What does it mean that Jesus came in the flesh?

Participant

Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 25 2014,14:31)

Quote (Wakeup @ Jan. 25 2014,13:28)

Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 25 2014,11:16)

Quote (Wakeup @ Jan. 24 2014,22:18)

Islam *believe* that Jesus is the son of God…

No they don't.
Read Sura 19:88-89 & 19:92 (Link)

Islam is the spirit of 'antichrist' wakeup! (Read 1John 2:22)
(see also Galatians 1:8, 2Corinthians 11:14 & Revelation 13:13)

B'shem
YHVH

HI EDJ.

You have woken up
From your deep sleep.

wakeup.

Whatever do you mean?
I have been telling you Muhammad
was the False Prophet of Rev from the get-go.

EdJ.

This can not be.

The little horn came of the iron toes.
None of the elite are muslem;they are all zionists.
The dreadful beast in Dan.7:7.8. is the iron kingdom.

(rev.13).
1.The body of a leopard.(greek system).
2.The feet of a bear.Dan.7:4.(devour much flesh).
(depopulation).
3.The mouth of a lion.Dan.7:5.(proud),wings will be clipped.
Speaking great things.Dan.7:11.

wakeup.

January 25, 2014 at 6:37 pm#368445

Blocked

Quote (2besee @ Jan. 24 2014,16:21)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 25 2014,10:09)

Quote (2besee @ Jan. 24 2014,01:20)

Mike, I am too tired to argue the point!

Victory is mine!

Mike, NO.
Victory is not ours but God's – through Jesus Christ the Lord!

My only intention on this site is to make sure the actual truth of God's written word comes into the light.

If I say, “Victory is mine!”, I mean that the truth of God's written word has prevailed.

So I repeat: VICTORY IS MINE! :laugh:

January 25, 2014 at 6:40 pm#368446

Blocked

Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 24 2014,14:15)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 24 2014,07:41)

Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 23 2014,10:19)

Mike,

Technically God was still using prophets in the New Testament as well as other means such as the Apostles and angels.

You are correct. But you know what that means, right?

Even though it was said that God spoke to us in these latter days through His Son, it didn't mean “to the EXCLUSION of any other prophet or means”, right? Because God Himself also spoke to them from heaven on occasion, right? And He also sent angels in the latter days on occasion, right? And John the Baptist was a latter day prophet who lived right along with Jesus, right? So in the latter days, God spoke to them through His Son AND through various other means, right?

So what's the reverse of that? Doesn't that fact also allow for the same thing in the earlier days? Doesn't it allow for God to have spoken in the past through many various ways and prophets – but NOT to the EXCLUSION of His Son?

Get it? If “through His Son” doesn't exclude the other various ways God spoke to us in the latter days, then “through prophets and other means” doesn't exclude Jesus in the former days.

Mike,

The wording allows for it but it would be rendered meaningless if interpreted that way.

Why? Is the phrase, “but in these latter days, He has spoken to us by His Son” rendered meaningless by the fact that God spoke to us in these latter days in person, through angels, and through prophets other than Jesus?

If not, then your claim is inaccurate.

January 25, 2014 at 10:19 pm#368456

Participant

Mike,

I don't see where the AV of the KJV is translated in such a manner as to present this mystery.

Quote

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son

Neither doers the NIV.

Quote

In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things

Both seem to make the point God spoke through the prophets in diverse ways. I did not find one that said it a the way we both seem to remember but I do remember it that way.

January 26, 2014 at 4:52 pm#368528

Blocked

Kerwin,

1. Why are you lately acting as if the “AV of the KJV” is the ultimate authority on things?

2. My point stands. If leaving out mention of angels and other prophets in these latter days did not prohibit God from talking to them through angels and other prophets in the latter days, then leaving out specific mention of the Son in the former days does not prohibit God from talking to them through His Son in the former days.

January 26, 2014 at 5:35 pm#368531

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 26 2014,21:52)

Kerwin,

1. Why are you lately acting as if the “AV of the KJV” is the ultimate authority on things?

Mike,

I don't. I just use it so that those that choose to put it above other translations may pay attention to what God states without putting non-important things in the way. A variation of being a Jew to a Jew.

I went to biblehub parallel translations and could not find one that supported what I thought Hebrews 1:1-2a said.

As long as our discussion is not based on a mistake then fine.

