For those who think Christ is not God.

[face2face]

I believe what it says, if that is what you are asking me.

There is a lot more to interpreting language than saying, "a literal reading", however, having determined the saying of the passage, I accept it as true, yes.

I agree, but for the purpose of this exercise I have limited our discussion to literal, hyper literal and figurative attempts to interpret Scripture, for the time being any anyway.

So far the discussion thread with Johann is interesting and we already are drawing to a number of insights regarding the way trinitarians interpret Scripture.

Of course excepting it as true doesn't really reveal what precisely is true.

I've seen over and over that as people disagree over the meaning of a passage, it always seems to come to the point where there is a verse that says something, and one person says, It means what it says, and another says, Actually, It means something different.

I'm of the mind that having found that a passage seems correctly translated, I accept it's saying.

It seems many people have a lot of reasons to think that when Jesus says He shared glory with the Father before the world was, that He really didn't mean that, instead meant something else, I just don't see it.

Okay that's a great example one I have just asked Johann to look into.

What I do see is that when we let do not hold to the sayings the Bible makes, and find a "spiritual meaning", or call it allegory and "interpret" it, or call it idiomatic and "re-interpret" it, though there be no corresponding idiom in Scripture, everyone who does that comes up with their own ideas. And we end up with a million points of view.

True, caution is needed when using types, anti-types, allegorical meanings etc. It might be possible to take them too far. Of course Galatians 4&5 is a great example and one I think few would have interpreted from Gen 16 if it wasn't for the Apostle Paul inspired work.

But everyone who says, He said He shared glory with the Father, so, He did, we all understand exactly the same thing.

So when I think about places like,

Ephesians 4:13-14 "Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

If we are to come to unity in knowledge, how will we do that?

Much love!

A very mature response thanks

Re your comments on John 17:5 we have a slight issue to deal with first before jumping to the common trinitarian conclusion.

If the Scripture speaks as though others per-existed, as well as Christ, what are we to make of that?

Of believers, Paul "Whom he did foreknow." (Romans 8:29) - are you to assert from this a literal reading also and say that God foreknew you therefore you per-existed?

He does this to make the riches of his glory shine even brighter on those to whom he shows mercy, who were prepared in advance for glory. Romans 9:23 & 2 Timothy 1:9

What's interesting here, is if we took a literal approach to these verses we would have the entire elect per-existing - imagine that?

He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world Ephesians 1:4

Of Jeremiah, the LORD said Jeremiah 1:5 - like Jesus, was Jeremiah in some per-existent state only to be sent down into his mothers womb to be born a baby???

Now I know how you will justify these verse's and provide all manner of explanation all the while holding fast to your trinitarian notions of Christ, but the truth is, you and others here cherry pick verses to support you beliefs and in doing so fail to obtain a wider understanding of God's plan in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Shortly Johann will provide his interpretation of John 17:5 and I already know how he will treat it...it wont be with an open mind - lets see.

 

[Brakelite]

I am confident if I placed up any and every verse which speaks to the closeness of Father to Son, and Son to Father, you would instantly assert Trinitarian doctrine even though the text might hold deeper more profound meaning.

Is it possible that you and others also have that bias when giving consideration to the relationship between Father and Son? As may we all? I have shifted my stance on the trinity issue a couple of times. Once staunch trinitarian, without knowing not studying why, I was introduced to other perspectives about 6 or 7 years ago and could recognize several difficulties inherent in the creeds particularly, but also in the many versions of trinitarianism one meets online. So I certainly no longer accept the creeds, and the man-made formulas and "must believe in order to be saved" additions that appeared over several centuries. But I was careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water. So I asked myself the question... Does a rejection of the belief in the trinity as per the traditions and creeds necessitate also a rejection of the deity and divinity of Christ? In other words. Do we need the trinity as taught in the creeds to believe Jesus is God? I don't believe so.
And careful study and reading on the subject, raised another caution. We are dealing with the nature of God. We are treading on holy ground. I believe we must exercise great caution and humility in proclaiming anything as absolute truth and demanding others accept what we believe. No-one can find out God. There is much He has not revealed. Assumptions and presumptions are the gateway to heresy and tyranny.

 

[Johann]

So once again you haven't adequately explained in what way is Jesus one with his Father.

