- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Lightenup @ May 18 2012,22:59) “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ; and He will reign forever and ever.” 16And the twenty-four elders, who sit on their thrones before God, fell on their faces and worshiped God, 17saying,
“We give You thanks, O Lord God, the Almighty, who are and who were, because You have taken Your great power and have begun to reign.
Okay, walk me through your understanding, Kathi.We agree that Satan is now the god of this world, right? And we agree that God and His anointed one now rule over heaven, right?
Soon, God and His anointed one will begin to rule the earth as well, right?
Why does Jesus eventually hand the Kingdom over to his God so that his God can be all in all?
Mike,
Satan is god of this word in a sense…not as the creator, not as an inherent position by nature, but by permission from God he has been allowed some reign with restrictions for a designated time.God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ together with their Spirit have always ruled over the kingdom of heaven and always will.
Quote Why does Jesus eventually hand the Kingdom over to his God so that his God can be all in all? Ok, this is my understanding…
It is as the Christ, the Mediator/High Priest, that He begins to rule the kingdoms of the earth. Once all His mediatorial/High Priestly duties are complete, His authority as mediator/High Priest is not needed to be exercised and therefore made subject to the only authority left, which will be the fullness of God-the Father with the Son and their Spirit, just like before creation. God in the fullest sense (Father, Son and their Holy Spirit) will be the only God worshiped.Quote (Lightenup @ May 20 2012,22:35) It is as the Christ, the Mediator/High Priest, that He begins to rule the kingdoms of the earth. Once all His mediatorial/High Priestly duties are complete, His authority as mediator/High Priest is not needed to be exercised and therefore made subject to the only authority left, which will be the fullness of God-the Father with the Son and their Spirit,
So Jesus the Priest of God will subject himself to Jesus the God?So Jesus won't be a High Priest forever in the order of Melchisadek like God said?
Mike,
Who would Jesus the High Priest intercede for after He presents His bride to His Father…after all judgment? He could always be the High Priest but this role would probably be unnecessary I would think.Quote So Jesus the Priest of God will subject himself to Jesus the God? Jesus, in His High Priestly role, would subject the reign of the High Priest to the Father and reign as the Son with the Father and not as the High Priest. There would no longer be a need for that role yet we are told that He will be a High Priest forever. That doesn't mean that He will ever have to act in that role.
What do you think?
I think the BEING Jesus Christ will hand over the reigns of the Kingdom to his God. I don't see any distinction between Jesus the Christ of God, Jesus the Priest of God, Jesus the Servant of God, and Jesus the Son of God.
Mike,
you said:Quote I don't see any distinction between Jesus the Christ of God, Jesus the Priest of God, Jesus the Servant of God, and Jesus the Son of God. Jesus was always a Son but not always a High Priest.
An only begotten Son refers to a relationship to the Father by nature.
A High Priesthood is an office which the only begotten Son of God received after He rose from the dead.Heb 2:17
Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.Can you substitute the term 'only begotten Son' for 'high priest' since you say that you do not see any distinction between Jesus the Priest of God and Jesus the Son of God?
The term 'Son of God' does not equal Priest of God but the Son of God can have the office of the Priest of God and does.
Quote (Lightenup @ May 22 2012,19:59) Jesus was always a Son but not always a High Priest.
And I was always a human being, but not always a Christian, or a father, or a driver of automobiles.How does being appointed by his God to the position of High Priest make Jesus the Son any different as a BEING than he always has been?
Can you show me how Jesus the Son is a different being than Jesus the High Priest? Or how Jesus the Servant of God is a different being than Jesus the Christ of God?
Mike,
Jesus the only begotten Son of God pre-existed the flesh and was not considered a human being during His pre-existence. Jesus as the High Priest did not pre-exist the flesh but became a High Priest as a resurrected human being.Would you consider the pre-existent spirit being, Jesus, any different than the human being that came in the flesh? One was a man, one wasn't. Although, the pre-existent Jesus took on flesh and was both divine and human when He did so and was the same person but with two natures, He was not the same exact being. After Jesus rose from the dead, He was a glorified human being as well as what He was while He pre-existed. It was as the glorified human being that He was carrying out the reign that the Father gave Him and it was that glorified human being that must reign until all the enemies were under His feet. The kingdom of the world became the kingdom of God also and it is as the kingdom of God that the Father and
Son reign as one, forever in an everlasting kingdom. The Son of Man rules with the Father as the only begotten Son of God not as the Son of Man although He remains to be both Son of God and Son of man/High Priest.Quote (Lightenup @ May 22 2012,21:47) Would you consider the pre-existent spirit being, Jesus, any different than the human being that came in the flesh? One was a man, one wasn't. Although, the pre-existent Jesus took on flesh and was both divine and human when He did so and was the same person but with two natures, He was not the same exact being.