In the past Jehovah spoke through the prophets, angels, his Son and by other means to our fathers but now he speaks by his Son, the angels, the prophets, and other means is essentially saying that he spoke by the same means in the past as he speaks today. In doing so it reveals no difference between the past ages and present ages and so serves no difference through the ages.

January 26, 2014 at 6:20 pm#368536

Blocked

Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 26 2014,10:35)

I just use [the AV of the KJV] so that those that choose to put it above other translations may pay attention to what God states without putting non-important things in the way. A variation of being a Jew to a Jew.

Fair enough. I find myself doing the same when I discuss with journey and Wakeup…… because it seems they will only accept it as “scriptural truth” if it is served to them in the ancient Shakespearian language of the KJV.

Being a Jew to a Jew is an apt and scriptural definition of what we do. Good answer.

Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 26 2014,10:35)

I see your point. And I admit that I'm not even convinced that Jesus was ever the “word of God” that came to people in the OT, or that he was ever one of the “angels of Jehovah” that came to them.

I'm only pointing out that the wording of Hebrews 1:1-2 doesn't make it impossible for Jesus to have been those things.

But your current point that it would make no distinction between now and then is null and void, since the writer makes a point of saying “prophets and various other ways IN THE PAST”, and “the Son IN THESE LATTER DAYS” – even though we know that God also talked to us through prophets and various other ways in the latter days – as well as in the past days.

So, still no major distinction. And that leads me to an understanding of, “God talked to us MAINLY through prophets in the former days, and MAINLY through His Son in the latter days.”

The writer is not PROHIBITING prophets and other means in the latter days, so he is not necessarily PROHIBITING the Son in the former days.

January 26, 2014 at 11:53 pm#368555

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 26 2014,23:20)

Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 26 2014,10:35)

Being a Jew to a Jew is an apt and scriptural definition of what we do. Good answer.

Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 26 2014,10:35)

I'm only pointing out that the wording of Hebrews 1:1-2 doesn't make it impossible for Jesus to have been those things.

So, still no major distinction. And that leads me to an understanding of, “God talked to us MAINLY through prophets in the former days, and MAINLY through His Son in the latter days.”

The writer is not PROHIBITING prophets and other means in the latter days, so he is not necessarily PROHIBITING the Son in the former days.

Mike,

In the Prophets were most important but now the Son is. The writer is using inference to reveal that the Son is more important the Prophets of old. As I wrote earlier I do not ever see the Son as being less than the Prophets.

I can see the reasoning that Son did not significantly speak to the fathers even though he might of been existence.

I use it to point out that the various angels speaking to the fathers are not the Son.

January 27, 2014 at 5:31 pm#368612

GeneBalthrop

Participant

Kerwin……..the latter days in scripture are the same as our seven day week, only each day is as a thousand years with God. And the latter days began in the middle of that time period . Scripture says the messiah would be cut off in the midest of the week, was relating to the fourth time period like our wednesday week day is. From that time on it is called the latter days.IMO

Peace and love to you and yours………………………………..gene

January 28, 2014 at 12:13 am#368628

Blocked

Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 26 2014,16:53)

1. I can see the reasoning that Son did not significantly speak to the fathers even though he might of been existence.

2. I use it to point out that the various angels speaking to the fathers are not the Son.

1. You are correct that even IF the Son didn't actually speak to any of the fathers, it wouldn't mean he didn't exist.

2. This one is not so cut and dry, Kerwin. You are pointing out something to others that you can't possibly be sure of.

And that is my only point on this matter…… that neither of us really know for sure whether or not Jesus was ever one of the “angels of Jehovah” who spoke to the fathers.

1 Cor 10:4 COULD BE telling us that Jesus was the angel that Jehovah put His name in, and sent along with the Israelites in the wilderness.

But I can't know that for sure either.

The bottom line is that Heb 1:1-2 doesn't prohibit Jesus from being one of those who spoke to the fathers in the past.

January 28, 2014 at 2:27 am#368652

journey42

Participant

mikeboll64,Jan. wrote:

[/quote]

Quote

Mike

It's easier to learn the old english rather than Greek or Hebrew. Trust me! I learn't it as a teenager.

