- This topic is empty.
- Posts
The flesh contributes nothing.
Nick,
READ AND BE AWARE WHAT YOU HAVE JUST SAID:
IF YOU REFERRED TO JESUS’ FLESH BODY
THE WORD MADE FLESH
http://www.merriam-webster.com/
Dictionary
contribute
: to give (something, such as money, goods, or time) to help a person, group, cause, or organization: to help to cause something to happen
: to write (something, such as a story, poem, or essay) for a magazine
NOW THE WAY I SEE IT,
JESUS, THE WORD MADE FLESH
JESUS’ FLESH BODY, THE BRIDEGROOM!
AND HIS UNIQUE FLESH AND BLOOD SUBSTANCE, THE BRIDE
COVERED ALL THE ABOVE THROUGH HIS LIFE AND DEATH!
SO WHAT ACTUALLY DID YOU MEAN BY THE WORD
CONTRIBUTE
Peace and love in Jesus
Charles
Hi T8.
Yes .
Jesus of Nazareth WAS ANOINTED by God with the Holy Spirit and power.[acts 10]
Who was anointed?
A MAN from Nazareth.
Not Jesus Christ[which means already anointed], not Jesus of Bethlehem and not an embryo.
Acts 2
“”Jesus of Nazareth, a MAN approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did in the midst of you, as you yourselves also know..
Do not be confused by prophetic references to him prior to his anointing.
Okay Nick.
Yes he was anointed by God as you say. Do you agree that he emptied himself before coming as a man and that he existed in the form of God first?
Hi T8,
The Word was made flesh.
The Word was with God and was God
The Word, now known as Jesus Christ, emptied himself.
Hi t8,
Jesus was not even named till his parent’s called him Jesus.
Yet Jesus Christ[the Word] is the same yesterday, today and forever.
The flesh contributes nothing
Hi T8,
Men give glory to flesh.
But the glory belongs to God.
God glorified His faithful Son Jesus Christ
It was God who worked through Jesus Christ. Acts 2.22
who is the beginning of the creation of God:
Lightenup,
It just occurred to me that this topic is concentrating on the word “BEGINNING” and not on the actual DEFINITION/S which could result from the sentence,ITSELF!
example!
the beginning of the creation of heaven and earth!
OUR CONCENTRATION GOES DIRECTLY ON THE TITLE OF
HEAVEN AND EARTH NOT ON THE BEGINNING!
NOW DO THE SAME THING WITH:
THE BEGINNING OF THE CREATION OF GOD!
WHAT WOULD BE THE OUTCOME?
PLEASE DO NOT RUSH TO CONCLUSIONS!
ALSO MANY SCRIPTURES CHANGED THIS, OR RATHER CORRUPTED THIS STATEMENT into:
THE BEGINNING OF GOD’S CREATION! AND WITHOUT REALIZING, OBVIOUS SATAN’S WORK,
MADE SCRIPTURES
A LIE!
NOW HEREUNDER IS THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL VERSE IN SCRIPTURES
John1:1 IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
But when one DISCOVERS the truth regarding the words:
BEGINNING, GOD,and THE WORD,
THE ACTUAL TRUTH WOULD BE REVEALED!
Peace and love in Jesus
Charles
Hi,
Natural men who saw Jesus working miracles exalted the flesh.
John saw the Word.
Paul saw God at work in him.
Natural men still exalt the flesh.
Flesh contributes nothing.
Hi,
One of the problems is that men expect God to submit to our rules when it comes to understanding language.
But spiritual language is different.
Hi @Carmel
You are right, this thread is based on the word ‘Beginning.’
The ‘Beginning’ in which the creation of God took place is also the Amen, the True and Faithful Witness. Rev 3:14
NASB
“To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this:
LU,
After looking at it I favor chief as the correct translation.
Rev 22:13
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.
This is a claim of being unique according to the precedent set in the OT. It is three repetitions of a set that contain only one item. Three is a symbolic number I have heard it is the symbolization of holiness and love.
