Examination of the incarnation doctrine.

[Paladin]

First of all, Very Good Wispering. Only a point or two I would clarify, but the basic understanding is right on. And it is not simply a case of “you must say it like I say it” as so much of the thread seems to say. The reality is, logos and reema are not synonymous. Logos can be corrupted, reema will always remain God's recorded account. Men alter the written word every time it is translated into a new tongue.  

But God's logos can be corrupted every time someone acts upon a belief that is developed by reading it backwards, for one example. I have repeatedly attempted on this thread, to introduce to people the concept (logos) that you cannot read God's word beginning at the back of the book, and understand it with anything like its true purpose, but that is what most on this thread are doing.

Now, to your post –

Quote (Wispring @ May 28 2011,11:58)

Hi Folks, When God has a word or words within his mind before he expresses them they are uncorrupted. When he communicates them they are uncorrupted. When a human mind recieves them they are uncorrupted. When one human communicates them to another human is the point in the communication process that they can become corrupted. When one person reads the words of God (i.e. scriptures) and re-communicates them to another, they can either knowingly or unknowingly corrupt them. In the case of knowingly, the person is attempting to subvert or go against God's word in order to deceive people. This person will receive his/her reward. In the case of unknowingly, the person may not truly understand the words read in the spirit or intent in which they were given for a number of reasons. One reason is translation of manuscripts by people with a doctrinal agenda that is not God's that bias the written translation one way or another. Another reason is simple lack of understanding of the multiple meanings of some words in scriptures. In the search for truth this can be the most mentally challenging part. The Hebrew language is based on a people/culture who were concrete thinkers and related experiences and lived life with a language that was based on things they could see, taste, touch, and feel. The Hebrew psychology is very action based. They were a very “Actions speak louder than words” people. Even thier abstract concepts were based on concrete reality. This is evidenced by a method Christ Jesus used when speaking. He would used very earthy not-spiritual concepts to explain spiritual concepts. The Greek language is more abstract-thought oriented. This is evidenced by all the philosophers and philosophies and mathematics that have been produced by the Greek culture. I am not saying one culture is superior to the other. What I am saying is that perhaps God left us manuscripts in both languages and cultures so that we could could reap the best of both in our attempts to obey him and do his will,also to grow in knowledge of things both earthly and spiritual in our own lives.

Absolutely right spot on correct, until you get to the issue of why God produced the Greek account of the old testament. God had promised Abraham that he would become the father of many nations. The Hebrews constitute one nation, the Gentiles ar emany nations.

God supplied the Hebrew nation sufficient information and doctrine to enable them to come to God's appointed Messiah/ Christ. He was one of their own, therefore, the information they needed was mostly about their own theology.

The Gentiles however, were a many-faceted theological mixture, requiring a far more detailed account about many things the Jews did not need, in order for the Gentiles to be brought to Christ.

For example, it was not told to Israel, that a virgin would beget a child, but it was simply taught that a young maid would  do so. There is a vast difference between the Hebrew “almah,” (young woman) and the Greek “parthenos,” which most certainly does mean “Virgin.”

The problem is not one of men trying to change God's word, it is one of men failing to understand God gave Israel two different accounts of what had transpired in the old testament. He gave one account in the Hebrew, and another in the Greek. He did this for two reasons, (or three). First, his people were not listening to his words, and were ignoring his restraints. So he began to teach te=hem as one would teach a baby, line upon line, precept upoin precept, here a little there a little, for the express purpose of trapping them in their behaviour of rebellion.

And the way He did this is very simple. When the Jews went into captivity to the Medo/Persian empire under Cyrus, having been dispersed among the nations, they were alowed back into their country to rebuild the temple, and the city walls, in keeping with God's pronouncement concerning Cyrus.

They developed a system, (being absent from the temple as they were) building synagogues in every city that has twelve adult males in attendance. If there were not twelve adult males to attend there was no synagogue in that city. Each synagogue had a copy of the Greek texts. The Hebrew account resided only in Jerusalem in the temple.

Thus was developed a two-tiered teaching system in Jewry; In Jeruslame and Israel, there remained the system defined by the Hebrew Scriptures, but in the synagogues found throughtout the Gentile nations, where ever the Jews were in abundance sufficiently to produce twelve adult males, the system developed using the Greek scriptures given them by God.

