- This topic has 3,215 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
Mike! I looked adon up, and it means anointed. You know at your previous post you said that Paladin is intelligent, it does not take a super intelligent person to look up what adon or any other kind of word in the Greek or the Hebrew. Just time consuming. What is an intelligent person, that takes the Scriptures and sees what the Holy Spirit has conveyed to someone else and acknowledge it. I have done so tswiced since we joined in July 2008. Most just ignore it and go by their views. That is what I see wrong in a person. Paladin does not see that. And I find Him not super intelligent at all.
I also found that Anthropo, Anthropology, Anthropo short or anthropwpo like He said, is what Rudolf Steiner's Anthropophical Society is too, it is all the same thing, the study of man. Steiner also studied the extra sensitive perception or Clairvoyance of men. It is all very interesting to me. Steiner has several Books on the Market, at least until the 90th's. I have not looked into if they are still available today yet. What Paladin had in mind when He asked Georg and I to study the Old Test. I don't know. I really would have liked to. But since Georg is not interested, Paladin is uncomfortable just doing it with I.
Now Paladin has not come back yet, His last post was to you last Night, I hope He comes back. Maybe He will consider studying with you……
Peace and Love IreneQuote (Gene Balthrop @ Mar. 04 2011,02:20) Quote Paladin………..Have you thought of this, If (ONE)GOD were a composite of SEVEN SPIRITS As revelations seems to indicate would that not meet the singular,plural concept of GOD also. Also we have Scripture where Jesus said in Prayer “FOR THOU ART THE (ONLY) TRUE GOD.” I think of that reference in the same perspective as when I speak of “spirits of Camphor.” It is not that Camphor has a plurality of spirits, but rather it is a reference to the elementary basis of a substance.
“The seven spirits of God” is simply a way of referrencing the fact that God, who is spirit, is not limited to where He is able to go, or how many times He can share himself with his creation. Remember, the number seven is used to reference completion or perfection.
When God “pours forth of his spirit” upon all mankind, he still can “pour out his spirit on the prophets” without diminishing Himself. I think tha tis what that is about.
Quote I did a word study once on the word GOD and a Hebrew Scholar named Jeff Beanner in his research said the ancient Pictorial language of the ancient Hebrews showed the word for God as a Head of a OX with a Staff beside it. The OX represent (POWERS) and the Staff was something they lend on for support. So the word seem to imply Power to force or forge and while men can posses some of that power it is God the Father alone who posses it all. The ALL MIGHTY GOD or POWER. Would like to know you thoughts on this brother.
That perspective displays very well, the difference between
“El Shaddai” (El Jehovah God) and El Gibbowr (son of the virgin); i.e., the difference between “mighty God” of Isaiah, and “almighty God” of Genesis etc.Quote peace and love to you and yours…….gene And grace and hope to you and yours from me and mine
Hi Palasdin, I am glad you did come back, and so early in the morning, Have a nice day…..
Peace and love IreneQuote (Paladin @ Mar. 04 2011,20:29) Gene wrote:[/quote]
Quote Paladin………..Have you thought of this, If (ONE)GOD were a composite of SEVEN SPIRITS As revelations seems to indicate would that not meet the singular,plural concept of GOD also. Also we have Scripture where Jesus said in Prayer “FOR THOU ART THE (ONLY) TRUE GOD.” I think of that reference in the same perspective as when I speak of “spirits of Camphor.” It is not that Camphor has a plurality of spirits, but rather it is a reference to the elementary basis of a substance.
“The seven spirits of God” is simply a way of referrencing the fact that God, who is spirit, is not limited to where He is able to go, or how many times He can share himself with his creation. Remember, the number seven is used to reference completion or perfection.
When God “pours forth of his spirit” upon all mankind, he still can “pour out his spirit on the prophets” without diminishing Himself. I think tha tis what that is about.
Quote I did a word study once on the word GOD and a Hebrew Scholar named Jeff Beanner in his research said the ancient Pictorial language of the ancient Hebrews showed the word for God as a Head of a OX with a Staff beside it. The OX represent (POWERS) and the Staff was something they lend on for support. So the word seem to imply Power to force or forge and while men can posses some of that power it is God the Father alone who posses it all. The ALL MIGHTY GOD or POWER. Would like to know you thoughts on this brother.
