When is a christian NOT a Christian?

[Giuliano]

Thanks so much for such a good reply.
Not much to add !

Re your last sentence...
Yes,,, there is only one God.
Manifesting in three different ways gets into a heresy...but it's difficult to speak of the Trinity or Godhead.

I think you mean that there is One God but there are 3 persons in Him.
Great post.

I don't happen to be a Trinitarian; but I find how the idea arose interesting. The original Greek version of the concept uses the word personae which means in Greek what it means in English -- a persona was also like a mask actors in plays used -- it was what people could see. As aspect of someone that is presented to or perceived by others. The Catholic Church used Latin, and sometimes their Greek wasn't that good. (That also helped lead to the controversy over the filioque clause when they thought a strict translation was inadequate and they needed to add flilioque bit to clarify.) Catholic theologians began teaching that personae meant persons.

If we read the history of the early Church, we also find that the ideas in the Nicene Creed were extremely controversial at first. I don't assume they knew much for sure. Indeed I know they didn't since the first version was adopted in 325 AD and then altered in 381 AD. What's remarkable about the 381 AD version is that it claimed to be the same version as the original.

Nicene Creed - Wikipedia

The third Ecumenical Council (Council of Ephesus of 431) reaffirmed the original 325 version of the Nicene Creed and declared that "it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicaea" (i.e., the 325 creed).

That makes no sense at all since their version was not the same as the original. If the Council of Nicea had settled things, why did they need to revisit the subject and revise the Nicene Creed?

That Council of Ephesus was very political, being largely who would dominate, Cyril of Alexandria or Nestorius. Nestorius, perhaps wisely, came with troops to protect himself.

I don't think God is something man can analyze the way we study butterflies. People arguing over some things, when they don't really know, and then lambasting others as heretics, doesn't seem right to me. Man should focus more on the things he does know, and the things he knows he should do.

Deuteronomy 29:29 The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

I really have no major objection to the Trinity idea unless someone says, "I can't do that. Jesus could do it, but he was God. I can't do that because I'm not God." I've had people tell me that, excusing their disobedience to the Law of Love that way.

God is a mystery to me. What I know about Him mostly comes from the words reported in the Bible. Beyond that, what can I know?

 

[Grailhunter]

I don't happen to be a Trinitarian; but I find how the idea arose interesting. The original Greek version of the concept uses the word personae which means in Greek what it means in English -- a persona was also like a mask actors in plays used -- it was what people could see. As aspect of someone that is presented to or perceived by others. The Catholic Church used Latin, and sometimes their Greek wasn't that good. (That also helped lead to the controversy over the filioque clause when they thought a strict translation was inadequate and they needed to add flilioque bit to clarify.) Catholic theologians began teaching that personae meant persons.

If we read the history of the early Church, we also find that the ideas in the Nicene Creed were extremely controversial at first. I don't assume they knew much for sure. Indeed I know they didn't since the first version was adopted in 325 AD and then altered in 381 AD. What's remarkable about the 381 AD version is that it claimed to be the same version as the original.

Nicene Creed - Wikipedia

The third Ecumenical Council (Council of Ephesus of 431) reaffirmed the original 325 version of the Nicene Creed and declared that "it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicaea" (i.e., the 325 creed).

That makes no sense at all since their version was not the same as the original. If the Council of Nicea had settled things, why did they need to revisit the subject and revise the Nicene Creed?

That Council of Ephesus was very political, being largely who would dominate, Cyril of Alexandria or Nestorius. Nestorius, perhaps wisely, came with troops to protect himself.

I don't think God is something man can analyze the way we study butterflies. People arguing over some things, when they don't really know, and then lambasting others as heretics, doesn't seem right to me. Man should focus more on the things he does know, and the things he knows he should do.

Deuteronomy 29:29 The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

I really have no major objection to the Trinity idea unless someone says, "I can't do that. Jesus could do it, but he was God. I can't do that because I'm not God." I've had people tell me that, excusing their disobedience to the Law of Love that way.

God is a mystery to me. What I know about Him mostly comes from the words reported in the Bible. Beyond that, what can I know?