When you understand the words, it sounds like the most beautiful poetry written ever,
resembling soft beautiful notes dancing in the wind,
then tie that in with other scriptures,
and you can make out there's a melody playing,
and you can follow the tune,
it's accompanied with rhythm and percussion,
all instruments playing together forming an orchestra sound with violins, harps, trumpets, flutes, cello's & thumping drums!
that music should go through your very soul,
and this would be the sound of the truth, no matter what language,
but the style of music should remain the same,
until someone changes it,
and makes it sound like organ pipe music playing out of key,
along with clashing symbols crashing off beat,
it will then sound like nothing but noise
and eventually will give you a headache

January 28, 2014 at 5:42 am#368662

Participant

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Jan. 28 2014,03:31)

Peace and love to you and yours………………………………..gene

Gene b.

We are not in the *LATTER* days today.
But the *LAST* day. The *LATTER*days is yet another *THOUSAND* years from now.

wakeup.

January 28, 2014 at 5:49 am#368664

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 27 2014,04:20)

Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 26 2014,10:35)

Being a Jew to a Jew is an apt and scriptural definition of what we do. Good answer.

Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 26 2014,10:35)

I'm only pointing out that the wording of Hebrews 1:1-2 doesn't make it impossible for Jesus to have been those things.

So, still no major distinction. And that leads me to an understanding of, “God talked to us MAINLY through prophets in the former days, and MAINLY through His Son in the latter days.”

The writer is not PROHIBITING prophets and other means in the latter days, so he is not necessarily PROHIBITING the Son in the former days.

Mikeb.

1.In the old days
2.In the past.
3.In the last days.
4.In latter days.

If you know your prophesies you also can make the distinction.

wakeup.

January 28, 2014 at 4:18 pm#368689

GeneBalthrop

Participant

Wakeup………If i ask you when does the Later days of the week starts and continues to the end, what would you tell me? Now if you understand a thousand years is as a day with God and a day is as a thousand years, according to Peter, then you can put it together. I will agree that the thousand year period is the LAST DAY, but the LATTER DAYS, started on the fourth thousand year period.

This may help you understand that, for there remains a keeping of the Sabbath unto the people of GOD , that equates to the seventh day, or the seven thousand year period, which begins with the thousand year Period of the reign of Jesus and the saints on this earth. After that time period is completed God starts all over again with a new creation, He makes all thing New again. IMO

peace and love to you and yours……………………gene

January 28, 2014 at 9:02 pm#368696

Participant

Quote (terraricca @ Jan. 28 2014,22:02)

Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 28 2014,20:52)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 28 2014,07:00)

Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 26 2014,17:07)

Just the opposite as Jesus purpose was to redeem the body as well as the soul of mankind.

And can a sinful body redeem sinful bodies? What did Psalm 49 say?

Also, if Jesus' body had to be sinful in order to redeem man's sinful bodies, then wouldn't Jesus' soul also have had to been sinful, to redeem our sinful souls?

Also, did the Israelites have to search out a BLEMISHED lamb to atone for their BLEMISHED behavior? Or were they to find an UNBLEMISHED lamb to sacrifice for their BLEMISHED behavior?

Which one?

Mike,

I assume you speak of Psalms 49:7-9 that in some English versions states the “no one can redeem the life of another” and that “no payment is ever enough”.

Psalm 49:7-9
New International Version (NIV)

7 No one can redeem the life of another
or give to God a ransom for them—
8 the ransom for a life is costly,
no payment is ever enough—
9 so that they should live on forever
and not see decay.

Yet we are told that Jesus made a payment that was enough as he has always known God desires mercy and not sacrifice.

Perhaps we should look to verse 5-6 to give us some context and explain why the was was a payment that was enough even after verse 8 said there was not.

Psalm 49:5-6
New International Version (NIV)

5 Why should I fear when evil days come,
when wicked deceivers surround me—
6 those who trust in their wealth
and boast of their great riches?

this is one more reason that Christ was not a man born of men but was in fact the son of God called “THE WORD” THE FIRST OF CREATION,that came down from the father through a women to be covered by flesh and so pay the price of sin for us ,

those verses are totally in agreement ,with the all scriptures

You do not hear what I am saying but then I implied a question and provided the context to answer it. The question written when literally put to words is “How did Jesus redeem believers with a payment that was enough when God said “no payment is ever enough”?

January 29, 2014 at 12:32 am#368710

Blocked

Quote (journey42 @ Jan. 27 2014,19:27)

until someone changes it,
and makes it sound like organ pipe music playing out of key,
along with clashing symbols crashing off beat,
it will then sound like nothing but noise
and eventually will give you a headache

So why don't you talk in that language when you post here? :;):

Do you enjoy sounding like clashing symbols crashing off beat? :cool:

January 29, 2014 at 2:17 am#368725