PDA

View Full Version : Sit thou at my right hand...


mfblume
04-21-2020, 12:26 PM
When you read Hebrews chapter 10, you get a powerful revelation about Psalm. 110:1. Paul wrote in Hebrews that the seating of Jesus on the throne meant the work was accomplished, that could never be accomplished after 1,500 years of animal sacrifices under the Old Covenant, and all the sacrifice before that back to Adam's day. Another Psalm said that God was not pleased with burnt offerings and sacrifices, so Jesus came to to do the job that would please the Father.

This means, that when Jesus was told to sit down by the Father, that's an unbelievably powerful statement!

"I am satisfied now. What could not change my mind for thousands of years and please me, you have done in six hours on that cross. The closest that I could get to dealing with man's sins before you was one day out of the year when Israel's sins were atoned for the previous year, every year, for 1,500 years. Man was simply reminded of Sin on that greatest day under Law for every single year law endured. But now, I did through YOU that which made that day of Atonement into the most absolutely precious thing to My Heart! I allowed man into my holiest of holies here with me! I remitted their sins, and I don't leave them with annual reminders of their sin! The consciences of those who believe in this work of all works need not feel any more guilt and anxiety over being in trouble with me any more! SIT DOWN, the work is finally DONE!!!"

And then, after that, instead of God having to fuss with humanity's sin and repeatedly and constantly draw man back to Himself, He can let the Son sit still, and He will go to work with the real problem of all the enemies of mankind and bring them under the feet of THE SON OF GOD! And that means., under our feet, since we are ONE WITH THE SON!
Take a load off your feet, and SIT DOWN! NOW, I WORK to bring down all mankind's enemies!

The devil's days are NUMBERED!

We can barely grasp the significance!




(Those who think oneness means there is no glorified human man in glory right now, I am not interested in those thoughts.)

Pressing-On
04-21-2020, 12:32 PM
You cannot believe I was studying chapter 10 this morning!!! :highfive

Esaias
04-21-2020, 12:46 PM
When you read Hebrews chapter 10, you get a powerful revelation about Psalm. 110:1. Paul wrote in Hebrews that the seating of Jesus on the throne meant the work was accomplished, that could never be accomplished after 1,500 years of animal sacrifices under the Old Covenant, and all the sacrifice before that back to Adam's day. Another Psalm said that God was not pleased with burnt offerings and sacrifices, so Jesus came to to do the job that would please the Father.

This means, that when Jesus was told to sit down by the Father, that's an unbelievably powerful statement!

"I am satisfied now. What could not change my mind for thousands of years and please me, you have done in six hours on that cross. The closest that I could get to dealing with man's sins before you was one day out of the year when Israel's sins were atoned for the previous year, every year, for 1,500 years. Man was simply reminded of Sin on that greatest day under Law for every single year law endured. But now, I did through YOU that which made that day of Atonement into the most absolutely precious thing to My Heart! I allowed man into my holiest of holies here with me! I remitted their sins, and I don't leave them with annual reminders of their sin! The consciences of those who believe in this work of all works need not feel any more guilt and anxiety over being in trouble with me any more! SIT DOWN, the work is finally DONE!!!"

And then, after that, instead of God having to fuss with humanity's sin and repeatedly and constantly draw man back to Himself, He can let the Son sit still, and He will go to work with the real problem of all the enemies of mankind and bring them under the feet of THE SON OF GOD! And that means., under our feet, since we are ONE WITH THE SON!
Take a load off your feet, and SIT DOWN! NOW, I WORK to bring down all mankind's enemies!

The devil's days are NUMBERED!

We can barely grasp the significance!




(Those who think oneness means there is no glorified human man in glory right now, I am not interested in those thoughts.)

I do not believe the Bible teaches Jesus made God "change His mind". Not sure what you are trying to say with that part.

The sitting isn't about "taking a load off your feet" as in "relax, don't put forward effort". It's about being enthroned as ruling monarch, which implies and requires all sorts of responsibilities, activities, and "work" to be done by the one enthroned.

But perhaps I misunderstand what you are saying. The work of covering our sins has been accomplished once for all. If that is what you are saying then I agree.

mfblume
04-21-2020, 12:54 PM
I do not believe the Bible teaches Jesus made God "change His mind". Not sure what you are trying to say with that part.

The sitting isn't about "taking a load off your feet" as in "relax, don't put forward effort". It's about being enthroned as ruling monarch, which implies and requires all sorts of responsibilities, activities, and "work" to be done by the one enthroned.

But perhaps I misunderstand what you are saying. The work of covering our sins has been accomplished once for all. If that is what you are saying then I agree.

Yes, I meant that work is done once and for all.

I am referring to moving God to change His mind in the sense that the Psalm says he was not pleased with burnt offerings and sacrifice, and the SON came to do the will of the Father and cause mankind's sin' to be remitted. So, the changing of the mind is not as though God did not plan it to occur, but that he changed his mind about mankind being sinful toward having sins remitted and made righteous.

The sense is found here:

Isa 53:11 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.

The effect of the sacrifice of Christ did what the previous 1500 years of law sacrifices could not do. It actually was the cause that changed covenants, and caused God to open up the most holy place to us.

Esaias
04-21-2020, 12:58 PM
Ok, gotcha. :thumbsup

Pressing-On
04-21-2020, 01:22 PM
The effect of the sacrifice of Christ did what the previous 1500 years of law sacrifices could not do. It actually was the cause that changed covenants, and caused God to open up the most holy place to us.

:highfive :shockamoo

Pressing-On
04-21-2020, 01:49 PM
New King James Version
Heb 10:23Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful.

King James Bible
Heb 10:23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;)

Never thought about it this way before - faith and hope being the same.

TJJJ
04-21-2020, 10:03 PM
Bwahaahahahahahahahahaha

Jesus (God) made the Father (God) change his mind!!!!!

Sounds like 2 to me!!!!!!!!!!

Wow! No wonder you guys struggle when you can't even figure out what Deut 6:4 means.

TJJJ
04-21-2020, 10:06 PM
Blume, do you really believe in 2 or are you just trying to bait me?

TJJJ
04-21-2020, 10:10 PM
So God the Father has a physical body that Jesus God is sitting at the right hand of? Is that really what you believe Blume?

KeptByTheWord
04-22-2020, 12:22 AM
A great thought Bro. Blume... thankful for the work on Calvary by Jesus that did what sacrifices could never do!

mfblume
04-22-2020, 12:45 PM
So God the Father has a physical body that Jesus God is sitting at the right hand of? Is that really what you believe Blume?

I told you folks many many times that "right hand" does not mean physical right side of someone.

mfblume
04-22-2020, 12:46 PM
Bwahaahahahahahahahahaha

Jesus (God) made the Father (God) change his mind!!!!!

Sounds like 2 to me!!!!!!!!!!

Wow! No wonder you guys struggle when you can't even figure out what Deut 6:4 means.

