Questions about Jesus

Participant

Quote (toteachachild @ Feb. 24 2007,11:04)

Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. He came in the flesh, sent by His Father, and at His baptism, the Spirit of God descended upon Him like a dove. Afterwards, He demonstrated many miracles, signs, and wonders. Jesus never uttered the words – I am God. He did say that He was the Son of God and that He was the Son of man.

As I study the scriptures I see that Jesus shared in something of the Divine, otherwise what would have been the purpose of His virgin birth? and how could He have remained without sin His entire life?

Many have elquently put forth what they believe to be the nature of Christ and from what I can decipher it falls in to one of two camps: 1) fully God and fully man or 2) only fully man.

Is it possible for the only begotten Son of the Most High God to share in the divinity of His father and also in the humanity of His mother without either of the above views in mind?

Hi Toteach
I am posting a section of the small book I am writing. Perhaps understanding the source of some of this will help you.

The idea of God being divided into 3 equal but separate persons of God has it's history in many sources. First let us look at the idea of the trinity in ancient history and what well respected historians have said concerning it’s origins.

In the preface to Edward Gibbon's History of Christianity, we read: “If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief.”

Alexander Hislop, in his TWO BABYLONS, seems to trace the various ideas of the trinity back to a common heritage. Hislop pointed out the antiquity of the theological concept of the Trinity by giving examples of pagan trinities in Siberia, Japan, and India. He noted that the recognition of the Trinity was “universal in all the ancient nations of the world”. He went so far as to say that “the supreme divinity in almost all heathen nations was triune”. While Hislop was attempting to prove that mankind has always believed in a “trinity”, he also unwittingly shows the pagan origins of the idea of a “trinity”

The trinity is noted in connection with the construction of the Tower of Babel. Diodorus Siculus, in his Bibliotheca, states that in the topmost completed story of the Tower was placed the images of three gods.

Trinitarians today may argue that the pagan trinities were completely different from the model of the Christian Trinity. But some pagan triads have structures which are surprisingly familiar. For example, the Hindu Trinity:

The conception most closely linked with Vedism and Brahmanism is that of the Hindu Trinity, the Trimurti. ‘The Absolute manifests himself in three persons, Brahma the Creator, Vishnu the Preserver, and Shiva the Destroyer’.

-Asiatic Mythology

The Egyptian triad of the sun god was “one god expressed in three persons”. He was known as the “noonday sun” (Ra), “the evening sun” (Tum), and “the dawning sun” (Khepera). The sun god reportedly said, “Lo! I am Khepera at dawn, Ra at high noon, and Tum at eventide”. He was one god in three distinct persons.

Clearly it is not correct to say that the structure of pagan trinities do not resemble the Christian Trinity.

Other ancient cultures also had Trinities to describe their Gods. In Phoenicia the trinity of gods were Ulomus, Ulosuros, and Eliun. In Greece they were Zeus, Poseidon, and Aidoneus. In Rome they were Jupiter, Neptune, and Pluto. In Babylonia and Assyria they were Anos, lllinos, and Aos. Among Celtic nations they were called Kriosan, Biosena, and Siva, and in Germanic nations they were called Thor, Wodan, and Fricco.

Historian Will Durant: “Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. . . . From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity.” And in the book Egyptian Religion, Siegfried Morenz notes: “The trinity was a major preoccupation of Egyptian theologians . . . Three gods are combined and treated as a single being, addressed in the singular. In this way the spiritual force of Egyptian religion shows a direct link with Christian theology.”

One of the sources of the doctrine of the Trinity in Christianity is Gnosticism and Dualism.

A one-sentence description of Gnosticism is; A religion that differentiates the evil god of this world (who is identified with the God of the Old Testament) from a higher more abstract God revealed by Jesus Christ, a religion that regards this world as the creation of a series of evil archons/powers who wish to keep the human soul trapped in an evil physical body. Gnostics conjured up the idea that Christ was a spiritual being in a physical shell in order to avoid the concept of him having an “Evil Physical Body of the “Evil physical realm”.

Dualism is a Greek Philosophy that takes gnosticim even farther. It teaches there are two realms, one evil and one holy. Dualists believe that only the transcendental spiritual realm of God like forces is holy. The lower natural earthly realm was considered evil and nothing good could be of that world.