The significant thing about this, is that they never mixed and debated the issues that later became so important it split the Hebrew theological hierarchy. And the reason for this is simple, God kept them apart so they wuld not discuss the differences, and satan would have learned about things only discovered under examination after Christ was put to death.
If Satan had know, he would never have crucified the son of God.

“Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: 7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: 8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. 10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.”

The Jews, in their own arrogance, considered themselves so far above the Gentile nations, that they would not even consider Greek a language they needed to study, and said the Greek was just a bad translation of the Hebrew; but since God had given it into their hands for safekeeping, they could not just throw it away.

So it remained in their keeping for approximately four hundred years (no one knows exactly when it was produced); And when Messiah/Christ appeared on the scene, he and his disciples used Septuagint in most of their quotes from the old testament. Some of their quotes were mixed, i.e., using both the Hebrew and the Greek, and some few were simply quotes
from the Hebrew.

Later, when the Jewish Sanhedren, and the leaders of the Jews took on the newly established Christians in debate, the Christians were using the Greek account from the synagogues, while the Jews used the Hebrew account from the temple.

The Hebrew debaters lost every confrontation for over a  hundred years because they were not familiar with the Greek, but could not deny it because it was placed into their keeping
by God himself. So they were in a quandry of theological despair unlike anything they had ever experienced.

This remaind their lot until after the turn of the century when a disgruntled Jewish convert to Christianity, named Acquila produced what is nown as a rescension, in 125 a.d. for the express purpose of destroying the influence of Septuagint.

Later rescensions were developed by Symmachus, Theodotion, and Origen who developed what is known as “Hexapla, Tetrapla, Octapla, and finally Enneapla, named for the number of collumns down each page.

The first, Hexapla, had six columns comprised of 1st, the Hebrew text; 2nd Hebrew text expressed in Greek; 3rd the version of Aquila; 4th that of Symmachus; 5th the Septuagint and 6th the version of Theodotian. Origen later developed the three more versions named above.  

Quote

While it is true that God's word(s) will not return to him without performing what it (they) were sent out to do (almost like radar), to the best of my understanding, not all of God's word(s) will be received and re-communicated to all people, all the time, with the spirit and intent that God originally sent them.

Amen.

Quote

I base this understanding on simple observation of reality, history, and reading of the bible itself which is replete with this phenomena that evidences this mis-communication. I humbly submit that to my mind the obviousness of the information and concepts I have communicated in this post has been evident to me since my teen years when I started realizing that the world and the history of the world wasn't indentical to the things I was taught from history books in school. It was later that I was introduced to the concept of “The winners are the the ones that write history”. Notice I typed here “write history”, not truly experienced and truly recorded. In closing, I hope this post communicates how the Logos/ rheema of God can be corrupted and at the same time God remains uncorrupted.                                            With Love and more love,                                                              Wispring

The post is an excellent post my friend, only excepting the fact that scriptures tells us logos is corrupted by men, never does it so say about reema. I think perhaps because reema, while recorded, and subject to copyists errors, God will keep his account current by leading holy men to truth. Remember even Luke said ” And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.” [Acts 2:40]

The point being simply with every translation into a new language the reema changes, only the logos remins constant, until men corrupt it, and lose it by reading from the back of the book and lose the meaning developed by the front of the book.

Thank you for an excellent account my friend.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Wispring @ May 29 2011,22:36)

Hi Paladin and Mike,   I have been doing some research on the use of the word para. While it is true that in english the words from and by can mean essentially the same thing, in greek, the “from” meaning is a particular point of departure and the “by” is a frame of reference that means “close to” in physical reality when referring to things in physical reality or on account of in casual(less formal) use. Quote a primary preposition; properly, near; i.e. (with genitive case) from beside (literally or figuratively), (with dative case) at (or in) the vicinity of (objectively or subjectively), (with accusative case) to the proximity with (local (especially beyond or opposed to) or causal (on account of)…by, in the sight of, than, (there-)fore, with. In compounds it retains the same variety of application.   This is from my ISA program strong's database. What I am understanding is that the word “from” is used in the genetive case.  At or in in the dative case. By in the accusative case.   I will readily admit I am an ultra-beginner in Greek. That being said do you think I am understanding the english in this strong's explanation of how the word para is used in greek and translated to english?                                                                    With Love and love,                                                                             Wispring

Hi Wispring,

In John 1:6, “God” is genitive.  So para would literally mean “from beside” God.  But since there is no indication in the scriptures that John the Baptist was LITERALLY sent from beside God, I assume it is figurative.  When many translations render it as “sent from God”, the understanding is also figurative, and not intended to mean John was sent directly from the literal presence of God Himself.