I believe I did explain it adequately.
J.

So what is the extreme assertion of false teaching upon John 6:54? Well its the the Roman Catholics belief in the transubstantiation which is consistent with a hyper-literal reading of the Word.

Lets look at another shall we?

John 17:5

Hyper-literal?
Every day I learn new words.
let me ask you a question
What was the doxa Jesus displayed?
J.

 

[face2face]

Is it possible that you and others also have that bias when giving consideration to the relationship between Father and Son? As may we all? I have shifted my stance on the trinity issue a couple of times. Once staunch trinitarian, without knowing not studying why, I was introduced to other perspectives about 6 or 7 years ago and could recognize several difficulties inherent in the creeds particularly, but also in the many versions of trinitarianism one meets online. So I certainly no longer accept the creeds, and the man-made formulas and "must believe in order to be saved" additions that appeared over several centuries. But I was careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water. So I asked myself the question... Does a rejection of the belief in the trinity as per the traditions and creeds necessitate also a rejection of the deity and divinity of Christ? In other words. Do we need the trinity as taught in the creeds to believe Jesus is God? I don't believe so.
And careful study and reading on the subject, raised another caution. We are dealing with the nature of God. We are treading on holy ground. I believe we must exercise great caution and humility in proclaiming anything as absolute truth and demanding others accept what we believe. No-one can find out God. There is much He has not revealed. Assumptions and presumptions are the gateway to heresy and tyranny.

I am left rather speechless (impressed!)...this deserves a pin, for deeper thought and consideration by all of us here. I could also concur in many ways, however coming from a staunch unitarian background I appreciate how close the record places Christ to God, however, I have studied this subject for decades and now feel very comfortable in my understanding. I enjoyed your thoughts thanks.

 

[Johann]

What was the doxa Jesus displayed?
J.

Or rather, what was the doxa Jesus manifested while here on earth?
J.

 

[face2face]

Or rather, what was the doxa Jesus manifested while here on earth?
J.

What's happened tonight...what's in the water that these enlightened posts are coming through ...loved that you used the word manifested - gives me goosebumps...did you want to nominate a Scripture?

 

[Johann]

What's happened tonight...what's in the water that these enlightened posts are coming through ...loved that you used the word manifested - gives me goosebumps...did you want to nominate a Scripture?

I asked you a question F2F, what was the "glory" Jesus manifested/revealed while He was on earth?
J.

 

[face2face]

I asked you a question F2F, what was the "glory" Jesus manifested/revealed while He was on earth?
J.

Okay, I love Hebrews 1:3 which describes Jesus as the “radiance of his glory” (apaugasma tēs doxēs) and the “exact representation of his very being” (charaktēr tēs hypostaseōs)

Jesus manifested the very person of God in all His Divine Character, of course NOT being the actual substance of God in nature, for Christ had sinful flesh (Romans 8:1-3) and required redemption, but in character, Jesus revealed Him perfectly. On this we should all agree!

On this basis alone, he could have claimed equality with God, but as Philippians states he made himself of no reputation by claiming servitude over sonship.

“Jesus is the glory of Yahweh”

Closer examination of Hebrews 1:3 Jesus cannot be said to be the image of something He already is. Likewise Jesus cannot be given a name which is above every name, if he was already in possession that name. Likewise, Jesus cannot be said to have an inheritance, a throne, if he already had possession of said throne…and so on!

When we say image, we suggest two distinct things: firstly, the thing imaged and the thing imaging it. If the Son is the image of God’s hypostasis, then the hypostasis of God must be something which the Son does not share; it must be rather something which He is like. You might say "The Son shares the Divine essence", however, hypostasis here cannot mean essence. It must be taken then in its alternative sense of “person”, which of course establishes the Biblical principle of God manifestation ( a term you rightly used in your opening question) i.e Jesus manifested, revealed, made known the Character, or Person of God perfectly...to which, on some level you must agree. What the author of the Epistle is saying is that the Son is exactly like the Father in person.

Therefore Jesus could say with confidence John 14:9

F2F

 

[Brakelite]

Okay, I love Hebrews 1:3 which describes Jesus as the “radiance of his glory” (apaugasma tēs doxēs) and the “exact representation of his very being” (charaktēr tēs hypostaseōs)

Jesus manifested the very person of God in all His Divine Character, of course NOT being the actual substance of God in nature, for Christ had sinful flesh (Romans 8:1-3) and required redemption, but in character, Jesus revealed Him perfectly. On this we should all agree!