When Christianity spread to the Greek thinking world it was heavily influenced by their philosophies. Many students of Greek philosophy were being saved and as such brought their concepts into the church. As is often the case some so called “scholars”, from this period forward, began to interpret scripture with preconceived ideas of a gnostic or dualistic world. From gnosticim came the concept of Jesus being a separate God from the God of the Old Testament. From Dualism came the concept that Jesus could never be fully of the natural realm or fully human. His humanity needed to be augmented in some way to avoid him being of the evil natural realm.

Dualism was contrary to Hebrew belief and culture. Hebrews thought of all creation as part of the kingdom of God. Because God was infinite they believed that God was an integral part of the physical realm and, in fact, revealed himself thru the natural world. To the Hebrews everything in the natural realm was in the presence of God and He overshadowed everyhing there.

Many early Christian leaders were influenced by Greek thinking.

Clement of Alexandria (150-213 AD), head of one of the early Christian schools, which was heavily influenced by philosophy and gnosticism, admitted that he was opposed by those who still considered philosophy “evil”. He made light of their opposition and said that they were light and “ignorant”. He denounced the “so-called orthodoxy who, like beasts which work from fear, do good works without knowing what they are doing”. But Clement, of course, knew what he was doing. He had a special gnosis (knowledge) that the ignorant “orthodox” did not possess.

Friedrich Ueberweg says that “Gnosticism was the first comprehensive attempt to construct a philosophy of Christianity”. The more flagrant gnostics, such as Cerdo, Cerinthus, Saturninus, and even Marcion, had been expelled from the church. These more flambuoyant gnostics were only the “tip of the iceberg”. There was still a large remnant in the churches, who obviously began developing some philosophical system of Christianity that would compete, so they thought, in the Gentile world.

The apostle Paul was troubled with gnostics, and spoke against those who clung to “falsely-named science” (knowledge or gnosis) (1 Timothy 6.20).
20) Oh Timothy
, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called knowledge (gnosis)
21) which some have professed and gone astray from the faith.
Paul says that gnosis/gnosticism causes a falling away from the faith.

Albrecht Ritschl (1822-89) saw the Trinity doctrine as flagrantly Hellenistic. It had corrupted the Christian message by introducing an alien “layer of metaphysical concepts, derived from the natural philosophy of the Greeks,” and it had nothing to do with early Christianity.

Gnosticism and dualism had a foot in the door in the early church. Many founding fathers fought against it's beliefs and dogmas.
In the third century gnostics and their philosophy would get their greatest boost from the Emperor of Rome himself.

Constantine emperor of Rome had a problem. His kingdom was in turmoil because of strife between different religious factions. He had christians, gnostics, pagans, druids and many more. Constantine solved this problem by merging all these various factions together and forming The Holy Roman Catholic Church.

Following the example of his father and earlier 3rd-century emperors, Constantine throughout His life was a solar henotheist, believing that the Roman sun god, Sol, was the visible “manifestation” of an invisible “Highest God” {a plural God?} (summus deus), who was the principle behind the universe. Does this sound familiar? This god was thought to be the companion of the Roman emperor.

Constantine's adherence to this faith is evident from his claim of having had a vision of the sun god in 310 while in a grove of Apollo in Gaul.

In 325 AD – Constantine convenes the Council of Nicaea in order to develop a statement of faith that can unify the Catholic Church and therefore his empire. The Nicene Creed is written, declaring that “the Father and the Son are of the same substance” (homoousios). Let me point out that the substance of God is spirit therefor if Jesus is of the same substance then he was spirit and did not live in the flesh and therefor did not really die or be physically raised from the dead.

Emperor Constantine who was also the high priest of the pagan religion of the Unconquered Sun presided over this council.

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica:
“Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions and personally proposed the crucial formula expressing the relationship of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, `of one substance with the Father'.”

The American Academic Encyclopedia states: “Although this was not Constantine's first attempt to reconcile factions in Christianity, it was the first time he had used the imperial office to IMPOSE a settlement.” It is known that many of His former beliefs followed Him into Christianity and that those beliefs strongly influenced the Nicaea council. It is also clear that part of his motives for forming the Holy Roman Catholic Church were to unify his kingdom. It is therefor clear that the council of Nicaea had been called in part to find a way to unify the Roman Empire under a statement of Faith. This council is known for it's Nicaean Creed detailing the doctrine of the Trinity which is the first time God is officially described, in any church document or biblical manuscript, as separated into three, The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. It was there at Nicaea that the doctrine of the Trinity was rammed through in a Council that was overseen by the Emperor Constantine who, ironically enough, thought of himself as God-incarnate. (Constantine the Sun Worshiper only made an official conversion to “Christianity” on his death bed).

