Wet Paint Principle (Freedom)

[justbyfaith]

Freedom 2:21.

 

[farouk]

1 John 1:8-9 is not contradicted by 1 John 3:9 and its immediate context.

My answer to your objection is the fact that the Father looks down on us and sees us through Jesus' blood and righteousness: He looks at us and he sees the blood and righteousness of Christ.

The Holy Spirit, on the other hand, is after relationship; and He does not look at us as being sinless as Jesus, through the rose-colored glasses of seeing the blood when He looks at us. It is his job to sanctify us so He has a relationship towards us as sinners; and this is where confession comes in.

From the Father's perspective, however, He sees us as being "not under the law but under grace" (Romans 6:14), "dead to the law" (Romans 7:4, Galatians 2:19), and "delivered from the law" (Romans 7:6).

If you look up the scriptures referenced you will see that my statements are substantiated by scripture.

But if you look at it with the natural or carnal mind, I am certain that you will find apparent contradictions in what I write; even as the world looks at the holy scriptures of the Bible and complains that "there are many contradictions in the Bible." The reality is that there are no contradictions; only contrasting ideas that amount to paradox for that no one who is finite can comprehend the mind of the Lord.

I believe there is even a verse somewhere in the middle of the tract that addresses this idea of contradictions. Maybe I will go to the document now and give you the reference for that verse in the booklet/tract.

People who talk about so called contradictions in the Bible usually haven't read it much.

 

[justbyfaith]

People who talk about so called contradictions in the Bible usually haven't read it much.

This is true.

 

[farouk]

This is true.

It's the irony of spiritually blind men leading each other and falling into the ditch even as they complain about the light.

 

[justbyfaith]

It's the irony of spiritually blind men leading each other and falling into the ditch even as they complain about the light.

Yep.

 

[amadeus]

@justbyfaith
@bbyrd009 I am not sure why you wanted me here. I may need some help. I skimmed through most posts but I still only guessing at the question or the misunderstanding or...? Are we speaking of this "hypostatic union" and the trinity? That word I only learned since I started visited Christian Internet forum some years ago. It is an answer, but since it seems meaningless to me, I am not certain what question it would answer for me... if you catch my drift.

justbyfaith said: ↑
The latter verse (Mark 13:32) is answered by the doctrine...

bbyrd009 said:
and this part kind of seals the deal imo...so maybe @amadeus or someone could come and interpret here maybe,
but i am putting him on the spot now lol

There it is. You put me on the spot, but what spot is that?

"But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." Mark 13:32

Of course I understand that many people want Jesus to have always been equal to the Father [God] but for a time he was somewhat less than equal apparently out of choice. I don't support that hypostatic union conclusion myself. Other conclusions are drawn at times. But who can be right? Only the ones that agree with God, but when and where did God express clearly His stand on this issue?

My own preference is that Jesus proceeded from the Father. This simply means that God spoke and then God somehow changed the words spoken to the man Jesus or the being Jesus whom some have decided is what...God as well?

For me in the flesh I have previously used a comparatively simple device to record my voice so that what I have said could exist for so long as it suited my purpose [and the components used could hold their form]. That certainly doesn't not make that recording, me... or have I missed something? Some here may argue that God can do anything, but even so why should we believe that He was three parts that were somehow separate while one?

Why couldn't we believe that the One God made a being with nearly all of His own attributes and powers?

Which ever stand we take, would we not have to do it by faith... unless God impressed the truth as He knows it into us?

so then just in case, or,
i have to object to this v being answered by that doctrine, is there a way you could um "answer" without the doctrine?
(noting that i don't really need an answer, a reply will work fine?) ty

Are we speaking now of the being "IN" Christ in order to do God's perfect will? Did Jesus have to be God in order to be one with his Father, God? Do we have to be God in order to be one with Jesus and his Father, God? Jesus did pray [John 17] for you and I do also be one with him and his Father. James wrote the "fervent prayer" of a "righteous man" availeth much. Was not the prayer of Jesus, fervent? Was not Jesus a righteous man?

Have I muddied the waters more or have I raised other questions or...hmmm?

 

[justbyfaith]

For one thing, the hypostatic union seems to be the only option since Jesus is both equal with God (John 5:18) and the Father is greater than Him (John 14:28). I don't see any other explanation than that Jesus was less in His humanity but equal in His Deity.

Also, @amadeus, to your supposition that there is more than one God...I believe that the scripture is clear on its declaration that this is not a reality.

Why couldn't we believe that the One God made a being with nearly all of His own attributes and powers?

 

[amadeus]

For one thing, the hypostatic union seems to be the only option since Jesus is both equal with God (John 5:18) and the Father is greater than Him (John 14:28). I don't see any other explanation than that Jesus was less in His humanity but equal in His Deity.

Why do we need any such absolute explanation?

In the mind of a man perhaps this hypostatic thing is an option, but why do we presume God must fit into the limited box of a man?