But it could also be a casual use, which has the conotation of “on account of”.  John the Baptist was sent “on account of God”, or “by God”.

I think you overlooked this casual meaning of “by”.  So, just like in English, “by” could mean “close proximity” or “on account of”.

Therefore, 1:6 could be faithfully translated as “sent from God” or “sent by God”.  Either way, it is clear that God did the sending, but from what else we know about John the Baptist, it is unlikely that he was sent literally from the presence of God.

Shall we break down John 17:5 the same way, so we can see whether or not a figurative understanding of para is supported in that scripture?

mike

[Paladin]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ May 28 2011,23:49)

Paladin……….Would like to know your understanding of what the word  (became) in Greek means, it is my understanding that word should be rendered as (came to be) so to me the Logos who to me is and was GOD the FATHER (came to be) (IN) Jesus by way of the anointing He recieved. To me it is impossible for a “WORD” which is the expression of SPIRIT to ever become flesh, because i see a Word as the expression of intellect or Spirit (intellect) uttered. I have never seen a (flesh word) but i have seen men (in) whom non flesh words derived from Spirits exist.  Do you see my point brother.  I do agree with you that Jesus did not have his existence until  he was born on earth , that we do totally agree on, but i am having trouble separating GOD from HIS Word. Because i see words as being formed by Spirit cognates that are (IN) a person.  IMO peace and love to you and yours………………………………….gene

Hello Brother;

I think if you let go of this idea of “word spirit/intellect” combination, and think of words as bullets, shot from over zealous mouths, by tongues of fire that cannot be contained, you might see what God thinks of it.

It wa sgod who pointed out the inability of men to control their tongues, because of the words they produce in anger, in haste, in error, and etc.

words, once shot from the mouth, cannot be recalled, so they certainly do not remain one with their source. They are no “part of who you are” in any sence I can see. They might very well represent what you once thoughtm, but if you ar enormal, surely there have been times you no longer think what you once thought.

Apologies are developed constantly over a change of mind about words spoken in haste, or in anger, or in ignorance.

No, my friend, I do not think of words as part of who I am, and sometimes I do not like to think of them as who I once was. Rather, I think of them as attempts at communication, which sometimes almost succeed.

Words are tools of communication, sometimes inspired by our spirit, but they are not our spirit expressing itself. That is why scripture speaks of words as coming from our heart, or our minds, because heart and mind are flesh, as also is tongue.

Keep up the study my friend, you are getting there by God's grace.

[Paladin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 30 2011,05:24)

Quote (Paladin @ May 25 2011,03:17) Written… Egeneto anthrwpos apestalmenos para theou… Translated… There was a man sent from God… If Mike wants to change the scriptures to read (Mike's translatin) There was a man sent by God… I cannot correct you for you do not take correction too well. Hi Paladin, Do you really want to go down this road?   Luke 1:45 NASB © “And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what had been spoken to her by the Lord.” This is the word “para” also, Paladin.  You'll notice that some translations render it as “from the Lord” and others as “by the Lord”.  There are many more scriptures I could post where “para” is translated as “by”. So will you still insist that John 1:6 could not have been referring to someone who was sent BY God? MSG © There once was a man, his name John, sent by God. Apostolic Bible Polyglot Interlinear 1:6   There existed a man being sent by God, the name to him — John. How about now? mike

No, Mike, but I have finally got you to see that Jesus came by way of heaven, as in, “by the authority of” heaven; just like the baptism of John.

Thanks.