You are not oneness, so

.... next?

mfblume
04-22-2020, 12:48 PM
Blume, do you really believe in 2 or are you just trying to bait me?

Let's see how you respond to a question you refused to answer in the past to see how serious you are about this issue.

Before the cross, there was JESUS AS A MAN AND AS GOD at the same time. That is ONENESS. Right? Is that TWO? Does that violate Deut 6:4? Does that mean you do not know what ONE means if you believe Jesus was MAN AND GOD at the same time before the cross? Or was there NO ONENESS in effect before the cross during the life of Jesus in a mortal body?

Or do you have two forms of God in heaven with LORD (God 1) saying to David's Lord (God 2) to sit down at the right hand? Psalm 110: 1 was fulfilled AFTER the resurrected MAN ascended to Heaven. (God cannot resurrect because God cannot die.)

Psalm 110:1 The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Or is there GOD ONE going to put GOD TWO'S enemies under his feet, while GOD TWO sits?

It is God to MAN being addressed, NOT GOD TO GOD.

(Waiting to hear the answer to that!)

What is there about between the incarnation and the cross that is Oneness to YOU (because it's the same scenario as right now)?

What is the difference between that and the time AFTER the cross until today for there to be Jesus as BOTH MAN AND GOD as a scenario of ONENESS?

(But I did ask you non-oneness brethren to not take part. This is about oneness.)


(Those who think oneness means there is no glorified human man in glory right now, I am not interested in those thoughts.)

mfblume
04-22-2020, 04:14 PM
CRICKETS!!!!!

Oh, I mean ... crickets

Walks_in_islam
04-22-2020, 07:09 PM
When you read Hebrews chapter 10, you get a powerful revelation about Psalm. 110:1. Paul wrote in Hebrews that the seating of Jesus on the throne meant the work was accomplished, that could never be accomplished after 1,500 years of animal sacrifices under the Old Covenant, and all the sacrifice before that back to Adam's day. Another Psalm said that God was not pleased with burnt offerings and sacrifices, so Jesus came to to do the job that would please the Father.

This means, that when Jesus was told to sit down by the Father, that's an unbelievably powerful statement!

"I am satisfied now. What could not change my mind for thousands of years and please me, you have done in six hours on that cross. The closest that I could get to dealing with man's sins before you was one day out of the year when Israel's sins were atoned for the previous year, every year, for 1,500 years. Man was simply reminded of Sin on that greatest day under Law for every single year law endured. But now, I did through YOU that which made that day of Atonement into the most absolutely precious thing to My Heart! I allowed man into my holiest of holies here with me! I remitted their sins, and I don't leave them with annual reminders of their sin! The consciences of those who believe in this work of all works need not feel any more guilt and anxiety over being in trouble with me any more! SIT DOWN, the work is finally DONE!!!"

And then, after that, instead of God having to fuss with humanity's sin and repeatedly and constantly draw man back to Himself, He can let the Son sit still, and He will go to work with the real problem of all the enemies of mankind and bring them under the feet of THE SON OF GOD! And that means., under our feet, since we are ONE WITH THE SON!
Take a load off your feet, and SIT DOWN! NOW, I WORK to bring down all mankind's enemies!

The devil's days are NUMBERED!

We can barely grasp the significance!




(Those who think oneness means there is no glorified human man in glory right now, I am not interested in those thoughts.)

You already said Jesus and the Father are the same and that God’s throne and Jesus’ throne is the same.

You wasted weeks, months, pounding that point and your position then is in in contradiction to what you are saying here. It was in contradiction with dozens of references like it. Great to see that you have finally come around to the layout of God’s Throne Room and who sits where. Did someone phonic things up for you or did you have a revelation? Truly miraculous because I thought you were kinda a hopeless case.

Save some time and spare me your personal interpretation of what it actually means if only someone would let you re-splain it. I’m not listening to that either.

Pressing-On
04-22-2020, 09:13 PM
You already said Jesus and the Father are the same and that God’s throne and Jesus’ throne is the same.

You wasted weeks, months, pounding that point and your position then is in in contradiction to what you are saying here. It was in contradiction with dozens of references like it. Great to see that you have finally come around to the layout of God’s Throne Room and who sits where. Did someone phonic things up for you or did you have a revelation? Truly miraculous because I thought you were kinda a hopeless case.

Save some time and spare me your personal interpretation of what it actually means if only someone would let you re-splain it. I’m not listening to that either.

“At AFF our intention is to recognize and allow all viewpoints that exist within the "Apostolic" genre. We recognize that Apostolic includes faith in Jesus Christ, a Oneness view of the Godhead, baptism in Jesus name, and the experience of the baptism of the Holy Spirit with tongues.”

Why are you here?

Walks_in_islam
04-22-2020, 10:46 PM
“At AFF our intention is to recognize and allow all viewpoints that exist within the "Apostolic" genre. We recognize that Apostolic includes faith in Jesus Christ, a Oneness view of the Godhead, baptism in Jesus name, and the experience of the baptism of the Holy Spirit with tongues.”

Why are you here?

Asked and answered. Many times.

mfblume
04-23-2020, 09:26 AM
“At AFF our intention is to recognize and allow all viewpoints that exist within the "Apostolic" genre. We recognize that Apostolic includes faith in Jesus Christ, a Oneness view of the Godhead, baptism in Jesus name, and the experience of the baptism of the Holy Spirit with tongues.”

Why are you here?

For purposes of classic trolling.

Pressing-On
04-23-2020, 10:37 AM
For purposes of classic trolling.

That’s what it looks like to me.

mfblume
04-23-2020, 11:18 AM
That’s what it looks like to me.

I do not understand why he is allowed here, to be honest.

Pressing-On
04-23-2020, 11:59 AM
I do not understand why he is allowed here, to be honest.

Agreed! Mocking our Apostolic beliefs is against the rules.

diakonos
04-23-2020, 12:00 PM
Agreed! Mocking our Apostolic beliefs is against the rules.

Self moderated forum. There is a report button.

mfblume
04-23-2020, 12:05 PM
Self moderated forum. There is a report button.

Just used it.

mfblume
04-23-2020, 02:11 PM
Let's see how you respond to a question you refused to answer in the past to see how serious you are about this issue.

Before the cross, there was JESUS AS A MAN AND AS GOD at the same time. That is ONENESS. Right? Is that TWO? Does that violate Deut 6:4? Does that mean you do not know what ONE means if you believe Jesus was MAN AND GOD at the same time before the cross? Or was there NO ONENESS in effect before the cross during the life of Jesus in a mortal body?

Or do you have two forms of God in heaven with LORD (God 1) saying to David's Lord (God 2) to sit down at the right hand? Psalm 110: 1 was fulfilled AFTER the resurrected MAN ascended to Heaven. (God cannot resurrect because God cannot die.)

Psalm 110:1 The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Or is there GOD ONE going to put GOD TWO'S enemies under his feet, while GOD TWO sits?

It is God to MAN being addressed, NOT GOD TO GOD.

(Waiting to hear the answer to that!)