That perspective displays very well, the difference between
“El Shaddai” (El Jehovah God) and El Gibbowr (son of the virgin); i.e., the difference between “mighty God” of Isaiah, and “almighty God” of Genesis etc.Quote peace and love to you and yours…….gene And grace and hope to you and yours from me and mine
With that I agree. God has no limits. To limit God is not
The self-existing one.
The everlasting one
The Immortal one.
God does not depend on any one or any thing. He has always existed.1Ti 1:17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, [be] honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
That reminds me of the Peroverbs when some think it is Wisdom in
Pro 8:22 ¶ The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
Pro 8:23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
Pro 8:24 When [there were] no depths, I was brought forth; when [there were] no fountains abounding with water.
Pro 8:25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:
Pro 8:26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.
Pro 8:27 When he prepared the heavens, I [was] there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:
Pro 8:28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:
Pro 8:29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:
Pro 8:30 Then I was by him, [as] one brought up [with him]: and I was daily [his] delight, rejoicing always before him;
The KJV says in verse 30 ”
Then I was beside Him, as a master Craftsman. etc.
That also shows that Jesus preexisted His birth on earth.Peace and love Irene
Quote (Baker @ Mar. 04 2011,06:35) Quote Paladin! I know that you went through Phil 2, however we never settled anything. Some of us did. Perhaps you mean to say “we never agreed on the settlement?”
Quote I gone to both the NET and the Blue Letter Bibles. Both have the Greek or any kind of Translation you want. What I found about the Form of God is different in NET and Blue letter. The whole translation of “Form of God is? en morph e fe-lo-theos.
Since it is in there I believe the KJV. Are you still going to deny this or ignore this.Dear sister, “en” is not an article, it is a preposition “In” form
and morphee is “form” and “theos” is God.Look for a moment at a passage like Romans 2:20 “An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law.”
Now look at the articles as they appear in context in the Greek.
GNT Romans 2:20 paideuteen aphronwn didaskalon neepiwn exonta teen morphwsin tees gnwsews kai tees aleetheias en tw nomwIf you look closely you will see more “articles” in the Greek than appear in the English translation. That is because in the Greek, “knowledge” is also articulated.
But in Phil 2:6-7 “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:” you have God, form [of servant]
likeness [of men], all of which have no article in the Greek becasue there is no such thing as “The” likeness of men, there is only “likenesses of men.” Man is not one likeness, but many and variable. The same is true with “form of servant,” which have not the article, because there is not one form of servant, there are only forms of servants; nor does “form of God” because spirit is formless. When Paul tells us Jesus is in form of God, he is not saying Jesus appeared as God appears, he is telling us Jesus, having been begotten by God's Spirit, is a form of God that is not God.Quote We should never interpret Scripture to our view, rather the way the Scripture is written. Agreed! Noe, dear sister, convince the trinitarian translators of that and watch fror the difference when they comply.
Quote I would not say any of this again, if you my friend would have acknowledged it. That's fair. Not quite accurate, but still a fair observaton. When you learn the truth of scripture you will see why I say it is fair but not accurate.
Quote In our Rye Study bible of KJ in the footnotes it says
verse 5 the form of God, Christ is the same nature and essence as God, did not think to be to His own advantage. But emptied Himself etc.And we come full circle. All of the commentators who believe in a trinity will state it in a comparatively similar way. That does not make it true. It only serves to make it popular among trinitarians.
Look for example at John 1:1 (I know, “not again!”) in which John uses inconvertible terms “ho logos” and “theos.” All the scholars have missed the significance of this distinctive terminology used by John. The meaning has been hidden from all the scholars because the gospel is the result of Holy Spirit inspiration, not scholarship.
The meaning is simple also, when in John 1:14 “ho logos” became flesh, “theos” did not. THAT is the way the Greek supplies it.
“God became flesh” is the way the translators apply it.
This simply demonstrates how the supplication and the application are significantly different.
Quote I read what you said to Mike. All this goes along with all other Scriptures….
Peace IreneAnd grace and hope!