[Paladin]

Quote (Wispring @ May 30 2011,15:36)

Hi Paladin and Mike,   I have been doing some research on the use of the word para. While it is true that in english the words from and by can mean essentially the same thing, in greek, the “from” meaning is a particular point of departure and the “by” is a frame of reference that means “close to” in physical reality when referring to things in physical reality or on account of in casual(less formal) use. Quote a primary preposition; properly, near; i.e. (with genitive case) from beside (literally or figuratively), (with dative case) at (or in) the vicinity of (objectively or subjectively), (with accusative case) to the proximity with (local (especially beyond or opposed to) or causal (on account of)…by, in the sight of, than, (there-)fore, with. In compounds it retains the same variety of application.   This is from my ISA program strong's database. What I am understanding is that the word “from” is used in the genetive case.  At or in in the dative case. By in the accusative case.   I will readily admit I am an ultra-beginner in Greek. That being said do you think I am understanding the english in this strong's explanation of how the word para is used in greek and translated to english?                                                                    With Love and love,                                                                             Wispring

I haaven't done that study my friend, but at some point, may well do so.

thanks for the input.

[Paladin]

Quote (Wispring @ May 30 2011,15:36)

Hi Paladin and Mike,   I have been doing some research on the use of the word para. While it is true that in english the words from and by can mean essentially the same thing, in greek, the “from” meaning is a particular point of departure and the “by” is a frame of reference that means “close to” in physical reality when referring to things in physical reality or on account of in casual(less formal) use. Quote a primary preposition; properly, near; i.e. (with genitive case) from beside (literally or figuratively), (with dative case) at (or in) the vicinity of (objectively or subjectively), (with accusative case) to the proximity with (local (especially beyond or opposed to) or causal (on account of)…by, in the sight of, than, (there-)fore, with. In compounds it retains the same variety of application.   This is from my ISA program strong's database. What I am understanding is that the word “from” is used in the genetive case.  At or in in the dative case. By in the accusative case.   I will readily admit I am an ultra-beginner in Greek. That being said do you think I am understanding the english in this strong's explanation of how the word para is used in greek and translated to english?                                                                    With Love and love,                                                                             Wispring

Luke 1:30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.

“Mary} is vocative
“with” is dative
“God” is dative

Quote

(with dative case) at (or in) the vicinity of

I think mary would have to be at or in the vicinity of God (whatever that implies) for the statement to be true. I think they have not thought this one through.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Paladin @ May 30 2011,10:15)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 30 2011,05:24) Quote (Paladin @ May 25 2011,03:17) Written… Egeneto anthrwpos apestalmenos para theou… Translated… There was a man sent from God… If Mike wants to change the scriptures to read (Mike's translatin) There was a man sent by God… I cannot correct you for you do not take correction too well. Hi Paladin, Do you really want to go down this road?   Luke 1:45 NASB © “And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what had been spoken to her by the Lord.” This is the word “para” also, Paladin.  You'll notice that some translations render it as “from the Lord” and others as “by the Lord”.  There are many more scriptures I could post where “para” is translated as “by”. So will you still insist that John 1:6 could not have been referring to someone who was sent BY God? MSG © There once was a man, his name John, sent by God. Apostolic Bible Polyglot Interlinear 1:6   There existed a man being sent by God, the name to him — John. How about now? mike No, Mike, but I have finally got you to see that Jesus came by way of heaven, as in, “by the authority of” heaven; just like the baptism of John. Thanks.

It's all about the context, isn't it Paladin?

We know that Jesus' statement in John 6 could have been figurative……..OR LITERAL, right?  So what does the CONTEXT tell us?

1.  Did the Jews to whom he was speaking take it “figuratively”, in which case they would have said, “Big deal, we ALL come from God in heaven”.  Or did they take it LITERALLY and say, “How can this dude, who we KNOW came from Nazareth, now say he came from heaven?”

2.  Did some of those very Jews later see Jesus “figuratively” ascend to where he was before?  Or did they LITERALLY see him ascend to heaven?

See?  It's all about the context.  In the case of John the Baptist, there is no scriptural indication that 1:6 should be taken literally, so there's no reason to take it that way.  But in the case of chapter 6 and 17:5, there is much scriptural indication that “para” should be taken literally.

