For those who think Christ is not God.

[APAK]

An astute observation, since it would mean that Christ was in a "state of decay"


Yup, I stand in agreement with Ron, in your desperate attempt to discard the Triune God you must alter the gospel, the good news and it would seem that you are deifying yourself above Christ Jesus who was in a "state of decay"...that was a bad choice of wording.
I don't think I'm going to be much longer on this forum reading Christology from various heteros viewpoints.
Seems like we have all kinds of "religions" grouped together in one lump and call it Christian Forum.
You from 101?
I visited that site and thought there was something off.
Guess that's me rambling, getting late here.
J.

Were you really talking about me with these words because you brought down one of my posts and it does not fit what you say? Or are you still desperate for attention. You are a troll then with a mission to sabotage and cause chaos?...you might want to get of this site and take a break...might be good for you

 

[Johann]

Were you really talking about me with these words because you brought down one of my posts and it does not fit what you say? Or are you still desperate for attention. You are a troll then with a mission to sabotage and cause chaos?...you might want to get of this site and take a break...might be good for you

Don't make me laugh.
Shalom
J.

 

[face2face]

An astute observation, since it would mean that Christ was in a "state of decay"

If left any longer we would have stunk! Acts 13:37

Acts 13:34 But regarding the fact that he has raised Jesus from the dead, never again to be in a state of decay, God has spoken in this way: ‘I will give you the holy and trustworthy promises made to David

While his body would have wasted away in the ground should God have left him there - it was his sinlessness which the grave could not hold him longer than 3 days. Sufficient time for the Son to cease to exist before being raised by his Father.

 

[face2face]

What if . . . types and anti-types and metaphors and such have already all been identified and explained in the Bible? What if no one has any business calling something an allegory that the Bible does not?

Yes, Hagar and Sarah, the earthly Jerusalem and heavenly Jerusalem, this is a terrific example! I expect you are correct, we would not be thinking of the story that way had not Paul explained it so.



Your first one there,

Whom he did foreknow, that is, whom He knew ahead of time. Proginosko. There is no pre-existance here. This speaks of advance knowledge.

And even so, whether or not you've proven a point regarding others, it does not prove a different point regarding Jesus, does it?

Take a literal approach, absolutely! But realize where some read into the text things that are not there.

Proginosko is advance knowledge, not advance relationship. If we take it literally, that's what we have, and no conflict or disharmony with trinitarian doctrine.

That's the thing with me, I find that all these seeming conflicts and "tensions" are removed by sticking with exactly what is written.

Much love!

What this thread has determined (for me) is the trinitarian formula is found nowhere in Scripture and in fact the Apostles spend more time defining Jesus' nature as being ours than him being some God-Man.

 

[face2face]

Disagree
J.

You do a lot of that J. usually when the truth is plainly stated.

 

[face2face]

You've said, here, "Never again" to be in a state of decay. What did you mean? When was Jesus in a "state of decay"? What Scriptures do you learn that from?

Much love!

There is a difference between a body being in a state of decay and it seeing full corruption. The Lords body would have stated the process of decay approx 24 hours after his death with it really increasing around 72 hours. Psalm 16:10

Clearly messianic.

For you will not leave my soul (body!) among the dead or allow your holy one to rot in the grave.

Of course his body was corrupting while he was alive - he was an aging man like you and I!

It's odd that I am continually having to explain things I thought were common knowledge among believers. Staggered Johann didn't know Psalm 16:10 and Acts 13:34.

 

[face2face]

Then why are you bothering to post?

Much love!

Not for Johann's sake but for those who desire to know more about their Christ. Now and then I find a believer will remove their trinity glasses and see Bible truth, but sadly they are quick to put them back on.

 

[marks]

There is a difference between a body being in a state of decay and it seeing full corruption. The Lords body would have stated the process of decay approx 24 hours after his death with it really increasing around 72 hours. Psalm 16:10

Clearly messianic.

For you will not leave my soul among the dead or allow your holy one to rot in the grave.

Of course his body was corrupting while he was alive - he was an aging man like you and I!

It's odd that I am continually having to explain things I thought were common knowledge among believers. Staggered Johann didn't know Psalm 16:10 and Acts 13:34.