For a religion that hinges on every word and their meaning, they sure have played a shell game with words and meanings. People think I am trying to confuse them when I say that any significant doctrine or scripture should be taken back to its original language and how that word was applied in that culture. Good job.

 

[GodsGrace]

I don't happen to be a Trinitarian; but I find how the idea arose interesting. The original Greek version of the concept uses the word personae which means in Greek what it means in English -- a persona was also like a mask actors in plays used -- it was what people could see. As aspect of someone that is presented to or perceived by others. The Catholic Church used Latin, and sometimes their Greek wasn't that good. (That also helped lead to the controversy over the filioque clause when they thought a strict translation was inadequate and they needed to add flilioque bit to clarify.) Catholic theologians began teaching that personae meant persons.

If we read the history of the early Church, we also find that the ideas in the Nicene Creed were extremely controversial at first. I don't assume they knew much for sure. Indeed I know they didn't since the first version was adopted in 325 AD and then altered in 381 AD. What's remarkable about the 381 AD version is that it claimed to be the same version as the original.

Nicene Creed - Wikipedia

The third Ecumenical Council (Council of Ephesus of 431) reaffirmed the original 325 version of the Nicene Creed and declared that "it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicaea" (i.e., the 325 creed).

That makes no sense at all since their version was not the same as the original. If the Council of Nicea had settled things, why did they need to revisit the subject and revise the Nicene Creed?

That Council of Ephesus was very political, being largely who would dominate, Cyril of Alexandria or Nestorius. Nestorius, perhaps wisely, came with troops to protect himself.

I don't think God is something man can analyze the way we study butterflies. People arguing over some things, when they don't really know, and then lambasting others as heretics, doesn't seem right to me. Man should focus more on the things he does know, and the things he knows he should do.

Deuteronomy 29:29 The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

I really have no major objection to the Trinity idea unless someone says, "I can't do that. Jesus could do it, but he was God. I can't do that because I'm not God." I've had people tell me that, excusing their disobedience to the Law of Love that way.

God is a mystery to me. What I know about Him mostly comes from the words reported in the Bible. Beyond that, what can I know?

Wow. A protestant that knows church history!
The above is interesting,,,re the creeds...
be back in a while....

 

[Giuliano]

For a religion that hinges on every word and their meaning, they sure have played a shell game with words and meanings. People think I am trying to confuse them when I say that any significant doctrine or scripture should be taken back to its original language and how that word was applied in that culture. Good job.

All kinds of games have been played, that's for sure.

 

[Giuliano]

Wow. A protestant that knows church history!
The above is interesting,,,re the creeds...
be back in a while....

Have you heard of the council where one Bishop got beaten so badly, he died later? At least that council wasn't proclaimed ecumenical.

 

[GodsGrace]

I don't happen to be a Trinitarian; but I find how the idea arose interesting. The original Greek version of the concept uses the word personae which means in Greek what it means in English -- a persona was also like a mask actors in plays used -- it was what people could see. As aspect of someone that is presented to or perceived by others. The Catholic Church used Latin, and sometimes their Greek wasn't that good. (That also helped lead to the controversy over the filioque clause when they thought a strict translation was inadequate and they needed to add flilioque bit to clarify.) Catholic theologians began teaching that personae meant persons.

The above is all good.
How about the idea that if we were to think of Jesus as Lord...and the church began to worship Him...and only God could be worshipped; then He had to be God.
We get this a lot from John's gospel. The Word...The Word was and is God...
God Father's thoughts are HIS WORD....I'm sure this took a lot of thinking.

Now, I happen to believe in the Godhead, or Trinity. I believe it in an understanding that God showed His different Personae to humans as it became necessary. This could be understood to be heretical as it seems to be a manifestation of God; however, the Trinity is not easy to understand and we each have to come to our own understanding of it.

If we read the history of the early Church, we also find that the ideas in the Nicene Creed were extremely controversial at first. I don't assume they knew much for sure. Indeed I know they didn't since the first version was adopted in 325 AD and then altered in 381 AD. What's remarkable about the 381 AD version is that it claimed to be the same version as the original.

