Can anybody really tell what time it is?

[michaelvpardo]

You are waffling. It was not me who declared "My" "perfect[ion]" was not "complete", but Christ.

I was prepared to let it go, as it seemed that you began to say much the same thing as I did. But then you also seem determined to find me in error, even when I made a simple quote of Christ speaking, which you denied - saying, "Good try though", in an attempt to turn your own error around on me. That is called: "bearing false witness."

Nonetheless, the truth in each case is already clear.

Actually "bearing false witness" is in reference to legal testimony, but good try though.

 

[tabletalk]

"Complete" is good. But I am selling nothing.

However, you have obviously missed the point: If there were no imperfection, then Christ would have had no reason to come; and if we were not to be His body and His bride, then we would have no reason to become perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect; and if were are not to be One with Him, haven fallen into imperfection and captivity, then we would not need a Savior and have no part with Him.

So, then, it is not Christ as the Head and Husband who needed to be perfected, but His body and His bride...which inseparable, in Him, were lost. History, therefore, is His story and revelation, and ours.

I am not sure just what you refer to, but if you are saying that perfection were not needed by Jesus, then you are deceived, for He said" "My strength is made perfect in weakness."

I don't think God needs our weakness to make His strength perfect in Himself. His strength stands by Itself, already perfect, and is usable in our weaknesses, by faith in the Lord. Our weaknesses can prove the strength of the Lord.
Maybe I'm deceived also.

 

[ScottA]

Actually "bearing false witness" is in reference to legal testimony, but good try though.

Did you not think you were now on trial?

 

[ScottA]

I don't think God needs our weakness to make His strength perfect in Himself. His strength stands by Itself, already perfect, and is usable in our weaknesses, by faith in the Lord. Our weaknesses can prove the strength of the Lord.
Maybe I'm deceived also.

Certainly the Lord does not need us. But it is the gift a desire of God to save as many as call on His name. Therefore, much as you have said, our weakness then becomes His weakness, to His glory.

You are not deceived.

 

[bbyrd009]

But it is the gift a desire of God to save as many as call on His name.

no atheists in foxholes i guess

i'm minded of a Rick and Morty episode, Rick is a professed Atheist but calls out to God whenever he is...in a foxhole, so to speak. Then God saves him, and he is like "Just kidding! There is no God!" etc, but the point is nonetheless made rather profoundly imo. Not even sure an adolescent would get it, even. i'd post a clip for comment but they cuss a lot

Therefore, much as you have said, our weakness then becomes His weakness

wait, what?

 

[ScottA]

wait, what?

If we are "in Him" and "weak"...so is He. He lowered Himself, came for us.

 

[michaelvpardo]

Did you not think you were now on trial?

I've been on trial for approximately 21 years, but I already know the outcome as I know both the judge and the advocate. Here are a few simple questions for you.
1. Is God perfect?
2. Is Jesus the Son of God and the image of God?
3. Do we become as God?
If it sounds like a litmus test that would be because it is. I won't ask any more questions and simple yes or no answers will suffice. There's nothing vague about sound doctrine and so I'm bothered by vagueness in posts. I have a commission to fulfill and the Lord hasn't withdrawn it, so please, let me see who you are.

 

[ScottA]

I've been on trial for approximately 21 years, but I already know the outcome as I know both the judge and the advocate. Here are a few simple questions for you.
1. Is God perfect?
2. Is Jesus the Son of God and the image of God?
3. Do we become as God?
If it sounds like a litmus test that would be because it is. I won't ask any more questions and simple yes or no answers will suffice. There's nothing vague about sound doctrine and so I'm bothered by vagueness in posts. I have a commission to fulfill and the Lord hasn't withdrawn it, so please, let me see who you are.

Answer me this one question, and if you answer correctly, I will answer your three:

“How is it that the scribes say that the Christ is the Son of David?

 

[michaelvpardo]

Answer me this one question, and if you answer correctly, I will answer your three:

“How is it that the scribes say that the Christ is the Son of David?

Because He was descended from David through His mother's ancestry.

 

[ScottA]

Because He was descended from David through His mother's ancestry.

Wrong. You have answer as a man of flesh, while you yourself wish to test my spirit. Therefore, I will not answer your questions.

Jesus is rather the Son of David spiritually, wherein David prophesied of Him by the spirit of God, saying, "My Lord said unto my Lord."

 

[michaelvpardo]

Wrong. You have answer as a man of flesh, while you yourself wish to test my spirit. Therefore, I will not answer your questions.