Quote PS really for the last time…. Oh, I hope not…
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 04 2011,14:00) [/quote]
(P)Quote May I correct you? The plural form of El is El'm [Exo 15:11]; Elohim is the plural form of Eloahh. Eloahh is the singular form of Elohim. You may need to access the Hebrew script, as Strong may not differentiate this “El'm” business. (M)Absolutely………..if you have facts to back up what you say! I checked, you are correct. Although my source lists
“elim” as plural for “el”. And I've known that the “im” is used to determine a word as plural in Hebrew. Yet you posted
“El'm”. Are both correct?I wish I were as smart as some give me credit for, but I guess my best effort will have to suffice. The uses of ” 'm” or “im” is dependant upon the peculiarities of Hebrew grammar. If there is an Hebrew grammarian on the board, please don't laugh, help me out here. It looks to me like the difference has to do with gender and person. Many old languages (read “ancient”) have a singular, a plural, and a “dual” form. This may be a holdover from the ancient “dual” form in Hebrew. Or it may reflect a masculine rather than a feminine word use. I just don't know that much about it. Excellent question butting heads with ignorance. Sorry!
Quote And since you seem to be knowledgeable in this area, Nope! Just blood, and sweat, and tears.
Quote what's the deal with “adon”? I know that “adonim” exists, but is “adonay” also a plural form of “adon”? “Adon” (“Adown”) is a word meaning Lord, owner, or master, or something similar. It is a form of formal address to superior.
I think “Adonay” is a salutation form of Adon which references a status, similar to “Lord.” One can be a A “Lord” – Adown; one can be addressed as “Lord” – (“Adonay”) – except
“Adonay” is reserved for addressing the Lord God “Lord…”Paladin,Mar. wrote:And how do you edit on this board? I see no “edit” button to push. sometimes I need it desparately.
Quote You must request those rights from t8. Click Here and make a request. In the mean time, make use of your “Preview Post” button. Proof read BEFORE you post. 
What a novel suggestion.
Quote (Baker @ Mar. 04 2011,20:43) Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 04 2011,20:29) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Mar. 04 2011,02:20) Quote Paladin………..Have you thought of this, If (ONE)GOD were a composite of SEVEN SPIRITS As revelations seems to indicate would that not meet the singular,plural concept of GOD also. Also we have Scripture where Jesus said in Prayer “FOR THOU ART THE (ONLY) TRUE GOD.” I think of that reference in the same perspective as when I speak of “spirits of Camphor.” It is not that Camphor has a plurality of spirits, but rather it is a reference to the elementary basis of a substance.
“The seven spirits of God” is simply a way of referrencing the fact that God, who is spirit, is not limited to where He is able to go, or how many times He can share himself with his creation. Remember, the number seven is used to reference completion or perfection.
When God “pours forth of his spirit” upon all mankind, he still can “pour out his spirit on the prophets” without diminishing Himself. I think tha tis what that is about.
Quote I did a word study once on the word GOD and a Hebrew Scholar named Jeff Beanner in his research said the ancient Pictorial language of the ancient Hebrews showed the word for God as a Head of a OX with a Staff beside it. The OX represent (POWERS) and the Staff was something they lend on for support. So the word seem to imply Power to force or forge and while men can posses some of that power it is God the Father alone who posses it all. The ALL MIGHTY GOD or POWER. Would like to know you thoughts on this brother.
That perspective displays very well, the difference between
“El Shaddai” (El Jehovah God) and El Gibbowr (son of the virgin); i.e., the difference between “mighty God” of Isaiah, and “almighty God” of Genesis etc.Quote peace and love to you and yours…….gene And grace and hope to you and yours from me and mine
(I)
Quote With that I agree. God has no limits. To limit God is not
The self-existing one.
The everlasting one
The Immortal one.
God does not depend on any one or any thing. He has always existed.1Ti 1:17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, [be] honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
That reminds me of the Proverbs when some think it is Wisdom in
Pro 8:22 ¶ The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. 23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. 24 When [there were] no depths, I was brought forth; when [there were] no fountains abounding with water. 25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: 26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. 27 When he prepared the heavens, I [was] there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: 28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: 29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: 30 Then I was by him, [as] one brought up [with him]: and I was daily [his] delight, rejoicing always before him;
The KJV says in verse 30 “Then I was beside Him, as a master Craftsman. etc.”
That also shows that Jesus preexisted His birth on earth.
(P) “Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;” [Prov 8:30 KJV]
I don't see it.