On this basis alone, he could have claimed equality with God, but as Philippians states he made himself of no reputation by claiming servitude over sonship.

“Jesus is the glory of Yahweh”

Closer examination of Hebrews 1:3 Jesus cannot be said to be the image of something He already is. Likewise Jesus cannot be given a name which is above every name, if he was already in possession that name. Likewise, Jesus cannot be said to have an inheritance, a throne, if he already had possession of said throne…and so on!

When we say image, we suggest two distinct things: firstly, the thing imaged and the thing imaging it. If the Son is the image of God’s hypostasis, then the hypostasis of God must be something which the Son does not share; it must be rather something which He is like. You might say "The Son shares the Divine essence", however, hypostasis here cannot mean essence. It must be taken then in its alternative sense of “person”, which of course establishes the Biblical principle of God manifestation ( a term you rightly used in your opening question) i.e Jesus manifested, revealed, made known the Character, or Person of God perfectly...to which, on some level you must agree. What the author of the Epistle is saying is that the Son is exactly like the Father in person.

Therefore Jesus could say with confidence John 14:9

F2F

I think at first consideration I can agree with much of the above, but can not accept the statement that Jesus needed redemption on the basis of His human nature. I know this opens a Pandora box of other issues, the most important being the question...
Are we sinners because we sin, or do we sin because we are sinners? Are we born sinners, or with only the potential to sin? And lastly but perhaps most importantly, was it possible for Jesus to be born with a fallen human nature, yet not sin and therefore not needing to be redeemed? And whose blood redeemed Him? Okay, sorry, lots of questions and there's gonna be lots of answers. Comes back to I suppose... Who is Jesus?

 

[face2face]

I think at first consideration I can agree with much of the above, but can not accept the statement that Jesus needed redemption on the basis of His human nature. I know this opens a Pandora box of other issues, the most important being the question...

A consideration of Jesus' nature is the key to knowing who he was and what he became.

John 2:24-25 "for he himself knew what was in man." Only be experience can this be said by Jesus, otherwise he falsely represented us.

Hebrews 4:15 "tempted in all points" if he wasn't able to sin, he falsely represented those he came to save.

Hebrews 2:14 Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, he (Jesus) likewise shared in their humanity, so that through death he could destroy the one who holds the power of death.

Here sin is personified, because its the wages of sin which causes death Romans 6:23 (and our inherited mortal nature) both of which Jesus shared, but of course God can not hold anyone a sinner due to their nature. Its the propensities of our nature which is the source of sin, hence the reason God made a display of it through the crucifixion. (He said "you want to know what flesh is good for?) An all powerful God could not find a way to save humanity (flesh and blood nature) all the while upholding his Righteousness, therefore it must be crucified. Galatians 5:24.

I write this as though its simple to understand, but I appreciate one who believes in dual natures, this can only be impossible hence why one must walk away from the trinity if they truly want to know the Christ. I can reconcile Jesus nature and His oneness with God whereas the trintarian must contrive much theology and still find their formula doesn't work.

1 Timothy 2:5 Jesus is a man. Philippians 2:8 died as a man as such Hebrews 4:15 is able to sympathies with your weakness because he experienced it in his own body and now is able to receive the title of High Priest because he was taken among men.

If this was not true, it could not be said “God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you” Ephesians 4:32

For me the awe and wonder is God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself in a man who for all accounts shared your exact nature, but was made strong by Him to overcome.

Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush Jesus and cause Jesus to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life an offering for sin, Jesus will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.

F2F

 

[face2face]

Are we sinners because we sin, or do we sin because we are sinners? Are we born sinners, or with only the potential to sin? And lastly but perhaps most importantly, was it possible for Jesus to be born with a fallen human nature, yet not sin and therefore not needing to be redeemed? And whose blood redeemed Him? Okay, sorry, lots of questions and there's gonna be lots of answers. Comes back to I suppose... Who is Jesus?

Romans 8:1-3 offers an understanding.