I agree that Jesus, the pre-existent spirit being was not the same exact being as the flesh Jesus. But I don't believe in a “dual natured Jesus”. I believe he WAS a spirit, THEN made into a man, and THEN raised as a spirit again (no longer man).BUT………………………….
That is a completely different scenario than what you are implying. At least it seems to me that you are implying that, for example, the Priest nature of Jesus is right now subject to the God nature of Jesus. As if one nature of Jesus is the God of the other nature of Jesus.
There is no SCRIPTURAL reason to come to this conclusion – at least none that I have ever noticed. There IS scriptural reason to believe that Jesus once existed in a spirit nature, then existed in a human nature, and now exists in a spirit nature again. But to think that Jesus does now, or has ever existed with two natures at the same time is not of any scripture of which I'm aware.
Kathi, what you seem to be saying is that the “lessor nature” of Jesus will soon subject itself to the “higher nature” of Jesus – as if Jesus will subject himself to Jesus. Is that really what you're saying?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 24 2012,12:19) Quote (Lightenup @ May 22 2012,21:47) Would you consider the pre-existent spirit being, Jesus, any different than the human being that came in the flesh? One was a man, one wasn't. Although, the pre-existent Jesus took on flesh and was both divine and human when He did so and was the same person but with two natures, He was not the same exact being.
I agree that Jesus, the pre-existent spirit being was not the same exact being as the flesh Jesus. But I don't believe in a “dual natured Jesus”. I believe he WAS a spirit, THEN made into a man, and THEN raised as a spirit again (no longer man).BUT………………………….
That is a completely different scenario than what you are implying. At least it seems to me that you are implying that, for example, the Priest nature of Jesus is right now subject to the God nature of Jesus. As if one nature of Jesus is the God of the other nature of Jesus.
There is no SCRIPTURAL reason to come to this conclusion – at least none that I have ever noticed. There IS scriptural reason to believe that Jesus once existed in a spirit nature, then existed in a human nature, and now exists in a spirit nature again. But to think that Jesus does now, or has ever existed with two natures at the same time is not of any scripture of which I'm aware.
Kathi, what you seem to be saying is that the “lessor nature” of Jesus will soon subject itself to the “higher nature” of Jesus – as if Jesus will subject himself to Jesus. Is that really what you're saying?
Hi Mike
Had to butt in for just a second to say that your posts on this are extremely clear sighted I really admire them, very good material.
Thanks Asana……………
How about some support? After all, this was originally YOUR discussion with Kathi that I butted into, remember?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 25 2012,13:37) Thanks Asana…………… How about some support? After all, this was originally YOUR discussion with Kathi that I butted into, remember?
Hi MikeYou're doing great by yourself
The main thing that I keep trying to get across to those who speak about Jesus having a dual nature is that if it were true the scripture would not say:
Acts 2:22
Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:Being a spirit before hand doesn't mean that spirit was an equivalent of God if that were so all angels would be an equivalent of God and for that matter devils/demons would be too but being a part of the unseen world does not make an entity God.
Jesus was born a holy child with a purpose if he was not a man who was like us then we cannot ever hope to be like him but he says we can be like him and do even more things than he did. The fact is we know that we cannot ever do anything greater than God Almighty so Jesus has to be a man the kind of man tht God intended for us all to be.
Mike,
You say that Jesus was not dual natured. Can you please give me your definition of 'dual natured.'
Thanks!BD (Mike, let BD respond to this please)
Quote Being a spirit before hand doesn't mean that spirit was an equivalent of God Being an only begotten literal Son of God is what made Him an equivalent of God.
This is your quote:
Quote If any of you believe that Jesus is the literal son of God then you will have to agree that Jesus is GOD because each kind according to its kind is the rule of Procreation and if this is the case then you should all be Catholic and believe as they do from here:
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….49;st=0Those were your words BD. If you don't accept Him as the only begotten literal Son of God then you will miss the gospel message and the truth that the church is built on.
Quote (Lightenup @ May 26 2012,10:20) BD (Mike, let BD respond to this please) Quote Being a spirit before hand doesn't mean that spirit was an equivalent of God Being an only begotten literal Son of God is what made Him an equivalent of God.
This is your quote:
Quote If any of you believe that Jesus is the literal son of God then you will have to agree that Jesus is GOD because each kind according to its kind is the rule of Procreation and if this is the case then you should all be Catholic and believe as they do from here:
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….49;st=0Those were your words BD. If you don't accept Him as the only begotten literal Son of God then you will miss the gospel message and the truth that the church is built on.