One of the early problems encountered by the followers of the Trinity doctrine was that of the nature of Christ. There are very clear scriptures that state that Jesus was a man. This was a problem because this was contrary to the original Trinity Doctrine that Jesus was a co-equal person of God and of the same substance. Jesus as a man also contradicted dualist who could never accept Jesus as fully human of the lower earthly realm. Future councils had the impossible task of defending the Trinity while at the same time dealing with these contradictions. Since no biblical proof could be found, their answer was to contrive the Dual Nature Doctrine, or 100% God and 100% man concept. This doctrine concludes that Jesus is fully man and Fully God at the same time.

There are no such words as Dual Nature or 100% man and 100% God in scripture. In fact the concept is conspicuously absent in any scriptural form whatsoever. Again we must ask ourslves, Where does this concept come from? Simply put these councils were hard pressed to find an answer to the contradictions found in the Trinity. With this in mind they formulated a doctrine with no scriptural proof and just applied it as truth. They went to the scriptures with this doctrine and applied scriptures out of context. By using unclear scriptures they could twist them to seem to validate their doctrine.

Since there are no clear scriptures to define this dual nature of Christ we must look elsewhere to determine it’s origin and history. This doctrine did not happen overnight, but took years to develop. The result was a cocktail of Irithnial and illogical thought leading to meaningless rhetoric. Let’s look at some of the history, by which this doctrine entered the teaching of the church.

Most of the primary tenants of the dual nature doctrine stem from several councils starting in 325 U.S. These councils were formed for the purpose of denouncing what was believed to be false doctrine and for instituting some central statements defining the faith. Unfortunately, as stated before, Christianity had been corrupted by Paganism and Greek philosophy and the councils reflected this influence. The Nicene council stated that Jesus was fully God in response to the Aryans who believed that Jesus was not God.

The Apollianarians Did not believe that Jesus was fully human, therefore the council of Constantinople (381 U.S.) declared he was fully human.

The Nestorianism group denied that Mary could be called the mother of God. They believed that Mary was only the mother of the human part of Jesus. The resulting belief dictated that there exists two Christ's, one divine and one human. In response to this the council of Effuses (431 U.S.) decreed That the two natures of Jesus are one and cannot be separated.

Many of those present at the Council Of Nicaea were opposed the doctrine of the Trinity. Even after the Nicene Creed, the Trinity was still hotly debated for decades and centuries. As the years passed and the power of the Catholic Church increased, no one dared argue against the established doctrines of the Church. Before long a multitude of non – scriptural practices began to emerge resulting in the dark ages and the inquisiition.

If Nicaea just formalized the prevalent teaching of the church, then why all the conflicts? If it were the established teaching of the church, then you would expect people to either accept it, or not be Christians. It was not the established teaching, and when some factions, of the church, influenced by Constantine, tried to make it official, the result was major conflict. Constantine stopped the conflict by banishing those who appeased him and used his power to coerce others into adopting the doctrine.

Constantine the Great unified a tottering empire, reorganized the Roman state, and set the stage for the final victory of his version of Christianity at the end of the 4th century. . In one historic moment, under this ruler of non-Judeo-Christian background and with the influence of paganism and gnosticism, the traditional doctrine of the Trinity is formed.

Since the time of Constantine several councils have had the dubious task of defending the Trinity without any clear scripture evidence for support. Unfortunately, the same holds true today. The explanations of the Trinit
y and the dual nature have become even more confusing and less logical.

Since the Dark Ages the church has continued to come out of the darkness and lies and has sought to find more truth. When Luther began to teach justification by faith rather then by works it took a long time to come out of the traditional works mentality, but many did come out and the protestant faith was born. 700 years of reformation have followed. An unfortunate truth is that many did not come out of the darkness and have missed out on many blessings and further growth in God. In the time since Luther many who were called heritics, by the extablished doctrinal churches, have endeavored to return to the faith of the apostles that was hidden during the Dark Ages.