Surely you can see the difference?

peace,
mike

[Paladin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 31 2011,03:52)

Quote (Paladin @ May 30 2011,10:15) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 30 2011,05:24) Quote (Paladin @ May 25 2011,03:17) Written… Egeneto anthrwpos apestalmenos para theou… Translated… There was a man sent from God… If Mike wants to change the scriptures to read (Mike's translatin) There was a man sent by God… I cannot correct you for you do not take correction too well. Hi Paladin, Do you really want to go down this road?   Luke 1:45 NASB © “And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what had been spoken to her by the Lord.” This is the word “para” also, Paladin.  You'll notice that some translations render it as “from the Lord” and others as “by the Lord”.  There are many more scriptures I could post where “para” is translated as “by”. So will you still insist that John 1:6 could not have been referring to someone who was sent BY God? MSG © There once was a man, his name John, sent by God. Apostolic Bible Polyglot Interlinear 1:6   There existed a man being sent by God, the name to him — John. How about now? mike No, Mike, but I have finally got you to see that Jesus came by way of heaven, as in, “by the authority of” heaven; just like the baptism of John. Thanks. It's all about the context, isn't it Paladin? We know that Jesus' statement in John 6 could have been figurative……..OR LITERAL, right?  So what does the CONTEXT tell us? 1.  Did the Jews to whom he was speaking take it “figuratively”, in which case they would have said, “Big deal, we ALL come from God in heaven”.  Or did they take it LITERALLY and say, “How can this dude, who we KNOW came from Nazareth, now say he came from heaven?” 2.  Did some of those very Jews later see Jesus “figuratively” ascend to where he was before?  Or did they LITERALLY see him ascend to heaven? See?  It's all about the context.  In the case of John the Baptist, there is no scriptural indication that 1:6 should be taken literally, so there's no reason to take it that way.  But in the case of chapter 6 and 17:5, there is much scriptural indication that “para” should be taken literally. Surely you can see the difference? peace, mike

“Mary found favor with God” – Literal? or Figurative?

Are you saying she only figuratively found favor with God?

[Paladin]

Quote (Pastry @ May 26 2011,14:11)

Hbr 1:8 But unto the Son [he saith], Thy throne, O God, [is] for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness [is] the scepter of thy kingdom.  9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, [even] thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: Notice verse 10, in the beginning hast LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH< AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF THINE HANDS….. it is by Jesus that Almighty God created all.

Hello dear sister; If you have a moment, let us look at the portion of your post dealing with the creation of the world, and its destruction.

Your reference was Heb 1:8-10; Try looking at it from Heb 1:10-12 –

Psa 102:24-27
24: I said, O my (El) God, take me not away in the midst of my days: thy years are throughout all generations.25: Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. 26: They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: 27: But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end.

Heb 1:10-12 (Quoted from Psa 102:24-27 and applied to Resurrected Christ}
Hebrews 1:10 And, Thou, ~Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: 11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; 12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail. [~Lord is Grk – vocative]

God made all things, and appointed Jesus as overseer, till the end of time. “God that made the world and all things therein…” -Acts 17:24

“Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the ages;” -Heb 1:2

Through faith we understand that the aions (ages) were (adjusted) framed by the (rhema) word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. -Hebrews 11:3

In Gen 17:4-5 God makes two amazing statements; Amazing in the sense of the verb tenses involved – 4 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.

Paul explains this by direct quote in his letter to the saints at Rome – Rom 4:17 “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. 18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be. 19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb: 20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; 21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. 22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.”

Sometimes, God does not wait for things to be historically accurate before he references them as being real.

Is the foundation of the earth, laid by Jehovah in the original creation, the same foundation of the earth, laid by Jesus Christ, in the beginning of the new creation? In Scripture, that there were two creations, requiring two foundations, is borne out by the statements of God as found in Isaiah 51:13 and 16.

God says He has already “stretched” the heavens and “LAID” the foundations of earth [Isa 51:13] “And forgettest the LORD thy maker, that hath stretched forth the heavens, and laid the foundations of the earth; and hast feared continually every day because of the fury of the oppressor, as if he were ready to destroy? and where is the fury of the oppressor?

But God also provides that He “May plant the heavens, and lay the foundations of the earth” yet again: [Isa 51:16] And I have put my words in thy mouth, and I have covered thee in the shadow of mine hand, that I may plant the heavens, and lay the foundations of the earth, and say unto Zion, Thou art my people.

God had already PROPHESIED unto his people through Isaiah, [Isa 42:9] “Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare: before they spring forth I tell you of them.

