- This topic is empty.
- Posts
A certain king becomes as a pauper (of his own initiative). As a pauper. he does not let anyone know that he is the king, so that he may prove to his subjects as to how true they are to the kings laws for the poor. This pauper, who is the king, goes by the name of Roy.
Roy is a pauper.
The king is, by definition, not a pauper.
Roy, who is a pauper, is not the king, for the king has all power and authority. Yet, Roy is not <I>not</I> the king.
Now, no one may approach the king’s throne without the king’s express permission. Roy lives a life that, in the end, proves that he alone is actually worthy to share the king’s throne. Yet, the king does not ask for Roy. Rather, the king allows Roy to be thrown into the dungeon and the key thrown away. It all happened this way:
There was a wise and powerful king who wished to prove, for his royal court, as to the loyalty of all his subjects to his laws for the poor. So, he disguised himself as a pauper and went through his kingdom living as a pauper. The pauper began his life by asking many questions to all the judges which the king had long ago appointed, and later began teaching and caring for the poor like himself. He quickly became very famous among the poor, and was to them as the king himself.
At some point the pauper charged some of the wicked judges with the intent to condemn him to the dungeon and throw away the key. They denied this, of course, because they had no reason, they thought, to condemn this good pauper to the dungeon—and now they wondered at his sanity for making such a charge.
The more the pauper taught and healed, the more the people of the kingdom asked, "Who is this pauper?" Some of the people realized that the pauper was the king, for no one but the king could say or do the things that the pauper said and did. As the fame of the pauper grew, the wicked judges felt threatened, because the people saw in the pauper something greater than what the people saw in these wicked judges. The pauper even seemed to claim to have perfect authority over the judges, and this made the judges mad. How dare the pauper presume to be equal to the king. Even the king himself had said, long ago, that "The king is not a pauper", and these wicked judges stuck to this truth—or, so they thought.
Many of the people who realized that the pauper is the king wondered when he would take his throne and punish these wicked judges. Others, who did not believe that the pauper is the king, yet expected the pauper soon to assume military power and free the kingdom from oppression, just like other men of old had done. Just like old times. But, the king is no simple man, and will not repeat himself in vain.
These wicked judges came so to hate the pauper’s truth that they began conspiring to condemn him to the dungeon, just as he had said that they were guilty of doing. Eventually, they were able to trick up enough support to have the pauper condemned to the dungeon. So, to the dungeon he was condemned, and he stayed down there for a little while. He stayed down in the dungeon just as many days as there are realms of proof, as yet another reminder to those who would become worthy to be made true delegates of the king’s authority. Now, finally, the king has proved the full extent of the wicked pride of the judges and of the selfish willingness of the people to be mislead. The king has now allowed them every last measure of liberty to have a change of heart. Guess who has been wearing the royal key?
Now, what purpose, or office, did the pauper serve? Answer: The purpose of a living fulfillment of the king’s laws. The Logos. The king sacrificed his life as the king, and even allowed himself to be condemned to the dungeon. All to make a point, to produce an exhibit to the royal court, in the trial held over the kingdom. The kingdom has now been tried according to the king’s laws. There is yet another stage in the trail before the verdict is pronounced, but I digress.
The pauper always referred to the king as other, never did the pauper refer to himself as the king. This was only proper, and also for the fact that the full power and authority of the king would be misrepresented were the pauper (who is the king) to claim the king’s throne. Only the king has the right to the king’s throne, and the king will share it with only whom he will.
So, now, on to the subject at hand. The pauper is the king and the king is the king. Each of two people is the king. But, is the king therefore two people? Of course not. How would anyone get this idea except by a corruption from the kingdoms where there are two kings each with equal authority. The significance of the whole scenario is not in the fact that each of two people is the king. There is only a certain, limited, significance in that fact, namely, that the king has the power to live as a pauper. The greater significance is in the common sense of the thing: the king tried his subjects according to his laws. The king is the highest authority and the highest power in the kingdom. He had became king of this kingdom because he had defeated the power of the kings of the wicked kingdoms round about, and had carved out a kingdom for himself. He would later begin to conquer the rest of the world by his sovereign wisdom (as a pauper), but what he had done at first was to prove to the world that he was the true sovereign of power.