Oneness denominations though denying the 3 in 1 trinity still cling to the concept of a dual natured Christ. Many still hold reverence for the Holy Trinity and/or the Dual nature. They refuse to even acknowledge it’s corrupt origins. They choose to live in a myth. These historical facts are very easily verified in any honest search of historical records.

March 4, 2007 at 2:27 am#43591

(4) http://www.precious-testimonies.com/Exhortations/a-e/WhyTheCross.htm

Participant

Can An Immortal God Die?

In this section we will investigate current and common ways in which Jesus is portrayed. As I go thru some of these quotes I would hope you would see the lack of reason or logic contained in their statements.

On one of the web sites I researched I found this content, it states that Jesus is The true and living God and I quote,

“Standing near the pagan temples of Caesarea Philippi, Jesus asked his disciples “Who do you say that I am”? Peter boldly replied, “You are the Son of the living God.”

“The disciples were probably stirred by the contrast between Jesus, THE TRUE AND LIVING GOD, and the false hopes of the pagans who trusted in “dead” gods….. “ (1)

These types of statements are common among many believers. Many would see nothing wrong with this statement. But if you look closer at the quote you will see some dishonesty with scripture. It is important to note in the quote that Jesus, in this context, does not claim to be the true and living God but rather accepts Peter’s proclamation that He is the SON OF THE LIVING GOD. The difference may seem subtle but it has profound implications. The writers of this statement actually misquote the scripture in an attempt to support their concepts.

The previous example could be considered a minor issue in light of some of the blatant falsehoods said about God, but it does point to a tendency to read our doctrine into scripture rather then read our doctrines out of scripture. Whether one believes as they do or not in not the point. The point is honesty with scripture When a person studies with a preconceived idea of doctrine they can often (sometimes innocently) twist scripture to fit their ideas of truth. It is only a small step from there to making outrageous statements about God with no scriptural evidence at all. This can be seen in some of the following quotes from the same web site.

“Christians today have good news for such a spiritually needy world: God isn’t a far off power waiting for us to mess up so that he can punish us. He’s the God who walked the bloodpath for us, a God who keeps his promises, EVEN WHEN IT COST HIS LIFE“…… (2)

Again many would read this phrase and think nothing is wrong with this belief. This statement very clearly states that God kept His promises even at the cost of His own life. I do not understand how anyone can say God gave up his life and died. How can anything cost God His life? Again let me quote this web site:

…..“Jesus' life was over at that moment. But more importantly,the need for sacrifices was over. The people no longer needed to remind God of his promise: He had fulfilled the covenant and paid the bloodpath price with his own life.”….. (3)

The small step of misquoting scripture compounds itself to the point of having to state that God died. The most tragic aspect of this example is the fact that the writer proclaims it must be true even though it leads to the conclusion of a dead God. In other words, reason, logic and common sense are thrown out the window in order to maintain traditional doctrine.

Here are some other examples;

Do you know that God died for you on the cross? You can sum up in one sentence the reason why: God loves you so much that He took your punishment on the cross. (4)

Jesus Christ's physical body was 100-percent human, not just part human. Our bodies can die, and so could his. When we die, our physical body dies, but our soul and spirit remain. They are eternal; they never die. The same is true of Jesus Christ. His physical body died, but his inner self is eternal and did not die. (5)
[in one paragraph the writer of this site compares Christ to man and in the next says he is God]
Jesus Christ is most definitely God. He created Adam and Eve, the first man and woman, in his image. He is the Creator of the universe.

It is important not be confused. God did not create Jesus. Jesus is God, and he has always existed. (6)

Immortality means someone can’t die. But in some great mystery that is beyond our comprehension, the second person of the Trinity died. God died. (7)

One of the primary attributes of God is his immortality. God simply cannot die. Despite this truth there is a prominent belief that God had to die on the cross to forgive our sins. A belief that only the death of a God could forgive our sins. First it is presumption that God needs to die in order to forgive our sins. He created us and can forgive us without any payment at all. That is the point of God’s being sovereign.
The myth of God’s death is contrary to the attributes of God. It denies God’s immortality. It is also contrary to clear scripture.

Scripture is very clear that it was the death of the human Jesus Christ that was the sin sacrifice.