Nicene Creed - Wikipedia

The third Ecumenical Council (Council of Ephesus of 431) reaffirmed the original 325 version of the Nicene Creed and declared that "it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicaea" (i.e., the 325 creed).

That makes no sense at all since their version was not the same as the original. If the Council of Nicea had settled things, why did they need to revisit the subject and revise the Nicene Creed?

Correct. And this goes back to my belief that it was apprently argued over...not my belief --- I mean, it was surely argued.

That Council of Ephesus was very political, being largely who would dominate, Cyril of Alexandria or Nestorius. Nestorius, perhaps wisely, came with troops to protect himself.

I don't think God is something man can analyze the way we study butterflies. People arguing over some things, when they don't really know, and then lambasting others as heretics, doesn't seem right to me. Man should focus more on the things he does know, and the things he knows he should do.

Deuteronomy 29:29 The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

I agree.
If we could understand God,,,we would be God, or at least, a god.

I really have no major objection to the Trinity idea unless someone says, "I can't do that. Jesus could do it, but he was God. I can't do that because I'm not God." I've had people tell me that, excusing their disobedience to the Law of Love that way.

God is a mystery to me. What I know about Him mostly comes from the words reported in the Bible. Beyond that, what can I know?

Here I don't agree fully.
Do you read only the bible?
I've found that when I have a question about something, I like to refer to the ECFs.
I feel that they learned from the Apostles and will know more than we can know today. By ECFs I mean up to about 325 AD,,,after that the church became politicized, entered into the affairs of states, and started to become corrupt.

 

[GodsGrace]

Have you heard of the council where one Bishop got beaten so badly, he died later? At least that council wasn't proclaimed ecumenical.

No!
I don't claim to know all the councils...
I studied the first 3...if studied could be the right word...
Alas, I'm forgetting a lot and trying to do what Keane said:
"Trying to make a move just to stay in the game" !

There's so much to know and most Protestants want to begin with 1,500 AD.

 

[Giuliano]

The above is all good.
How about the idea that if we were to think of Jesus as Lord...and the church began to worship Him...and only God could be worshipped; then He had to be God.

This I understand:
1 Corinthians 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

I do not have direct access to God. I would not know about Him unless His servants had informed me. My connection with God is through Jesus and other of His servants; but Jesus is the one worthy to be called lord or master. I could call him, "My god," as Thomas did, since I can see that God is real by looking at Jesus. There are other gods too if we call anyone who expresses one or more of the Perfect Attributes of God a god. Thus Paul says there are gods many. Seeing the Glory of God expressed in someone does not mean that person himself is God.

We get this a lot from John's gospel. The Word...The Word was and is God...

Actually it says that when the Word was with God, the Word was God -- not is. Where are your words before you speak them? Are they separate persons, or are they part of you? It also mentions "the beginning" as when the Word was still with God.

God Father's thoughts are HIS WORD....I'm sure this took a lot of thinking.

And you will probably agree that God had thoughts about what He wanted to make before He spoke and it became so.

I associate "the Word" with Genesis 1 and with what Jesus told Satan:

Luke 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

If Jesus was already God, how could he say this? He was a man and willing to manifest every word of God. The Word goes forth and doe not return void. In Jesus' case, it manifested totally and perfectly. With other people, resistance is met and the Word may be manifested partially and imperfectly.

Now, I happen to believe in the Godhead, or Trinity. I believe it in an understanding that God showed His different Personae to humans as it became necessary. This could be understood to be heretical as it seems to be a manifestation of God; however, the Trinity is not easy to understand and we each have to come to our own understanding of it.

Correct. And this goes back to my belief that it was apprently argued over...not my belief --- I mean, it was surely argued.

The fact that it was argued about means to me that there was no definite doctrine about it that had been passed down as is often claimed. The earliest mention of the word "trinity" is found, I believe, in Tertullian. What a can of worms that opens.

Tertullian was never declared a saint, I suspect because of some of his views the Catholic Church later declared heretical; but they also said Tertullian should not be deemed a heretic since he wrote before the Church had made the correct dogmas officially known. It is strange to me that they can cite him as a precedent when it suits them but condemn his views when it doesn't. It casts doubt on the idea that the Catholic Church had all truth delivered to them and preserved thought Apostolic succession. How could any Bishop have wrong views if they got them handed down by someone who had received them through successors to the Apostles? Indeed if we are to believe Paul and others who wrote books in our Bibles, there was already a wide variety of beliefs in Christianity. Where did they come from?