History is about due process. That is, God is not like a man who vainly repeats himself. God doings are not like that of a small child who, after his stack of blocks gets kicked down, builds the stack again exactly as it was before, only to get it kicked down again and he build it again. God’s doings are not vain like this. For example, in the world before the Flood, God left man to his liberty until none but eight people would be saved from their own corruption. God thus proved, to whom it may concern, that fallen man, left to himself without God’s input, is incapable either of saving himself or of seeking God. After the flood, God proved, to whom it may concern, that the flood was no deterent warning to proud man: God let man go to the last inch at Babel and then he confounded their language. There were thus multiple competing nations on the earth instead of just one economic/technologic State, and this allowed human history to be extended. God would have destroyed in vain the pre-flood world had he not changed his tactic and instead simply destroyed the post-flood world of Babel with another Flood. With the world thus divided into nations, God could begin to make some even more important points, among them these: 1)God judges each nation individually by the same standard that he judged the pre-flood world. 2)Once the nations had sorted themselves out and made themselves wealthy and enviable, God made a nation *of his own*, and made the world know a true difference between His nation and all the others—a difference the cultural effects of which have continued to the present day. As a way to put a check on human pride, there were thus specific and wise reasons why God acted to confound the language, and not as if he picked this particular action at random.
In any contest between mutually opposing parties, both parties are on trial, and in three ‘courts’ at once: the ‘court’ of one party, the ‘court’ of the other party, and the Court of the true Jury-and-Judge. When the disciples asked Jesus about the time of his return, he gave an answer which almost any Jewish disciple of the time would have readily understood: "It is not for the intimate friends of the father of the groom to decide, nor even for the groom to decide, as to when the groom has made ready to steal away the bride, but only for the father of the groom to decide." It was an answer which gave more, and other, information than what the non-Jewish-cultured mind thinks was asked for. You cannot get to the truth of the answer with a bland Western philosophical mindset, as if Jesus’ answer constitutes a theological problem. If Jesus is God, then did he know the time of his return or not? Or, perh
aps, Jesus is not God if he did not know (but, what is flesh, that God cannot be robed in it, and, if Jesus is God, he was yet surely playing the role: that of a man, for an example to us). But, Jesus gave so many things for his disciples to look for as signs of his return, so what were these disciples asking for here? There is such a thing as giving away the store: God will not give answers that let slip any advantage from his hand.History is a trial over which God presides, and the trial requires many stages, to show to man all of man’s guilt, from the first to the last. Contrary to what even many Christians have been brainwashed to believe, you cannot much understand what God is about in relation to fallen men without first knowing what God is up against. God knows the ‘Murphy’s law’ of the human heart and mind. This bears on every controversy involving the question of God’s modus operandi: what God would and wouldn’t do, and why, in regard to a given controversial subject; what God has done and said, and why. The Bible is not a Complete Idiot’s Guide To Truth And History. Atheist biblioskeptics demand that, if God exists, then God should have given us all the Foolproof Version. But, such a demand is essentially to demand that God be the programmer and oneself the computer, so that one is given every truth by way of absolute specificity. To assert that this is what God should have done is to implicitly argue as if one should not need to think for oneself. A wise father seeks to delegate his authority to his sons, but he will not give it to those sons who, in ignorant or proud argument with their brothers say, "Daddy said so, so I’m right and you’re wrong!"
What is flesh, that God cannot be robed in it? Answer it if you can. Is the creature greater than the Creator? A ball is as God, and a certain color is as flesh. God became flesh, yet he was still God. A ball became red.
Some interesting points here. I like the idea of the King and pauper being the same person, in order to get a different perspective and see how things really are.
I also like your following quote:
The Bible is not a Complete Idiot's Guide To Truth And History. Atheist biblioskeptics demand that……Yes it is strange that people demand God to come out of Heaven and say “Hi I am God” before they believe. In other words they want God to serve them and they aren't interested in faith in any way or form. Of course it is impossible to please God without faith, but they want it their way.
However I cannot agree with your quote about God becoming flesh. Where do you get this from?
As far as I know the scriptures say “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us”. The Word and God are different. The Father is God. Jesus is the Word.
The Father is the Most High God and all, including Jesus Christ is subordinate to him.