What is there about between the incarnation and the cross that is Oneness to YOU (because it's the same scenario as right now)?

What is the difference between that and the time AFTER the cross until today for there to be Jesus as BOTH MAN AND GOD as a scenario of ONENESS?

(But I did ask you non-oneness brethren to not take part. This is about oneness.)


(Those who think oneness means there is no glorified human man in glory right now, I am not interested in those thoughts.)

Bump (won't hold my breath)

Nicodemus1968
04-23-2020, 02:55 PM
Bump (won't hold my breath)

When did Jesus begin?

mfblume
04-23-2020, 03:00 PM
When did Jesus begin?

What about my questions that go unanswered?

"What is there about between the incarnation and the cross that is Oneness to YOU (because it's the same scenario as right now)? What is the difference between that and the time AFTER the cross until today for there to be Jesus as BOTH MAN AND GOD as a scenario of ONENESS?"

Nicodemus1968
04-23-2020, 03:12 PM
What about my questions that go unanswered?

"What is there about between the incarnation and the cross that is Oneness to YOU (because it's the same scenario as right now)? What is the difference between that and the time AFTER the cross until today for there to be Jesus as BOTH MAN AND GOD as a scenario of ONENESS?"

Because the physical man had a purpose and the purpose was completed!

The Bible says,
John 19:30 KJVS
[30] When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

Finished- meaning he brought to a close.

Matthew 28:18 KJVS
[18] And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Ive said this with others, the physical body of Jesus was NOT God. The SPIRIT that indwelled that sacrifice was God. The Physical man is not another deity, nor is it the from of God in the spirit realm.

mfblume
04-23-2020, 03:26 PM
Because the physical man had a purpose and the purpose was completed! What has that got to do with thinking that the existence of a man now as Son of God makes one depart from oneness when you believe that oneness included the picture of Jesus as a man at the same time He was God when there was what you believe was a purpose for it? Just because you think there is no man now since his purpose was done, does not mean that IT IS NOT ONENESS to believe there is a purpose now and that the man still exists.

Oneness is about the STATE and NATURE of Jesus in relation to humanity and deity.

Since you believe that Jesus as a man was also God at the same time, and He was so before the cross, and you say that that correctly represents ONENESS, then the same picture with both Jesus as man and God today is just as oneness. Oneness is not about PURPOSE. PURPOSE is another topic. Oneness is about an explanation of what is going on with JESUS as a man and Deity. Is Jesus the same GOD that fills the universe while at the same time Jesus was a man? YES! That is oneness! And that holds true whether the man is in heaven NOW or was on earth THEN.

Oneness is about the nature of Jesus being GOD AND MAN at the same time. It matters not WHEN. It is just as much oneness to say that Jesus is STILL God and Man at the same time as much as it was to say He was so before the cross.


The Bible says,
John 19:30 KJVS
[30] When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

Finished- meaning he brought to a close.

It did not say WHAT was finished, though. I claim that the need for all that would fulfil the old covenant and the question of sin was FINISHED. The WORK was finished. That work is focused on in Hebrews 10 as being FINISHED which caused the SON TO SIT DOWN IN HEAVEN. It was AFTER Jesus ascended into HEAVEN that He was told to SIT DOWN.

Do you not believe that Psalm 110:1 was fulfilled AFTER Jesus ascended into heaven? THAT is the MAIN ISSUE of this entire subject.


Matthew 28:18 KJVS
[18] And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

A MAN GIVEN ALL POWER. Amen! God is NOT GIVEN power. God HAS power. So, Jesus was speaking as a MAN while he was also God at the same time.

So why would He as a MAN be "given" all power only to no longer exist as a man any more? Kind of a waste of time.


Ive said this with others, the physical body of Jesus was NOT God.

I agree!

The SPIRIT that indwelled that sacrifice was God. The Physical man is not another deity, nor is it the from of God in the spirit realm.

I am not saying the physical man is deity or is from the Spirit realm. The PHYSICAL MAN did not come into existence until the incarnation. And yet HE ascended into heaven and was told to sit down while HIS DEITY would put his enemies beneath his feet.

So, once again, do you believe that Psalm 110:1 was fulfilled AFTER the ascension, and who do you believe the LORD is who spoke to David's Lord in that post-ascension dialogue?

Esaias
04-23-2020, 03:30 PM
http://www.lolzhumor.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Funny_Pictures_this-should-be-the-loading-screen-for-everything_1205.gif

mfblume
04-23-2020, 03:30 PM
This is a good chat. I hope you stick with it this time, Nicodemus.

mfblume
04-23-2020, 03:31 PM
What an awful way to see a precious thought that I shared turn into a debate that I was not pushing for.

Esaias
04-23-2020, 03:32 PM
What an awful way to see a precious thought that I shared turn into a debate that I was not pushing for.

I think you will be disappointed. I hope I am wrong.

mfblume
04-23-2020, 03:33 PM
I think you will be disappointed. I hope I am wrong.

I'll give it a shot again. We'll know shortly.

mfblume
04-23-2020, 03:51 PM
The issue is that ONENESS is the understanding that Jesus is both God and Man at the same time. He's not a second person of a trinity with a third person involved.

The situation of Jesus being on earth as a man and is thought to be God at the same time, and was eternally God while he was not eternally man, constitutes ONENESS.

If that same situation exists NOW, except that the LOCATION of JESUS as a MAN is now in heaven as opposed to earth, while at the same time is the one eternal God who is omnipresent, then THAT IS STILL ONENESS.

How can it no longer be ONENESS if only the LOCATION of the MAN who is Jesus has changed, while Jesus is also God? How does LOCATION of the man make a difference in ONENESS when it's the same scenario of Jesus as both man and God?

If one wants to believe Jesus is no longer MAN as well as God (which is wrong), that is NO MORE ONENESS than believing He is still existing as both Man and God.

Walks_in_islam
04-23-2020, 08:01 PM
Agreed! Mocking our Apostolic beliefs is against the rules.

Who made fun. In the referenced thread there were many chapters and verses listed.

The specific verses:

1. Acts during the stoning of Stephen - God in one place, Jesus in another at the right hand
2. Jesus referencing himself “at the right hand”
3. Jesus referenced “at the right hand” in Revelations 3
4. Jesus at the right hand in Mark 16
4. Jesus referenced at the “right hand” in Ephesians
5. Jesus at the right hand in Hebrews 10, I Peter 3

Summary: Mark 16, Romans 8, Eph 1, Col 3, Heb 1, Heb 8, Heb 12, 1 Peter 3, Matt 26, Acts 7 ALL refer to Jesus and God as separate and physically place Jesus and God in separate places.

As Bloom did in the first post in this thread.

So yeah. Report away. Verses that don’t say what one teaches they mean would make me uncomfortable to read too.

Walks_in_islam
04-23-2020, 08:07 PM
The issue is that ONENESS is the understanding that Jesus is both God and Man at the same time. He's not a second person of a trinity with a third person involved.