Psalms 16:10 LITV
10) For You will not leave My soul in Sheol; You will not give Your Holy One to see corruption.

There seems to be a difference in the traslations here.

Much love!

 

[face2face]

So our efforts are futile. At this point in our journey only the truth about Jesus will only be accepted when He looks at us face to face and tells us Himself. What a shameful day that will be for some ... and I would say that more likely it will be the 3% who have it wrong.

Wow, you don't know your history very well do you?

Most of Israel was in an apostate position when Christ began his ministry. The entire priesthood was corrupt from its doctrines to its lavish living standards. You should read the warning of Paul, Peter & John on what was already happening to the Gospel during his ministry. 3%... This was a foolish thing to say.

 

[face2face]

Psalms 16:10 LITV
10) For You will not leave My soul in Sheol; You will not give Your Holy One to see corruption.

There seems to be a difference in the translations here.

Much love!

Means the same thing. Corruption = rot

It's where all flesh ends up.

 

[marks]

Means the same thing. Corruption = rot

It's where all flesh ends up.

No, these translations don't mean the same things. Not at all!

Yours says, God won't let Jesus "rot in the grave", referring to the result of the process.

Mine says, God won't let Jesus "see corruption", referring to the process itself.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Poor manners makes for poor conversation.

Much love!

 

[face2face]

What if . . . types and anti-types and metaphors and such have already all been identified and explained in the Bible? What if no one has any business calling something an allegory that the Bible does not?

Yes, Hagar and Sarah, the earthly Jerusalem and heavenly Jerusalem, this is a terrific example! I expect you are correct, we would not be thinking of the story that way had not Paul explained it so.



Your first one there,

Whom he did foreknow, that is, whom He knew ahead of time. Proginosko. There is no pre-existance here. This speaks of advance knowledge.

And even so, whether or not you've proven a point regarding others, it does not prove a different point regarding Jesus, does it?

Take a literal approach, absolutely! But realize where some read into the text things that are not there.

Proginosko is advance knowledge, not advance relationship. If we take it literally, that's what we have, and no conflict or disharmony with trinitarian doctrine.

That's the thing with me, I find that all these seeming conflicts and "tensions" are removed by sticking with exactly what is written.

Much love!

The proven point is there are those here who can cherry pick verses and interpret them literally, if they appear to support their understanding, however as proven in our exercise with Johann; he applied literal reading to one verse then figurative for another. When Jesus said "I am my Father are one" it could mean one in nature, one in person, one in purpose (Logos) etc. What we find is the Trinity forces notions on the Word therefore limiting its power to teach.

 

[face2face]

No, these translations don't mean the same things. Not at all!

Yours says, God won't let Jesus "rot in the grave", referring to the result of the process.

Mine says, God won't let Jesus "see corruption", referring to the process itself.

Much love!

A body which is rotting in the grave is corrupting. No brainer rally. I think you will find the Psalmist used a word to mean "experience" the pit which again captures the word rot & corruption.

Much love back

I think we both know its the work of worms that's finishes us off.

 

[face2face]

Poor manners makes for poor conversation.

Much love!

Has someone offended you?

 

[Brakelite]

This is where you err..


I AM

OT Background: Exodus 3:1-20, especially verses 13-18. (cf. Is. 41:4; 43:10-13)
NT fulfillment: John 6:20; 8:24, 28, 58; 18:5.
Synopsis: When God calls Himself the “I Am” in Exodus 3, it’s a pivotal moment in redemptive history. God reveals Himself to His people and comes to redeem them out of exile and lead them into a new life. God’s name discloses who He is and what He is like.

He is the I Am, the eternal, unchanging, self-existent one, infinite and glorious in every way, and above and beyond all created things. He is God.

When Jesus applies the title “I Am” to himself, he claims to be God (John 8:58). Not a helper to God or a great teacher, but the divine, eternal, pre-existent, infinite, perfect Being.

He is Israel’s God. He is greater than Moses because he is the God of Moses. He has life in himself and he can give life to us. The Jews knew taking on this title was making such a claim, which is why they immediately pick up stones to kill him (8:59).