The greatest truth is also the most relevant—and the most abscure to the self-blinded heart of man. What is the answer to a mystery? The answer is in the context. What is the context? The greatest mystery has the greatest context. If a person does not seek the most relevance for a given mystery, then he will be blinded by a short-sightedness learned from staring closely at the immediate details. The Pharisees made this mistake, by deciding that they could do well by following the letter of the law only and not the spirit. Thus, they added to the law by default, because to reject the spirit of the law leads to misinterpreting the letter of the law. Jesus had to keep showing them some common sense. The trouble for the proud heart is that there is so much more to common sense than what he can realize in many years of thought. What ‘makes sense’ does not mean that the sense made is the right sense. The truth of a matter is irreducibly complex, but the proud heart wishes more to disprove a thing than to understand its message. It is the heart of man that is on trial.
I had said to a Christian who is highly educated in an inbred form of Orthodoxy that, "History is a trial." He replied, saying, "No, it is not a trail, it is God’s working out of His plan for His glory." I replied to him, saying, "You are making a false dichotomy, and I am in no way asserting that history is not God’s working out of His plan for His glory; you object to my words because you are like a parrot who has been conditioned to reject as false any words that do not match your low level of understanding of the very words that you have been taught represent the truth."
Were the world not messed up, no one would be concerned for the fact that God has not written his name in the stars or done anything else to supposedly prove that He exists. The creature can never attain positive witness to the existence of the Creator, for the Creator is to the creature as an axiom is to the algorithm. Epistemology has a topography, and we are creatures of the mountain, who of nature cannot see level with top. We must realize when we are looking up.
But, in this realization, we must also realize when we are confusing catagories, or we will end up philosophically inbred. If the atheist admits that he cannot see level with the top, then he must be careful trying to prove that teleology is not fundamental. For that purpose, the creature’s conceptions of teleology are as slippery as are his conceptions of omnipotence and infinity. Supposing there is no God, does the atheist think he can understand the fundamental nature of everything like he can understand auto mechanics? At least the Deist grants that God is way, way up there.
Even without consideration for the existence of God, it is apparent to the atheist that man is guilty. Only, some atheists would have it that theism is the original sin. But, compared to a stick, fire is the more powerful even though it can do more damage when misused.
Per the epistemology of the creature, there is another problem with any attempt by God to prove Himself to the proud unbeliever: miracles would become so commonplace that they would be seen as phenomenon that are simply supposed to happen, of little or no spiritual import. God is not in need to prove anything, it is we who are in need to be corrected in all things. The truth is that every last thing we already experience is a miracle.
As near as I know, I did not quote the thing about God becoming flesh. It’s just the logic of the thing: is the creature greater than the Creator? Ball can become red.
Arianism’s three problems are:
1)"God cannot be a man because a man, by definition, is finite."
2)"Jesus clearly did not make sure that everyone knew that he was God."
3)"If God can become incarnate at will, then we cannot know whether or not we are looking God in the face every time we turn around."
Answers to the three "problems" are:
1)What is flesh, what is flesh, what is flesh, that God cannot be robed in it? Is the creature greater than the Creator? Ball can become red.
2)God clearly did not make sure to place the stars to spell out his name. Jesus let his disciples both say who he is, and to write down the things he said. Jesus did not poorly use his time in writing the Bible, but himself did and said directly with the people all the things which have been written. It is we whom God desires to have say things about him. A father does not spend his time with his children speaking the obvious, but speaks of things that are good for his children to hear. When Adam begot Seth, did Adam need to insist to his son that he was his father? A perfect father is the most gentle of character. "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father."
3)God is not an idiot. God does not set out to trick people, becoming incarnate at random. Rather, he sets out to prove, to those who seek him, that he is God and that he is good. He does not do this like an idiot would imagine he should, such as going around and saying "I’m God, I’m God!" and performing miracles on demand like some foolish grandparent desparate to prove to his grandchild his love by buying him everything in sight and feeding him everything he wants. No, he would be a perfect man, and perfectly wise, not only as a witness to us and to all spirits, but as an example for us and a gift to us. Then he would die by execution, because spiritually inbred men think that God cannot be robed in flesh. Then he would raise from the dead, to prove that even though he paid every price that we can imagine can be paid, he still owns everything. God need become incarnate only once (he owes us not even that much). God’s ways are not vain. No flesh shall glory. God does not compel our attention and thought by force.