8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 8:2 For the law of the life-giving Spirit in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death. 8:3 For God achieved what the law could not do because it was weakened through the flesh. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and concerning sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,

The Law of Sin and Death is twofold.

1. We die because we have mortal nature which has latent desires to do its own will. Ecclesiastes 3:19-20; Job 14:10; Psalms 89:48

2. We die because we sin morally 1 John 3:4

Jesus experienced no. 1 only. But he suffered as though he was no. 2 (Isaiah 53:12)

 

[Johann]

Jesus manifested the very person of God in all His Divine Character, of course NOT being the actual substance of God in nature, for Christ had sinful flesh (Romans 8:1-3) and required redemption, but in character, Jesus revealed Him perfectly. On this we should all agree!

I think at first consideration I can agree with much of the above, but can not accept the statement that Jesus needed redemption on the basis of His human nature. I know this opens a Pandora box of other issues, the most important being the question...
Are we sinners because we sin, or do we sin because we are sinners? Are we born sinners, or with only the potential to sin? And lastly but perhaps most importantly, was it possible for Jesus to be born with a fallen human nature, yet not sin and therefore not needing to be redeemed? And whose blood redeemed Him? Okay, sorry, lots of questions and there's gonna be lots of answers. Comes back to I suppose... Who is Jesus?

Very glad you have spotted this since there are a few "loopholes" in F2F' post as to= "Jesus manifested the very person of God in all His Divine Character, of course NOT being the actual substance of God in nature.." and I think he is using Garner-Howes commentary, also sounds like Modalism or Monarchianism

Monarchianism, in Christianity, a Christological position that opposed the doctrine of an independent, personal subsistence of the Logos and affirmed the sole deity of God the Father. Thus, it represented the extreme monotheistic view, also..

What did the Socinians believe?
The Socinians referred to themselves as “brethren” and were known by the latter half of the 17th century as “Unitarians” or “Polish Brethren.” They accepted Jesus as God's revelation but still a mere man, divine by office rather than by nature; Socinians thus rejected the doctrine of the Trinity.

Also...The denial of the unique individual Person-hood and being/nature of Jesus Christ.

These diametrically opposed "doctrines" to biblical teachings as it stands written in Scriptures are still on the Internet.

Instead of reading scriptures some here are reading Internet, YouTube and "Boobtube" or any heteros "tube" they can find.

I concur with you @Brakelite..."Who is Jesus Christ, King of kings and Lord of lords?"

I thank my Lord Christ Jesus that I was never indoctrinated by creeds, confessions and 'Churchianity" as I can clearly "see" the error of this post.
I shall have my day of rest and come back refreshed.

Stay strong in Christ, rooted and grounded IN Him
@Brakelite

J.

 

[face2face]

And lastly but perhaps most importantly, was it possible for Jesus to be born with a fallen human nature, yet not sin and therefore not needing to be redeemed? And whose blood redeemed Him? Okay, sorry, lots of questions and there's gonna be lots of answers. Comes back to I suppose... Who is Jesus?

Jesus needed to be save because he was the Son of Adam and inherited his nature, as we do today. Hebrews 5:7 is clear, Jesus needed to be redeemed not in a sense from sin (no way!) but from the grave which we know couldn't hold him due to his Fathers righteousness and his purity. Have a look how many times in the Acts of the Apostles it mentions God raising His son?

But regarding the fact that he (God) has raised Jesus from the dead, never again to be in a state of decay, God has spoken in this way: ‘I (Yahweh) will give you (Jesus) the holy and trustworthy promises made to David.’ Acts 13:34 is but one.

 

[Robert Gwin]

Robert.

I am and was serious, but I try to break up the monotony sometimes.

I know exactly what you are saying because in Rev 3, Jesus is in heaven saying that he has a God 4 times in a single verse.

That is like reading a verse that Jesus would say verily, verily, verily, verily....(It would be the most important verse in the Bible to observe).

So, with that said, Jesus has a God right now, but is declared God too.

How do we fix this?

The only way to fix this is to realize that Jesus and his disciples taught that the lone God was inside Jesus via the Holy Ghost in Luke 4:1, and the lone God is now completely inside Jesus since he was resurrected from death by his God.

This 2nd infilling is unique though, because everything that God consists of is encapsulated INSIDE the omnipresent human spirit body of Jesus, causing Jesus to be the express image of the(his) invisible lone God, inside him.