Romans 5:12 thru 20

12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

1 Corinthians 15: 20 thru 22

20But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep.

21For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.

22For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

Scripture clearly states that it was thru the death of a man (Christ) that humanity was saved.

As you can see the concept that God must die on the cross is a complete falsehood. It is directly opposite very clear scripture. Where do these myths come from? Why are people so prone to just accept them without question? Read on!!!

Bibliography

(1) Follow the Rabbi
http://www.followtherabbi.com/Brix?pageID=2067

(2) Follow the Rabbi
http://www.followtherabbi.com/Brix?pageID=1792

(3) Follow The Rabbi
http://www.followtherabbi.com/Brix?pageID=1791

(5) http://www.christiananswers.net/kids/ednk-jesusalive.html

(6) http://www.christiananswers.net/kids/ednk-jesusgodorman.html

(7) http://martinmonty.wordpress.com/2006/10/25/the-cross/

March 4, 2007 at 11:09 am#43612

Participant

Thank you for that very thorough historical trail of the trinity invention music4two.
Many people discredit the trinity idea with a few well known verses in the bible, me included.
But you have obviously done considerable research for your book.

Just one note, if this is a transcript of your book. In one place you said that Constantine banished
those that appeased him. I think that you meant to write opposed him.

TIm

March 4, 2007 at 3:39 pm#43616

Participant

Quote (TimothyVI @ Mar. 04 2007,11:09)

Just one note, if this is a transcript of your book. In one place you said that Constantine banished
those that appeased him. I think that you meant to write opposed him.

TIm

thanks — guess I need to proof read again.
I am glad you enjoyed the writings.
Blessings

March 5, 2007 at 3:32 pm#43735

Participant

Quote (toteachachild @ Feb. 24 2007,11:04)

Many have elquently put forth what they believe to be the nature of Christ and from what I can decipher it falls in to one of two camps: 1) fully God and fully man or 2) only fully man.

Is it possible for the only begotten Son of the Most High God to share in the divinity of His father and also in the humanity of His mother without either of the above views in mind?

You state –
Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. He came in the flesh, sent by His Father, and at His baptism, the Spirit of God descended upon Him like a dove.

Response –
To this point I agree with yourconclusions, providing you are not taking the stand that Jesus was filled with the Spirit at His baptism.
It is my contention that Jesus was filled with the Spirit/breath of God from birth. Several reasons for my conclusion include.
1. Precedent set by John the baptist, who was filled in his mothers womb.
2. The holy breth had not been poured out yet. this happened at Pentacost.
Other reasons for the descending dove.
1. As a visual sign to go in conjunction with the words uttered by God “This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased”.
2. An anouncment presenting Jesus as the son of God.
3. A special anointing given Jesus for His ministry.

You stste –
Afterwards, He demonstrated many miracles, signs, and wonders. Jesus never uttered the words – I am God. He did say that He was the Son of God and that He was the Son of man.
As I study the scriptures I see that Jesus shared in something of the Divine, otherwise what would have been the purpose of His virgin birth? and how could He have remained without sin His entire life?

Response –
I believe I have answered these questions before. Jesus is the second Adam. for that comparison to be true, He had to have the same direct source for life as Adam. Remember that the word Spirit is a poor translation. The Greek word pneuma is literally breath or wind. It is directly related to the Hebrew word Rauch/Spirit which is also mistranslated and literally means breath or wind. God breathes life in to Adam and he became a living soul. Mary ws found to be with child of the holy breath.
Jesus was literally raised by His father, God. He was taught wisdom and had that special relationship that exists between father and child. This is how He astounded the teachers at 12 years old. He had wisdom taught from His father. Unfortunately we were not raised directly by God, but we now have forgivness for those shorcomings and can through Christ’s example gain that wisdom.

You state –
Many have elquently put forth what they believe to be the nature of Christ and from what I can decipher it falls in to one of two camps: 1) fully God and fully man or 2) only fully man.
Is it possible for the only begotten Son of the Most High God to share in the divinity of His father and also in the humanity of His mother without either of the above views in mind?

Response –
Yes in the same sence we are to partake of the devine nature and are joint heirs with Him.

