Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
While I do agree that He will forever be a man, I cannot believe that His power was diminished. Allow me to explain. God is infinite in power and glory. We are His creation. While it is true that He lowered Himself to become a servant, He did not relinquish His Godly power. Lets say a prince decides to change into ratty clothes, and walk the streets of his father's kingdom. Does he have less power than before, simply because he put on peasant clothing? No, and in fact, if ever threatened, he could reveal himself and use this power to command his sercants obedience. However, out of his love for his subjects, he chooses to keep the hood on, so as to understand what they feel and go through on a day to day basis.When the Son of God took on human flesh, He didn't do so with any intent of rescinding the humiliation. He will always be a man. What that cost in power, and other divine attributes we may never know, but when He became a man Jesus had to rely on His Father to do the works and miracles that revealed the love of God to mankind and when all His enemies are made subject to Him, then the kingdom is given back to the Father and the Son will be eternally subject to the Father...as we are. That is a cost we will never understand, that come-down was inestimable.
Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing its fruitBut likewise, we cannot make out that this is just a "choose you own adventure" story to God, where he chooses the 'best choice' from the muddle humans have just tossed him.
no, but i am saying that "here, have a skin then" does not seem to reflect an angry or even anguished Father, as was forwardedMmm. Always flippant? Are you truly saying you know what the creator God felt at that moment?
i can't for sure by any means, but imo God, Grieving is the personification that i was just being accused of earlier, more or less? Plus it doesn't fit very well with a gardener, pruning, at least to me. Imo this is the product of our Codependence, not God's nature. From God's pov it would have to at least be mixed with "hey, don't sin and you won't have pain."All we need to do is look at the rest of scripture to find God's heart on the matter. How can you say he does not grieve at the sins and pains his people have?
but i thot God knew the end from the beginningThe fact we sinned and rebelled meant he had to push off that ultimate goal
hmmBut if Adam and Eve hadn't of sinned, then after their time in the garden, they would have moved into eternity with God.
dark time in human history, hmm. We live in a miracle, anyone reading this, and i suspect the PTB cannot really understand why we have not risen en masse against them yet, nor why crime is going down in every area. dang, i'm late for work! later :)For this dark time in human history to BE the goal of God, then he would have had to work, specifically, to make it come to be. And thus, we would be able to say that sin and evil were his fault.
I agree with your point, but there are exceptions. Racism cannot be ignored or it festers.
hmmbut in substance, He was entirely separate
ezackly. The Son of Man must be raised up like a snake on a pole, in order to draw all men to Himself; but God did not need nor want a sacrifice to "cover" your sins so that He could commune with us; we needed a Symbol to be drawn to. Christ did not die for your sins iow, so that an Angry God might be appeased, as is taught usbecause if He were in any way indivisibly of one substance as many teach, then there was a part of Him which did not die...presumably the divine part therefore what remains is an inadequate human sacrifice.
yet you posit a Christ Who had trouble assuming the role? So i don't quite get it wadrScripture describes the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
yet you cannot Quote any blood being shed, as our recent thread on the matter revealed imo; the closest we can come is "blood and water," and that is in English. Wouldn't such a supposedly sacred and precious outflow have warranted a line or two somewhere in Scripture in a less ambiguous phrasing? Plus you say "decided," when the Lamb was slain "from the foundation of the world," a human endeavor, which may also be put "by the foundation of the world."Thus way back then, the Father and Son decided that if/when man would fall, such an action of the incarnation and the shedding of blood in order to redeem man and make atonement was necessary.
can't disagree there, even if Tenn and Ky jails were pretty full too i guess; but we can at least say that the jails were not as full wherever the law was not enforced i guess.a close friend of mine was for many years world president for one of the principal organisations that lobbied constantly against the liquor industry. She showed me some statistics one day that the public are not informed of.
First, the bad stuff like Capone etc only happened in a few major centre like Chicago and Atlanta and New York. Second, while prohibition was on, everywhere else jail's were empty, hospitals had 50% less patients, and churches were attended by all members of families and not just the women, as well as families much better off financially with the menfolk at work more often and the money not going to gambling our liquor. So depending on what you see as the end goal, prohibition worked, or didn't.
she says this like it is a good thingand churches were attended by all members of families and not just the women
not buying it, sorryGod gave His Son to the human race. That cost Him. That was a real sacrifice.
yet the Lamb was slain "from/by the foundation of the world," or basically the moment Adam ate from the ToK.And to watch what Jesus had to endure throughout his life must surely have pained the Father, despite His agreeing to the deal.
tag for later, but we are being deliberately massaged bc we read from our own povs imo, and you are prolly not going to like my interps there i guessSee Isaiah 9:6; John3:16; 1 John4: 9,10; 1 John4: 14
not buying it, sorry
God endures
Who is dead? Everyone is dead who has not encountered and received the Life which Jesus is. Most people walking around us remain zombies, walking dead men. Those who have received Life often remain babies on milk. They have more knowledge perhaps than the average zombie, but what kind of a conversation about the things of God would we expect from a baby in Christ? Some of them remain babies for many years. Some may never mature at all. They just fill up spaces here and there and mimic what someone told them early on in their growth. They still don't understand what "thus saith the Lord" beyond "ga ga, goo goo".
Jesus confirmed that many of those around us in the eyes of God are dead:
"And he said unto another, Follow me. But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.
Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God." Luke 9:59-60
For the "now" I would say it is where everyone is [no time element purposely]. Some are completely blind and deaf. Some see and hear a little here or there. Some are improving. Consider the natural or carnal man. As his body ages it is a very normal thing for the natural perceptions to become less sharp. Spiritually we should be going in the other direction. If we have a new man that is never to die should he not be growing toward God?
"He must increase, but I must decrease." John 3:30
So the "then" would or should be when our vision and our hearing are like God's. When is that?
We should always be on the approach, but as we likely know many are simply languishing in a pew somewhere at what should be the best times and need we speak of the worst times?
"Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." I John 3:2
Have not some put this perfect vision off to beyond the natural grave [which could mean never] but denying the possibility of being perfect before the dirt is thrown over their faces? Is that not calling Jesus a liar? Is that not a negative faith? Jesus said this:
"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Matt 5:48
Did he also say not to expect or believe it until sometime after the dirt is thrown over your face?
So when is the "then"?
"This is the day which the LORD hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it." Psalm 118:24
So then is now, then. Could it be or should it be?
"(For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.)" II Cor 6:2
So if our faith is not negative:
"And when he was come into the house, the blind men came to him: and Jesus saith unto them, Believe ye that I am able to do this? They said unto him, Yea, Lord.
Then touched he their eyes, saying, According to your faith be it unto you." Matt 9:28-29