Jesus the ventriloquist?

[DNB]

@DNB to be honest, I dislike reading long posts-- I feel that it frequently delutes the point that's trying to be conveyed. Could you give me a short sum up of how your views differ from some of the others here.

...you can say that again, I've always vowed to write no more than a paragraph, per post (this was a major exception, Paul persisted).
So far, I've been expressing my contentions with the doctrine of the trinity, or any form of deifying Jesus (Modalism, JW, LDS, ...). That is, I haven't expressed my Christology yet. For the sake of labeling my views, I'm Unitarian (not Universalist though).

I believe that Jesus was the first-born of all creation, in that, God wanted a Son, and for His son, he created all things, including us.
But, He created us first. So that, the mystery of Christ is not in his ontology, but his chronology.
Therefore, God played out history in reverse order to what He intended His primary purpose to be. It was not Adam & Eve in the Garden of Eden, nor Moses, the Jews, and the Levitical Law, but rather His precedential son ruling over all of creation. But again, He precipitated the course of human history in a manner that will expose man's constant rebellion under any form of either, autonomy or government, and consequently, justify this 'favouritism' and pre-eminence of His son, i.e. perfect love and obedience.

As God promised to Abraham that if only 10 righteous men could be found in Sodom, he would spare the entire city. Typologically, God exonerated all men provided that there was just one, that will do what Adam couldn't, i.e. love God with all his heart, mind and soul, unto perfection. Thus, Jesus was the 2nd Adam, and, was unequivocally, and by necessity, 200% man, in order to redeem the guilty party, man. Any other ontology, disqualifies the justice and absolution (God cannot love and obey Himself, in order to spare a creature from Himself i.e. His wrath, ...lunacy).

Christ is also the first-born from the dead. No one but Jesus is currently in heaven. All things in order, and there is no judgement before Judgement Day. Where, Christ, who qualified himself to be a judge of righteousness by his voluntary love and obedience, and ultimate perfection, will judge all humanity, as his Father has ordained it to be so.

Sorry, maybe a bit too long, ...probably ...but, any shorter might have been ambiguous?

 

[Jane_Doe22]

...you can say that again, I've always vowed to write no more than a paragraph, per post (this was a major exception, Paul persisted).
So far, I've been expressing my contentions with the doctrine of the trinity, or any form of deifying Jesus (Modalism, JW, LDS, ...). That is, I haven't expressed my Christology yet. For the sake of labeling my views, I'm Unitarian (not Universalist though).

I believe that Jesus was the first-born of all creation, in that, God wanted a Son, and for His son, he created all things, including us.
But, He created us first. So that, the mystery of Christ is not in his ontology, but his chronology.
Therefore, God played out history in reverse order to what He intended His primary purpose to be. It was not Adam & Eve in the Garden of Eden, nor Moses, the Jews, and the Levitical Law, but rather His precedential son ruling over all of creation. But again, He precipitated the course of human history in a manner that will expose man's constant rebellion under any form of either, autonomy or government, and consequently, justify this 'favouritism' and pre-eminence of His son, i.e. perfect love and obedience.

As God promised to Abraham that if only 10 righteous men could be found in Sodom, he would spare the entire city. Typologically, God exonerated all men provided that there was just one, that will do what Adam couldn't, i.e. love God with all his heart, mind and soul, unto perfection. Thus, Jesus was the 2nd Adam, and, was unequivocally, and by necessity, 200% man, in order to redeem the guilty party, man. Any other ontology, disqualifies the justice and absolution (God cannot love and obey Himself, in order to spare a creature from Himself i.e. His wrath, ...lunacy).

Christ is also the first-born from the dead. No one but Jesus is currently in heaven. All things in order, and there is no judgement before Judgement Day. Where, Christ, who qualified himself to be a judge of righteousness by his voluntary love and obedience, and ultimate perfection, will judge all humanity, as his Father has ordained it to be so.

Sorry, maybe a bit too long, ...probably ...but, any shorter might have been ambiguous?

Longer than needed, but much better than reading a marathon of posts.

So, correct me where I’m wrong, here. essentially your Christolgy, is that Christ is God’s Son, and favored. But He’s not divine the same way the Father is, not always existent. Correct?

 

[Paul Christensen]

Again, you don't have explicit attestation to this. It is inferred from a series of isolated passages. I would never be dogmatic by such a hermeneutic.