I agree.
If we could understand God,,,we would be God, or at least, a god.

I started off in university as a science major. I was forced to take other classes, and I read this line from Alexander Pope in an English class.

Know then thyself, presume not God to scan;
The proper study of mankind is man.

I was so convinced that was right, I abandoned the science major.

Here I don't agree fully.
Do you read only the bible?

No, I tend to use most of it as a "measuring stick" -- a canon.

I've found that when I have a question about something, I like to refer to the ECFs.
I feel that they learned from the Apostles and will know more than we can know today. By ECFs I mean up to about 325 AD,,,after that the church became politicized, entered into the affairs of states, and started to become corrupt.

I think things had gotten confused earlier than that; but you're right that things got even worse when religion and politics were mixed. That's also when Bishops in the best dioceses could get rich.

I have often wanted to know how old a particular doctrine was; and in those cases, I found articles that told me who said what when. What I found is that some doctrines evolved over time. If you ask a Catholic theologian however, he'll say it was always part of Catholic doctrine, part of the truth known by the Apostles and handed down faithfully from generation to generation. It is really hard to believe that for me when I see how many other things evolved.

Jesus said that the night was coming when no one could work. I would say night fell around 70 AD.

What I did find valuable was some books by Jews. I read this and decided to investigate:

Zechariah 8:23 Thus saith the Lord of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you.

I said to myself, it that's how it will be in the future, why don't I try to find a Jew to read now? I read Maimonides. It took a while for me to understand the "God" he kept talking about.

Then I realized that the New Testament sometimes cites the Talmud (or Oral Torah). Even Jesus paraphrased something found in the Talmud. It can be a difficult chore trying to sort things out in the Talmud since it contains different opinions of different rabbis; and they often conflict with each other. It helps to know which rabbis are worth following. Paul also mentions the "oracles" of the Jews -- something oral, not written down.

Romans 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

Informed Jews expected the exile so they committed what had been transmitted orally for generations to writing.

 

[Grailhunter]

This I understand:
1 Corinthians 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

I do not have direct access to God. I would not know about Him unless His servants had informed me. My connection with God is through Jesus and other of His servants; but Jesus is the one worthy to be called lord or master. I could call him, "My god," as Thomas did, since I can see that God is real by looking at Jesus. There are other gods too if we call anyone who expresses one or more of the Perfect Attributes of God a god. Thus Paul says there are gods many. Seeing the Glory of God expressed in someone does not mean that person himself is God.


Actually it says that when the Word was with God, the Word was God -- not is. Where are your words before you speak them? Are they separate persons, or are they part of you? It also mentions "the beginning" as when the Word was still with God.

And you will probably agree that God had thoughts about what He wanted to make before He spoke and it became so.

I associate "the Word" with Genesis 1 and with what Jesus told Satan:

Luke 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

If Jesus was already God, how could he say this? He was a man and willing to manifest every word of God. The Word goes forth and doe not return void. In Jesus' case, it manifested totally and perfectly. With other people, resistance is met and the Word may be manifested partially and imperfectly.

The fact that it was argued about means to me that there was no definite doctrine about it that had been passed down as is often claimed. The earliest mention of the word "trinity" is found, I believe, in Tertullian. What a can of worms that opens.

Tertullian was never declared a saint, I suspect because of some of his views the Catholic Church later declared heretical; but they also said Tertullian should not be deemed a heretic since he wrote before the Church had made the correct dogmas officially known. It is strange to me that they can cite him as a precedent when it suits them but condemn his views when it doesn't. It casts doubt on the idea that the Catholic Church had all truth delivered to them and preserved thought Apostolic succession. How could any Bishop have wrong views if they got them handed down by someone who had received them through successors to the Apostles? Indeed if we are to believe Paul and others who wrote books in our Bibles, there was already a wide variety of beliefs in Christianity. Where did they come from?



I started off in university as a science major. I was forced to take other classes, and I read this line from Alexander Pope in an English class.

