Are we divine ???

[APAK]

I don't know, does it?

Isaiah 56:10
[10] His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber.

Psalm 22:16
[16] For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.

The children of disobedience walk and talk like the children of disobedience. They share in the "nature" of disobedience, does that make them antichrist?

I am still stuck on the "longsuffering" of God. In every verse connected to telling us about the Spirit of God, there is long suffering. Does this mean to be divine is to long suffer? Why does it matter? Because we are debating "divine" and possibly God's divinity is not defined the way man defines it. But is rather simply: love. What is the glory of God; is it not the Son? Why is the Son who is peace, love and judgement to the widows and poor...Gods glory and light?

Jesus wept.

John 11:33-40
[33] When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping which came with her, he groaned in the spirit, and was troubled, [34] And said, Where have ye laid him? They said unto him, Lord, come and see. [35] Jesus wept. [36] Then said the Jews, Behold how he loved him! [37] And some of them said, Could not this man, which opened the eyes of the blind, have caused that even this man should not have died? [38] Jesus therefore again groaning in himself cometh to the grave. It was a cave, and a stone lay upon it. [39] Jesus said, Take ye away the stone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been dead four days. [40] Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?

This I know to be true. Jesus did not weep because of Lazarus. Jesus had no doubt Lazarus would be raised at His command, in fact Jesus purposely stalled in coming to Lazarus. Jesus wept in suffering the pain of Lazarus love ones. Jesus showed us the Father. The Old Testament is no different. God long-suffered so that the entirety of the Word would be fulfilled. Same God. Long-suffering our lack of understanding and attack of His character through little faith in Him. It all lines up with what God is willing to suffer for relationship of man and God to be restored. The God of the Old Testament was displayed in Christ. Did God long-suffer the rejection of His most beautiful creature(Satan). God long-suffers man's ignorance. To be divine is to see from the throne of God and Gods purpose. Is that not enough? To know His thoughts and His ways and His love? To have His Heart (Mind)?

I am sorry for rambling...but are we talking of divine as in glowing and walking through walls and being over all in power? Or divine as in: knowing God. How more "divine" can you be?

1 Corinthians 13:12
[12] For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

I've watched over the past year as God has taken one of the strongest men that I know to weakness. I'm accustomed to being weak but it is a miracle: This strong man shares in my weakness. He asked me: what is this all for? Why suffer? Why put us through it? It became very clear that God truly deserves our suffering.

It a good place. To be weak. His goodness and love is divine.

VictoryInJesus: Spoken truly from the heart, and I 'feel' an attachment or bond here. I felt electrified inside me by these words you wrote. You are writing in the spirit sister!

Bless you,

APAK

 

[bbyrd009]

What stops us is most definitely us. I really believe if and when we completely surrender, we will completely overcome, which is what Jesus in his body of corruptible flesh did. If and when we do this how like Him will we be?

"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." I John 3:2

How much "like" him is that?

"He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God." Rev 2:7

...Equals unending Life

"He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death." Rev 2:11

...Equals no more concern about dying.

"He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it." Rev 2:17

...Equals eating of hidden manna [what?], receiving a white stone [which is?], and having our new name [which is?]

"And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:
And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.
And I will give him the morning star. Rev 2:26-28

...Equals receiving power over nations... and the morning star

"He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels." Rev 3:5

...Equals clothed in white raiment, not blotted out of book of life

"Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name." Rev 3:12

...Equals becoming a pillar in God's temple

"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." Rev 3:21

...Equals sitting with Him in his throne.

Do we understand better where and what we will be now?

"For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." I Cor 13:12

nice! now imo one might just see that then can be now, then was many yesterdays ago for Moses, Gandhi, Joan of Arc, Francis of Assisi, etc

 

[bbyrd009]

What limit did He put on "all"?

moving mountains didn't seem to be out of the question, huh

even if that is misunderstood; mountains had just recently been moved into the sea, Jerusalem sits on a man made mountain, etc

 

[bbyrd009]

We cannot receive such power for the wrong purpose.

"If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them."

 

[bbyrd009]

I think you are presuming too much here. I never said nor hinted that we 'become deity.' as God himself. That is totally contrary to my thinking.

ah then allow me to say and hint, as one who has driven a bus and been perceived as a god by a little kid

adults may not be the best ppl to get our definitions from, with respect to all

 

[bbyrd009]

I see you have no 'brakes' on this subject. Your 'lite' is out and you can be a danger to other people.

hmm, i liked it! Now can it be counterfeited, sure, everything can i guess

 

[bbyrd009]

I believe that God does not want to move mountains for us just because we want it done with faith.

i think with "faith" redefined the issue clarifies, imo don't be letting the same adults who convinced you of "santa claus" (and "dollars are money") be defining the word "faith" for you!

 

[APAK]

i think with "faith" redefined the issue clarifies, imo don't be letting the same adults who convinced you of "santa claus" (and "dollars are money") be defining the word "faith" for you!

Yes, eventually the symbol 'faith' and it meaning like others can be 'ran over' as being well understood although in reality, misunderstood with new secondary and even opposing and deceitful meanings.

Good comment bbyrd009

APAK

 

[ScottA]

What about his blood? Did he commit his blood as well, since that's also the thing that "cleanses" us from sin and is stated to be the life of the flesh itself? Did he have to say "I commend my blood" for it to actually be the case?