The situation of Jesus being on earth as a man and is thought to be God at the same time, and was eternally God while he was not eternally man, constitutes ONENESS.

If that same situation exists NOW, except that the LOCATION of JESUS as a MAN is now in heaven as opposed to earth, while at the same time is the one eternal God who is omnipresent, then THAT IS STILL ONENESS.

How can it no longer be ONENESS if only the LOCATION of the MAN who is Jesus has changed, while Jesus is also God? How does LOCATION of the man make a difference in ONENESS when it's the same scenario of Jesus as both man and God?

If one wants to believe Jesus is no longer MAN as well as God (which is wrong), that is NO MORE ONENESS than believing He is still existing as both Man and God.

Hey dude Stephen said Jesus’ location and God’s location were separate. Rev says God handed Jesus a book to open after Jesus stood up and came forward and held out his hand to get it.

In both cases these were described as heavenly events. Just like your first post here.

The others verses? Are sprinkled all over the place. I gave ole pressin’ on a list of them for his/her report. About time y’all cracked that book open and read it anyway. Skipped verses. Read the whole chapter for once.

Report this post too Bloom.

Walks_in_islam
04-23-2020, 08:17 PM
Just used it.

Gave you two more to report

Make sure you attach the chapters

Pressing-On
04-23-2020, 09:24 PM
Who made fun. In the referenced thread there were many chapters and verses listed.

The specific verses:

1. Acts during the stoning of Stephen - God in one place, Jesus in another at the right hand
2. Jesus referencing himself “at the right hand”
3. Jesus referenced “at the right hand” in Revelations 3
4. Jesus at the right hand in Mark 16
4. Jesus referenced at the “right hand” in Ephesians
5. Jesus at the right hand in Hebrews 10, I Peter 3

Summary: Mark 16, Romans 8, Eph 1, Col 3, Heb 1, Heb 8, Heb 12, 1 Peter 3, Matt 26, Acts 7 ALL refer to Jesus and God as separate and physically place Jesus and God in separate places.

As Bloom did in the first post in this thread.

So yeah. Report away. Verses that don’t say what one teaches they mean would make me uncomfortable to read too.

You don’t have a revelation of who God is. That is apparent by your posts and how you are reading the verses. I don’t have to argue with you about it. It isn’t necessarily because you apparently aren’t hungry. He that hungers and thirsts. Think about those word analogies. There isn’t anything anyone can do about that. It is all about you.

Esaias
04-23-2020, 10:30 PM
Hey dude Stephen said Jesus’ location and God’s location were separate. Rev says God handed Jesus a book to open after Jesus stood up and came forward and held out his hand to get it.

In both cases these were described as heavenly events. Just like your first post here.

The others verses? Are sprinkled all over the place. I gave ole pressin’ on a list of them for his/her report. About time y’all cracked that book open and read it anyway. Skipped verses. Read the whole chapter for once.

Report this post too Bloom.

Hey dude, Thomas called Jesus his God. Titus says Jesus Christ is our great God and saviour. 2 Peter says Jesus is our God and saviour. Isaiah says the Son is also the mighty God and the everlasting Father. John says in the beginning was the Word, and not only was it "with" God, but WAS God, and then became flesh, and the apostles beheld His glory AS OF the only begotten Son.

He has revealed this Book to you, setting forth the truth and confirming the earlier Books, and earlier He revealed the Torah and Gospel for the guidance of mankind; and He has also revealed the Criterion (to distinguish truth from falsehood). A severe chastisement lies in store for those who deny the signs of Allah. Allah is All-Mighty; He is the Lord of Retribution. (Ali Imran 3-4)

Walks_in_islam
04-24-2020, 04:50 AM
Hey dude, Thomas called Jesus his God. Titus says Jesus Christ is our great God and saviour. 2 Peter says Jesus is our God and saviour. Isaiah says the Son is also the mighty God and the everlasting Father. John says in the beginning was the Word, and not only was it "with" God, but WAS God, and then became flesh, and the apostles beheld His glory AS OF the only begotten Son.

He has revealed this Book to you, setting forth the truth and confirming the earlier Books, and earlier He revealed the Torah and Gospel for the guidance of mankind; and He has also revealed the Criterion (to distinguish truth from falsehood). A severe chastisement lies in store for those who deny the signs of Allah. Allah is All-Mighty; He is the Lord of Retribution. (Ali Imran 3-4)

Talk of chastisement don’t scare me none. I don’t reword or reinterpret a single passage outa your book. Ain’t never said “oh it says this but that really means something else”.

However now you too are saying some passages say one thing and some say something else? Go to the contradiction thread and wash rinse repeat.

In the Gospel: not one single passage, not one, has Jesus say: I am God. Jesus says the opposite. I’m not going to list the number of times “who sent me, who I speak for” and “my power is given to me” is referenced.

Your report however should have some substance.

Add:

John 16:28
John 6:38
John 14:31
John 14:28 “the father is greater than I”? HUH?
John 15:10

Then please report that Jesus PRAYED to God in Matthew 26 and set up a future party not in Jesus’ kingdom but in his Father’s kingdom.

Anyone else want to snitch on me for making fun of stupid explanations of why this doesn’t mean what it says or it means something else? Y’all Speak Up but there is a difference between making fun of spin and making fun of what the book says.

Oh and if ya run around in Harris County wear your mask and no we don’t carry cooking bleach at the grocery stores here. Order that from Washington.

Scott Pitta
04-24-2020, 06:03 AM
I will, if I may, step in for a moment.

The original post is about a specific aspect of theology. When others respond, the dialog retains value when the focus is on the specific aspect of the original post.

When posts drift away from the idea shared in the original post, they, in my opinion, lose value.

Debate all you want about broad issues on a page devoted to such a thing. But when a person wants to only discuss one specific aspect of a given issue, refrain your comments to that specific issue.

That is what I try to do.

Nicodemus1968
04-24-2020, 06:46 AM
What an awful way to see a precious thought that I shared turn into a debate that I was not pushing for.

I’m sorry to back away like that, I got called away right after my last post. Ill respond soon.

Pressing-On
04-24-2020, 07:39 AM
Talk of chastisement don’t scare me none. I don’t reword or reinterpret a single passage outa your book. Ain’t never said “oh it says this but that really means something else”.

However now you too are saying some passages say one thing and some say something else? Go to the contradiction thread and wash rinse repeat.

In the Gospel: not one single passage, not one, has Jesus say: I am God. Jesus says the opposite. I’m not going to list the number of times “who sent me, who I speak for” and “my power is given to me” is referenced.

Your report however should have some substance.

Add:

John 16:28
John 6:38
John 14:31
John 14:28 “the father is greater than I”? HUH?
John 15:10

Then please report that Jesus PRAYED to God in Matthew 26 and set up a future party not in Jesus’ kingdom but in his Father’s kingdom.

Anyone else want to snitch on me for making fun of stupid explanations of why this doesn’t mean what it says or it means something else? Y’all Speak Up but there is a difference between making fun of spin and making fun of what the book says.