Yes, Isaiah 9:6 is Messianic, but considering that there is not a single trinitarian in history, that would ever use the term 'father', to describe the 'son', especially because it is only the name that distinguishes one from the other (don't even try to say otherwise), the inspired author is clearly using superlatives that are not meant to be understood as essence, but eminence.


John 17:20-22
17:20. "I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; 21. that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22. "The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one;


This was clearly the Jews misunderstanding, that only God can forgive sins. If Christ loved God with all his heart, mind and souls , and for this reason, was perfect, then he is both qualified and authorized, to judge righteousness if God deems it so.


He did not quote Exodus 3:14. The Tetragrammaton is a complete expression, a concept. Countless people in the Old Testament used 'eh-yeh to refer to themselves. 'I am', is not reserved for God. Paul, the blind man, and others in the New Testament used the exact same expression 'ego eimi' to refer to themselves, the same way that Jesus did.


If all 3 persons of the trinity, are co-equal and co-eternal, why is one invisible, and the other not? How can one do, what the other can't?


Even if one subscribes to penal substitution theory, this Atonement model is absurd because it makes God punish Himself, in order to propitiate His wrath against man. You see the nonsense, right?


You constantly, constantly jump to conclusions. What about option #3???? Anthropomorphism, or God stirring up physical matter to reveal His presence (eg; Pillar of Cloud). Also, if Christ was visible to thousands during his time on earth, why the discretion in the case of Moses. Therefore, this was the Father that 'appeared to Moses', not the Son, as the passage clearly states (in the context, God distinguishes between different parts of His 'body', not His 'persons').


So, one minute Jesus can appear to man (Moses, Abraham), in an incarnate state i.e. his full glory, but in another case, he can't??????? You are beyond inconsistent!

Oh well, as they say: You have your opinion and I have mine! My view is that unless we accept Jesus as God, we can't be saved, because if He was just a type of created being, or just a man, then He could not have taken the whole eternal penalty for my sin. Only an eternal deity can do that.

But then, we will both find out when we are facing Him at His judgment seat.

 

[Paul Christensen]

No theories are necessary regarding this matter, its been plainly stated to us from the beginning of the book. If you get sent to heaven, its because God wants you there. Its not something that happens on default of you dying a "saint".

And this is confirmed in so many ways throughout the book, that all departed spirits are still in Sheol:

So, when Jesus was talking about the rich man in hell, He was just telling a fiction story, and there is no unpleasant place where unbelievers go that is a different place for believers? Are you actually saying that all spirits, unbeliever and believer go to the same place.

Your comment about departed spirit contradicts the previous post, which you agree with, that body and spirit are not separate. Yet you are talking about departed spirits in Sheol while their bodies are rotting in their graves.



So, we have people on this website and in Christianity the world over who have convinced themselves they are more special to God than King David himself since they believe that upon death, they will be sent to a place that THE King David never set foot in. Do you now see what the issue is? Are you more special than King David? What is it about you that makes you better than David that makes you believe you will go to heaven?[/QUOTE]

 

[Dcopymope]

So, when Jesus was talking about the rich man in hell, He was just telling a fiction story, and there is no unpleasant place where unbelievers go that is a different place for believers? Are you actually saying that all spirits, unbeliever and believer go to the same place.

Your comment about departed spirit contradicts the previous post, which you agree with, that body and spirit are not separate. Yet you are talking about departed spirits in Sheol while their bodies are rotting in their graves.

Actually, let me rephrase. In life the spirit & body aren't separate, nor will they be in the future. When one dies however, the default destination for the spirits of the dead is never explained as heaven or "hell". Instead, "Sheol" or "Hades" is always the destination, so I don't see the discrepancy. The reason why is simple, heaven is not the abode of the dead, but of the living. This is why Peter stated that if you see a mans body still in the grave, he didn't actually go anywhere, certainly not heaven, using Kind David as an example, the legend himself.

Now as far as I can see, the only scripture in the entire Bible that seems to give any indication of the dead being sent straight away to a place of torment is the parable of the rich man. I would be confused, if the same word used to refer to that place of torment and fire is the same word used in that parable, but its not. If it was really the lake of fire being referred to in that parable, the original word being used would be Gehenna, not Sheol or Hades. Gehenna is the second death, where both body and spirit are killed, forever. "Hell" is a vague term that for some reason is used by the translators to refer to many things, and all it really did was cause confusion. Now we have Christians unwittingly claiming that King David, and all the rest of the "heroes of the faith" is in a place of torment and hell fire. :

 

[Paul Christensen]

Actually, let me rephrase. In life the spirit & body aren't separate, nor will they be in the future. When one dies however, the default destination for the spirits of the dead is never explained as heaven or "hell". Instead, "Sheol" or "Hades" is always the destination, so I don't see the discrepancy. The reason why is simple, heaven is not the abode of the dead, but of the living. This is why Peter stated that if you see a mans body still in the grave, he didn't actually go anywhere, certainly not heaven, using Kind David as an example, the legend himself.