The seven “I Am” statements in John might best be understood as falling under and echoing this initial, ultimate claim of Jesus.

He is God, and he is the God of Israel. All the OT and God’s redemptive acts were pointing to the coming of Jesus as the God-in-flesh, the true and better Israel, and the fulfillment of all the OT types and shadows.

1) I Am the Bread of Life
OT Background: Exodus 16; Deut. 8:3; Ps. 78:23-25
NT Fulfillment: John 6:22-59, especially verses 28-35.
Synopsis: Jesus enters a dialogue with Jews who had followed him because of his miracles—including the recent feeding of the 5,000—and yet they missed the reality behind them (he is the Divine Messiah). More important than solving their physical hunger for food through bread, Jesus offers himself as the Bread of Life to fulfill deeper longings and an eternal need.

There is more to the bread from God than the bread itself (Exodus 16). It’s not an earthly bread but a heavenly bread. It comes from above—from God—and comes down to us only by his grace and goodness. We need more than physical bread and we need it from someone other than ourselves. God will provide what we need most, and we should raise our eyes in faith.

Jesus takes this Old Testament background to bread for God’s people and he claims to be the bread of life. He explains the bread in the wilderness of Exodus was only a temporary provision, and that it points to a true and eternal bread from heaven God would later give. This bread is now before the Jews. The manna pictures Jesus, who is sent from God, comes down from heaven, must be taken by faith, who must be eaten/fully taken in, and who gives life.

2) I Am the Light of the World
OT Background: Exodus 13:17-22 (cf. Ex. 14:19-20); Isaiah 42:6 and 49:6 (both verses are in the four Servant Songs of Isaiah).
NT Fulfillment: John 8:12-30. See also John 1:4-5; 3:19-21; 9:5; 12:35-36).
Synopsis: Light is one of the most prominent themes in John’s Gospel. The world is lost and hopeless in darkness (John 1:4-14). The darkness cannot change its condition. Light must enter and invade. One cannot see or lead others in the darkness, so light is necessary to guide us and walk forward. John picks up light from a rich OT heritage and shows how Jesus is the light.

Based upon the fact that in John 8:12 Jesus ties the idea of being the light with his people following after him in the light, the most likely OT background in mind here is the light of God’s presence leading Israel in the wilderness via the pillar of fire (Exodus 13-14). Just as the Israelites were led by the pillar of fire (light) in the exodus and saved from the Egyptians as they crossed the Red Sea, so also Jesus says those who follow him (light) will have life.

A secondary OT background of the image of light is found in Isaiah 42:6 and 49:6. This light has to do with the salvation of the nations, and it is probably the primary reference in other passages like John 12:35-36, 46.

3) I Am the door or gate & 4) I Am the Good Shepherd
OT Background: Psalms 118:20 (gates = door); Ezekiel 34 and Jeremiah 23 (cf. Isaiah 40:11; Numbers 27:15-18; Micah 5:4)
NT Fulfillment: John 10:1-18
Synopsis: In John 10:1-18, Jesus makes two of the I Am sayings together. He claims he is the both the door through which the sheep enter as well as the Shepherd who knows the sheep and lays down his life for them. The metaphor of the door does not have the rich OT background as shepherding imagery does. But, Jesus is both the only way (door) a person enters into the people of God and the one who gives his life for the life of sheep, whom he knows and protects. He is the one who gathers the sheep and cares for them (shepherd) and he’s also the means by which they enter and are kept safe (door).

We should recall that Jesus is talking to the Pharisees in this conversation. The claims to be a good shepherd and Israel’s true shepherd was (in part) a rebuke against them. As the influential teachers in Israel, they should have led the people to truth. They should have put the people before themselves. They should serve God’s agenda rather than their own. But the Pharisees are like the bad shepherds in Ezekiel 34 and Jeremiah 23, leading them astray through false doctrine, prioritizing themselves over the sheep, and abusing them. Through this metaphor, Jesus at once lumps the Pharisees into the camp of the false prophets and bad shepherds of the OT while claiming to be the true and good shepherd those same OT passages promised (Ezek. 34:11-16, 22-24; Jer. 23:3-4).

