Why? What was the purpose? What did it accomplish?He was immortal.
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!
Why? What was the purpose? What did it accomplish?He was immortal.
Jesus was fully God and fully man. Mortal means that you are human and subject to death. That was Jesus purpose, to become human and then die. His body was resurrected, as our bodies will be resurrected. That could happen in a couple years from now as we enter into a Great Tribulation period. One day the wind will stop blowing on the entire planet, the last trumpet will sound and we will be caught up into heaven. All Christians whether dead or alive will receive a new eternal body.As i've testified before, if Jesus was like us 'mortals' as you say, then there should have been a mortal body found in His tomb.
Yes, dead bodies decay over time. But if a body is raised from the dead, it will not decay. Thus, Jesus was not found in the tomb after three days because he was raised from the dead before then.That's is how with every 'mortal', where after death a body remains and decays.
But all passages don't agree with each other, at least on the details that, thankfully, aren't very important from a theological aspect. How to square this fact with the "God-breathed" nature of Scripture is a challenge worth discussing.Most people will choose to believe whatever makes them comfortable whether it is true of not.
Scripture passages are usually not accepted when they disprove a belief. I find it ironic that, while claiming that all scripture is "God breathed" with one side of the mouth, the other side apparently says "but not that passage."
Our challenge to establish that all passages must agree with each other is rarely taken up - especially by those who choose truth based on what keeps them comfortable.
Quite right that some passages seem to contradict. In our English bibles it does happen, because man has not been able to give a translation unaffected by held doctrines and desires of the translator. Solving those issues can be difficult.But all passages don't agree with each other, at least on the details that, thankfully, aren't very important from a theological aspect. How to square this fact with the "God-breathed" nature of Scripture is a challenge worth discussing.
I have a different view. I think many passages actually contradict. Happy to give examples later, but here is the problem:Quite right that some passages seem to contradict. In our English bibles it does happen, because man has not been able to give a translation unaffected by held doctrines and desires of the translator. Solving those issues can be difficult.
Sure it is, you just can't see it. We don't make this up.The doctrine of the Trinity that Jesus is both 100% God and 100% man and that both the divine nature and his human nature live together in his flesh body may be widely believed, but is never stated in the Bible.
I, at one time, had a much more difficult time understanding scripture. I learned over time that my view of scripture was because I lacking the mind of a 2000-year-old Jew. There are cultural differences that affect how scripture was written that mess with our minds, but would not be a complex to a Jewish person in Judah.I have a different view. I think many passages actually contradict. Happy to give examples later, but here is the problem:
I will concede that with sufficient presumptions and mental machinations indulging the improbable, virtually all of these facial inconsistencies can be harmonized. My question is, why indulge them? The only reason I can see to do so is in order to shore up one’s initial presumption of inerrancy. For example, in attempting a harmonization of Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:2-10, Vern S. Poythress states “We have the accounts in Mathew and Luke, which are inspired by God. They are what God says and are therefore trustworthy. That is the conviction we have and the basis on which we work.” Poythress, Inerrancy and the Gospels: A God-Centered Approach to the Challenges of Harmonization (Crossway 2012) at 21.
And here is where I must dissent. This approach seems to me to be reasoning the matter backwards. Inerrancy should be a conclusion from the evidence, not an axiom by which to assess the evidence.
No sir, it was made up by the Gnostics of the early church in Rome.Sure it is, you just can't see it. We don't make this up.
Oh, I'm speaking to a Non- Trinitarian. Well, only maybe 2-3 % of over 2.66 billion are in your camp. I guess You weren't baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit? (Matt. 28:19) Did you miss that step?No sir, it was made up by the Gnostics of the early church in Rome.
I am, of course, "not a real" Christian (and certainly "not a true" Christian), but I have found it extremely liberating and beneficial to my mental health to accept that the Bible is the Word of God in only the broadest sense of expressing a core message and essential spiritual truths. The inerrancy game strikes me as almost a form of insanity. Weirdly, when I was with Campus Crusade for Christ and in a Southern Baptist seminary 50 years ago - about as conservative as things could get - no one spoke in terms of "inerrancy" being some sort of litmus test as to whether one was a "real" Christian.I have a different view. I think many passages actually contradict. Happy to give examples later, but here is the problem:
I will concede that with sufficient presumptions and mental machinations indulging the improbable, virtually all of these facial inconsistencies can be harmonized. My question is, why indulge them? The only reason I can see to do so is in order to shore up one’s initial presumption of inerrancy. For example, in attempting a harmonization of Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:2-10, Vern S. Poythress states “We have the accounts in Mathew and Luke, which are inspired by God. They are what God says and are therefore trustworthy. That is the conviction we have and the basis on which we work.” Poythress, Inerrancy and the Gospels: A God-Centered Approach to the Challenges of Harmonization (Crossway 2012) at 21.