This is metaphorical not literal if a person was born God they cannot die because God cannot die. The Bible also calls Adam the son of God but somehow you accept that as a metaphor? why is that?Luke 3:38
Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.So if Jesus was the son of God literally then Adam would be more so because he didn't even have a human mother. Adanm in no way is the son of man he is literally the Father of all mankind Jesus could be called a son of Adam could God really be called Son of Adam?
Can you show me one single scripture that denies tha Adam is “the son” of God?
The fact is the usage of the word is poetic and metaphorical designating closeness and unique quality.
Why else do you see scripture such as:
Psalm 2:7
I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.and
Hebrews 1:5
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?Literal sons are not called begotten after they have become adults. Would you tell your adult child “on this day I have begotten you”? Of course not but I have seen many people say to someone this person is like my son I have even said it, I have even said I love this kid he is my son it is very common in the black community to call people that have become close to you cousin, brother, dad, wife, son, boss and all sorts of metaphors.
Hi BD, (Mike let BD respond to this please)
you said:Quote This is metaphorical not literal if a person was born God they cannot die because God cannot die. Actually an offspring is already the kind he or she is before being born, so the ONLY BEGOTTEN GOD (John 1:18) was born God because He already was God 'kind' before He was born.
God cannot die and that is one of the reasons that the ONLY BEGOTTEN GOD became man, so He could die.
The Bible never calls Adam the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON of GOD or the ONLY BEGOTTEN GOD. Many are called 'sons of God' and there are a few reasons for that (they were simply created by God, a believing descendant of Abraham, an follower of Christ-son by adoption/born again) but no one else besides Jesus is ever called the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON or the ONLY BEGOTTEN GOD. These set Him apart from all other 'sons of God.'
Quote
Psalm 2:7
I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.and
Hebrews 1:5
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?Jesus was begotten before the ages, from Mary, and from the grave. Heb 1:5 either refers to Jesus according to the flesh or from the grave according to the glorified flesh.
Quote (Lightenup @ May 26 2012,12:17) Hi BD, (Mike let BD respond to this please)
you said:Quote This is metaphorical not literal if a person was born God they cannot die because God cannot die. Actually an offspring is already the kind he or she is before being born, so the ONLY BEGOTTEN GOD (John 1:18) was born God because He already was God 'kind' before He was born.
God cannot die and that is one of the reasons that the ONLY BEGOTTEN GOD became man, so He could die.
The Bible never calls Adam the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON of GOD or the ONLY BEGOTTEN GOD. Many are called 'sons of God' and there are a few reasons for that (they were simply created by God, a believing descendant of Abraham, an follower of Christ-son by adoption/born again) but no one else besides Jesus is ever called the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON or the ONLY BEGOTTEN GOD. These set Him apart from all other 'sons of God.'
Quote
Psalm 2:7
I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.and
Hebrews 1:5
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?Jesus was begotten before the ages, from Mary, and from the grave. Heb 1:5 either refers to Jesus according to the flesh or from the grave according to the glorified flesh.
What you are saying goes against scripture:Isaiah 37:16
O LORD of hosts, God of Israel, that dwellest between the cherubims, thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth: thou hast made heaven and earth.Mark 12:32
And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:1 Corinthians 8:4
As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.and most importantly God testifies HIMSELF
Isaiah 45:5
I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:The word begotten is used referring to others before Jesus and even when it is used once again it desognates a uniqueness not begetting like humans beget one another.
Jesus was the only human created with a command to “Be” Adam was formed from the earth and then God breathed thebreath of life into him. Jesus was created how God created the foundations of the world such as “Let there be light” So Jesus was nade by the command of God and the word became flesh.
There is never any scripture about begetting a god and God does not become a man, the scripture clearly states God is a Spirit.God does not become “Not God” for that would violate the law of Identity.
Quote (Lightenup @ May 25 2012,17:15) Mike,
You say that Jesus was not dual natured. Can you please give me your definition of 'dual natured.'
Thanks!
In other words, “Priest of God Almighty” is not one nature of Jesus while “God Almighty” is another.He WAS a spirit being like the other angels, then he WAS a human being.
While he was a human being, he was not still also a spirit being like the other angels. He was not both at once.
Quote (bodhitharta @ May 25 2012,09:08) The main thing that I keep trying to get across to those who speak about Jesus having a dual nature is that if it were true the scripture would not say: Acts 2:22
Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
Hi Asana,1 Cor 15:28 answers the question once and for all. And even though Kathi has tried to throw a monkey wrench into that scripture by claiming it speaks of the kingdom of the world, and not the Kingdom of Heaven, the end result remains the same: She is claiming that one nature of Jesus is the servant of another nature of Jesus, and that one nature of Jesus will hand the kingdom over to that other nature.
Not only is this nonsensical, but it is totally unsupported by any scripture.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