Jesus comes not to pile burdens on but to relieve them and carry them himself. Jesus comes not to scatter the sheep but to gather them. Jesus comes not to devour the sheep but to defend them. Jesus comes to seek out, rescue, heal, and feed the sheep. He will do so because he loves the sheep and they belong to him. This is proven and accomplished by him giving up his life for his sheep.

5) I Am the resurrection, and the life
OT Background: Genesis 1-3; Isaiah 53:10
NT Fulfillment: John 11:17-27
Synopsis: Similar to other I Am statements, Jesus doesn’t just talk about what he can do or give, but who He is. He doesn’t just give bread (like Moses) but he is the bread. He doesn’t merely reflect light; he is the light. So also, in John 11, Jesus says I am the resurrection and the life.

The OT background isn’t as clear here as other statements, but most commentators believe Genesis 1-3 is partially in view. God is the Creator and Life-giver, granting life to creation and breathing life into Adam. However, the first Adam chose sin which brought about death for mankind and brokenness for the creation. Jesus comes as the second Adam, righteous and blameless in all his ways, comes to undo what Adam did and reverse the curse (Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15). Where Adam brought about death and decay, Jesus gives life and restoration. He provides not only resurrection and life to individuals who believe in him but for the entire world.

While many of the Jews wanted things from Jesus without having to receive and believe in Jesus, the offer of Jesus is himself. He doesn’t give bread and allow people to reject submission and belief to him, nor does he offer to give life apart from that life being found in him. These are free and gracious gifts, and they come only in and through Jesus. He is the resurrection and the life. He is the 2nd Adam, bringing resurrection and life where the first Adam offered us only death.

6) I Am the way, the truth, and the life
OT Background: Exodus 26:33; Leviticus 16
NT Fulfillment: John 14:6
Synopsis: It’s likely Jesus is here contrasting himself to the many ways in the OT that God prescribed for how the Jews could approach and relate to him. The systems of the sacrifices, temple, the curtain, tabernacle, and other means of worship were temporary “ways” to God. As the NT makes clear, these things in and of themselves did not cleanse or make people acceptable to God, but they were avenue by which God’s people could walk in faith and follow after Him (see Hebrews 8-9).

Jesus contrasts himself to anything before him they thought led them to the Father. He is the only one who provides the way to the Father, but he is also at the same time to the full revelation of the Father (truth). Jesus is telling them there’s nowhere else to look; nowhere you need to look or can look to find the true path to God. Jesus is that one way and that one path. He offers what Israel looked for and needed, and he replaced all prior things set up as temporary means by which man relates to God. All of these pointed to him and accomplished limited things (such as only making people ceremonially clean but not truly clean), and he is now here and able to accomplish salvation and redemption fully.


J.

Good study Johann. I would like to add an even more poignant type/shadow to the above which reveals Christ throughout... The sanctuary. From the altar of sacrifice, t the laver, the door, the showbread, candlestick, altar of incense, the veil, and the ark of the covenant holding the law... All revealing Christ and His ministry. This was how Israel learned the gospel.

 

[marks]

Has someone offended you?

No.

Only, I point out poor manners, as it degrades the conversation. You can decide about your own, I'm not pointing fingers, I'm only mentioning it to raise our collective awareness.

Much love!

 

[marks]

The proven point is there are those here who can cherry pick verses and interpret them literally, if they appear to support their understanding,

Yes, anyone and everyone can do that. I see a lot of that on forums.

Yes, varying hermeneutics, failing to account for genre, I share all those complaints.

What we find is the Trinity forces notions on the Word therefore limiting its power to teach.

That's absolutely NOT what I find. What we find is that when we allow all the passages to speak for themselfs, when we determine their true saying, there is no doubt that that YHWH took on flesh, and was born from Mary, our God Who became a Man, of all things!

The Grand Romantic Gesture! To what length will you go to save your beloved?

Much love!

 

[face2face]

, there is no doubt that that YHWH took on flesh, and was born from Mary, our God Who became a Man, of all things!

Having a Son of His Own was much more rewarding as per Hebrews 11:6

 

[Waiting on him]

Having a Son of His Own was much more rewarding as per Hebrews 11:6

Its kinda like they Have GOD committing suicide.