Jesus was not wisdom in the eighth Proverb. Paul tells us that Jesus was made wisdom by the Father, but only to Christians; which tells us two things; He was not already wisdom, and he is not wisdom to all the world. Wisdom in the eighth proverb is wisdom to the whole earth, having been involved with the creation thereof.
That this is true is easily confirmed – Jesus was made wisdom – I Cor 1:30] and that he was made wisdom “to us” (Christians) I Cor 1:30] and that he increased in wisdom, while a lad [Luke 2:52] certainly should settle that issue. Wisdom cannot increase in wisdom.
Quote Peace and love Irene And grace and hope to you and yours from me and mine
Quote (Baker @ Mar. 04 2011,20:32) Hi Palasdin, I am glad you did come back, and so early in the morning, Have a nice day…..
Peace and love Irene
Hello dear sister;How could I not?
Quote (Paladin @ Feb. 25 2011,00:29)
If I understand this “Incarnation” trinity theory, you are telling me that Jesus preexisted with the Father in eternity, then “incarnated” by the Holy spirit in the womb of Mary.Scripture tells a far different story. At least three times in three different accounts, we are told that Jesus is the seed of Adam or the woman (Eve), in Messianic prophecies.
We are told of the seed promise beginning with Gen 3:15, where the woman is told “Thy seed” so the incarnation begins with this woman of prophecy. Then her progeny carry that seed, and passed it on through several generations till Abraham is specifically mentioned by name, as one in a long line of the “seed carriers.” He is promised that “through thy seed” all nations will be blessed. It is similar to the promise first made to “the woman” of Gen 3:15.
Then Abrahams line begins in turn, to carry that seed from father to son to son to son through a long line of seed carriers. It goes in promise through Isaac, Jacob/Israel, Judah, Jesse, David, Mary, of whom it is said Jesus “was made of a woman” just like the promise began way back in Gen 3:15.
If there is indeed an “incarnation” where did it take place. I contend it would have been in the woman of Gen 3:15, because each carrier of the seed would be “carnate” and the seed would be within, or “incarnate.”
The seed had to be passed from generation to generation, for each generation in turn would “excarnate” so the seed would have to have been passed prior to that “excarnation” event.
The passing of the seed is parammount to comprehension of the “incarnation” of the Christ.
Is anyone going to respond to the issues raised in the OP? I think it is totally relavant to the trinitarian position, as it defines what it means to be “incarnated,' and only lacks detemining at what moment it took place, forever determining the origin of Jesus, whether it be in Mat 1:20 or in eternity.
What say you all?
Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 04 2011,09:09) Is anyone going to respond to the issues raised in the OP?
I am!I'm battling wars in at least 5 other active threads right now, but things slow down here during the weekend. So I'll take up where I left off in schooling you about the pre-existence of our Lord, through whom the universe was created.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 05 2011,11:35) Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 04 2011,09:09) Is anyone going to respond to the issues raised in the OP?
I am!I'm battling wars in at least 5 other active threads right now, but things slow down here during the weekend. So I'll take up where I left off in schooling you about the pre-existence of our Lord, through whom the universe was created.
mike
I appreciate the fact that the thread still lives Mike, But I am not following the battle of the pre-existant Christ on this thread, only the questin of the timing of the incarnation. Is it possible we can stick to the theme of the OP? And take up the gauntlet of the pre-existance issue on another thread?Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 05 2011,02:09) Quote (Paladin @ Feb. 25 2011,00:29)
If I understand this “Incarnation” trinity theory, you are telling me that Jesus preexisted with the Father in eternity, then “incarnated” by the Holy spirit in the womb of Mary.Scripture tells a far different story. At least three times in three different accounts, we are told that Jesus is the seed of Adam or the woman (Eve), in Messianic prophecies.
We are told of the seed promise beginning with Gen 3:15, where the woman is told “Thy seed” so the incarnation begins with this woman of prophecy. Then her progeny carry that seed, and passed it on through several generations till Abraham is specifically mentioned by name, as one in a long line of the “seed carriers.” He is promised that “through thy seed” all nations will be blessed. It is similar to the promise first made to “the woman” of Gen 3:15.
