Shall we discuss this?
- Thread starter Truther
- Start date
-
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!
Hidden In Him
Well-Known Member
Not good, Truther. Turning to the original texts for clarity on what was said more specifically is not resorting to "extra Biblical error."
Jesus was made a quickening spirit after he parted with his human body.
He then had every bit of what his God consists of, lest Col 2:9 is wrong.
The appearance of Jesus in a body for 40 days was for humans to see he is alive and well, but it in no way represents his permanent body for, then or now.
He could/can appear everywhere in any form, then or now.
He is omnipresent bodily now, not just onmipotent(Matt 28:18).
That was the last Adam thinking himself equal etc....not God thinking Himself equal...
God had no inner spat.
The original texts are non-existent.
They disintegrated many hundreds of years ago.
The copies of them are all that is left.
Ancient men translated these ancient copies over 400 years ago into our language.
I trust these 50 ancient men more than the thousands of modern men translating the hundreds of new translations, creating extra Biblical redefinitions too.
It is much simpler.
Hidden In Him
Well-Known Member
I am truly trying here, LoL. Are you saying He now existed as both the Father in Heaven and the Son on earth, and then ascend to Himself? :)
If Trump decided to be a servant, that is the form he would appear to his staff as.
Same as the last Adam.
No, not at all.
Jesus was MADE GOD by default, after he was resurrected from the DEAD by his God.
His God would not leave his soul in hell etc.
I was oneness and that is their position.
The Father exists in the last Adam now, bodily....the omnipresent, quickening spirit body of the last Adam.
I use the last Adam here because that is exactly what he was doing here.
To fix the first Adam's boo boo.
I'm not uncomfortable with these scriptures at all. What I am uncomfortable with is man believing that they can have a full understanding of the make up of the relationship between The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit - that God is a concept that we have the ability to fully grasp with our pewny minds.
I believe that Jesus is the Son of God (Mat 3:17, 1 John 4:10, John 5:19, to name a few).
I believe that Jesus is God (John 1:1, John 8:58, John 10:38, Colossians 2:9, etc).
I believe that all things were created through Him, and that He was not created but always existed (Colossians 1:16, John 1:3, Genesis 1:26, etc).
And I believe more - as the scriptures state.
How do I reconcile all this? As I have mentioned here numerous times before - I believe that the bible contradicts itself only when we don't have a clear understanding - that contradiction in scripture is a warning that we have not understood those scriptures correctly.
I see many arguments among Christians that have a similar trait. To quote some scriptures and ignore others. I can't go there. I can see scripture that will conflict - which tells me not that the other scripture is wrong - but that the truth must agree with all scriptures and when it doesn't - it shows that we haven't got a full concept. For most scripture I believe that's an indicator that we need to go back and revisit because we have it wrong. With the Godhead - I see that as being evidence of our limited capability to understand His awesomeness.
But I'm OK with that - I place my rest and trust in Him, provided I don't deny anything that scripture says, or add to it anything that's not in scripture. I believe that He is far more glorious, awesome and incredible well beyond our understanding that I don't see this side of eternity we're going to get a full understanding of what those scriptures say - but our part is simply to trust and believe all that the bible says and rest (to have faith) that it is true even when we can't grasp a full concept.
So, if someone says that Jesus talked about "His God" according to those scriptures - I have no problems - provided they don't omit or ignore other scriptures to make it comfortable, or make a doctrine from those scriptures alone and add to it.
But likewise if someone talks about Jesus being God according to John 1:1, or otherwise - I too have no problems with that - provided they don't omit or ignore other scriptures to make it comfortable for themselves, or make a doctrine from those scriptures alone.
I believe here that a great risk we face is not what we confess (provided it's in scripture and not made up) - but rather what we deny (if we do).
Jesus said "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven". (Matt 10:32). Therefore I will confess Jesus Christ - and all that is written of Him in scripture!
Jesus also said in the next verse - "But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven.". Therefore I am so cautious to never deny any of what scripture says about Him.
(Obviously there is more to this scripture than just that - but it does give a hint to me that our problem comes with not what we confess, but what we deny), and I think we need to be very careful when it comes to the Godhead that we do not deny anything that is in scripture, or reduce/restrict our concept to something that becomes comfortable to our understanding.
I believe it's OK to be somewhat ignorant - and not have a full understanding of what the bible says. Our salvation is not based on our intellect in theology. It is faith based. I don't believe it is OK though to come up with a doctrine and then deny or ignore certain scripture that doesn't fit into what's comfortable for us.