Your first verse [John 5:18] does not say he is equal to God. Rather it says that he said that God was his Father. From that the Jews concluded he meant that he was equal to God. Should we presume the Jews understood without the Holy Spirit who Jesus was? Jesus did not confirm their conclusion.

The other verse [John 14:28] confirms that his Father was greater than him. Do we call Jesus a very special creation of God, or do we call him a special angel, or do we call him a lesser god? Or something else?

Why must we choose? Why can we not use the "son of man" and/or the Son of God? When we really don't know why presume that invention of men, this hypostatic union, is correct? Why this need for an absolute with regard to something none of us really know?

Also, @amadeus, to your supposition that there is more than one God...I believe that the scripture is clear on its declaration that this is not a reality.

I make no supposition. I said that what I am able to see it would be my preference, but my preference could also be wrong. This need to express an absolute truth when we really don't know could in itself be a dangerous thing. God wants us to live by faith. Remember what faith is...

 

[justbyfaith]

From that the Jews concluded he meant that he was equal to God.

This is a thing that I am beginning to grow tired of arguing over; but I will simply point out that in John 5:18, it is the estimation of the author of the book, John, under the inspiration and unction of the Holy Spirit, that Jesus was making Himself equal with God. It does not say there that it was the estimation of the Jews that he was making Himself equal with God. It is the author of John's gospel saying that in calling God His own Father, He was making Himself equal with God.

This need to express an absolute truth when we really don't know could in itself be a dangerous thing.

There is nothing dangerous about absolute truth; but the opposite is true. Knowing the absolute truth is in fact a source of safety in the spiritual realms.

 

[bbyrd009]

It does not say there that it was the estimation of the Jews that he was making Himself equal with God. It is the author of John's gospel saying that in calling God His own Father, He was making Himself equal with God.

prolly not, and i doubt the last couple of scribes have been much help lol. I mean you can believe that if you like, but i can't help hearing a necessary premise and expectations behind your interpretation, if you get me? I think Christ was being deliberately misunderstood there, 31"If I testify about Myself, My testimony is not valid. and would not ever claim to be equal with God the same way He would never claim to be the most humble guy in the room.

it is for us to say whether or not Jesus is God for a reason imo; and we are called to be elohim also
worshipping Nehushtan is easy; partaking in Christ is hard. Or at least that's how it seems to a certain pov i guess.

not sure how you might make God back into a High Priest though, that we might pick up our crosses and follow, and do greater things? How might i bow and give literal obeisance to Jesus in one breath and then get up off of my knees and seek to go best Him, so to speak, in carrying my own cross?

so you can believe that if you want to, but obviously that is ambiguous enough to interpret either way, and obviously if Jesus had wanted to declare Himself God there would have been no need to be coy, right, "I'm really God, wink wink" i mean c'mon?

God is every living thing's Father, but dialectic statements about satan being a father are being heard literally imo, and i suggest that Christ is attacking the ridic notion there, and not attempting to make Himself Abba

 

[bbyrd009]

There is nothing dangerous about absolute truth; but the opposite is true. Knowing the absolute truth is in fact a source of safety in the spiritual realms.

then state this AT that you know, and let's take a look at it i guess, and we'll see.
Bc i am of the opinion that you cannot state a single thing that you know from Scripture,
and it is Scripture that tells me this wadr

 

[amadeus]

This is a thing that I am beginning to grow tired of arguing over; but I will simply point out that in John 5:18, it is the estimation of the author of the book, John, under the inspiration and unction of the Holy Spirit, that Jesus was making Himself equal with God. It does not say there that it was the estimation of the Jews that he was making Himself equal with God. It is the author of John's gospel saying that in calling God His own Father, He was making Himself equal with God.

No need to argue the point as I have said. We do disagree but I really do not insist that the way I see it must be the only way we all should see it. However, I do suggest that you read John chapter 17 carefully with regard to Jesus prayer for you and for me.. especially these verses:

"That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:" John 17:21-22

If Jesus is a part of the godhead, a part of a diune or a triune God, is he not praying that you and I may also be God, that is a part of God as he is or then a Multiplicity ? I don't believe that but then I don't believe in a duality or trinity. To me it would seem that any trinitarian might be or even should be expecting to be a part of the godhead along with the Father and Jesus.

There is nothing dangerous about absolute truth; but the opposite is true. Knowing the absolute truth is in fact a source of safety in the spiritual realms.

There is no danger in simply believing that there is an absolute truth, but when a person claims to know more specifically what one point of truth is and tries to describe it? What man among us is able to describe God or the things of God without error or doubt?

A person can say that Jesus is the Absolute Truth, but if he then proceeds to describe him, how accurate is he likely to be on every point? If anyone's understanding [vision] is still as through a "glass darkly", who but God can say how close or far that person is from what God sees?

 

[justbyfaith]

If anyone doesn't acknowledge that Jesus is the great I AM, they will die in their sins.