Then Abrahams line begins in turn, to carry that seed from father to son to son to son through a long line of seed carriers. It goes in promise through Isaac, Jacob/Israel, Judah, Jesse, David, Mary, of whom it is said Jesus “was made of a woman” just like the promise began way back in Gen 3:15.
If there is indeed an “incarnation” where did it take place. I contend it would have been in the woman of Gen 3:15, because each carrier of the seed would be “carnate” and the seed would be within, or “incarnate.”
The seed had to be passed from generation to generation, for each generation in turn would “excarnate” so the seed would have to have been passed prior to that “excarnation” event.
The passing of the seed is parammount to comprehension of the “incarnation” of the Christ.
Is anyone going to respond to the issues raised in the OP? I think it is totally relavant to the trinitarian position, as it defines what it means to be “incarnated,' and only lacks detemining at what moment it took place, forever determining the origin of Jesus, whether it be in Mat 1:20 or in eternity.
What say you all?
Paladin……..what you posted brought to mind where it is Said Abraham Paid Tithes and therefore Levi was also considered to have tithed when he was in the Loins of his Father Abraham. Good points you have brought out . I believe Peter pretty much said it right “Jesus was FOREORDAINED (PREPLANNED) “BUT” was MANIFESTED IN OUR TIME” is accurate and fit what you and i both have been saying.peace and love to you and yours………………………….gene
Paladin…………I left a post for you on the Soul thread and would like you commits on it brother.
peace and love……………..gene
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Mar. 05 2011,22:53) Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 05 2011,02:09) Quote (Paladin @ Feb. 25 2011,00:29)
If I understand this “Incarnation” trinity theory, you are telling me that Jesus preexisted with the Father in eternity, then “incarnated” by the Holy spirit in the womb of Mary.Scripture tells a far different story. At least three times in three different accounts, we are told that Jesus is the seed of Adam or the woman (Eve), in Messianic prophecies.
We are told of the seed promise beginning with Gen 3:15, where the woman is told “Thy seed” so the incarnation begins with this woman of prophecy. Then her progeny carry that seed, and passed it on through several generations till Abraham is specifically mentioned by name, as one in a long line of the “seed carriers.” He is promised that “through thy seed” all nations will be blessed. It is similar to the promise first made to “the woman” of Gen 3:15.
Then Abrahams line begins in turn, to carry that seed from father to son to son to son through a long line of seed carriers. It goes in promise through Isaac, Jacob/Israel, Judah, Jesse, David, Mary, of whom it is said Jesus “was made of a woman” just like the promise began way back in Gen 3:15.
If there is indeed an “incarnation” where did it take place. I contend it would have been in the woman of Gen 3:15, because each carrier of the seed would be “carnate” and the seed would be within, or “incarnate.”
The seed had to be passed from generation to generation, for each generation in turn would “excarnate” so the seed would have to have been passed prior to that “excarnation” event.
The passing of the seed is parammount to comprehension of the “incarnation” of the Christ.
Is anyone going to respond to the issues raised in the OP? I think it is totally relavant to the trinitarian position, as it defines what it means to be “incarnated,' and only lacks detemining at what moment it took place, forever determining the origin of Jesus, whether it be in Mat 1:20 or in eternity.
What say you all?
Paladin……..what you posted brought to mind where it is Said Abraham Paid Tithes and therefore Levi was also considered to have tithed when he was in the Loins of his Father Abraham. Good points you have brought out . I believe Peter pretty much said it right “Jesus was FOREORDAINED (PREPLANNED) “BUT” was MANIFESTED IN OUR TIME” is accurate and fit what you and i both have been saying. [/quote]
Correctly spoken myf riend. but that is not the significant thing. Did you realize that by that same perspective, Jesus also paid tithes when he was in the loins of his Father Abraham.
Did you also consider that Jesus had the human propensity for sin when he was in the loins of his Father David? Yet, he who knew no sin, was made to be sin on our behalf. Mesks you appreciate more, doesn't it?
Quote peace and love to you and yours……..gene And grace and hope to you and yours from me and mine
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Mar. 05 2011,23:16) Paladin…………I left a post for you on the Soul thread and would like you commits on it brother. peace and love……………..gene
Where is this “soul thread?” Do you have a link?Quote (Paladin @ Feb. 24 2011,07:29) If I understand this “Incarnation” trinity theory, you are telling me that Jesus preexisted with the Father in eternity, then “incarnated” by the Holy spirit in the womb of Mary. Scripture tells a far different story. At least three times in three different accounts, we are told that Jesus is the seed of Adam or the woman (Eve), in Messianic prophecies.