AKA, Jesus is that lone God by default.

AKA, God "lord's" over us through Jesus now.

God speaks to and works for us THROUGH Jesus now, which makes the individual man, Jesus, God.

Jesus is not the God/man, but God is inside the man, Jesus.

This is the original teaching of the NT.

The RCC twisted us all into thinking the God/man thing.

Although I shouldn't be surprised, I honestly did think that you would attempt to answer it.

 

[face2face]

Very glad you have spotted this since there are a few "loopholes" in F2F' post as to= "Jesus manifested the very person of God in all His Divine Character, of course NOT being the actual substance of God in nature.." and I think he is using Garner-Howes commentary, also sounds like Modalism or Monarchianism

J.

Honestly I don't know how to respond Johann. Not sure what to make of your reference to Garner-Howes commentary as these notes come from a study I did many years ago for my body on the subject the true nature of Christ. Of course I would consider Jesus as having a dual nature but its not possible for Christ to be a representative sacrifice if he is not like those he came to save. You know it cant work...that's why your reply came back empty.

 

[Johann]

Very glad you have spotted this since there are a few "loopholes" in F2F' post as to= "Jesus manifested the very person of God in all His Divine Character, of course NOT being the actual substance of God in nature.." and I think he is using Garner-Howes commentary, also sounds like Modalism or Monarchianism

Monarchianism, in Christianity, a Christological position that opposed the doctrine of an independent, personal subsistence of the Logos and affirmed the sole deity of God the Father. Thus, it represented the extreme monotheistic view, also..

What did the Socinians believe?
The Socinians referred to themselves as “brethren” and were known by the latter half of the 17th century as “Unitarians” or “Polish Brethren.” They accepted Jesus as God's revelation but still a mere man, divine by office rather than by nature; Socinians thus rejected the doctrine of the Trinity.

Also...The denial of the unique individual Person-hood and being/nature of Jesus Christ.

These diametrically opposed "doctrines" to biblical teachings as it stands written in Scriptures are still on the Internet.

Instead of reading scriptures some here are reading Internet, YouTube and "Boobtube" or any heteros "tube" they can find.

I concur with you @Brakelite..."Who is Jesus Christ, King of kings and Lord of lords?"

I thank my Lord Christ Jesus that I was never indoctrinated by creeds, confessions and 'Churchianity" as I can clearly "see" the error of this post.
I shall have my day of rest and come back refreshed.

Stay strong in Christ, rooted and grounded IN Him
@Brakelite

J.

And the express image of his person; this intends much the same as the other phrase; namely, equality and sameness of nature, and distinction of persons; for if the Father is God, Christ must be so too; and if he is a person, his Son must be so likewise, or he cannot be the express image and character of him; See Gill on Col_1:15.
And upholding all things by the word of his power; the Syriac version renders it, "by the power of his word", to the same sense, only inverting the words. The Targumist on 2Ch_2:6 uses a phrase very much like this, of God, whom the heaven of heavens cannot contain; because, adds he, סביל כלא בדרע גבורתיה, "he bears", or "sustains all things by the arm of his power"; and the words are to be understood not of the Father, upholding all things by his essential and powerful Word, his Son; but of the Son himself, who upholds all creatures he has made; bears up the pillars of the universe; preserves every creature in its being, and supports it, and supplies it with the necessaries of life; rules and governs all, and providentially orders and disposes of all things in the world, and that by his all powerful will; which makes it manifest, that he is truly and properly God, and a very fit person to be a priest, as follows:
when he had by himself purged our sins; the Arabic and Ethiopic versions seem to refer this to God the Father, as if he, by Christ, made the expiation of sin, and then caused him to sit down at his right hand; but it belongs to the Son himself, who of himself, and by himself alone, and by the sacrifice of himself, made atonement for the sins of his people; which is meant by the purgation of them: he took their sins upon himself, and bore them, and removed them far away, and utterly abolished them, which the priests under the law could not do: and when he had so done,...
Gill
Jesus Christ IS God..God pros God!
J.

 

[face2face]

And the express image of his person; this intends much the same as the other phrase; namely, equality and sameness of nature, and distinction of persons; for if the Father is God, Christ must be so too; and if he is a person, his Son must be so likewise, or he cannot be the express image and character of him; See Gill on Col_1:15.