Jesus is rather the Son of David spiritually, wherein David prophesied of Him by the spirit of God, saying, "My Lord said unto my Lord."

Anathema Maranatha, I see you.

 

[Jay Ross]

Apparently not, because ScottA will find fault with your response because of ...


{insert what you might think is the cause for his disagreeing with everybody}

 

[bbyrd009]

bad premises, not that i mean that personally or anything; just a bad beginning

Wrong. You have answer as a man of flesh, while you yourself wish to test my spirit. Therefore, I will not answer your questions.

Jesus is rather the Son of David spiritually, wherein David prophesied of Him by the spirit of God, saying, "My Lord said unto my Lord."

i doubt anyone disagrees there, but all of that was known then, too. Of course the Sanhedrin would not want to acknowledge this bc it would be an admission of Christ's authority; not anything you could easily accuse anyone here of imo.

And in a Matrilineal society Jesus' descent from David thru Mary would have been understood, and accepted; so the question becomes
unanswerable by the Sanhedrin, but either answer would be valid, seems to me, at least the way you asked it, omitting "How, if David called Him 'Lord?'"

 

[bbyrd009]

“How is it that the scribes say that the Christ is the Son of David?

the scribes understood everything you are saying, plus they understood Jesus from David thru Mary, too, but did not want to admit either one to Jesus, Whom they rejected as Messiah. And why not admit these to someone you have judged to be "not that person?" After all, you are teaching it to everyone else, right?

so i don't think implying that the scribes were ignorant of the spiritual implications, per Psalms, is going to work wadr.
iow they were not ignorant of why David said "the Lord said to my Lord," at least i don't think.

That would essentially = "we know we have a Messiah coming from the line of David--"through Mary" would be assumed--but gee we just can't figure out why David would ever call Him Lord."

 

[ScottA]

i doubt anyone disagrees there, but all of that was known then, too. Of course the Sanhedrin would not want to acknowledge this bc it would be an admission of Christ's authority; not anything you could easily accuse anyone here of imo.

And in a Matrilineal society Jesus' descent from David thru Mary would have been understood, and accepted; so the question becomes
unanswerable by the Sanhedrin, but either answer would be valid, seems to me, at least the way you asked it, omitting "How, if David called Him 'Lord?'"

No. It was a test. The question, as you say, presents both possible ways of answering. But one is spiritual and the other is of the flesh. Lineage in the word of God is given through the male, as the "sons" of God. The sons of the flesh are accursed.

But more importantly, Jesus asked knowing they would answer according to the flesh or the spirit, as an act of conviction showing whose children they were, whether God's or the devil's (which He pointedly said also).

 

[bbyrd009]

No. It was a test. The question, as you say, presents both possible ways of answering. But one is spiritual and the other is of the flesh. Lineage in the word of God is given through the male, as the "sons" of God. The sons of the flesh are accursed.

But more importantly, Jesus asked knowing they would answer according to the flesh or the spirit, as an act of conviction showing whose children they were, whether God's or the devil's (which He pointedly said also).

how can that be right, if they did not answer at all though?
ah, just found the Matt account,
45“If David calls Him ‘Lord,’ how then can the Messiah be his Son? ” 46No one was able to answer Him at all,

and imo one should read the Mark and Luke ones for a better grasp here, bc the scribes were not castigated at all for "not being able to answer," see, even here in Matthew, which is the only acct in which the scribes were not just commended by Christ in the previous passage, #1, and also the only account in which Christ is characterized as asking the question unrhetorically; in the other two no answer is even being anticipated, right. and even in Matthew no one is condemned or dismissed for not answering, either

and not only that, but the scribes' attitude in the Mark and Luke accounts make plain that they understood why David called Him Lord, so "No one was able to answer Him at all" in Matthew (only) is a very curious statement to make, the more you look at it. Note also the place that "And they no longer dared to ask Him anything" (et al) changes, too, from before the account to after it, depending upon which account.

it is @ 33So they answered Jesus, "We don't know." And Jesus said to them, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things" that what you are trying to infer is being done, iow, at least i think

 

[bbyrd009]

And in a Matrilineal society Jesus' descent from David thru Mary would have been understood, and accepted

hmm, guess this is wrong though, i'll be

 

[charity]

Hebrews 13:8
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
Luke 13:32
And He said to them, “Go, tell that fox,
‘Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.’
Revelation 1:19
Write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after this.