Know then thyself, presume not God to scan;
The proper study of mankind is man.

I was so convinced that was right, I abandoned the science major.


No, I tend to use most of it as a "measuring stick" -- a canon.

I think things had gotten confused earlier than that; but you're right that things got even worse when religion and politics were mixed. That's also when Bishops in the best dioceses could get rich.

I have often wanted to know how old a particular doctrine was; and in those cases, I found articles that told me who said what when. What I found is that some doctrines evolved over time. If you ask a Catholic theologian however, he'll say it was always part of Catholic doctrine, part of the truth known by the Apostles and handed down faithfully from generation to generation. It is really hard to believe that for me when I see how many other things evolved.

Jesus said that the night was coming when no one could work. I would say night fell around 70 AD.

What I did find valuable was some books by Jews. I read this and decided to investigate:

Zechariah 8:23 Thus saith the Lord of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you.

I said to myself, it that's how it will be in the future, why don't I try to find a Jew to read now? I read Maimonides. It took a while for me to understand the "God" he kept talking about.

Then I realized that the New Testament sometimes cites the Talmud (or Oral Torah). Even Jesus paraphrased something found in the Talmud. It can be a difficult chore trying to sort things out in the Talmud since it contains different opinions of different rabbis; and they often conflict with each other. It helps to know which rabbis are worth following. Paul also mentions the "oracles" of the Jews -- something oral, not written down.

Romans 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

Informed Jews expected the exile so they committed what had been transmitted orally for generations to writing.

If Jesus was already God, how could he say this? He was a man and willing to manifest every word of God.

I figure you knew this would catch someone's attention. So how about an explanation? I am sure it will be interesting.

 

[quietthinker]

When is a christian NOT a Christian?

No mystery bugalugs.....'you will know them by their fruits'. What is so difficult about that? Ohhh, you mean I'll have to make judgment?......yes Ma'am, otherwise you'll be forever confused.

 

[Giuliano]

If Jesus was already God, how could he say this? He was a man and willing to manifest every word of God.

I figure you knew this would catch someone's attention. So how about an explanation? I am sure it will be interesting.

Yes, it would be an incredible scenario for Satan to ask God to worship him. What would God say to Satan at such a suggestion? If Jesus was God, why would he tell Satan that "man" shall live by every word that comes from the mouth of God?

If Jesus was "the Word" in the way some suppose, why would God have other words? Going back to the baptism poses the same problem. I would say that the Voice that announced Jesus as son was "a word" from God. How could that be?

I think what we see in the baptism relates to what God said in Genesis, "let the dry land appear." Jesus heard and obeyed. A Voice from Heaven pronounced the result good. The temptation follows, and that relates to how the "grass," "herbs" and "trees" appear. The Bible is astonishingly consistent in how it uses symbols. There are some exceptions, but it's consistent for the most part. There is a part of man that is like a plant. We even refer to bodies in comas as "vegetative." So it is. This part of the body, at least for now, is surely not permanent. If someone is wicked, it's definitely temporary.

Psalm 37:1 Fret not thyself because of evildoers, neither be thou envious against the workers of iniquity.
2 For they shall soon be cut down like the grass, and wither as the green herb.

Psalm 103:15 As for man, his days are as grass: as a flower of the field, so he flourisheth.

Isaiah 40:6 The voice said, Cry. And he said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field:

Surely when John mentions grass in Revelation, we should not believe he's talking about literal grass.

Revelation 9:4 And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.

That verse mentions trees too. That refers to men who survived the grass or herb stage and developed into trees. There is a parable about how man develops spiritually, being a herb at first and then becoming like a tree.

Mark 4:30 And he said, Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God? or with what comparison shall we compare it?
31 It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth:
32 But when it is sown, it groweth up, and becometh greater than all herbs, and shooteth out great branches; so that the fowls of the air may lodge under the shadow of it.

I would say Jesus had already gone through the grass stage, even before the baptism. At the temptation we see him "up in the air." The angels are the fowls of the air -- air signifying the second heaven. He was also busy on earth growing wheat to make more bread.