——————————-Re: the Word. What is ‘the beginning’ of John 1:1? When God made the angels, did he let them loiter around for awhile before manifesting to them, or, did he manifest to them from the beginning? Yet, God was not made for the creature(‘s senses), the creature(‘s senses) was made: God is untouchable even as it says in Job. A manifestion of God is not (the transcendence of) God, but is rather a thing sensible to the creature (the creature cannot see the infinite, but can only admit when he is looking up). God is not hiding from view, he is invisible by definition. Any manifestation of God is thus a ‘mask’ in a certain old sense of the word. God is not made for the eyes of the creature, God made the eyes of the creature. The fact that the ‘logos’ of John 1:1 is both distinct from the transcendent God and is a person is not, to my mind, the issue.
‘Father’ is a title implying ‘the source of power and authority’. God needs no name. God called ‘Father’ refers to the transcendence of God; God outside the creation. The scriptures are clear on this. Like a human father prior to when that human has children. The father, in either case, is not defined as ‘he who has children’, but rather as ‘he who is, and who can have children’. The nature of the father, in either case, is not that of fatherhood, but that of the nature of the one who has children; The child does not say that the nature of his father is that of the fact that his father has a child, but rather that his father is the authority and the power.
Now, in the ideal, a child believes his father’s words even before the child has the ability to test the truth of these words for himself. But, this ideal has long since passed, when man bought the lie that he should be his own arbiter of truth. It is only by man’s pride that man’s mind fails to learn the truth without guidance and correction, and instead he deceives himself with errors. Man is not so much blind as blinded. Even though it is evil to discourage a child from thinking, and evil to force him to remain with answers that, by remaining with them, become as good as empty, the world would end tomorrow were every little child to be as "scientific" about what his
father says as are atheist "freethinkers" about what the Bible says. A good father seeks to delegate his authority to his children. But, he will cease to delegate his authority to those children who, in caring more for being delegatees than in understanding what their father means by his words, say to their brothers whom they are arguing with over what they think their father said, "Daddy <I>said</I> so, so I’m right and you’re wrong!" Some people press their dogmas in such a way that implicitly asserts, "If God wanted us to know something more than what he has made explicit, then he would have made it explicit". You won’t find <I>that</I> law in the Bible, so that assertion contradicts itself. The fact is that the Law states, concerning animal sacrifice, that, "and his sins shall be forgiven him". The Jews eventually took this as literally as it could logically be taken, and so they did not see its message. An animal is to a man what a man is to God. For Israel, God did all things as God, that is, all things which meant anything to us as being done by might, by power, and by authority. Then, when no more could be done in this which had not already been done (that is, in the fullness of time), God became flesh and met our needs as one of us: God did everything that meant anything to us as <I>we</I> are. God showed us all empathy, rather that all power or all authority, by becoming a man. Ball became red. But, God the ‘Father’ would be misrepresented were a man to say of his own self "I am the Father." This man Jesus was a <I>perfect</I> man. That was the message. God fulfilled all the law."Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the Lord of hosts." Not by physical supremacy, nor by legal supremacy, but by spiritual supremacy, that is how God shall prove the last of his counterclaim in the trail against man (Rev. 11:18). <I>Then</I> the sentence.
In any contest between mutually opposing parties, both parties are on trial, and in three ‘courts’ at once: the ‘court’ of one party, the ‘court’ of the other party, and the Court of the true Jury-and-Judge. Jesus won in all three courts.
A politicians question provides 2 possible answers. Do you want this, or do you want that.
Case in hand: The Australian government wanted to issue ID numbers to it's citizens. So the proposal for an ID card was launched and the public went spare. Demonstrations and other forms of protest were common place and it was evident that the Australian people didn't want this form of surveillance in their lives.
Compromise: “Ok”, said the Australian Government. “We will issue everyone an ID number instead. This number will be resident on a computer only. No requirement to carry a card.” The public relaxed and thanked God that they didn't have to walk around with an ID card in their wallets. Although they were not entirely happy with the ID numerical system, they still thought it was a better option than the Big Brother scenario of walking ID cards. The public felt that they had scored a victory, even if it was a small one.
Original Intention: The Australian Government wants to issue their citizens with an ID number and if possible and ID card, although the card can be introduced at a later date if necessary, after the numerical system is in place.