We are told of the seed promise beginning with Gen 3:15, where the woman is told “Thy seed” so the incarnation begins with this woman of prophecy. Then her progeny carry that seed, and passed it on through several generations till Abraham is specifically mentioned by name, as one in a long line of the “seed carriers.” He is promised that “through thy seed” all nations will be blessed. It is similar to the promise first made to “the woman” of Gen 3:15.
Then Abrahams line begins in turn, to carry that seed from father to son to son to son through a long line of seed carriers. It goes in promise through Isaac, Jacob/Israel, Judah, Jesse, David, Mary, of whom it is said Jesus “was made of a woman” just like the promise began way back in Gen 3:15.
If there is indeed an “incarnation” where did it take place. I contend it would have been in the woman of Gen 3:15, because each carrier of the seed would be “carnate” and the seed would be within, or “incarnate.”
The seed had to be passed from generation to generation, for each generation in turn would “excarnate” so the seed would have to have been passed prior to that “excarnation” event.
The passing of the seed is parammount to comprehension of the “incarnation” of the Christ.
Are you saying that Jesus was NOT incarnated in Mary by God Himself through His Holy Spirit? I don't get it.
I jumped over to this thread at the request of Irene. And by that time you two were discussing the very pre-existence you mention in your OP, so I'm confused as to why you now say this ISN'T the topic.
As far as the rest of your OP, there is no contradiction I can see. Jesus certainly was of the seed of Adam and David and Mary…………….ACCORDING TO THE FLESH. And this “according to the flesh” is many times pointed out clearly for us in later scriptures.
The simple answer to your question of where the incarnation took place is: In the womb of Mary, through the seed that had passed from generation to generation from Adam and Eve on through the history of mankind.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 06 2011,01:59) Quote (Paladin @ Feb. 24 2011,07:29) If I understand this “Incarnation” trinity theory, you are telling me that Jesus preexisted with the Father in eternity, then “incarnated” by the Holy spirit in the womb of Mary. Scripture tells a far different story. At least three times in three different accounts, we are told that Jesus is the seed of Adam or the woman (Eve), in Messianic prophecies.
We are told of the seed promise beginning with Gen 3:15, where the woman is told “Thy seed” so the incarnation begins with this woman of prophecy. Then her progeny carry that seed, and passed it on through several generations till Abraham is specifically mentioned by name, as one in a long line of the “seed carriers.” He is promised that “through thy seed” all nations will be blessed. It is similar to the promise first made to “the woman” of Gen 3:15.
Then Abrahams line begins in turn, to carry that seed from father to son to son to son through a long line of seed carriers. It goes in promise through Isaac, Jacob/Israel, Judah, Jesse, David, Mary, of whom it is said Jesus “was made of a woman” just like the promise began way back in Gen 3:15.
If there is indeed an “incarnation” where did it take place. I contend it would have been in the woman of Gen 3:15, because each carrier of the seed would be “carnate” and the seed would be within, or “incarnate.”
The seed had to be passed from generation to generation, for each generation in turn would “excarnate” so the seed would have to have been passed prior to that “excarnation” event.
The passing of the seed is parammount to comprehension of the “incarnation” of the Christ.
Are you saying that Jesus was NOT incarnated in Mary by God Himself through His Holy Spirit? I don't get it.
I jumped over to this thread at the request of Irene. And by that time you two were discussing the very pre-existence you mention in your OP, so I'm confused as to why you now say this ISN'T the topic.
As far as the rest of your OP, there is no contradiction I can see. Jesus certainly was of the seed of Adam and David and Mary…………….ACCORDING TO THE FLESH. And this “according to the flesh” is many times pointed out clearly for us in later scriptures.