And here is where I must dissent. This approach seems to me to be reasoning the matter backwards. Inerrancy should be a conclusion from the evidence, not an axiom by which to assess the evidence.
Is He not referred to as the Son of God and the Son of Man? He was born out of Mary's womb and He said "Before Abraham was, I AM. The Book of John presents Jesus as Deity. The problem is with your vision.I believe you do make it up. Trinitarian doctrine tries to explain the verses that say Jesus was a man by saying that he was a man, but he was also 100% God at the same time. But there are problems with that such as there is no single verse that says Jesus was both God and man and that's why the God-man doctrine is built from many verses.
I see this a lot... baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. What does that do? I was baptized by the spirit of Christ when it came into me. What does that other stuff accomplish? It makes no sense. It's gotta be Catholic. That's probably why.Oh, I'm speaking to a Non- Trinitarian. Well, only maybe 2-3 % of over 2.66 billion are in your camp. I guess You weren't baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit? (Matt. 28:19) Did you miss that step?
You believe in Christ. But who do you say He is? And do you helieve everything He said? Because Matt. 28:19 was a final instruction to the disciples before He ascended. He also said all authority was given to Him. He must be omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent to handle that. They worshipped Him and I do. If you don't think He is God, I could see why you wouldn't. He told us, He would send another Helper, the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom also the Father would send. You deny that the Holy Spirit is a Person, which why you do not have a relationship with Him. Therfore, you lack discernment which comes from Him, Who lives in those who are born again. Being baptized by the Holy Spirit is what being born again means.I see this a lot... baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. What does that do? I was baptized by the spirit of Christ when it came into me. What does that other stuff accomplish? It makes no sense. It's gotta be Catholic. That's probably why.
No, what you missed is that, in every other case in the N.T. the people were baptized in the name of Jesus. Only Matt 28 claims support for the trinity and it was a later change.Oh, I'm speaking to a Non- Trinitarian. Well, only maybe 2-3 % of over 2.66 billion are in your camp. I guess You weren't baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit? (Matt. 28:19) Did you miss that step?
There is not one verse that says Jesus is God the Son. Nor has there ever been a teaching on it anywhere in the Bible. The Jews never saw it anywhere in the entire Old Testament nor anyone in the New Testament ever taught it. The Catholics who invented this nonsense have used only about 8 verses that they have to piece together from statements that are scattered all over the New Testament. One should think if such nonsense was true and important that it would have been taught by someone. And it is not. Only in the minds of Catholics who cannot explain it.Is He not referred to as the Son of God and the Son of Man? He was born out of Mary's womb and He said "Before Abraham was, I AM. The Book of John presents Jesus as Deity. The problem is with your vision.
There are many descriptions, titles, and names for God in the Bible and I would like to add God’s proper name is “Yahweh” which occurs more than 6,000 times in the Hebrew Old Testament and is generally translated as “LORD.” But God is also referred to as Elohim, Adonai, El Shaddai, the Ancient of Days, the Holy One of Israel, Father, Shield, and by many more designations. Furthermore, God is holy (Leviticus 11:44), which is why He was called “the Holy One” (the Hebrew text uses the singular adjective “holy” to designate “the Holy One." He is also spirit (John 4:24). It makes perfect sense since God is holy and God is spirit that “Holy” and “Spirit” are sometimes combined and used as one of the many designations for God. Thus, the Hebrew or Greek words for the "HOLY SPIRIT" should be brought into English as the "Holy Spirit” when the subject of a verse is God.You believe in Christ. But who do you say He is? And do you helieve everything He said? Because Matt. 28:19 was a final instruction to the disciples before He ascended. He also said all authority was given to Him. He must be omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent to handle that. They worshipped Him and I do. If you don't think He is God, I could see why you wouldn't. He told us, He would send another Helper, the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom also the Father would send. You deny that the Holy Spirit is a Person, which why you do not have a relationship with Him. Therfore, you lack discernment which comes from Him, Who lives in those who are born again. Being baptized by the Holy Spirit is what being born again means.
That is what " that other stuff" accomplishes.
Don't you mean Alexandria?No sir, it was made up by the Gnostics of the early church in Rome.