Oh and if ya run around in Harris County wear your mask and no we don’t carry cooking bleach at the grocery stores here. Order that from Washington.

You don’t understand that Jesus never had to say, I am God.

A better insight into Peter’s understanding of who Jesus was is in 2 Peter 1:2-4.

2Grace and peace be multiplied to you through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord. 3His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through the knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence. 4Through these He has given us His precious and magnificent promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, now that you have escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.

mfblume
04-24-2020, 08:48 AM
I’m sorry to back away like that, I got called away right after my last post. Ill respond soon.

Thanks!

mfblume
04-24-2020, 08:53 AM
The whole issue of Oneness is that Jesus is both God and man and that AS MAN He is contrasted from GOD. And then AS GOD He made claims that only could be made by God. When we read He is seen from the perspective of his humanity in some cases, and from the perspective of His deity in others. This is the reason that Jesus flipped out the pharisees when he asked them why the commonly held understanding that David's son was to be the Messiah, but yet David Himself called him LORD in Psalm 110:1.

And for those who think the man is not in heaven now, Psalm 110:1 was a prophecy of what would occur AFTER Jesus ascended to heaven.

Esaias
04-24-2020, 09:55 AM
Talk of chastisement don’t scare me none. I don’t reword or reinterpret a single passage outa your book. Ain’t never said “oh it says this but that really means something else”.

However now you too are saying some passages say one thing and some say something else? Go to the contradiction thread and wash rinse repeat.

In the Gospel: not one single passage, not one, has Jesus say: I am God. Jesus says the opposite. I’m not going to list the number of times “who sent me, who I speak for” and “my power is given to me” is referenced.

Your report however should have some substance.

Add:

John 16:28
John 6:38
John 14:31
John 14:28 “the father is greater than I”? HUH?
John 15:10

Then please report that Jesus PRAYED to God in Matthew 26 and set up a future party not in Jesus’ kingdom but in his Father’s kingdom.

Anyone else want to snitch on me for making fun of stupid explanations of why this doesn’t mean what it says or it means something else? Y’all Speak Up but there is a difference between making fun of spin and making fun of what the book says.

Oh and if ya run around in Harris County wear your mask and no we don’t carry cooking bleach at the grocery stores here. Order that from Washington.

I believe you and I already had this discussion. Unfortunately you seem to have forgotten a few things from that time. In the mean time:

Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute. (Ali Imran 55)

mfblume
04-24-2020, 11:32 AM
I believe you and I already had this discussion. Unfortunately you seem to have forgotten a few things from that time. In the mean time:

Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute. (Ali Imran 55)

I discussed with him, too, about Revelation 1-3. Jesus is seen as the one who calls himself almighty. People usually say that he was God's spokesman. But yet, when we read the seven letters to the seven churches in 2-3, the AUTHOR, who allegedly only USED the man to speak, does indeed speak by calling himself the one who held the seven stars, walked among candlesticks.... i.e. said he was the one whom John saw (the man who was risen and alive) and introduced himself with every characteristic we read that John saw in chapter 1.

So, if he is a spokesman for God, then GOD is the one whom John saw in the vision who said he was dead and is alove. If what John SAW in chapter 1 that was unique to the MAN, why are the words coming from him to the church addressing Himself as the one who was seen to walk among the candlesticks and hold the seven stars in his hand, which was the RISEN MAN? We do not read that the author of the letters said, "I am the one who sent my spokesman who walked among the seven golden candlesticks."

I got no answer. Just a dodging of that issue.

mfblume
04-24-2020, 12:50 PM
For those who do not believe Jesus is God, what is your reply to the fact that Jesus said he was almighty and, not merely spokesman due to the identity of the one speaking to the seven churches as the one who did the things that John saw the MAN alone do with descriptions of the man?

mfblume
04-24-2020, 01:09 PM
The Spokesman idea in Revelation 1 means the words being spoken are not the Son's words. He is speaking AS IF he was God. That fails, because we have the words "spoken" relating these statements that can only apply to the SON.

Rev 2:1 Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;

2:8 And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;

And on and on. You get the drift. Here are the sources for the identity of the one speaking in the verses above:

13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.

18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.


So if the one speaking about John sending his letters to the seven churches said this...

Rev 1:10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,
11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

....and He identified himself as the Alpha and Omega While he was at it, and the alpha and omega said this earlier...

Rev 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.


...then the one who is GOD must also be the MAN!

mfblume
04-24-2020, 02:15 PM
After having removed the rhetoric ...

In the Gospel: not one single passage, not one, has Jesus say: I am God.


Neglected again to mention Revelation.

Rev 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, [/b][/u]the Almighty.[/b][/u]

The one who says He is Alpha and Omega is the Almighty.

10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,
11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and,


This Alpha and Omega who is almighty then proceeds to say he is authoring letters for the seven churches.


What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

John looks to see the origin of the voice of this one who is Alpha and Omega and Almighty.


12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;
13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.

He sees the son of man.

Wii was told this before and dodged.

At this point here, representation is alleged by those who misrepresent the picture. Jesus the man is simply supposed to be the spokesman. But as I said earlier....


That fails, because we have the words "spoken" relating these statements that can only apply to the SON.

Rev 2:1 Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;

2:8 And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;

And on and on. You get the drift. Here are the sources for the identity of the one speaking in the verses above:

13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.

18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.


So if the one speaking about John sending his letters to the seven churches said this...

Rev 1:10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,
11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

....and He identified himself as the Alpha and Omega While he was at it, and the alpha and omega said this earlier...

Rev 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.


...then the one who is GOD must also be the MAN!


Jesus says the opposite.

No, He does not. The opposite would be "I am not God." But we will deal with this shortly...

I’m not going to list the number of times “who sent me, who I speak for” and “my power is given to me” is referenced.

Oneness is entirely based on these statements. Critics who never took time to actually learn oneness, think they are defeating oneness with arguments that are not related to the actual issue that oneness proposes.

Jesus is God and Man. As Man, He says that He was sent by God because GOD is not MAN. Since that man was God manifest in flesh, the MAN had as much 100%-flesh as we do. 100% as human as we are. But God manifested as that man at the same time He remained God. And therefore SENT the man, and the man stated he could do nothing without God. Otherwise, God was not genuinely manifested in flesh!

The question actually is whether or not God can DO THAT. Can God manifest so genuinely in flesh as a man that the man had to rely on God as all men do? If not, why not? These are the questions people who do not understand oneness avoid because they do not fall under what the critics think oneness is about. The answers ruin their arguments!

Can God do that sort of manifestation or not? According to what we read in Revelation 1, and other places as when Jesus said David's Son is David's Lord in Matthew, He did ! Jesus said that "HE IS" before Abraham "was." This, too, is avoided. That is just like saying He is God.

Thomas called HIm God, as Esaias said, and Thomas was not cussing.