The simple answer to your question of where the incarnation took place is: In the womb of Mary, through the seed that had passed from generation to generation from Adam and Eve on through the history of mankind.
mike
If you understand Paul's admonition, when he said “are ye not yet carnal?” it was a reference to their being in the flesh instead of being spiritual, or “in the spirit.”There is an undertanding that carnality and fleshly mean pretty much the same thing. When Jesus was passed from generation to generation, it was through the seed promise made to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, all the way to Mary. It did not begin with Mary. It ended there with the birth of the promised seed. – “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.”[Gal 3:16]
The only way the seed which is Christ, could be the seed of Abaham, is if the seed was passed from generation to generation down through time till the fulness of time, when God sent forth his son, being about thirty years of age.
Therefore, the “incarnation” of Jesus began with Adam, according to the geneologies in the new testament, and began with “the woman” of Gen 3:15 according to the messianic prophecies. This completely destroys the trinitarian perspective that Jesus was “incarnated” at his birth from Mary.
Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 05 2011,16:27) Therefore, the “incarnation” of Jesus began with Adam, according to the geneologies in the new testament, and began with “the woman” of Gen 3:15 according to the messianic prophecies. This completely destroys the trinitarian perspective that Jesus was “incarnated” at his birth from Mary.
Hey Paladin,I'm all for “destroying trinitarian perspectives”!
But we must be thinking of “incarnate” differently. The following is the first definition from Dictionary.com:embodied in flesh; given a body, especially a human, form: a devil incarnate.
Their example of “a devil incarnate” refers to a living person, not a “seed” that is still thousands of years away from becoming a flesh and blood person.
I understand Jesus to be “incarnated” when he began to have flesh of his own, which would have been as a fetus in Mary. But I could also understand it to mean the day he was born in the flesh. Either would work for me.
But I'm not on board with you that Jesus was “incarnated” in the days of Adam and Eve…………..or in the days of Abraham. Nor do I see how Jesus being “incarnated” in the days of Eve would make any difference to the trinitarians. It doesn't answer their claim that Jesus was God Almighty, but came in the flesh as a man. Isn't their claim the same no matter WHEN you move the time of incarnation to?
Maybe I'm missing something?
peace and love,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 06 2011,10:48) [/quote] Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 05 2011,16:27) Therefore, the “incarnation” of Jesus began with Adam, according to the geneologies in the new testament, and began with “the woman” of Gen 3:15 according to the messianic prophecies. This completely destroys the trinitarian perspective that Jesus was “incarnated” at his birth from Mary. Hey Paladin,
I'm all for “destroying trinitarian perspectives”!
But we must be thinking of “incarnate” differently. The following is the first definition from Dictionary.com:embodied in flesh; given a body, especially a human, form: a devil incarnate.
Their example of “a devil incarnate” refers to a living person, not a “seed” that is still thousands of years away from becoming a flesh and blood person.
I understand Jesus to be “incarnated” when he began to have flesh of his own, which would have been as a fetus in Mary. But I could also understand it to mean the day he was born in the flesh. Either would work for me.
But I'm not on board with you that Jesus was “incarnated” in the days of Adam and Eve…………..or in the days of Abraham. Nor do I see how Jesus being “incarnated” in the days of Eve would make any difference to the trinitarians. It doesn't answer their claim that Jesus was God Almighty, but came in the flesh as a man. Isn't their claim the same no matter WHEN you move the time of incarnation to?
Maybe I'm missing something?
You are correct Mike, in that I introduced the concept of Christ in eternity; however, the incarnation of Christ from eternity was the theme of the OP. I sometimes have difficulty stating clearly, the issue. Thanks you for pointing out the truth of the matter.
The issue I should have raised, is actually one of the personification of prophecy; i.e., Look to Gen 17:4-5 for the issue personified [incarnated].
“As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. 5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.
In this simple two-verse statement, God demonstrates for all time, the power of his prophetic word. Paul expresses it this way: “As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations, before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.”[ Rom 4:17]
Paul encapsulates the two-verse issue very succinctly, in one verse; i.e., When God pronounces a thing in prophecy, it becomes as true as though it is already reality, even if it is scheduled to happen thousands of years into the future.
My issue is how to personify the prophecy of Gen 17:4-5, which is the reality of the fulfillment of the seed promise personified in Gal 3:16 – “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.”
This fulfillment in Christ did not begin with Mat 1:20, but in Gen 17:4-5, when in two verses he progressed from “Shall make” to “have made” and “called those things which were not, as though they were.”[Rom 4:17][Gal 3:16]
I am trying to show that the personification described in John 1:1-3,14 has nothing to do with the incarnation of Jesus. It is about a different personification altogether.