The way not: The Australian Government would like to issue an ID number to it's citizens and to also issue ID cards. They know however that their citizens will want to reject the idea. So they decide to press with the ID number only with the hope of introducing a card later on. The people complain and eventually reject the idea of an ID number for every citizen. The Australian government will try again in another 10 years when the heat of the moment and emotions will have certainly died down.
A politicians question: Is a question with 2 options and each option works to the politicians favor.
Condemning Question: Have you stopped beating your wife, Yes or No?
Answer: Yes. This means that you are not beating your wife, but you did beat your wife before.
Answer No. This means that you are still beating your wife.
This example provides no outlet to say I have never beaten my wife, if a yes or no vote is required. Therefore it is wise to ignore the question.Now in order to avoid this type of manipulation, you need to place yourself outside of the square, (The imaginary restraint), then speak your belief or intention. Such as “We reject or don't want any of what you say”.
Application: Jesus Christ is either God or Man.
Answer: Yes he is God.
Answer No, he is a man.1st citizen: He is a Man.
2nd citizen: No he is God
3rd citizen (a thinking person, but still under the restraint of the questioner): I think that he is a Man for sure, but he must also have been God because no man could do what he did. “Wow” says 3rd citizen feeling proud of himself. “I worked that out by myself”.
Questioner: They have all taken the bait. There are 2 apposing sides and a thinking middle ground class of citizen who believes that they are truly free, but they cannot see the obvious walls I built around them by reason of my question. In any case they are blinded by their own pride. Therefore I have retained them nicely. Full control is getting closer.
4th citizen. Thinking to himself. Why do I have to answer this question? Do the scriptures teach that I must answer this question? Do the scriptures ponder such a question? No therefore I do not have to play this game. What do the scriptures say? Oh, the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. The Word was in the beginning with God. No one knows the day nor the hour of the Son of Man's return, only the Father. Ok, so let's entertain the question that is forcing itself on me. Is Jesus God or a Man. Well if he is God, then how come he doesn't know when he is returning to earth. Yes another proof of the irrelevance of the question and anyway, if the scriptures are very clear that Jesus and the pre-existant Word are the same person, then why do I need to change this truth to another? No all I need to do is just accept this truth. Nothing more, nothing less. Anyway Jesus built his church on Peters confession, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. Therefore I build my life on that foundation.
Questioner: “Hello 4th citizen. Have you got an answer yet to my question about Jesus. Is he God or Man?
4th citizen: “I will ask you a question? Was John's baptism of God or man.”
Questioner: “I don't know how to answer this question? You maybe trying to trap me.”
4th citizen: “Then neither will I answer your question.”
Well enough, except….
The issue for the early believer was <I>not</I> Jesus’ deity, for the answer to the question of Jesus’ deity was <I>assumed</I>. (If I’m not mistaken, there was an idea common back then that there was a God who would die for His followers. If this idea was current during the writing of the NT books, and if Jesus is not God-robed-in-flesh-and-acting-as-agent-between-humankind-and-God, then every word of the NT is remiss).
Rather, the issue for the early believer was Jesus’ <I>office</I>. That is, the issue was as to whether Jesus was the true representative of God (since Jesus was a man, and since all men are judged by other men according to their works), which is called the ‘son of the father’. A true representative of a patriarch (a father) is his son. But, not any old son will do. The son must be one (in 100%) agreement with his father. If God is the father of the man Jesus (as opposed to a man being Jesus’ father, and especially as opposed to a fallen man being Jesus’ father), then the question for the Jew would naturally be as to whether Jesus was the true representative of God. To the Jewish mind, to say that a father sends his son into a foreign country is to say that the son is the ambassador of his father.
The question of whether Jesus is God-robed-in-flesh is answered by the Jewish mindset by way of the same means as is answered the question of the <I>nature</I> (or, explanation) of Abraham’s obedience to God’s request to sacrifice Isaac. Were it not for Hebrews 11:17-19, then not only you, but so many harsh self-proclaimed "fundamentalists" would take God’s request at "face value"—that is, devoid of the context faced by the person/people originally involved. Context = relevance.