@t8,
Not sure. Perhaps genealogies deal exclusively with man. Only as a man is he mentioned or alluded to as the starting point in the genealogy. Further, it doesn’t mention God either, possibly for the same reason.
I am convinced as it is his genealogy according to the flesh and God directly created Adam’s flesh while Jesus was formed in Mary’s womb. Even though Jesus was formed miraculously his decent is clearly from David. Evidence for this conviction is found in the first few verses of Romans 1.
I am also convinced Jesus is the son of God as for the Spirit.
That is why I have come to understand that flesh is conceived of flesh and spirit is conceived of Spirit.
Hi KW,
The flesh of Adam was derived by creation from the dust of earth.
Into him was blown by God the breath of life.
Jesus was from that creation.
Only at the Jordan was he reborn from above.
Hi,
The natural life of Jesus was begun by conception as it is for all men.
God was his natural father by the Spirit.
But only by rebirth was he the Spiritual Son of God
Hi @kerwin
I apologize for mistakenly saying that ‘chief’ is an acceptable translation. I thought that I had remembered it being among the possibilities but no, if it meant ‘chief’ it would be a different Greek word with the Strong’s number 747 which is a masculine noun. The arche’ in Rev 3:14 is a feminine noun and Strong’s number 746. These are the words that are in my analytical lexicon as possible translations of arche’:
beginning, ancient, company, corner, source, rule, sovereignty, office, head, sum, top
Hi @tigger
Matt 24
4And Jesus answered and said to them, “See to it that no one misleads you. 5“For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will mislead many. 6“You will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not frightened, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end. 7“For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and in various places there will be famines and earthquakes. 8“But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pangs.
This is figurative language so it is unreliable to compare this to Rev 3:14. I have experienced the ‘first’ of birth pains 5x and it sort of does feel like there is a nation rising against nation inside, lol. Your example here, lists several unrelated things to be the ‘first’ of something also totally different from those others which does not support your argument in Rev 3:14 as Jesus being the first of several of the same type of things.Gen. 49:3 But the first-born son … because he is the beginning of his children,
The word ‘children’ isn’t even in the Hebrew and the word you want to use for ‘first’ is not an option of the original Hebrew word. Those that do, are reading into the text.
As far as the lexicon, I believe their opinion is wrong. I am sure that we can find other scholars on the subject that disagrees with their opinion on that also.
And for the MSG version, it is not a literal translation and therefore, not a reliable study tool when doing a word study.
Nick,
Only at the Jordan was he reborn from above.
As you know I disagree with these words as anyone that does not have the Spirit of God cannot walk by it and Jesus shows he walked by it even in his childhood as he did not sin though tempted as common to human beings.
I was speaking t8 about the fact that the genealogies of Jesus do not say say Jesus is the son of God but only grant that privilege to Adam. As I told t8, they are the genealogies of his flesh and not of his Spirit.
LU,
I apologize for mistakenly saying that ‘chief’ is an acceptable translation. I thought that I had remembered it being among the possibilities but no, if it meant ‘chief’ it would be a different Greek word with the Strong’s number 747 which is a masculine noun. The arche’ in Rev 3:14 is a feminine noun and Strong’s number 746. These are the words that are in my analytical lexicon as possible translations of arche’:
beginning, ancient, company, corner, source, rule, sovereignty, office, head, sum, top
Are you sure as I strongly think I looked it up and the experts said chief was a possibility. I checked and yet it is a feminine word but it means 1) first in time, 2) chief, 3) preeminent. As far as logical reasoning it has three different possibilities about what the sentence means and it is a flaw to be certain which is correct without additional evidence.
It is not support for any teaching that relies on the correct interpretation of the word arche. It is 746. 747 is male and mean pioneer or founder. One translation I looked at used that translation but unless they were going off a different manuscript I will venture to say they were technically wrong.
My vote is for either chief or/and preeminent.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