1-2-3...can you see it? It should be a Revelation.
------------
The point is that the similar language tells us exactly what time it is, that the times of each statement are the same....meaning that each refers to them all, and the timing is the time that Christ [was] "perfected."

----------------------------------------

Hello @ScottA,

This is intriguing. Please bear with me, as I think it through. Looking first at the wording of Hebrews 13:8,
(Heb 13:8) - 'Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.'

'the same' (Gr. 'ho autos', translated from the Heb. 'attah hu') - this is a Divine Title in itself.

'But Thou art the same (or, 'He')
and Thy years shall have no end.'
(Psalm 102:27) ​

* Reading from 24a - 27, the same element of time is there, and worthy of a consideration in relation to Heb. 13:8.
* It is quoted in Heb.1:10-12, which shows that this psalm is prophetic of the Messiah.
* Compare also, Malachi 3:6 which shows again His unchangeable nature:-

'For I am the LORD, I change not;
therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.'
(Malachi 3:6)

'and for ever' - meaning 'to the ages' (eis tous aionas)
---------------------------

'And He said to them, “Go, tell that fox (Herod), ‘Behold, -
I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow,
and the third day I shall be perfected.
Nevertheless I must walk
to day, and to morrow, and the day following:(through Herod's country)
for it cannot be (it is not fitting) that a prophet perish out of (ie., except in) Jerusalem.'
(Luke 13:32-33)

* What interesting verses these are? They cannot be quoted one without the other I believe.​

* 'I shall be perfected' - means 'I come to an end' (of My work): ie., by the miracle of John 11:40-44. 'The raising of Lazarus' (compare John 19:30):-

'When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar,
He said, 'It is finished:'
and He bowed His head,
and gave up the ghost.'
--------------------------------

'Write the things which thou hast seen,
and the things which are,
and the things which shall be hereafter; ... '
(Rev 1:19)

* 'hast seen' - John is told to write, 'therefore,' the things that he saw, (see v.2).
* 'which are' - or, 'what they are' (ie., what they signify)
* 'which shall be' - or, 'are about to happen'.
* 'hereafter' - literally 'after these things'.​

* I'm sorry, @ScottA, I think you are perhaps reading into these time elements something which is not there, for within their context they do not have the same impact as when isolated and placed together.

In Christ Jesus
Chris

Ref: Bible marginal notes and appendices.

 

[ScottA]

how can that be right, if they did not answer at all though?
ah, just found the Matt account,
45“If David calls Him ‘Lord,’ how then can the Messiah be his Son? ” 46No one was able to answer Him at all,

and imo one should read the Mark and Luke ones for a better grasp here, bc the scribes were not castigated at all for "not being able to answer," see, even here in Matthew, which is the only acct in which the scribes were not just commended by Christ in the previous passage, #1, and also the only account in which Christ is characterized as asking the question unrhetorically; in the other two no answer is even being anticipated, right. and even in Matthew no one is condemned or dismissed for not answering, either

and not only that, but the scribes' attitude in the Mark and Luke accounts make plain that they understood why David called Him Lord, so "No one was able to answer Him at all" in Matthew (only) is a very curious statement to make, the more you look at it. Note also the place that "And they no longer dared to ask Him anything" (et al) changes, too, from before the account to after it, depending upon which account.

it is @ 33So they answered Jesus, "We don't know." And Jesus said to them, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things" that what you are trying to infer is being done, iow, at least i think

It is the Lord's will "that none should perish, but that all should come to repentance." So, it is a repeated theme that He puts before men the choice of life and death, and advises "therefore, choose life." This, He did to Israel, and also to the apostles.

Each version speaks to a different ear.

 

[ScottA]

* I'm sorry, @ScottA, I think you are perhaps reading into these time elements something which is not there, for within their context they do not have the same impact as when isolated and placed together.

This above statement alone is the heart of your comments.

Which is like saying there is nothing unseen, but only that which is seen is true. Or like saying there is nothing spiritual about what is written, but only what it means as it applies to the world and living in it.

Do you not know, that "all things come in parables?"

If I tell you the interpretation of what is written and you do not see the spirit in the words, it is not that the words are without spirit, but rather that you do not have eyes to see. And if you do not have a mind to receive it, but rather a mind to reject that which is of the spirit of God...you will not receive it.

The Lord has placed before us (in His word and in the world) life and death, and counsels that we "therefore choose life." I do the same.