In places where Jesus spoke from the standpoint of his humanity, He said God sent HIm and God is greater than Him. But in places where Jesus spoke from the standpoint of God, as we see BOTH in Revelation 1, He said he "IS" before Abraham.

So, saying things such as Christ revealing his reliance on God is in no way detrimental to the concept of Oneness. Oneness is BASED ON THAT kind of scenario.

Your report, however, should have some substance.

Add:

John 16:28
John 6:38
John 14:31
John 14:28 “the father is greater than I”? HUH?
John 15:10


These are all instances of genuine humanity revealing the traits that are true of the rest of humanity! How else would He speak if He was genuinely God manifest in flesh making that flesh a human being that had to rely on a greater deity like the rest of us do?

Paul told Timothy in 1 Tim 3:16 that godliness is a great mystery. Here is something that many oneness people don't know, let alone muslims, and it explains the entire issue. Godliness was the theme of 1 Tim from Chapter 1 through 3. He spoke of what the law was intended to do, as we find in Rom 8:2-3 Law was unable to do. Render us godly. He spoke of bishops and deacons being godly. He spoke of women being godly as well. He spoke of being godly toward leadership like kings.

Then he says godliness is a great mystery! And he explains how great it really is! And he answers the very questions posed by Wii and others.

God was manifest in flesh, Himself -- He did not send anybody BESIDE Himself in heaven as Trinitarians teach. But EVEN GOD when manifest in the flesh was NOT JUISTIFITIED IN THE FLESH. You speak as though Jesus had to be justified in his flesh if He was God in the flesh. This is because you do not understand oneness. God in the flesh, HIMSELF, was justified in the SPIRIT. He was so manifest in genuine human flesh, that that human being HAD TO rely on the Spirit of God -- Deity! Otherwise, there would have been no godliness, because humanity on its own is USELESS without God's empowerment.


Then please report that Jesus PRAYED to God in Matthew 26 and set up a future party not in Jesus’ kingdom but in his Father’s kingdom.

It happened BECAUSE God manifest in flesh is GOD MANIFEST IN FLESH like each of us are flesh and are humans. AND if it is genuine HUMANITY, then that MAN had to pray and rely on the FATHER as WE DO! So simple!

votivesoul
04-24-2020, 04:43 PM
1 John 4:2 is important here.

2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God... (ESV).

The phrase "has come" is what is most important.

In Greek, it is ἐληλυθότα or, transliterated elēlythota. This verb form is the perfect participle active, accusative masculine singular, of the verb ἔρχομαι (erchomai), which means "to come".

However, as perfect participle active, it most literally means "having come", since it is active, meaning, it is an on-going reality that began in the past but continues on into the present.

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_john/4-2.htm
https://biblehub.com/greek/2064.htm

This means that the flesh in which Christ came is still actively extant.

The question then becomes, what does John mean when he uses the word "flesh", or σαρκὶ (sarki)? Does he refer to the tangible bodily materials, the actual tissues, organs, and other physical structures of the body, or is flesh here meant to be understood as a metonym for "human" (which obviously originally encompassed the tangible bodily materials), but also includes the intangibles such as soul and spirit?

If John actually means the tangible bodily materials, then Jesus still has a flesh and blood and bone and sinew and organ body, actively present and alive, in the heavens per the verb form used in 1 John 4:2 seen above (along with the intangibles).

If John means for the flesh to be a metonym for human, it means Jesus is still actively present in the heavens as a human being, but whether or not with tangible, bodily materials, is inconclusive.

The best way to understand John's use of flesh comes from John 1:14, where it is clear that flesh is meant as a human person, with soul and spirit, not just the bodily materials, that is, a structured piece of otherwise un-animated meat, as it were.

The question then is not whether Christ is still a human. It is unequivocally demonstrated from the Holy Scriptures that He is. The question is whether or not Jesus maintained His human-ness with the tangible bodily materials of His physicality granted Him at the Incarnation of the Logos.

Esaias
04-24-2020, 07:31 PM
The key is that Jesus CHRIST is come in the flesh (AV). Christ means anointed one, referring to the son of David. Christ includes within its meaning the qualities of humanness. Yet it is this Christ which is said to be "come in the flesh". How does a human "come in the flesh" when said human is by default already flesh/human?

The verse looks to Pentecost more than the Incarnation. The Incarnation is already accounted for in the term Christ. So therefore...

votivesoul
04-25-2020, 04:53 AM
The key is that Jesus CHRIST is come in the flesh (AV). Christ means anointed one, referring to the son of David. Christ includes within its meaning the qualities of humanness. Yet it is this Christ which is said to be "come in the flesh". How does a human "come in the flesh" when said human is by default already flesh/human?

Because "is come" is not correct. The Greek text reads "having come". It's a perfect participle (meaning past completed action) that is active (meaning continuous since the onset of the past completed action). In this way "having" is appropriate, in place of "is".

So, Jesus came in the flesh at the Incarnation and conception (past completed action) but from then on, continues in the flesh (active human existence subsequent to the completed action of arriving, as it were, on earth, as said human).

So, when John writes that Jesus Christ arrived in the flesh/showed up as a human being, and continues to be in the flesh/be a human being, it's because prior to this arrival, the Logos was not made flesh, that is, was not human. So, at one point Jesus, as the Logos, wasn't flesh/a human being but was of the same nature as God, which is Spirit. But, subsequent to John 1:14, the Logos was made flesh, Jesus the human man called Christ, came into being on the earth, and He has ever been human since that time.

The verse looks to Pentecost more than the Incarnation. The Incarnation is already accounted for in the term Christ. So therefore...

If so, that would suggest that John was referring to the church as the flesh of Jesus Christ. Jesus didn't return to earth in a tangible, bodily form, but came in and as the Spirit. So, what else could account for the use of the word "flesh" if not the people the Spirit of Christ indwelt at Pentecost?

Secondly, even though Christ the term and concept helps to account for the Incarnation by referring to humanity, it must be remembered that "Christ" is not merely the (hu)man called Jesus but Christ is the perichoresis, or co-inherence if you prefer, of the Father and the Son (1 John 2:22, and John 14:9-10).

In this way, it is acceptable to see 1 John 4:2 as referring to the Incarnation (when the Father indwelt the Son through the Logos), especially since John was written partly as a polemic against Docetic Gnosticism, which denied Jesus ever came to this world as a human being, but merely appeared or seemed to be one the whole time.

mfblume
04-25-2020, 01:49 PM
Secondly, even though Christ the term and concept helps to account for the Incarnation by referring to humanity, it must be remembered that "Christ" is not merely the (hu)man called Jesus but Christ is the perichoresis, or co-inherence if you prefer, of the Father and the Son (1 John 2:22, and John 14:9-10).

In this way, it is acceptable to see 1 John 4:2 as referring to the Incarnation (when the Father indwelt the Son through the Logos), especially since John was written partly as a polemic against Docetic Gnosticism, which denied Jesus ever came to this world as a human being, but merely appeared or seemed to be one the whole time.