It may be worth noting at this point how days 4 to 6 relate to days 1 to 3. This is almost like a musical scale where notes are similar but up an octave. Day 1 has light appearing, and Day 4 has lights appeared as forms within the firmament. Day 2 is about lower and upper waters; and Day 5 is about creatures appearing in those. Day 3 is about dry land appearing, and Day 6 is about land animals. Day 7 seems isolated, a day of rest; and nothing is said in Genesis about Day 8, but by inference it also corresponds to Day 1 and has something to do with light. So it was, jumping ahead a little, because Jesus appeared in his new body on the day after the sabbath -- the "first day" of the week in one way but it can also be seen as an expression of 8.

Going on now to how Transfiguration corresponds to Day 4 of Genesis. We may be tempted to miss how the others were involved. We may not perceive how Peter, James, and John were also "overshadowed." The same word is used to describe how Jesus was conceived.

Luk 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Matthew 17:5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

What is a shadow anyway? By itself, it is nothing, being the lack of light; but if we see a shadow, it tells us that something is there. We may not see the thing casting the shadow, but we know something is there and its outline or form tells us something about the thing we cannot see. So it is with the "shadow" of God -- the image and likeness of God -- and in the Hebrew, "image" is related to the idea of a shadow. Idols as images are nothing -- but the image of God is like an outline that can be filled in. This "image" as an "outline" is what a spiritual mantle is. The Spirit can surround someone the way a garment covers him, and then the Spirit does its work to fill things in in the right way.

There are seven beings at the Transfiguration. James, Peter and John were there. Moses, Jesus and Elijah were there, and God was there manifested as a Voice from the Cloud. We face the same problem here as at the baptism if we do not see the Word of God at work. If we say Jesus was the Word, who's speaking at the Transfiguration? The matter can be resolved by seeing that Jesus relates to the Word in several ways. He heard and obeyed it. He became what God intended, and then He too could speak the Word of the Father. His words were spirit, he said. We cannot box Jesus in by saying he was limited to being the Word since he could also speak words of spirit.

I am almost sure that Jesus was in the center with Moses on his left and Elijah on his right. Peter would have been below Jesus, receiving his mantle; James below Elijah receiving his; and John below Elijah receiving his. Spiritually, the Power of God flowed downwards as if through three pillars. Indeed Paul may have had a vision of how the three Apostles "seemed" to look in the spiritual world.

Galatians 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

They "seemd" or "appeared" like pillars. The word in Greek has to do being perceived. I don't think Paul was insulting them by saying they weren't really pillars, they just "seemed" to be. I also see these three Apostles as receiving mantles at the Transfiguration so they would become sources of Light in a special way that other Apostles did not. Jesus' face shone like the sun. The text doesn't say so, but I like to think of Peter, James and John as stars.

What of Days five and six then? This post is long enough, but I believe those days helps explain what Jonah did and why Jesus said he would be like Jonah.

 

[Grailhunter]

Yes, it would be an incredible scenario for Satan to ask God to worship him. What would God say to Satan at such a suggestion? If Jesus was God, why would he tell Satan that "man" shall live by every word that comes from the mouth of God?

If Jesus was "the Word" in the way some suppose, why would God have other words? Going back to the baptism poses the same problem. I would say that the Voice that announced Jesus as son was "a word" from God. How could that be?

I think what we see in the baptism relates to what God said in Genesis, "let the dry land appear." Jesus heard and obeyed. A Voice from Heaven pronounced the result good. The temptation follows, and that relates to how the "grass," "herbs" and "trees" appear. The Bible is astonishingly consistent in how it uses symbols. There are some exceptions, but it's consistent for the most part. There is a part of man that is like a plant. We even refer to bodies in comas as "vegetative." So it is. This part of the body, at least for now, is surely not permanent. If someone is wicked, it's definitely temporary.

Psalm 37:1 Fret not thyself because of evildoers, neither be thou envious against the workers of iniquity.
2 For they shall soon be cut down like the grass, and wither as the green herb.

Psalm 103:15 As for man, his days are as grass: as a flower of the field, so he flourisheth.

Isaiah 40:6 The voice said, Cry. And he said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field:

Surely when John mentions grass in Revelation, we should not believe he's talking about literal grass.