“BEFORE THEY SPRING FORTH I TELL YOU OF THEM.” That is the definition of prophecy. And Paul the apostle understands this very well, as expressed in [Rom 4:17] “…God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not, as though they were.” “NEW THINGS” of which God speaks, before they happen, are prophecies. And He told them of these “new things” in the law of Moses, in the prophets, and in these Psalms.

Behold a prophetic utterance, messianic in scope: [Isa 42:10] Sing unto the LORD a new song, and his praise from the end of the earth, ye that go down to the sea, and all that is therein; the isles, and the inhabitants thereof.

11 Let the wilderness and the cities thereof lift up their voice, the villages that Kedar doth inhabit: let the inhabitants of the rock sing, let them shout from the top of the mountains. 12 Let them give glory unto the LORD, and declare his praise in the islands. 13 The LORD shall go forth as a mighty man, he shall stir up jealousy like a man of war: he shall cry, yea, roar; he shall prevail against his enemies.

14 I have long time holden my peace; I have been still, and refrained myself: now will I cry like a travailing woman; I will destroy and devour at once. 15 I will make waste mountains and hills, and dry up all their herbs; and I will make the rivers islands, and I will dry up the pools. 16 And I will bring the blind by a way that they knew not; I will lead them in paths that they have not known: I will make darkness light before them, and crooked things straight.

These things will I do unto them, and not forsake them. (See also Isa 40:4; 45:2; 59:8; and their fulfillment in [Luke 3:5] “Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough ways shall be made smooth.” Also references of the blind seeing, and many others, too numerous to count.

God speaks of a “new thing” which the Israelites understood to be a change from what they knew; [Isa 43:19] Behold, I will do a new thing; now it shall spring forth; shall ye not know it? I will even make a way in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert.

God spoke of a “new name” by which they would be called: [Isa 62:2] And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the LORD shall name. This is fulfilled in [Acts 11:26] “The disciples were called Christians, first in Antioch.”

NEW HEAVENS AND NEW EARTH: [Isa 65:17] For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

This NEW HEAVEN AND NEW EARTH was to be for ALL FLESH; i.e. Jews and Gentiles coming together as Christians: [Isa 66:22] For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain. 23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.

God revealed in prophecy, his intent to make a NEW COVENANT: Jer 31:31 –
Behold, th
e days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

NEW HEART – NEW SPIRIT for the people of God: [Eze 18:31] Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit… [Eze 36:26] A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

All the statements made by Jesus about putting NEW WINE into OLD WINESKINS come from this prophesy: [Joel 3:18] And it shall come to pass in that day, that the mountains shall drop down new wine, and the hills shall flow with milk, and all the rivers of Judah shall flow with waters, and a fountain shall come forth of the house of the LORD, and shall water the valley of Shittim.

Many are the “NEW THINGS” presented by Jesus and the apostles, throughout the New Testament.

NEW TESTAMENT: [Mat 26:28] For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. [Mark 14:24] And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

[1 Cor 11:25] After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

[Heb 9:15] And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

NEW CELEBRATION IN THE KINGDOM, FOLLOWING THE RESURRECTION: [Mat 26:29] “But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.”

NEW DOCTRINE: [Mark 1:27] And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What thing is this? what new doctrine is this? for with authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits, and they do obey him. [Acts 17:19] And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is?

Speak with NEW TONGUES: [Mark 16:17] And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

A NEW COMMANDMENT: [John 13:34] A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

[1 John 2:7] Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning. 8 Again, a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in him and in you: because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth.

[2 John 1:5] And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another.

A NEW LUMP, casting out the leaven of the old things: [1 Cor 5:7] Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

A NEW CREATURE: [2 Cor 5:17] Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

[Gal 6:15] For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

A NEW MAN: [Eph 2:15] Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

[Eph 4:24] And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

THE NEW COVENANT: [Heb 8:8] For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

[Heb 8:13] In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

[Heb 12:24] And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

A NEW AND LIVING WAY: [Heb 10:20] By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

NEW HEAVENS AND NEW EARTH: [2 Pet 3:13] Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness.