Just touching on your last note. I heard the same for years that John attacked gnosticism. I disagree, though gnostic beliefs can be refuted using John's words. I believe John was actually speaking of Jewish believers reverting back to Judaism. Not gnosticism.

Esaias
04-25-2020, 04:43 PM
Because "is come" is not correct. The Greek text reads "having come". It's a perfect participle (meaning past completed action) that is active (meaning continuous since the onset of the past completed action). In this way "having" is appropriate, in place of "is".

So, Jesus came in the flesh at the Incarnation and conception (past completed action) but from then on, continues in the flesh (active human existence subsequent to the completed action of arriving, as it were, on earth, as said human).

So, when John writes that Jesus Christ arrived in the flesh/showed up as a human being, and continues to be in the flesh/be a human being, it's because prior to this arrival, the Logos was not made flesh, that is, was not human. So, at one point Jesus, as the Logos, wasn't flesh/a human being but was of the same nature as God, which is Spirit. But, subsequent to John 1:14, the Logos was made flesh, Jesus the human man called Christ, came into being on the earth, and He has ever been human since that time.



If so, that would suggest that John was referring to the church as the flesh of Jesus Christ. Jesus didn't return to earth in a tangible, bodily form, but came in and as the Spirit. So, what else could account for the use of the word "flesh" if not the people the Spirit of Christ indwelt at Pentecost?

Secondly, even though Christ the term and concept helps to account for the Incarnation by referring to humanity, it must be remembered that "Christ" is not merely the (hu)man called Jesus but Christ is the perichoresis, or co-inherence if you prefer, of the Father and the Son (1 John 2:22, and John 14:9-10).

In this way, it is acceptable to see 1 John 4:2 as referring to the Incarnation (when the Father indwelt the Son through the Logos), especially since John was written partly as a polemic against Docetic Gnosticism, which denied Jesus ever came to this world as a human being, but merely appeared or seemed to be one the whole time.

Well, I wasn't focusing on the is come/has come difference, but on exactly what is said to come in the flesh: Jesus Christ. The phrase Jesus Christ already includes within its meaning the humanity and the incarnation. Therefore it is THE MAN who is said to be "come in the flesh". And yes this refers to the church as the BODY of Jesus Christ. It identified WHO exactly has arrived "in the flesh" of His people. It identifies the Holy Spirit as JESUS CHRIST, the very Man from Galilee. Those who deny that the Spirit in His church is none other than the Spirit of Jesus Christ are, according to the apostle, antichrist.

The main reason I do not believe the verse in question is contra a gnostic doctrine concerning the incarnation is because 1) the term Jesus Christ already assumes that Jesus is a human being (son of David anointed to sit on David's throne), and 2) it is not at all established that gnoticism per se (which denied that Jesus actually incarnated in reality) was developed at the time of 1 John. That gnostic error requires certain other theological motifs to have been developed a priori and upon which it depends, which I have not seen demonstrated were in such matured development in the 1st century yet.

And even if they were, the phraseology John uses (a phraseology chosen ultimately by the omniscient God and not merely by a Galilean apostle ministering in Anatolia) theologically presumes the FACT of incarnation about which a proposition is stated: the Man from Galilee is/has come in the flesh. Which as far as I can tell only makes sense in reference to the identify of the Spirit which comes in the flesh via the baptism with the Spirit.

votivesoul
04-25-2020, 10:44 PM
Just touching on your last note. I heard the same for years that John attacked gnosticism. I disagree, though gnostic beliefs can be refuted using John's words. I believe John was actually speaking of Jewish believers reverting back to Judaism. Not gnosticism.

Care to elaborate? :)

votivesoul
04-25-2020, 10:52 PM
Well, I wasn't focusing on the is come/has come difference, but on exactly what is said to come in the flesh: Jesus Christ. The phrase Jesus Christ already includes within its meaning the humanity and the incarnation. Therefore it is THE MAN who is said to be "come in the flesh". And yes this refers to the church as the BODY of Jesus Christ. It identified WHO exactly has arrived "in the flesh" of His people. It identifies the Holy Spirit as JESUS CHRIST, the very Man from Galilee. Those who deny that the Spirit in His church is none other than the Spirit of Jesus Christ are, according to the apostle, antichrist.

The main reason I do not believe the verse in question is contra a gnostic doctrine concerning the incarnation is because 1) the term Jesus Christ already assumes that Jesus is a human being (son of David anointed to sit on David's throne), and 2) it is not at all established that gnoticism per se (which denied that Jesus actually incarnated in reality) was developed at the time of 1 John. That gnostic error requires certain other theological motifs to have been developed a priori and upon which it depends, which I have not seen demonstrated were in such matured development in the 1st century yet.

And even if they were, the phraseology John uses (a phraseology chosen ultimately by the omniscient God and not merely by a Galilean apostle ministering in Anatolia) theologically presumes the FACT of incarnation about which a proposition is stated: the Man from Galilee is/has come in the flesh. Which as far as I can tell only makes sense in reference to the identify of the Spirit which comes in the flesh via the baptism with the Spirit.

We have to remember the Logos aspect of all of this. While the name and title Jesus Christ presumes, sine qua non, a human nature, there was a time when Jesus, as the Logos, did not, as far as we know, have a human nature, but yet, was still Christ, when He, as the Logos, was in the "bosom of the Father", since the Christ is, as stated, the co-inherence of the Father and the Son. 1 John 1:1 greatly proves and reinforces the point by calling Jesus Christ the "Logos" of Life (See John 1:4). Jesus was then, indeed has always been, and always will be, the Logos of God. So, there is an interplay of terms here, between Logos, the name Jesus, the title Christ, and Son.

As such, it is no great issue for John to have written that everyone who confesses that Jesus Christ is/has come in the flesh is of God, and be referring to the Incarnation of the Logos of Life of God.

Esaias
04-25-2020, 10:59 PM
We have to remember the Logos aspect of all of this. While the name and title Jesus Christ presumes, sine qua non, a human nature, there was a time when Jesus, as the Logos, did not, as far as we know, have a human nature, but yet, was still Christ, when He, as the Logos, was in the "bosom of the Father", since the Christ is, as stated, the co-inherence of the Father and the Son. 1 John 1:1 greatly proves and reinforces the point by calling Jesus Christ the "Logos" of Life (See John 1:4). Jesus was then, indeed has always been, and always will be, the Logos of God. So, there is an interplay of terms here, between Logos, the name Jesus, the title Christ, and Son.

As such, it is no great issue for John to have written that everyone who confesses that Jesus Christ is/has come in the flesh is of God, and be referring to the Incarnation of the Logos of Life of God.