What is the full relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit then? I don't know. I've been given a glimpse that I see dimly, in part only - but one day I know I will know fully - face to face, but that day has not yet come. (As per 1 Cor 13)
Some may have a better understanding, or more clearer revelation than I do - and I'm OK with that - provided they don't deny scripture and agree with all scripture.
So to answer your question:
Not at all.
Not necessarily.
If someone wants to - I have no problems with that at all. But if someone says that we all should greet like (and thus denies that other apostles and Christians greeted differently such as Jude) - then I have a problem. Likewise if someone says that we shouldn't greet like that, I also have a problem.
Personally - I'm Australian and often I just say G'day mate. :)
Tell Paul that...
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
I would have never told Paul that.
Hidden In Him
Well-Known Member
LoL. I'm sorry. I like you and all, but your argument is falling to pieces on me. You are certainly welcome to trust 50 men, but there are (as you yourself admit) literally thousands - including myself - who think they seriously missed it in places.
But since this is about to turn into a KJV only debate in order to defend your position, I'm unfortunately done here. Just understand, teaching something that runs so wildly counter to the accepted orthodox teachings of the early church can be a dangerous thing to do. It opens a door for the enemy to introduce new and even more dangerous heresies if it should prosper, and you could ultimately contribute to the damnation of souls unwittingly if you persisted in teaching something that was actually in gross error, despite having the very best intentions and being sincere in your beliefs.
God bless,
Your friend,
Hidden
All the verse you posted must correlate perfectly with this....
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
I can make them harmonize beautifully.
Can you?
Respectfully - did you actually read my post through and consider it? It seems that you replied only but a few mins after my post - and it took me longer to re-read what I just wrote. :)
You'll find my answer to this question already in there. :)
Thank you for your participation.
If you have further questions, drop in and ask them.
I just think the early church originally taught about Jesus having a God, as per Eph 1:3 etc.
It is modern orthodoxy that seems to repel from this ancient communication practice.
I think the apostles etc., went around talking about Jesus' God, all the while knowing that Jesus was invisible, omnipresent and fully indwelled by all of his God bodily, making Jesus God by default.
I think....
Thanks again my friend.
I did.
It was rather lengthy.
Notice I keep it simple and discuss things point by point.
The reason is, we must score on every point if we are correct, not just a percentage of hits.
Respectfully, there was little scripture posted.(just "I believe....Verse, verse...."
Question to anyone....
Is Col 2:9 saying that all of what God consists of(entirety of the Godhead) is in the body of Jesus?
Or...
Only all of God's "qualities"?
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
Is Col 2:9 saying that all of what God consists of(entirety of the Godhead) is in the body of Jesus?
Or...
Only all of God's "qualities"?
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
101G
Well-Known Member
first thanks for the OP. I would Love to answer each and every one of your question in this OP.
let's start with your 3rd and last scripture, and set the tone to eliminate any ignorance of these scriptures. Revelation 3:12 "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name."
you say JESUS have a "GOD" right, WRONG. let's examine this scripture, who NAME did he write? ... answer HIS Name. "MY" God is him. understand, and I will write upon him my new name.
you number 1 ignorance of the scriptures is that you don't understand the term, "FATHER". my God is ME the ordinal First. let's get the understanding of "I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God".... Father here sinmply means the First to do Something. lets see it in the bible. Genesis 4:19 "And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah."
Genesis 4:20 "And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle."
here Jabal, is called the "father" of such that dwell in tents. he is the first author and inventor of tents or movable habitations. Jesus as the ordinal "First" is the "FIRST" who created and made all things. and Jesus in his Glorification after his resurrection is the "Author" and finisher/END of our Faith. when Jesus said "I ascend unto my Father". he is simply saying that he is asending to his "Spirit", which is the ordinal First in heaven. and when he Jesus say from Heaven said MY Son, he's simply saying "MY" body on Earth, for Jesus in Flesh is the Fulness of the Godhead, (the ordinal First, and the ordinal Last). for the ordinal First is God, and the ordinal Last is God, so when Jesus said, "I will write upon him the name of my God", the word "MY" is possessive. can we again prove this by scripture? yes,
Isaiah 63:5 "And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me." do you see the MINE, and the me in association. for MINE means, as a pronoun used to refer to a thing or things belonging to or associated with the speaker. BINGO, so again when Jesus say "MY" God, HIS "Spirit", for God is a "Spirit", which he is, per Phil 2:6 equally. not a second person, but the same person as "ANOTHER" clearly states in John 14:16...
so your ignorance of the term "Father", allows you to speak evil of the scriptures. no UNDERSTANDING of the Scriptures leads to FALSE "KNOWLEDGE" of the scriptures.
well I was going to deal with only one but got all three.
PICJAG.
Similar threads