It is obvious from reading the old testament, that there was to be a new heaven and a new earth. And it is just as obvious from the New Testament, that Jesus brought about a new heaven and a new earth of the same fashion as the kingdom which he served so thoroughly, the kingdom which is “Not of this world.” [John 18:36]

When Jesus preached his “sermon on the mount” recorded im Mathew chapters 5 through 7, he preached a “new earth” because it gives us a new approach to getting along with our fellows, and when he entered heaven to sit at God's right hand, all principalities and powers and thrones and dominions had to move down one place to accomodate his new position as second in the kingdom. EVERYTHING was in a new situation compare with what it was the day before.

Hebrews 1:10 And, Thou, ~Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: [~Lord is vocative] 11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; 12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail. [A folded vesture is not a melted earth. It is NOT speaking of the same creation as that which will be “melted with a fervent heat.”]

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Paladin @ May 30 2011,13:31)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 31 2011 @ 03:52) It's all about the context, isn't it Paladin? We know that Jesus' statement in John 6 could have been figurative……..OR LITERAL, right?  So what does the CONTEXT tell us? 1.  Did the Jews to whom he was speaking take it “figuratively”, in which case they would have said, “Big deal, we ALL come from God in heaven”.  Or did they take it LITERALLY and say, “How can this dude, who we KNOW came from Nazareth, now say he came from heaven?” 2.  Did some of those very Jews later see Jesus “figuratively” ascend to where he was before?  Or did they LITERALLY see him ascend to heaven? See?  It's all about the context.  In the case of John the Baptist, there is no scriptural indication that 1:6 should be taken literally, so there's no reason to take it that way.  But in the case of chapter 6 and 17:5, there is much scriptural indication that “para” should be taken literally. Surely you can see the difference? peace, mike “Mary found favor with God” – Literal? or Figurative? Are you saying she only figuratively found favor with God?

And you are having a discussion WITH me.  For sure it is a literal discussion, but are you literally here WITH me?

No more games and sleight of hand, Paladin.

The Jews to whom Jesus was speaking in John 6 understood him to be saying he LITERALLY came DOWN from heaven.  And some of those Jews LITERALLY saw him ascend to “where he was before”…………whether or not you care to acknowledge it.  

[mikeboll64]

Which reminds me Wispring, I forgot to mention the “DOWN” part in John 6 to you.

Using the words “DOWN FROM” makes a big difference from using only the word “FROM”, don't you think?  The “DOWN” goes a long way towards implying a literal “FROM BESIDE”.

peace,
mike

[kerwin]

To all,

Quote

John 9 (King James Version) 30The man answered and said unto them, Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes. 31Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth. 32Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind. 33If this man were not of God, he could do nothing.

In what way does the speaker believe Jesus came from God?

[Paladin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 31 2011,10:57)

Quote (Paladin @ May 30 2011,13:31) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 31 2011 @ 03:52) It's all about the context, isn't it Paladin? We know that Jesus' statement in John 6 could have been figurative……..OR LITERAL, right?  So what does the CONTEXT tell us? 1.  Did the Jews to whom he was speaking take it “figuratively”, in which case they would have said, “Big deal, we ALL come from God in heaven”.  Or did they take it LITERALLY and say, “How can this dude, who we KNOW came from Nazareth, now say he came from heaven?” 2.  Did some of those very Jews later see Jesus “figuratively” ascend to where he was before?  Or did they LITERALLY see him ascend to heaven? See?  It's all about the context.  In the case of John the Baptist, there is no scriptural indication that 1:6 should be taken literally, so there's no reason to take it that way.  But in the case of chapter 6 and 17:5, there is much scriptural indication that “para” should be taken literally. Surely you can see the difference? peace, mike “Mary found favor with God” – Literal? or Figurative? Are you saying she only figuratively found favor with God? And you are having a discussion WITH me.  For sure it is a literal discussion, but are you literally here WITH me? No more games and sleight of hand, Paladin. The Jews to whom Jesus was speaking in John 6 understood him to be saying he LITERALLY came DOWN from heaven.  And some of those Jews LITERALLY saw him ascend to “where he was before”…………whether or not you care to acknowledge it.

And gthat responds to “Mary found favor para God” exactly how?

[Paladin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 31 2011,11:02)

Which reminds me Wispring, I forgot to mention the “DOWN” part in John 6 to you. Using the words “DOWN FROM” makes a big difference from using only the word “FROM”, don't you think?  The “DOWN” goes a long way towards implying a literal “FROM BESIDE”. peace, mike

Paul tells us that concerning the ascension of Jesus
“Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.”