Now as far as I can see, the only scripture in the entire Bible that seems to give any indication of the dead being sent straight away to a place of torment is the parable of the rich man. I would be confused, if the same word used to refer to that place of torment and fire is the same word used in that parable, but its not. If it was really the lake of fire being referred to in that parable, the original word being used would be Gehenna, not Sheol or Hades. Gehenna is the second death, where both body and spirit are killed, forever. "Hell" is a vague term that for some reason is used by the translators to refer to many things, and all it really did was cause confusion. Now we have Christians unwittingly claiming that King David, and all the rest of the "heroes of the faith" is in a place of torment and hell fire. :

No one except the Father and Christ, along with the angels are in heaven at present, and no one is in the lake of fire yet because the great white throne judgment of unbelievers hasn't taken place yet.

My view is that king David and other OT "heroes of the faith" are ones who, through faith, looked forward to the Messiah to come. They are the ones who believed the Messianic prophecies that are right through the OT from Genesis through to John the Baptizer. That is how Abraham "rejoiced to see My [Jesus'] day". This means that the spirit of Abraham is alive and conscious somewhere and knew when Jesus was born, grew to be a man and was revealed as the Messiah.

When Jesus told the story about the rich man in hell, He showed that there is a place where the spirits of the unbelieving dead go, and it is not a pleasant place, as we see in the words of the rich man pleading to Abraham to send Lazarus back from the dead to his brothers so they don't come to "this horrible place."

But Abraham and the OT believers are in a different place, and there is an impassable gulf between that place and the place where the rich man and the unbelievers are. So, all the Christians I know don't believe that the OT believers in the coming Messiah are in the same place as that rich man undergoing torment through the flames and extreme thirst. So you must be hearing from the lunatic fringe who believe shonky doctrines that have nothing to do with what is written in the Bible.

What this means is that when Christian believers die, they go to the same place where Abraham now is and they join the OT heroes of faith to await the time when they will rise from the dead to meet the Lord and appear at the judgment seat of Christ, and participate in the marriage supper of the Lamb.

It will only be after the 1000 year Millennial reign of Christ that the unbelieving dead will be raised to face God at the Great White Throne judgment to answer to Him why they rejected the Messiah. It will be there that their eyes will be fully opened to what they have done and they will know beyond doubt that they are guilty and that the lake of fire is their only future where they will spend eternity wailing and gnashing their teeth. Their fate will be an eternal memorial to show what happens to those OT folk who rejected the Messiah, and those afterward who reject Christ.

 

[Brakelite]

GINOLJC, the bible is clear on the Godhead.
Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God". as you well know that there is no one "EQUAL" with God... right. so if the Lord Jesus whom we call the son is a separate person of...of....of... of God then one have two Gods, plain and simple

Except here...
KJV Hebrews 1
8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
... Where the Father Himself is addressing His Son as God.

 

[Paul Christensen]

Except here...
KJV Hebrews 1
8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
... Where the Father Himself is addressing His Son as God.

He either doesn't know or is deliberately ignoring that the Hebrew word for the KJV "LORD" is a plural word.

I've heard Mormons and JW's criticise those who believe in the Trinity as believing in "three gods".

 

[Stranger]

Of course you won't dare to try and explain yourself, for fear of sounding like a fool. So don't even try to accuse me of being deficient in understanding.
I challenge you to explain what a god-man is, or how three omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent persons can coexist in a single Godhead, without confusion or redundancy, and without appealing to mystery, ...as in, you being mystified?
You won't even dare to try, ...so your frivolous and impetuous comment about my wisdom, does nothing more but reflect your incompetency.

Well, you gave me the two options to choose from. I was forced to comply.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

Don't think that the concept of a god-man is not radical, just because it's popular. You get that part, right?
And again Stranger, if you're willing to explain what a god-man is, and succeed, only then you can assert that it's not radical. Otherwise, you sound deluded. You get that part, right?

It's not radical. It's been around a long time.

Not 'what a' God/Man is, but Who the God/Man is. Jesus Christ.

Oh gee I must live up to your judgement of succeeding. No thanks. I can assert without any concern of what you consider success. Thus your delusion that your judgement carries any weight.