It matters to <I>us</I> that Jesus is a man, that is, one who is like us. We needed to see a true man, that is, a perfect man, and then we needed to see that we were guilty of hating even such a man. This is why some said, in admission, "Truly, this is the son of God." But, why, then., was this man sentenced to death? Surely, not for claiming to be a man. For claiming to be equal with God. In no wise shall a man rightly say to another that he is God, yet if God be robed in flesh, then such a man cannot rightly deny it, but must, in fact, show it by saying things and doing things that show his authority to be above even that of angels. To the Jewish mind, there is no living creature greater than angels, for an angel is a creature defined as undying and having power to manipulate the physical world. Only God created.
(Edited by e man at 1:42 am on June 21, 2003)
The issue for the early believer was not Jesus' deity, for the answer to the question of Jesus' deity was assumed. (If I'm not mistaken, there was an idea common back then that there was a God who would die for His followers
It is impossible for God to die. It is impossible for God to take sin on himself. He cannot even look upon sin. This is why God sent his son into the world. He (God) sent him (Jesus) to take care of the sin, that He cannot even look at upon. This is also why Jesus said on the cross, “My God My God, why has thou forsaken me”. Jesus was never thought of as God himself, rather like God or the Image of God, that is why the NT including Jesus and Pauls words teach that Jesus is above all except God himself.
Jesus is not God-robed-in-flesh-and-acting-as-agent-between-humankind-and-God, then every word of the NT is remiss.
Jesus is not God robed in flesh. God is not a man and never will be. In fact it was the Word who became flesh and he pre-existed with God before the creation of the universe. The Word came from God or was born from God. God then created the universe THOUGH HIM and for him. When creation fell, God sent the Word into the world in order to save the world THROUGH HIM.
Rather, the issue for the early believer was Jesus' office. That is, the issue was as to whether Jesus was the true representative of God (since Jesus was a man, and since all men are judged by other men according to their works), which is called the 'son of the father'. A true representative of a patriarch (a father) is his son. But, not any old son will do. The son must be one (in 100%) agreement with his father. If God is the father of the man Jesus (as opposed to a man being Jesus' father, and especially as opposed to a fallen man being Jesus' father), then the question for the Jew would naturally be as to whether Jesus was the true representative of God. To the Jewish mind, to say that a father sends his son into a foreign country is to say that the son is the ambassador of his father.
I agree with your above statement. But it doesn't lead us to believe that Jesus must be God, rather he is like God (like his Father) and he truly is the ambassador for God and the only mediator between God and Man.
It matters to us that Jesus is a man, that is, one who is like us. We needed to see a true man, that is, a perfect man, and then we needed to see that we were guilty of hating even such a man. This is why some said, in admission, “Truly, this is the son of God.” But, why, then., was this man sentenced to death? Surely, not for claiming to be a man. For claiming to be equal with God. In no wise shall a man rightly say to another that he is God, yet if God be robed in flesh, then such a man cannot rightly deny it, but must, in fact, show it by saying things and doing things that show his authority to be above even that of angels. To the Jewish mind, there is no living creature greater than angels, for an angel is a creature defined as undying and having power to manipulate the physical world. Only God created.
Jesus wasn't crucified because he claimed to be God. The Jews accused Jesus of claiming to be God, but Jesus corrected them. Now many Christians make the same mistake, they believe that Jesus was claiming to be God, far from it. Follow this link if you are interested in the proof.
https://heavennet.net/answers/answer08e.htm#eman
The question of whether Jesus is God-robed-in-flesh is answered by the Jewish mindset by way of the same means as is answered the question of the nature (or, explanation) of Abraham's obedience to God's request to sacrifice Isaac. Were it not for Hebrews 11:17-19, then not only you, but so many harsh self-proclaimed “fundamentalists” would take God's request at “face value”—that is, devoid of the context faced by the person/people originally involved. Context = relevance.
This judgment is very unfair and is absolutely not true. The proof lies in the fact that I was not consciously aware of Hebrews 11:17 and I have never sacrificed anyone based on the Old Testament record. In fact I am fully aware that repeating the actions of others is no more than tradition at best. I am a believer in being led by God's Spirit in all things. However I am also fully aware that I do not live up to this ideal. I think that you accuse me of being a fundamentalist because you cannot refute the truth that I have spoken. Not my truth, but the truth in the scriptures. Now if I were truly a radical fundamentalist fanatic, then perhaps I could interpret the following scripture as proof that Jesus is God?