Revelation 9:4 And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.

That verse mentions trees too. That refers to men who survived the grass or herb stage and developed into trees. There is a parable about how man develops spiritually, being a herb at first and then becoming like a tree.

Mark 4:30 And he said, Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God? or with what comparison shall we compare it?
31 It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth:
32 But when it is sown, it groweth up, and becometh greater than all herbs, and shooteth out great branches; so that the fowls of the air may lodge under the shadow of it.

I would say Jesus had already gone through the grass stage, even before the baptism. At the temptation we see him "up in the air." The angels are the fowls of the air -- air signifying the second heaven. He was also busy on earth growing wheat to make more bread.

It may be worth noting at this point how days 4 to 6 relate to days 1 to 3. This is almost like a musical scale where notes are similar but up an octave. Day 1 has light appearing, and Day 4 has lights appeared as forms within the firmament. Day 2 is about lower and upper waters; and Day 5 is about creatures appearing in those. Day 3 is about dry land appearing, and Day 6 is about land animals. Day 7 seems isolated, a day of rest; and nothing is said in Genesis about Day 8, but by inference it also corresponds to Day 1 and has something to do with light. So it was, jumping ahead a little, because Jesus appeared in his new body on the day after the sabbath -- the "first day" of the week in one way but it can also be seen as an expression of 8.

Going on now to how Transfiguration corresponds to Day 4 of Genesis. We may be tempted to miss how the others were involved. We may not perceive how Peter, James, and John were also "overshadowed." The same word is used to describe how Jesus was conceived.

Luk 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Matthew 17:5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

What is a shadow anyway? By itself, it is nothing, being the lack of light; but if we see a shadow, it tells us that something is there. We may not see the thing casting the shadow, but we know something is there and its outline or form tells us something about the thing we cannot see. So it is with the "shadow" of God -- the image and likeness of God -- and in the Hebrew, "image" is related to the idea of a shadow. Idols as images are nothing -- but the image of God is like an outline that can be filled in. This "image" as an "outline" is what a spiritual mantle is. The Spirit can surround someone the way a garment covers him, and then the Spirit does its work to fill things in in the right way.

There are seven beings at the Transfiguration. James, Peter and John were there. Moses, Jesus and Elijah were there, and God was there manifested as a Voice from the Cloud. We face the same problem here as at the baptism if we do not see the Word of God at work. If we say Jesus was the Word, who's speaking at the Transfiguration? The matter can be resolved by seeing that Jesus relates to the Word in several ways. He heard and obeyed it. He became what God intended, and then He too could speak the Word of the Father. His words were spirit, he said. We cannot box Jesus in by saying he was limited to being the Word since he could also speak words of spirit.

I am almost sure that Jesus was in the center with Moses on his left and Elijah on his right. Peter would have been below Jesus, receiving his mantle; James below Elijah receiving his; and John below Elijah receiving his. Spiritually, the Power of God flowed downwards as if through three pillars. Indeed Paul may have had a vision of how the three Apostles "seemed" to look in the spiritual world.

Galatians 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

They "seemd" or "appeared" like pillars. The word in Greek has to do being perceived. I don't think Paul was insulting them by saying they weren't really pillars, they just "seemed" to be. I also see these three Apostles as receiving mantles at the Transfiguration so they would become sources of Light in a special way that other Apostles did not. Jesus' face shone like the sun. The text doesn't say so, but I like to think of Peter, James and John as stars.

What of Days five and six then? This post is long enough, but I believe those days helps explain what Jonah did and why Jesus said he would be like Jonah.

Well, thank you. Quite the answer. I was right to begin with, you formulate. My question is; When do you think Christ became a God? I ask that because you said, If Jesus was already God, how could he say this?

 

[Philip James]

We cannot box Jesus in by saying he was limited to being the Word

Hello Giuliano,

'and the Word was God'

Not much limitation there...

Peace!

 

[Giuliano]

Hello Giuliano,

'and the Word was God'

Not much limitation there...

Peace!

The word "was" is something of a limitation. If you believe the Word of God is God, I ask if the words you speak are you? They are part of you until you speak. . . .