Can you elaborate (!) on the use of the term Christ as applying to the PREincarnate Logos? As I understand it Christ always references humanity, that is, the term necessarily implies humanness and Sonship, and would not be properly applied to the preincarnate Logos (except in a forward-looking prophetic sense anticipating the incarnation). Also, "Jesus" is likewise a reference to the Man (humanness, post incarnate reality), and is only applied to God in the sense that Jesus is the Man in, as, and through whom God manifests. Hope I'm making sense here.

votivesoul
04-27-2020, 12:55 AM
Can you elaborate (!) on the use of the term Christ as applying to the PREincarnate Logos? As I understand it Christ always references humanity, that is, the term necessarily implies humanness and Sonship, and would not be properly applied to the preincarnate Logos (except in a forward-looking prophetic sense anticipating the incarnation). Also, "Jesus" is likewise a reference to the Man (humanness, post incarnate reality), and is only applied to God in the sense that Jesus is the Man in, as, and through whom God manifests. Hope I'm making sense here.

I think I have the sense here that you are going for and I am happy to try and elaborate.

In the OT, we have examples of several different "Christs", or more specifically Anointed Ones. (The verses used below are exemplars of the term so used but are by no means exhaustive.)

There are five stand-outs:

Aaron and his progeny:

Exodus 28:41,

And thou shalt put them upon Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him; and shalt anoint them, and consecrate them, and sanctify them, that they may minister unto me in the priest's office.

Here, the Hebrew word for "anoint" is מָשַׁח or mashach, to smear with oil/anoint, the root for the specialized, theological term Messiah:

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/exodus/28-41.htm
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/4886.htm

King Saul:

1 Samuel 24:6,

And he said unto his men, The Lord forbid that I should do this thing unto my master, the Lord's anointed, to stretch forth mine hand against him, seeing he is the anointed of the Lord.

Here, the two uses of "anointed" are both מָשִׁיחַ or mashiach, Messiah/Anointed One:

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_samuel/24-6.htm
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/4899.htm

King David:

2 Samuel 22:51,

He is the tower of salvation for his king: and sheweth mercy to his anointed, unto David, and to his seed for evermore.

This is the same Hebrew word used above to describe King Saul, now applied to King David:

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/2_samuel/22-51.htm
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/4899.htm

The Nation of Israel:

1 Chronicles 16:22,

Saying, Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm.

Again, the same Hebrew word as used above for King Saul and King David:

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_chronicles/16-22.htm
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/4899.htm

Finally, King Cyrus:

Isaiah 45:1,

Thus saith the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;

"Anointed" above is the same Hebrew word for King Saul, King David, and the Nation of Israel:

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/isaiah/45-1.htm
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/4899.htm

Obviously, these all refer to human men (and perhaps in the case of the Nation of Israel, the women and children, too). And so, in your line of thinking, you are absolutely correct to think of the idea of being an "anointed one" in human terms.

And whenever you see this Hebrew word in the OT, 39X in all, in every instance, it is translated as (https://www.etymonline.com/word/messiah) Χριστός or khristos.

So we know that when we get to Jesus being the "Christ", we understand it from an OT perspective, particularly of or for a High Priest and for a King (but also for "Israel"/God's Son; see Hosea 11:1). As such, we see King Jesus, the High Priest of our profession and the Son of God called "Christ" prophetically in Psalm 2:2,

The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying

Same Hebrew word as the four last examples above:

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/psalms/2-2.htm
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/4899.htm

But note! In Jesus, we have something of a unique situation.

1 John 2:22,

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

We from this verse see that to deny Jesus is the Christ is to deny not just Jesus as the Son, but also, to deny the Father of the Son. This is the unique case with Jesus. While, Jesus, fully human as already noted, as He bears the title Christ, bears it differently than Aaron and his progeny, then Kings Saul or David or Cyrus, or the Nation of Israel.

For Jesus, being called the Christ, is conceptually different in scope than for the other five examples above. For Jesus, the title and honor of being the Christ are not merely just being the human man God anointed to serve as Priest, King, and/or National Symbol, but to, in and as this human man, be the Incarnation of God the Father through the Logos.

Psalm 45:6-7,

Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.
Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

This use of "anointed" is the same verb form used in the first example regarding Aaron and his progeny:

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/psalms/45-7.htm
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/4886.htm

This prophecy is quoted by Paul in Hebrew 1:8-9, showing it to be about Jesus of Nazareth. Now, note the particular language of the Psalm and of Paul's quotation.

What does it read? It reads "...therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee..."

Who is the "thee" that was anointed with the oil of gladness? It is answered thusly: "Thy throne, O God...".

And who is the one who did the anointing? It is answered thusly: "...therefore God, thy God...".

The God of the Logos anointed the Logos that is God. This is all divine language here, not a human yet in sight. In Hebrews 1:10, Paul calls this "God", that is to say, the Logos which was anointed with the oil of gladness, the Lord who at the very beginning of creation laid the foundation of the earth.

So we see that this Lord Logos, if you will, was the Anointed One since the beginning of time, long prior to any incarnate state.

This is why Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 10:4,

And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

You will note in Greek, the definite article is before Christ:

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_corinthians/10-4.htm

So, this verse is better translated as "and that Rock was The Christ". Who is this Christ that was this Rock that followed Israel in the wilderness from which they drank "spiritual drink"?

It is not the rocks Moses struck, for they gushed out H20. Paul here writes that Israel drank a spiritual drink. Indeed this Rock followed Israel through the wilderness, going behind them, as it were. This Rock, I submit, is the Logos, which should follow or come after Israel and later Incarnate and become the man, Christ Jesus, we know and love. It is in this way, that the term Christ can be applied to the Preincarnate Logos.

mfblume
04-27-2020, 09:48 AM
Something that brings out Christ's deity is the fact that God's bride was Jerusalem in Ezekiel 19. And the NEW Jerusalem is the Bride of Christ!

Just thought of that while reading this.

mfblume
04-27-2020, 11:15 AM
Care to elaborate? :)

I will gather my thoughts together and post more.

votivesoul
04-28-2020, 02:59 AM
I will gather my thoughts together and post more.

Wunderbar!

mfblume
04-28-2020, 09:22 AM
Here are some introductory thoughts... Will get more later.

When reading the epistles of John, the sternest remarks are made about the spirit of antichrist. John said that those who deny Jesus came in the flesh are antichrist. He said the many antichrists that he wrote about in 1 John 2:18 were people who were in the church but departed. And in reality, the actual historical backsliding was the wholesale reversion to Judaism by Jewish believers, which is really why the entire epistle to Hebrews was written.

Antichrist would not accept the thought of incarnation, hence the Jews resist the very core of what we claim is the identity of Jesus as Messiah. We all know that the Jews KNOW Messiah was prophesied to come. But when Jesus made claims as He did, the Jewish leaders absolutely rejected him, and his words to them about David’s Son being called David’s Lord in Psalm 110 perpetually stumped them.

So, although it appears like gnostics are being targeted by John when thinking of the spirit of antichrist denying Christ came in the flesh, these very points are the issue in the Gospels.

(By the way, this really shows how the modern eshactological pulp-fiction book understanding of antichrist is so offkey. Antichrst has nothing to do with the beast of Revelation. How that nonsense ever started, I'll never know.)