Hebrews 11:17
17 By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son,
18 even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”
19 Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death.Anyway I would like to think that I am just a person who has a passion to follow Jesus Christ as he is the only one who can bring me to God, holy and blameless. I am at least aware that Jesus is the truth and to truly follow him means to seek truth even against the traditions of men and doctrines of demons.
Now from history at least we can see that the trinity doctrine certainly is the cause of much division as it is taught as a requirement or absolute, when in reality it is a doctrine not supported by scripture and has been forced (even the death penalty) on believers since the 3rd century. This doctrine gave rise to the Organised Church and before Rome's involvement, there was the Catholic (universal) Church, after Rome forced it's political power on the church, the result was an organisation called the Roman Catholic Church and from there many other denominations/daughters sprang. Pushing the trinity doctrine is not only incorrect and contradicts Christs own teachings, but it is also reinforcing the darkness of mans works disguised as God's works, as prophesied.
It is inevitable that stumbling blocks are laid and many shall stumble over them, but woe to the men that lay them and reinforce them, such people need to repent.
We have all been influenced by Babylon to some degree, but we all need to come out of her.
Hi all!
If Jesus wasn’t making the point of saying ‘I am God’, then how do you explain the tremendous amount of scripture that leads us to the simple fact that Jesus is God and also man? His accusers even admitted that it was due to his claim to be God that they stoned him! John10:33. I and my Father are one!…Jesus recieved worship!…Raised the dead!…he knew the thoughts!…etc,etc! Qualities that only God rightfully owns!
Please refer to my post on how Jesus is man-God, humanity clothed in Divinity.
REMEMBER THIS: The doctrine that has no contradictions, error, or confusion, and can withstand all scrutiny, with the sole focus on scriptual evidence that lines up when veiwed from all angles…it is then you will know that it is solid, pure truth according to the word of God!
TO GJG
(Your quotes are in italics)If Jesus wasn't making the point of saying 'I am God', then how do you explain the tremendous amount of scripture that leads us to the simple fact that Jesus is God and also man?
There is no scripture that teaches us that Jesus is God.
His accusers even admitted that it was due to his claim to be God that they stoned him! John10:33. I and my Father are one!…Jesus recieved worship!…Raised the dead!…he knew the thoughts!…etc,etc! Qualities that only God rightfully owns!
- The Jews thought Jesus was saying he was God or equal to him. Jesus defended this as a misconception by saying that he was claiming to be the Son of God and that they were also sons of God, or gods.
- Jesus did say that he and his Father were one, but he also said that we should be one with them and with each other. It is obvious that the word one here is not talking about one person, rather one as Adam and Eve were one
- Jesus recieved worship, but not worship as God. He was worshipped as the Son. Nowhere will you find that Jesus is worshipped as God.
- Jesus raised the dead yes, but so did Christs disciples. Raising the dead is not proof that one is God and was never intended as such. Rather these miracles prove that the Kingdom of God has come to us.
Hi,
Jesus was a man like us till he was filled with the Spirit. He was even considered to be unwell by his family who sought to take him away. But he was anointed by the Spirit of God. Prophets of old had also been anointed in power but none had previously been indwelled by the fullness of the deity of God as Spirit. We can partake too of these blessings in Christ and take our role equipped to function in the body of Christ on earth.Hi,
Traditional churches have been mistaken in thinking the conception of Jesus Christ was God coming in the flesh. Scripture plainly tells us he was a man like us and Jesus Christ came in the flesh and not God his Father.
Because of this error they miss the vital transition when God as Spirit did enter him at his baptism . From that moment Jesus began the work of God with God in him using him as a vessel to do His work among men.
We can follow him.Agreed
Jesus was the secound Adam fulfilling all that the first Adam failed to.
He was born a man, yet a man like no other before him.
He knew where he came from and where he was going.
He came by way of the womb and yet without sin.
He was indwelled by His Father on the river Jordan and from there declared His Father.
Then when it came time for him to be the propitiation for us, the Spirit of God departed from Him (most likely in the Garden of Gethsemane) so that the Son could taste of death.Quote (malcolm ferris @ April 12 2006,13:12) Agreed
Jesus was the secound Adam fulfilling all that the first Adam failed to.
He was born a man, yet a man like no other before him.
He knew where he came from and where he was going.
He came by way of the womb and yet without sin.
He was indwelled by His Father on the river Jordan and from there declared His Father.