The blood is only representational. "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God."

 

[ScottA]

re: Moses' face

shining faces are not that hard to discern imo

But the point is, there can be no "glorified" flesh per se, for "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God."

 

[bbyrd009]

But the point is, there can be no "glorified" flesh per se, for "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God."

imo this is saying that we must use our spirits and not our flesh to get there, but we are understood to be a spirit ensouled in flesh. So i would accept that Moses spirit was what was shining, and "face" should really read "countenance" there i guess, to agree with you

 

[Miss Hepburn]

Same spirit in Jesus is in me...I'm just a bit drowsy is all...he is awakened to who he is.
Love you, Jesus, my big brother and teacher and helper and trail blazer!
xxoo

 

[ScottA]

imo this is saying that we must use our spirits and not our flesh to get there, but we are understood to be a spirit ensouled in flesh. So i would accept that Moses spirit was what was shining, and "face" should really read "countenance" there i guess, to agree with you

Well, the bottom line is that "the flesh profits nothing." So, I should think that what Moses came down the mountain with was not something he had when he went up, but what was from God.

 

[bbyrd009]

Well, the bottom line is that "the flesh profits nothing." So, I should think that what Moses came down the mountain with was not something he had when he went up, but what was from God.

imo "the flesh profits nothing" is speaking to a perspective, and "...that it may go well with you" might be a counter-balance for that. certainly nothing done "from the flesh perspective" is profitable, which is what is meant there imo; but i think an argument can be made that works done from the Spirit are profitable to the flesh too, "that you may live long in years," etc

 

[bbyrd009]

63The Spirit is the One who gives life.

can't disagree there, but Augustinianism was abandoned bc it did not work, right
we do not try to "get saved" on our deathbeds any more iow
after one "gets life," they still have to eat, etc.

So saying "the flesh does not profit" is not what the passage intends imo

 

[amadeus]

Amadeus:

Mark 9:23..we do tend to become a lot more faithful when we have a real need in our lives. We fervently pray, and pray....
Having sufficient faith I believe is not the issue, especially under these circumstances. Answer to prayer in my belief has always been about what our Father wants first, his will and plan. Yes, there is no limit on 'all' although I believe Jesus meant (without explaining it) with his filter placed on it first. That father had a real need for Christ to heal his son. It was in Christ's interest and the father's son faith that healed him.

In the parable concerning 'moving a mountain' with sufficient faith. Has any believer with firm faith been able to have this mountain moving feat accomplished? Of course not, God will do his purpose first on all things requested. I believe that God does not want to move mountains for us just because we want it done with faith.

Bless you,

APAK

Again, friend and brother, I am not disagreeing. When I say the limit is on us, that does not mean going outside of or beyond God will. God has always had a plan. It is up to us as to how deeply involved we are in moving in the right side of that plan. If God's plan allows for any person to surrender completely to Him, what again is the limit of "all"? I could hardly know unless He told all of His heart and He certainly has not done that...

One one of my goals as I walk with Him is never to limit Him. Another goal it to always be available for anything He wishes me to do. No limits on either side is ideal. On His side there is no problem. On mine it is another matter, is it not?

 

[ScottA]

imo "the flesh profits nothing" is speaking to a perspective, and "...that it may go well with you" might be a counter-balance for that. certainly nothing done "from the flesh perspective" is profitable, which is what is meant there imo; but i think an argument can be made that works done from the Spirit are profitable to the flesh too, "that you may live long in years," etc

Indeed, the spirit benefits the flesh.

 

[Helen]

My brother believes we should not debate. He won't join the forum even though he's so knowledgeable. He believes it's sinful.

I think it probably is..if it becomes bebating about God and who God is.
I also get a bit jumpy when anyone starts on heavy against the baptism in the Sprit , or any of the gifts of the Sprit...it’s a bit like Holy Ground to me.

But other than that. My dad was a debater....us married kids would have Sunday meals at mum and dads house ..it was a fun time..always after the meal he’d start saying...”So, what do you believe about ....blah blah.....and why do you believe what you believe?”
So, in that light it was fun and enjoyable ...and great times of learning too.
So I am not against bebates.
The two on the Emeaus road were discussing the scriptures when “Jesus drew near...”
And a OT scripture I forget where..showing how God hears and is please as we talk together along the way ...
(On iPad, can’t find it)

 

[amadeus]

100% i guess

Well that really should be the goal, but what is attainable is one thing that people do argue about.

Remember my thread sometime back about a difference between being part of the Body of Christ and being part of the Bride of Christ. The parts of the Body will be perfectly joined together and in subjection the Head, but the Bride is to be that and somewhat more. Can we understand really such a difference? Probably not, unless God has shown it to us. Both are in a sense 100% like Him, but they are not precisely the same. Consider the man Job named as 'perfect' in the very first verse of the book, but after that he went through some things that helped him to grow. Did he not go from 100% to 100%? I believe he did but explaining the difference is not so easy as that, is it?

 

[amadeus]

nice! now imo one might just see that then can be now, then was many yesterdays ago for Moses, Gandhi, Joan of Arc, Francis of Assisi, etc

Yes, why indeed cannot the "then" be equal to the "now" for us? We have until the night comes, no? Is it not day now?