you think the Spirit of God dwells in Michael the archangel?  I don't claim Jesus is Michael, like the JW's do.  But for this explanation, just imagine that it was Michael who was sent to earth.

Michael, who was existing as a spirit being and through whom the Spirit of God flowed, was then made as a human being through whom the Spirit of God flowed.  The heavenly spirit being of Michael would have ceased to exist at that time because the whole BEING of Michael was now a human being, and he was no longer a spirit being.  It would not be a case of the spirit being of Michael being trapped within the flesh body of a human being.  It would be a case of the spirit being of Michael actually emtying himself of his spirit existence completely, and being transformed into a real, bonafide human being.

But just as the Spirit of God was in him before he was made as a human, the same Spirit of God was in him and working through him also when he was a human being.  The Spirit of God working through him in no way implies he IS that Spirit of God “in the flesh” anymore than it would have implied he was that Spirit of God when he was a heavenly spirit being with the Spirit of God working through him.

(Thank you for using quote boxes in your post, it makes it far easier for me to know which of my statements you are responding to.    )

mike

[942767]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 15 2011,12:11)

Quote (942767 @ April 14 2011,11:34) Hi Mike: I have already been over all of this with you, and so, I see not point in re-hashing the same thing over and over again. None of those scriptures that you have say that he pre-existed.  You may interpret them to mean that, but they do not specifically state that. Love in Christ, Marty Hi Marty, I don't mean to pressure you, but if you'd just directly answer the question I've asked twice now, I'd appreciate it.  Here's the question for the third time: Can you show me even one scripture that prohibits Jesus from pre-existing? Be forewarned though, there most likely will be the follow-up question of “How so?”.   Thanks, mike

Quote

Matthew 1:20But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. 21And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. 22Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Quote

Luke 1:26And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, 27To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. 28And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. 30And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

[mikeboll64]

Hi Marty,

Your scriptures show that Jesus was born of the flesh, as is stated many times in the scriptures.  They don't, however, say one word that would exclude Jesus from a heavenly pre-existence……….at least not that I can see.

mike

[942767]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 17 2011,06:33)

Hi Marty, Your scriptures show that Jesus was born of the flesh, as is stated many times in the scriptures.  They don't, however, say one word that would exclude Jesus from a heavenly pre-existence……….at least not that I can see. mike

Mike:

How was he conceived in the womb of Mary?

You have to have a vivid imagination to think that he pre-existed when the scriptures plainly tell us how he came into being, and they tell us how his spirit was formed through perfect obedience to the Word of God. The Word of God that was with God prior to the foundation of the world was the spirit of the Son. This Word was spoken to those in the OT, but only Jesus obeyed the Word of God without sin unto death on the cross, and so, the scripture states that the last Adam was made a life giving spirit.

Love in Christ,
Marty

[Baker]

Marty! maybe you don't look good enough what Scripture says. Who was the only begotten Son of God?

John tells us He was first The Word of God, and then became flesh.

Jhn 1:14 ¶ And 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.

AND WE BEHELD HIS GLORY, THE GLORY AS OF THE ONLY BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER, FULL OF GRACE AND TRUTH.

Tell me Marty. who is He?

Peace Irene

[942767]

Quote (Baker @ April 17 2011,12:21)

Marty!  maybe you don't look good enough what Scripture says.  Who was the only begotten Son of God? John tells  us He was first The Word of God, and then became flesh. Jhn 1:14 ¶ And 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.   AND WE BEHELD HIS GLORY, THE GLORY AS OF THE ONLY BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER, FULL OF GRACE AND TRUTH. Tell me Marty. who is He? Peace Irene

Hi Mrs:

This is what the scripture states:

Quote

Luke 1:35And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

The scripture does not say that “He was first the Word of God”.

Hebrews 1 states:

Quote

Hebrews 1 1God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

The Word of God is that which is spoken by God through divers manners and prophets and ultimately through Jesus who is God's only begotten Son who was conceived in the womb of the virgin Mary as the scripture that I quoted from Luke states.

Love in Christ,
Marty

[942767]

And so, Mrs. how did Jesus become flesh? What does the scripture state?

Love in Christ,
Marty

[Author]

Posts