Then when it came time for him to be the propitiation for us, the Spirit of God departed from Him (most likely in the Garden of Gethsemane) so that the Son could taste of death.
Hi Malcolm,
Where is it written that God took His Spirit of eternal life from Jesus? God's gifts are given without repentance but you say God took the Spirit from him?We are promised the Spirit of truth will be with us forever in Jn 14.16 but this did not apply to Jesus His Son?
Quote (malcolm ferris @ April 12 2006,13:12) Then when it came time for him to be the propitiation for us, the Spirit of God departed from Him (most likely in the Garden of Gethsemane) so that the Son could taste of death.
Hi Malcolm,
Scripture never says the Spirit evr leaves anyone when they die. Our own Spirit leaves but “the body without the spirit is dead”[jas]
Does this not also apply to the Body of Christ?
Rom 8.9f
“However you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to him. And if the Spirit of Christ is in you, though the body is dead, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Jesus Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who indwells you”
The Spirit NEVER leaves us..EVERQuote …Where is it written that God took His Spirit of eternal life from Jesus? God's gifts are given without repentance but you say God took the Spirit from him?… I am speaking of the Father that indwelt him – the same that descended like a dove upon him on the river Jordan.
The life of God that he was born with, that made him a son of God, did not leave his body until he commended it to God on the cross of Calvary.Quote We are promised the Spirit of truth will be with us forever in Jn 14.16 but this did not apply to Jesus His Son? ISAIAH 53:10
Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
Jesus' immortal soul was made by God an offering for sin. Am I reading that right?
The Father was pleased to bruise him (the son) – why? Because he deserved it?
God put the son to grief – why?
Jesus bore our iniquities – the chastisement of our peace was upon him…
Jesus poured out his soul (an immortal soul) to death – exposed his soul to the same punishment as ours.Yet it was not possible for God to completely abandon him to death, He could not allow His holy one to see corruption.
Quote Scripture never says the Spirit ever leaves anyone when they die. Our own Spirit leaves but “the body without the spirit is dead”[jas]
Does this not also apply to the Body of Christ?
Rom 8.9f
“However you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to him. And if the Spirit of Christ is in you, though the body is dead, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Jesus Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who indwells you”
The Spirit NEVER leaves us..EVERWhen we die the body goes back to dust. It is dead both in the sense of animation and in the sense of separation.
The soul remains and is given a body if we are reborn.
The spirit goes back to God who gave it. (that is the spirit that gave us natural life)This Spirit that never leaves the reborn is the spirit of Life – it is the spirit of God that gives us eternal life.
Because of this it cannot die, and if we are possessors of it, we can never be separated from it.
Once this life has entered into the soul of the redeemed it never leaves us.Hi Malcolm,
The breath of God that gives us life is not the Spirit of God.
Breath speaks of “expelled waste air” and not life giving spirit.Lk 23.46
“And Jesus , crying out with a loud voice, said
'Father, into Your hands I commit my spirit'
Having said this he breathed his last”
Matt 27.50
'And Jesus cried out with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit”Jesus was a man.
Scripture never referred to the Spirit of God as “his” spirit till after it was poured out among his followers.
Surely this was the spirit of a man leaving and returning to God as it does at death?
Hi Nick
Believe it or not I think we are mostly in agreement
Despite some difficulties in putting into words the concepts we are both looking at roughly the same thing.
What leaves the body at death is the breath of life (called spirit in the bible) that enlivened the flesh body.
This leaves a soul remaining that has one of two possiblities.
It is either enlivened with the spirit of God through the spiritual rebirth and so cannot die.
Or it is unchanged as to its fallen condition due to the natural birth and so goes down.
This therefore begs the question what spirit has the soul that goes down got?
There only seems to be two choices in the bible, the spirit of Life – spirit of God.
or the spirit of death, spirit of the wicked one.
So if the soul is OF the spirit of the god of this world then it goes down to its rightful place.
If it is OF the spirit of God it goes up to its rightful place.
Also when did that spirit begin to be upon that soul?
Evidently not at birth, at conception?…Hi Malcolm,
Soul has a spirit of it's own separate from the spirit of man??If all human beings are asleep and will be resurrected that does not mean the soul has life in itself does it? All we know, surely, is that it is not alive still, as we know life, and it remains in the earth till that resurrection.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