You have added nature though you know the context is character and person.

And upholding all things by the word of his power; the Syriac version renders it, "by the power of his word", to the same sense, only inverting the words. The Targumist on 2Ch_2:6 uses a phrase very much like this, of God, whom the heaven of heavens cannot contain; because, adds he, סביל כלא בדרע גבורתיה, "he bears", or "sustains all things by the arm of his power"; and the words are to be understood not of the Father, upholding all things by his essential and powerful Word, his Son; but of the Son himself, who upholds all creatures he has made; bears up the pillars of the universe; preserves every creature in its being, and supports it, and supplies it with the necessaries of life; rules and governs all, and providentially orders and disposes of all things in the world, and that by his all powerful will; which makes it manifest, that he is truly and properly God, and a very fit person to be a priest, as follows:
when he had by himself purged our sins; the Arabic and Ethiopic versions seem to refer this to God the Father, as if he, by Christ, made the expiation of sin, and then caused him to sit down at his right hand; but it belongs to the Son himself, who of himself, and by himself alone, and by the sacrifice of himself, made atonement for the sins of his people; which is meant by the purgation of them: he took their sins upon himself, and bore them, and removed them far away, and utterly abolished them, which the priests under the law could not do: and when he had so done,...
Gill
Jesus Christ IS God..God pros God!
J.

Nothing here Johann. Jesus was given God's power without measure (Matthew 28:18) and in his own body he overcame a sin prone nature (through death) and sat down at the right hand of God....

1:4 Thus he became so far better than the angels as he has inherited a name superior to theirs

Became Johann, became, far better - and how can a pre-existent Christ inherit a name which you say he's always had?

It would be the greatest hoax imaginable.

 

[face2face]

I will call it an evening and retire to the lounge room.
Enjoy your musings and God willing we shall see the Lord in all his glory soon. Revelation 22:20

 

[Johann]

Jesus needed to be save because he was the Son of Adam and inherited his nature, as we do today. Hebrews 5:7 is clear,

Php_2:6 "who although He existed" Literally this is "who being in the form of God." This is one of two present tenses (here a participle) in the midst of a series of Aorist tense verbs and participles. It emphasizes the pre-existence of Jesus of Nazareth (cf. Joh_1:1; Joh_8:57-58; Joh_17:5; Joh_17:24; 2Co_8:9; Col_1:17; Heb_10:5-7).

Jesus' pre-existence is another proof of His deity. Jesus did not come into being at Bethlehem. There has never been a time when Jesus did not exist and was not divine.

The outward form of something, as in the Septuagint (LXX). This does not mean that YHWH has a physical body, but that the attributes and characteristics-the very essence of God the Father-are evident in God the Son...Who is God

..as to "likeness"...

"in the likeness of sinful flesh" This same truth is stated in Php_2:7-8. Jesus had a truly human body (but no sin nature, cf. Php_2:7-8; Heb_7:26). He is really one with us. He was tempted in all ways as we are yet without sin (cf. Heb_4:15). He understands us. He intercedes for us (cf. Rom_8:34; Heb_7:25; Heb_9:24).


In the likeness of sinful flesh
Lit., of the flesh of sin. The choice of words is especially noteworthy. Paul does not say simply, “He came in flesh” (1Jn_4:2; 1Ti_3:16), for this would not have expressed the bond between Christ's manhood and sin.

Not in the flesh of sin, which would have represented Him as partaking of sin. Not in the likeness of flesh, since He was really and entirely human; but, in the likeness of the flesh of sin: really human, conformed in appearance to the flesh whose characteristic is sin, yet sinless. “Christ appeared in a body which was like that of other men in so far as it consisted of flesh, and was unlike in so far as the flesh was not flesh of sin” (Dickson)
Shalom
Tomorrow we can dig deeper in Hebrew And Koine Greek.
J.

 

[Johann]

I will call it an evening and retire to the lounge room.
Enjoy your musings and God willing we shall see the Lord in all his glory soon. Revelation 22:20

No "musing" on my side..I am shocked to the core
reading your post.
Shalom to you and family
We shall be united in Heaven as we walk this highway of holiness.
J.