In my stumbling, bumbling way, I am trying to make evident that the logos of John's writing is not the man Jesus, and John never says it is. In fact, it was John who explained in another place [Rev 3:12][Rev 19:12-13] that “The logos of God” is to be a new name given to Christ at some later time.
The Greek word “kainon” translated “new” means not previously known, or used. It was not applied to Jesus at his birth, (called “incarnation” by trinitarians), but was still a new name previously unknown when John wrote the Apokalypse in 69 a.d., some 39 years after the birth of Jesus.
I don't know how much you know about the ancient New Testament manuscripts, but they were produced by inspiration of the Holy Spirit in a certain chronological order, about which we are told to “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the logos of truth.”[II Tim 2:15]. Paul also tells us
“For we are not as many, which corrupt the logos of God…”[II Cor 2:17].This doctrine of trinity began long before the council of Chalcedon in 451, andhad its roots in the corrupting of the logos of God while Paul was still alive to warn against it. But the Early Church Fathers were enticed by Satan to change the chronologicla order of the manuscripts, so that hwnever new converts came in to be instructed from the scriptures, it was not in the order in which the holy Spiorit inspired them to be written. It was changed, by placing the four gospels first, then the Acts of the Apoistles, followed by the epistles of Paul, etc.
This radically alterred forever, the way the new converts were taught about the logos of God, corrupting its true application from scripture into a false teaching and resulting in the murder of thousands of saints as they fought for centuries to halt the progress of Satan's aggenda.
Paul wrote in 48 a.d. “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” [Gal 2:20]
And
“My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,” [Gal 4:19]
Do you see it Mike? Paul is preaching a concept of Christ being formed in the saint, living in the saint. This concept paul preaches to the whole world. It must be important and significant, don't you think? Wait till you see what Paul names this concept.
Later, in 55 a.d., Paul wrote “Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?”
See the pattern of sound doctrine being developed? “…in doctrine shewing uncorruptness…”[Titus 2:7]
See the pattern of sound doctrine being corrupted? “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;” [II Tim 4:3]
See Satan's aggenda progress here Mike? First, the teachers corrupt the logos, then the students seek out teachers that have abandoned the true doctrine. And how did they abandon it? by changing the order of the manuscriptts. First, they placed Mathew's gospel in the front so they could claim Peter as the teacher to the Gentiles, and as the authority who decides what is truth and what is not. Then they placed John at the front (4th gospel) to show the logos as the personified pre-existant Christ.
But Paul continued as he teaches in a different chronology –
In 60 a.d. he wrote – “And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled 22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: 23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved aw
ay from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;” [Col 1:21-23]Paul said they were not to move away from the hope of the gospel, which was preached to every creature under heaven. He has warned about teachers who currupt the logos of God; he has warned about new converts searching out these false teachers, to tickle their itching ears; and he has defined “the logos of God” and it's personification, in the following statement
“Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church: 25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fully preach the logos of God; 26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: 27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles;which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:” [Col 1:21-27]
John then (69 a.d.) tells us “the logos of God” is to be a new name given to Jesus at some undisclosed time. When John in 96 a.d. writes his gospel, he is reminded of this by inspiration of the Holy spirit, and applies this as a name to Jesus, it is not what and who Jesus is, it is a name given to him as a reminder to us, that when we submit our life to Jesus, so that it is no longer I that live, but Christ lives in me, the logos of God (the concept of Christ living in me) is personified again, and is so every time a new saint submits his life to the “New and living way” of Christ in me.
No other apostle could have applied this name to jesus, because it was not applied at his birth, which they covered in their accounts, but John wrote over sixty years after the fact, and knew about the “new name” and its personification in the lives of the saints. “And the logos became flesh and dwelled among us.”
John's reference to “in the beginning” was the same beginning referenced by Jesus whan he said – “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 beginning, because I was with you.” [Johnn 16:4]
The “logos of God” must be separated in Christian's minds or they will forever waste their time wrestling with trinity doctrine and corrupting the logos of God,
I hope this lengthy post clears up the issue of the incarnation of Messiah beginning in Gen 17 rather than in John 1.
Quote peace and love, mike And grace and hope to you Mike.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