John 8:24 in light of John 8:58 in light of John 8:59 and John 10:31-33 and Exodus 3:14.

Jesus is the Lord; and He is the chief cornerstone of the building and its foundation.

Elohim is plural for God.

Believers in Christ are said to be the body of Christ; a holy temple in the Lord.

 

[Jay Ross]

If anyone doesn't acknowledge that Jesus is the great I AM, they will die in their sins.

John 8:24 in light of John 8:58 in light of John 8:59 and John 10:31-33 and Exodus 3:14.

Jesus is the Lord; and He is the chief cornerstone of the building and its foundation.

Elohim is plural for God.

Believers in Christ are said to be the body of Christ; a holy temple in the Lord.

But the "Great I AM" title for God had a use by date which was done away with by Christ, when He instructed his disciples to pray thus, "Our Father, which art in heaven . . . "

If we do not consider that God should be addressed as our "Father," then perhaps we have not received Christ's Salvation message.

Shalom

 

[justbyfaith]

Christ did not do away with that title, in adding another title that we could use; just as He did not cease to be God, in becoming a Man. He did not do away with His divine nature in the incarnation; but merely added a human nature.

 

[Reggie Belafonte]

Christ did not do away with that title, in adding another title that we could use; just as He did not cease to be God, in becoming a Man. He did not do away with His divine nature in the incarnation; but merely added a human nature.

The Biblical point of Jesus name being Emmanuel explains everything.
Jesus is God with us, no one comes to the Father but by the Saviour who is God with us, that's God with us ? the only begotten Son of God the Father.
He came to us for us and no one comes to the Father but through him, Jesus Christ our Saviour.
The 3 are one in the same but each have there own person so to speak and one needs the Holy Spirit to comprehend this, because carnal man can not fathom such and only do the works of man.


I was talking to a bloke yesterday and he said his dad was going to become a priest once, so when he was studding to become one he had a book that they study, but he believed that there were to many contradictions in the Bible, so he gave up on becoming a C of E Priest and tossed it all away.
Many years ago I would study the Bible and not make heads or tails about it all and it seemed that way, but the more you know of the whole bible the more everything comes together perfectly and it helps if you know the OT well because this is the blueprint for the NT.
I believe that people who only know the NT can easy be mislead or go down silly paths.
The greats priest or strongest true faith would come from a devout Jew who knows the OT totally and truly has faith in Holy Moses, then one will know totally when they study the NT that Jesus is the Christ totally. but sadly when one is a Jew the powers of the Talmud work to muddy the waters 24/7 and it is this influence that is coming from within the Christian churches as well, that only work to undermine who Jesus Christ truly is.
People become religious following their Church first and foremost and Jesus Christ becomes just a optional extra or a false Jesus made up by the Church to suit the denomination so as not to offend the people, because Jesus Christ is offensive to carnal worldly works man, they can not deal with Christ, but they can make deals with there gods, Jesus does not make deals with anyone, you understand who he truly is and abide in him or you don't.
I have people claiming nonsense about doing deals with Jesus and saying things like 'it's a done deal', what total nonsense only the devil does deals and mans works are but filthy rags. Jesus Christ is the only way and only him you shall serve, not man or denominations.
One has to become one with Christ Jesus.
Too many sit in front of the TV hours on end and let this sewer pollute there minds with so much nonsense, I sit studying the Bible a lot with the family watching TV and would look up when something was of some worth to see and that's not much, but the Bible is never boring at all ever and before you know it the time just gets away on you and I should of been in been in bed 2hrs ago.

 

[justbyfaith]

Every one of these is seriously warped imo, note the complete lack of confession--bc of course none of these ever sin, right --and the complete focus on the self. Count the "I"s. Note the lying to self;

Speaking in the 1st Person is merely a style of writing...don't be so quick to judge.

PS you are not off of my ignore list, but I was reading through the thread and took you off for a second because I couldn't make sense of the entire thread without seeing your posts.

 

[bbyrd009]

Speaking in the 1st Person is merely a style of writing...don't be so quick to judge.

sure, it is written from a pov and shows ownership, that part i can respect. Bam try it on and see how it fits. Wadr i would pluck out that I though, rather than trying to improve it, is what i meant to convey

if you could point out the first instance of the term "confess/ion" for me in there, that would help a lot i guess

 

[justbyfaith]

sure, it is written from a pov and shows ownership, that part i can respect. Bam try it on and see how it fits. Wadr i would pluck out that I though, rather than trying to improve it, is what i meant to convey

if you could point out the first instance of the term "confess/ion" for me in there, that would help a lot i guess

If you can show me a book in the Bible, with scripture, where confession is emphasized, other than in 1 John, that would help me to see why you think it is such an important issue.

 

[justbyfaith]

PS I decided to take you off of ignore simply because it is easier to make sense of the threads in which you post. It doesn't mean that I won't generally avoid you though, because I believe that I am commanded to do so in Romans 16:17.