Jesus was filled with the Holy Spirit/breath.
Colossians 1:19
For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him,
Colossians 2:9
For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,

We too are to be filled with the Holy Spirit/breath
Ephesians 3:19
and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God.
We are to become a mature man like Christ.
Ephesians 4:13
until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.

How was Jesus filled with the Holy Spirit?
2 Corinthians 5:19

19namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

We recieved of that fullness
John 1
16For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace.

17For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ.

We ae commanded to be filled with that same Spirit/breath
Ephesians 5:18
And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit,

I hope this is helpfull.

March 5, 2007 at 6:10 pm#43740

Participant

Hi tt and m42,
I agree with you toteach that Christ as a child and young adult was not living in the power of the Spirit of God any more than any of us. He certainly is not recorded as expressing any supernatural powers till after the Jordan and we are told he was made like to us in all ways except sin, and none of us have such natural powers. After the Jordan Luke tells us he was filled with the Spirit and no such statements occur before then.
He was not following John the Baptist and we should not make assumptions about such things but look at the fruit. God was as a father to Christ as a child and Jesus recognised this and spoke of it in the temple, but the Spirit of God did not manifest in power and grace till the Sppirit came down as a dove in the Jordan. People spoke of him as an ordinary person and member of his earthly family till he was changed.
We cannot follow a superman. We can follow a man who was changed by the baptism in the Spirit of God as we must also seek as those without the Spirit do not have Christ.

March 6, 2007 at 5:35 am#43816

Participant

Certtainly Jesus was anointed for His public ministry at the jordon, but just as it does not say He was filled from birth, neither does it say He was filled at baptism. The fact that the holy breath decended like a dove is still not proof of filling. The fact that He did no miracles prior to His anointing for the ministry proves nothing. Miracles are not a proof of being filled with the breath of God. the apostles did miracles long before the day of Pentacost where they were filled.
Luke 9:2
And He sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to perform healing.
Luke 9:6
Departing, they began going throughout the villages, preaching the gospel and healing everywhere.
Prophets in the Old Testament did miracles long before baptism or even the day of pentacost.
Psalms 105
    26He sent Moses His servant,
         And Aaron, whom He had chosen.
    27They performed His wondrous acts among them,
         And miracles in the land of Ham.
David had the Holy Spirit without baptism
Psalm 51:11
Do not cast me away from Your presence And do not take Your Holy Spirit from me.

There are indicators suggesting that He had the breath such as; There is the fact that Jesus lived a sinless life from birth on. Did He do that without the holy Breath in him The holy spirit is the holy Breath? He was concieved by the Holy breath. Does it stand to reason that He would not have that breath in him?
Secondly He astounded the teachers at 12. Did He do that without the holy breath?
there are other times when Jesus spoke of the presence of God in a special way for healing. This was not dependent on another filling of the breath of God.
Luke 5:17
One day He was teaching; and there were some Pharisees and teachers of the law sitting there, who had come from every village of Galilee and Judea and from Jerusalem; and the power of the Lord was present for Him to perform healing.

No one can resist temptation perfectly without the work of the Holy breath. Either Jesus was different then the rest of humanity and incapable of sin prior to his testing in the wilderness or he resisted sin through the power of the Holy breath.

March 6, 2007 at 7:38 am#43829

Participant

Hi m42,

lk 4
1And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness,

Is it not odd that this is the first time it is said that Jesus was full of the Holy Spirit-after the Jordan?

March 6, 2007 at 11:20 am#43861

Participant

Hi Nick,
Could Lk4 be saying that Jesus, being full of the Spirit (since birth) was lead by that spirit into the wilderness.

It doesn't necessarily say having just been filled with the Spirit.

Tim

March 6, 2007 at 7:56 pm#43876

Participant

Hi Tim,
Jesus was transformed and began his power ministry from the time of the Jordan and not before. In contrast to his early life from that moment onwards every word and action was the work of God in him and precious records are kept for our sakes.

March 6, 2007 at 9:49 pm#43892

Participant

Hi Nick,
I agree that was when he began his POWER ministry. We didn't hear much about his early life.

But didn't he quote scriptures and teach at the temple when he was only 12 years old?

Tim

March 6, 2007 at 9:52 pm#43893

Participant

Hi Tim,
God was always with His Son. But no works of power are recorded till the Jordan, and they would have been had they occurred.
It was only then that locals remarked on his origins in the family of Joseph and noted the transformation by the power of the Spirit.

