- This topic has 19,164 replies, 120 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Not3in1 @ June 06 2007,10:45) Well unless you are Gnostic, certainly he came in the flesh. I'm not sure that I said “was flesh”? did I? We all come in the flesh, for that matter – right?
Hi Not3,
Does scripture affirm this claim?Hi Not3,
Scripture is very specific as God chooses words very carefully.
Christ was flesh and blood too
Luke 24:39
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 see me have.Because of this his resurrection body had to put on immortality just as ours does.
1 Corinthians 15:50
Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.But these verses about COMING IN FLESH do not say that but something else.
I think we are having a misunderstanding, Nick. I agree with what you are saying. What do you think “coming in the flesh” means?
Quote (Not3in1 @ June 06 2007,11:08) I think we are having a misunderstanding, Nick. I agree with what you are saying. What do you think “coming in the flesh” means?
not3No offence, but when my kids were born I dont recall me saying they are coming in the flesh.
Coming means coming from somewhere to somewhere.
Why do we have to try to read into what the word says?
Jesus plainly said…
Jn 6:38
*For I came down from heaven*, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.6:62
What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?6:66
From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
WJ, some of the reasoning behind John's language “coming in the flesh” was to counter the then-present-day pagen belief of the Gnostics who did not believe Jesus was born a real man (in the flesh). They believed he only prentended to eat and drink but that he was a spirit instead.
Ha – on this note I need to go make dinner – I'm picturing you announcing to everyone when your child was born, “Hey, everyone, my boy has come in the flesh!”
Quote (Not3in1 @ June 06 2007,12:11) WJ, some of the reasoning behind John's language “coming in the flesh” was to counter the then-present-day pagen belief of the Gnostics who did not believe Jesus was born a real man (in the flesh). They believed he only prentended to eat and drink but that he was a spirit instead.
Hi not3,
You may be right or wrong
but scripture stands on it's own feet on this matter.
Show from scripture not from cultural influence please.Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 06 2007,13:02) Quote (Not3in1 @ June 06 2007,12:11) WJ, some of the reasoning behind John's language “coming in the flesh” was to counter the then-present-day pagen belief of the Gnostics who did not believe Jesus was born a real man (in the flesh). They believed he only prentended to eat and drink but that he was a spirit instead.
Hi not3,
You may be right or wrong
but scripture stands on it's own feet on this matter.
Show from scripture not fromn cultural influence please.
“Cultural influence” – I like that Well, I'm afraid all I have to offer is the fact the Jesus was born and he is the Son of the Living God. You can find those accounts in the gospels.
Sons do not preexist their birth. I'm afraid the burden of proof for preexistence is on you, Nick.
Hi not3,
The sons of God of Jb 1,2, 38, Ps 89.8 were not born.
Why discriminate against the monogenes son?Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 06 2007,18:07) Hi not3,
Yes he emptied himself and came to partake of our fleshly estate.
I know the Philippians passage is poplular with the Trinitarians to somehow promote their ideas of incarnation and the deity of Christ, and I know it's poplular with other theologies that like the incarnation (of sorts) idea, however, those themes are not the main thrust of this passage, imho.In context, Paul is trying to tell us to think of others above ourselves; to be humble and to have the mind that Christ had when he “emptied” himself of the privileges of the only Son of the Most High King – God!
Think about this: if Paul was indeed talking about Jesus' previous life and his subsequent incarnation, don't you think this message (like the resurrection and other poplular themes) would have deserved more than a little passage in one letter? The truth of the matter, for me, is that there are parts of this Philippians passage that are either vague or hotly debated as to certain meanings of very important words (i.e.; “form” and so on). This passage should not be a “watershed” scripture in my mind, it should be one that is put in context and read along side of other more planily understood scriptures. Otherwise, each and every theory can turn this passage into what they want it to say (like John 1:1, for example).
What did “Jesus” empty himself of before he came to put on a coat of flesh (before he came in the guise of a man – only really pretending to be one of us)?
Hi not3,
Paul did not dwell on this issue but it makes it no less true.
I believe the primary mission for Christ was as a vessel for God.
But I believe also he had amazing origins as a glorious Godly being too.
He did not come to be worshiped but some have done so.
He came by agreement to serve.
Scripture says he was conceived and is a man.
That should be enough and should not cause us to quibble about how.
He emptied himself of anything that would make him greater than any ordinary man.
We should agree to disagree as it is a lesser matter.Certainly we should let our debate rest, I agree; however for me it is not a lesser matter. The “what” is Jesus answers the “who” is Jesus, imho. We should be prepared to answer the question of our dear Lord, “Who do you say that I am?”
I've been studying Peter because he was given the answer to this question, and that by God! Peter never hints to a preexistence for his Lord and Master. Peter knows Jesus as the Son of Living God. This is the Jesus I know and champion for, too.
Thanks, Nick. I've enjoyed our discussions and hope that others will join in this topic. For me, it's one of the “big ones” to get right. But we all have our favorite subjects, this just happens to be mine.
Quote (Not3in1 @ June 07 2007,07:36) Certainly we should let our debate rest, I agree; however for me it is not a lesser matter. The “what” is Jesus answers the “who” is Jesus, imho. We should be prepared to answer the question of our dear Lord, “Who do you say that I am?” I've been studying Peter because he was given the answer to this question, and that by God! Peter never hints to a preexistence for his Lord and Master. Peter knows Jesus as the Son of Living God. This is the Jesus I know and champion for, too.
Thanks, Nick. I've enjoyed our discussions and hope that others will join in this topic. For me, it's one of the “big ones” to get right. But we all have our favorite subjects, this just happens to be mine.
Hi not3,Matt 16
” 13When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?14And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. “
What did Peter say
” Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”Christ means Messiah as Jn tells us, and it also means the anointed one. Peter was shown by the Spirit in him that the promised Messiah had come to save men. That is all men need to know.
So what of the second part?
“the Son of the living God”
He also was shown Jesus is the Son of God. Is it written that the Christ IS the Son of God? If not what is the relevance of this part of his declaration? Why mention this at all? The Son of God is spoken of in ps 2 and Prov 30. Is this speaking of another matter entirely-the origins of the Christ? If not what?
Nick,
Have you a renewed interest? If so, I will gladly continue in this discussion, thank you.Peter declared Jesus to be the promised One, that is, the Messiah; on this we agree, Nick. The promised Messiah was foretold to be a child of a virgin, and that the zeal of the LORD would accomplish this. With God as Jesus' “source,” he provided what was needed to accomplish this.
Scripture does not say that the LORD will send an already begotten “son” to come through the virgin. Scripture tells us that the arm of the LORD will be laid bare and that his arm (also translated to mean offspring) will bring salvation and rule for him (these scriptures are laced through the book Isaiah). This is the declaration of a forthcoming “son” – not a son that is already alive, imho.
The problem you and I are having is that we do not agree on the simple definitions of the following terms: conception, pregnancy, birth, son, and father.
I believe these terms can be defined by any Webster's dictionary, and certainly within scripture to mean what they were intended to mean. On the other hand, your theology has changed the meanings of these words.
Let's say your theory is true – why would God beget a son in heaven, and then create all the others in heaven? What would be the difference between the “begetal” that Jesus received and the “creation” that the other sons received? This is a curious question, indeed!
Hi not3,
All creation is done by God through the Son.
So clearly the firstbegotten one was not created.
We agree that scripture does not seem to say that the Messiah will be His Son so what is the connection between the two statements made by Peter?
The ARM of the Lord surely relates to God's actions done through this vessel.
Who are the non earthenware vessels of 2Tim2 in the household of God?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