 

[Philip James]

The word "was" is something of a limitation. If you believe the Word of God is God, I ask if the words you speak are you? They are part of you until you speak

They are part of me even after I speak. I am accountable for them.

Peace be with you!

 

[Giuliano]

Well, thank you. Quite the answer. I was right to begin with, you formulate. My question is; When do you think Christ became a God? I ask that because you said, If Jesus was already God, how could he say this?

I would say he could be said to be "a god" when he was born to Mary. His star already shone in the firmament of heaven. The wise could see that star, since they were spiritual and spiritual sight. Herod, lacking spiritual sight, could not see it. As hard as it may be to believe, the Star of Bethlehem was not a physical star observable to carnal men. Jesus was the Star predicted to arise out of Jacob. The star was up there and he was down here. Most men, even if born with a connection to their stars, lose it, breaking the connection. Of all born, Jesus is the only person I can think of who never severed that connection. He was aware of how part of him remained in Heaven while another part had come down since he said so.

John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Part of Jesus was still in Heaven when he said that, and he knew it.

Then it was a matter of drawing the Star down to earth, closer and closer. Draw nigh unto God and God will draw nigh unto you. If the soul is pure and prepared, the two join perfectly. Something new is born -- it is another way in which what is above can overshadow what is below. If you see the star of David with the dot in the center, that's what the dot means. One "triangle" points up, the other down.

Those who break the connection with their stars could still be called gods in one way, but their mortal bodies will die as other men do.

Psalm 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

There are others that could possibly call gods, although I prefer a different word to avoid confusion. These were stars who went astray, spiritual beings who were intended to shine the Light of God to the world but who fell because they wanted to be worshiped on their own account as if they were God Himself. Many pagan gods were such beings. Some fell so bad, they entered human bodies and forgot their past.

The world had "become" without form and dark -- thus the need to establish Eden. Jesus and others came to act as substitutes for these fallen gods, so the fallen world (including people) could come to know about God. The false or fallen gods however can be salvaged as well and will be sooner or later. Thus the surprising verse from Micah:

Micah 4:5 For all people will walk every one in the name of his god, and we will walk in the name of the Lord our God for ever and ever.

This is why Jacob had to supplant Esau. I believe the angel Jacob wrestled with was the somewhat fallen Guardian Angel of Esau; and Jacob got the right to exercise lawful spiritual authority over the Edomites. Again the "sun" is mentioned; and it does not say merely that the sun rose. Nor does it say as is sometimes translated that the sun rose "upon" him. It says the sun rose "for" Jacob. Compare that to Joseph's dream where his father was the sun, his mother the moon (even though she had died), and his brothers as stars. Jacob was considered the father of all Israel, and Rachel the Mother of all Israel -- even though Jacob had children by other women. That may be hard to believe at first, but consider this:

Matthew 2:18 In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.

That prophecy had been fulfilled one way when the tribe of Benjamin were led into captivity; but it was fulfilled in a more spiritual way at the time of Jesus' birth. Most people in Bethlehem were Jews. Yet Rachel is called their mother.

 

[Giuliano]

They are part of me even after I speak. I am accountable for them.

Peace be with you!

Would you say that you are one person and the words you speak another person?

 

[Philip James]

Would you say that you are one person and the words you speak another person?

Hello Guiliano,

No, but then, I am not divine. Jesus IS!

Peace be with you!

You too ! Are welcome to come to the wedding feast of the Lamb of God!

Christ IS risen!
Alleluia!

 

[Giuliano]

Hello Guiliano,

No, but then, I am not divine. Jesus IS!

Peace be with you!

You too ! Are welcome to come to the wedding feast of the Lamb of God!

Christ IS risen!
Alleluia!

I have no quarrel about Jesus having the Divine Nature. If possessing the Divine Nature makes Jesus God, then I suppose all Christians might be called Divine someday.

1 John 3:2 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.

 

[Philip James]

I have no quarrel about Jesus having the Divine Nature. If possessing the Divine Nature makes Jesus God, then I suppose all Christians might be called Divine someday.

Keep it up and soon you'll be sounding like some Orthodox and Catholic traditions.

Peace!