March 6, 2007 at 11:15 pm#43900

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 06 2007,19:56)

You cannot base a belief on what is not said. It does not say Christ was filled with the breath of God at baptism. It does however say that He was concieved of the breath of God.
It also dos not say that being filled with Holy breath is required to have a “power minisrty”. In fact as I already pointed out The diciples operated in the power of God long before they were filled at pentacost.

Luke does say indeed that Jesus was filled with the breath of God, however it does not say it happened at baptism. the fact that it says it in written order in the text is also no proof. Hebrews do not write in step logic or chronological order.

Being filled with the Spirit/breath is not a one time occurance. For special purposes and in special circumstances God will give more of His breath to accomplish something.

Jesus is a normal human being except that the direct orgin of His father is God. No normal human can live sinless without the help of the breath of God.

Jesus was raised for 30 years by His father, Cod. He was prepared and taught for His ministry by God via His breath. At His baptism Jesus was given a full measure of the anointing to do the work set for him.

So far I have seen only one ambigous scripture and a lot of speculation to prove your point. not enough for me.

March 6, 2007 at 11:25 pm#43903

Participant

Hi m42,
You say
” At His baptism Jesus was given a full measure of the anointing to do the work set for him.”

Is this your understanding of the baptism in the Spirit?

You still say Christ was not like to us.
Are we not of the breath of God too?

March 7, 2007 at 2:05 am#43911

942767

Participant

Hi M42:

I'm having difficulty understanding “being filled with the Holy breath” in light of the following scriptures: “As the living Father hath sent me, and I LIVE BY THE FATHER (I understand by obedience to His Word): so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me”. (John 6:57) And, “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: THE WORDS THAT I SPEAK UNTO YOU, THEY ARE SPIRIT, AND THEY ARE LIFE”.

It seems to be that the Holy Spirit is more that just God's Holy breath. Maybe I'm wrong?

God Bless

March 7, 2007 at 4:26 am#43924

Participant

Hi m42,

You say.
“You cannot base a belief on what is not said.”
And yet you say
“To this point I agree with yourconclusions, providing you are not taking the stand that Jesus was filled with the Spirit at His baptism.
It is my contention that Jesus was filled with the Spirit/breath of God from birth. Several reasons for my conclusion include.
1. Precedent set by John the baptist, who was filled in his mothers womb.
2. The holy breth had not been poured out yet. this happened at Pentacost.
Other reasons for the descending dove.
1. As a visual sign to go in conjunction with the words uttered by God “This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased”.
2. An anouncment presenting Jesus as the son of God.
3. A special anointing given Jesus for His ministry”
Did you not just do that?

March 7, 2007 at 11:05 am#43943

Participant

Quote (music4two @ Mar. 06 2007,23:15)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 06 2007,19:56)

Being filled with the Spirit/breath is not a one time occurance. For special purposes and in special circumstances God will give more of His breath to accomplish something.

Jesus is a normal human being except that the direct orgin of His father is God. No normal human can live sinless without the help of the breath of God.

So far I have seen only one ambigous scripture and a lot of speculation to prove your point. not enough for me.

Hi Music4two,
Wasn't my point, it was Nick's.

Tim

March 7, 2007 at 3:37 pm#43946

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 06 2007,23:25)

Hi m42,
You say
” At His baptism Jesus was given a full measure of the anointing to do the work set for him.”

Is this your understanding of the baptism in the Spirit?

You still say Christ was not like to us.
Are we not of the breath of God too?

I have never said christ was not like us. If you remember on the Trinity thread I have said many many times that Jesus is a complete human in every way like us. He did however have a special mission on this Earth as the Messiah. Because of this there are some differences in the ay God dealt with him and things require of him not like us.

March 7, 2007 at 3:46 pm#43948

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 07 2007,04:26)

Hi m42,

The holy breath had not been poured out yet. this happened at Pentacost.
John 7:39
By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.

As a visual sign to go in conjunction with the words uttered by God “This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased”
Was it not a visual sign?

An anouncment presenting Jesus as the son of God.
“This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased”
Is this not an anouncment by God?
Was Jesus anointed for His work as the Messiah? That had to happen sometime and He did not begin that work till after His baptism.

March 7, 2007 at 3:47 pm#43949