But Paul tells us of something Jesus did first, –
9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?

Then Paul ties it together for us –
10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.

Ephesians 4:9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?

This is reinforced by Peter – His spirit descended below the grave level to visit the spirits imprisoned in the days of Noah.

“For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.”

John asked “What and if ye should [thewrew] see the son of man ascend Up where he was before?” [John 6:62]

Did anyone “thewrew” Jesus after he died?
“Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye [thewrew] see me have.” [Luke 24:39] [thewreite = indicative present active form of thewrew] It responds to John's question in 6:62.

[terraricca]

Quote (kerwin @ June 01 2011,00:24)

To all, Quote John 9 (King James Version) 30The man answered and said unto them, Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes. 31Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth. 32Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind. 33If this man were not of God, he could do nothing. In what way does the speaker believe Jesus came from God?

kerwin

this man talks from ;since the beginning of the world of men does he not,

and John says Christ is from the beginning of creation,

and the man talk s about what he knows and have learned,

the Pharisees knew better ,

Pierre

[942767]

Hi Brother Paladin:

How can what you say here be true:

Quote

This is reinforced by Peter – His spirit descended below the grave level to visit the spirits imprisoned in the days of Noah.

When Jesus said at his death:

Quote

Luk 23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

Love in Christ,
Marty

[kerwin]

Quote (terraricca @ May 31 2011,20:42)

Quote (kerwin @ June 01 2011,00:24) To all, Quote John 9 (King James Version) 30The man answered and said unto them, Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes. 31Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth. 32Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind. 33If this man were not of God, he could do nothing. In what way does the speaker believe Jesus came from God? kerwin this man talks from ;since the beginning of the world of men does he not, and John says Christ is from the beginning of creation, and the man talk s about what he knows and have learned, the Pharisees knew better , Pierre

Pierre,

The man is speaking with the knowledge that all good things come from God. He also regards his being given sight a righteous miracle which has never been heard to done through a human being since the creation of the world.

Later in the account it makes clear he did not yet believe Jesus was the Anointed.

[terraricca]

Quote (kerwin @ June 01 2011,14:24)

Quote (terraricca @ May 31 2011,20:42) Quote (kerwin @ June 01 2011,00:24) To all, Quote John 9 (King James Version) 30The man answered and said unto them, Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes. 31Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth. 32Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind. 33If this man were not of God, he could do nothing. In what way does the speaker believe Jesus came from God? kerwin this man talks from ;since the beginning of the world of men does he not, and John says Christ is from the beginning of creation, and the man talk s about what he knows and have learned, the Pharisees knew better , Pierre Pierre, The man is speaking with the knowledge that all good things come from God.  He also regards his being given sight a righteous miracle which has never been heard to done through a human being since the creation of the world. Later in the account it makes clear he did not yet believe Jesus was the Anointed.

Kerwin

as per your view then only miracles are good things ?

Pierre

[Wispring]

Hi Kerwin,
  The man was blind, not deaf. Maybe he heard this:

Quote

John 9:3-5 (King James Version) 3Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. 4I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work. 5As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.

  The man also may have been aware of the stories in the OT wherby a prophet would heal someone via God's power and will (i.e. a miracle) and therefore called Christ Jesus a prophet.
   The man understood that nothing had ever happened in the known history of such magnitude as of the the restoration of sight to a person that was born blind. When Christ Jesus restored his sight the man thought Christ Jesus was a worshiper of God and that God listened to Christ Jesus and gave the man sight so that a work of God should be made manifest in him.
  This is my understanding. May God's peace be with you.

                                      With Love and more love,
                                                 Wispring

[942767]

Quote (kerwin @ May 31 2011,17:24)

To all, Quote John 9 (King James Version) 30The man answered and said unto them, Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes. 31Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth. 32Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind. 33If this man were not of God, he could do nothing. In what way does the speaker believe Jesus came from God?

Hi Kerwin:

The Pharisees were accusing Jesus of being a sinner, but the man that was healed through the restoration of his eyesight knew that Jesus was sent from God because God confirmed what Jesus was teaching with this miracle. God will not confirm a lie, and so, this is how this man knew that Jesus was sent by God.

Love in Christ,
Marty

[Author]

Posts