Stranger

 

[DNB]

Longer than needed, but much better than reading a marathon of posts.

So, correct me where I’m wrong, here. essentially your Christolgy, is that Christ is God’s Son, and favored. But He’s not divine the same way the Father is, not always existent. Correct?

Absolutely.

 

[DNB]

Oh well, as they say: You have your opinion and I have mine! My view is that unless we accept Jesus as God, we can't be saved, because if He was just a type of created being, or just a man, then He could not have taken the whole eternal penalty for my sin. Only an eternal deity can do that.

But then, we will both find out when we are facing Him at His judgment seat.

Well said (your first & last statement)!

 

[DNB]

Well, you gave me the two options to choose from. I was forced to comply.

Stranger

Yes, but gave you another option on the last post, which you wont dare to comply.
Talk is cheap!

 

[DNB]

It's not radical. It's been around a long time. - Do you need a dictionary definition of radical?

Not 'what a' God/Man is, but Who the God/Man is. Jesus Christ. - Circular Reasoning

Oh gee I must live up to your judgement of succeeding. No thanks. - You have a very bizarre way of reasoning?

 

[101G]

Except here...
KJV Hebrews 1
8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
... Where the Father Himself is addressing His Son as God.

GINOLJC, to all.
this is my whole point, the Son is the "OBJECTIVE", in Flesh. and the "Father" is the "Subjective". by being in Fleh Jesus is "CONCRETE", and without flesh Jesus is "ABSTRACT".

and two did you notice the the definite article used there "O" God, meaning the SAME "ONE" Person "diversified". this proves my point.

once again, look and compare, Brakelite2, be honest, tell us is this two seperate Persons or the same person?

1. Isaiah 44:6 "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God". (ONE PERSON OR TWO?) person 1 "First" AND 2nd person "Last?" it that's the case. now this,


2. Isaiah 41:4 "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he.
ok Brakelite2, the "first" is WITH the "Last". remember in verse 6 above the First "AND" the Last is "I", one person. here in verse 4 the "First" is WITH the "Last", just as John 1:1 states the word was "WITH" God and is God, so Brakelite2, again is this one person or two? now this,

3. Isaiah 48:12 "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last". now Brakelite2 is this two persons or One.

remember in verse 6 the "First" "AND the "Last" seems to be two person, as in verse 4 by the "First" being "WITH" the "Last". but verse 12 states, the "FIRST" is ALSO the "Last". meaning ONE PERSON.

now Brakelite2 how many person is the "First and the "Last"? your answer please.

PICJAG.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Absolutely.

Ok. Obviously I disagree, but I also thank you for taking the time to answer my question and explain your view to me.

 

[Earburner]

So for all of you who claim GOD is Jesus and Jesus is GOD - whose voice was this coming from the cloud:
Matthew 17:5 King James Version (KJV)
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.'

Was Jesus a ventriloquist? Can clouds speak? Maybe this verse is fiction like most non-Christians believe?

Yes of course! All the Disciples made up stories about Jesus, so that they could get killed!! And the one who denied His reality, killed himself!
Either Jesus was the most lunatick of all, or He is the Living Son of God!
Yes, we must all decide to either believe or disbelieve. THAT IS what it's all about!
John 3:18

 

[Jane_Doe22]

I've heard Mormons and JW's criticise those who believe in the Trinity as believing in "three gods".

Inaccurate from the LDS Christian side of things.
I won't comment on the JW part.

 

[Paul Christensen]

Inaccurate from the LDS Christian side of things.
I won't comment on the JW part.

I guess it depends on which LDS believers one talks to. Perhaps there are differences of opinions within that church as there are in many others concerning doctrinal issues.

I won't comment on your use of the word "Christian" connected with the LDS church. Just in case you are an LDS member. I don't want to be unecessarily contentious.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

I guess it depends on which LDS believers one talks to. Perhaps there are differences of opinions within that church as there are in many others concerning doctrinal issues.

I won't comment on your use of the word "Christian" connected with the LDS church. Just in case you are an LDS member. I don't want to be unecessarily contentious.

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and very open about that.

LDS Christians have their misconceptions about what other folks believe (just like any other group of humans is prone to have). But it's not that Athanasian Christians believe in "three gods". Rather by far the most common misconception is that an LDS Christian will think that "Bob" the Athanasian Christian is a modalist. That Bob denies the fact that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three different person, and that Bob believes that the account of Christ's baptism is Christ congratulating himself via an act of ventriloquism. Obviously such is inaccurate.