Lazarus and the Rich Man correspondence = hades not eternal

[APAK]

Good morning, the word Emmanuel of itself is proclaimed to be a name of Christ in Strongs’s concordance.

Hebrew 6005 Immanuel = "God with us" or "with us is God"
A. symbolic and prophetic name of the Messiah, the Christ, prophesying that He would be born of a virgin and would be 'God with us'.

Greek 1694 Emmanuel = "God with us"
A. the title applied to the Messiah, born of the virgin, Mt 1:23, Is. 7:14, because Jesus was God united with man, and showed that God was dwelling with man.

Hebrew 4899 Messiah
anointed, anointed one
A. of the Messiah, Messianic prince
B. of the king of Israel
C. of the high priest of Israel
D. of Cyrus
E. of the patriarchs as anointed kings

Isa 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD (Jehovah); and beside me there is no saviour.

Isa 43:15 I am the LORD (Jehovah), your Holy One, the creator of Israel, your King. (Messiah?)

There are many references to Jesus being Saviour and Redeemer.

Tit 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
(I see that you have already disclaimed this scripture as having nothing to do with Jesus' diety)

Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew Him not.
Joh 1:11 He came unto his own, and His own received him not.

Col 1:16 For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him:
Col 1:17 And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist.
Col 1:18 And He (Jesus) is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

This is the way I read it without protracted reasoning.

Thanks Larry for the reply...Here's what the spirit has said to me for many years now...I'll leave you with it brother.

For example comcering Emmanuel – God (is) with us, and mighty god, and father of the ages...

Isaiah spoke of the Messiah as having God with him and not being God himself. He never said the Messiah was or is God YHWH. If he meant the Messiah born on the future is God he would have said so.

A couple of chapters down, Isaiah spoke of Jesus as the prince of peace, the father of the future ages to come and a mighty warrior or god. The use of god was typically used in the OT to signify anyone doing God’s work. And yes, the capitalization of God was kept deliberately by the Trinitarian translators. All original text was capitalized.

The word ‘god’ is a title of what you worship, or one who possesses you. It means ‘mighty one, or ones.’ God made Moses to be as ‘god’ to Pharaoh. Paul said that your ‘god’ could even be your belly!

Now the father of the future ages (everlasting father) meant that Jesus was the father or creator of the new man. He led the way, the first human to immortality being the father of immortals of all believers in the future, based on Isaiah’s time.

Jesus’ name came from Joshua meaning salvation or he who saves. Emmanuel means God with us because Jesus was born of God and was the first and only born believer with the Father’s spirit within a human being. And he was called Emmanuel because he later possessed the power of God to complete his mission to the cross after his baptism.

God was definitely with us through the man Jesus. 2 Cor. 5:19 says: “That God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself.” It is important to read exactly what was written: God was in Christ, not God was Christ.

Now Col 1:16-18 does apply to Jesus although this is the creation and power post his resurrection. This is not the creative work of God Almighty - big difference. I do address this a bit by saying Jesus is the father of the future ages......If you want me to elaborate let me know.

Bless you, and your family

APAK

 

[larry2]

Isaiah spoke of the Messiah as having God with him and not being God himself. He never said the Messiah was or is God YHWH.

A couple of chapters down, Isaiah spoke of Jesus as the prince of peace, the father of the future ages to come and a mighty warrior or god. The use of god was typically used in the OT to signify anyone doing God’s work. And yes, the capitalization of God was kept deliberately by the Trinitarian translators.

I just cannot buy into anything that says that Jesus is anything less than God incarnate; too much scriptural evidence is presented, at least to my satisfaction. To me, what you seem to have presented is excuses for the writing of the bible such as all scripture being capitalized, and just not corrected by biased interpreters

Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Rev 1:8 I (Jesus) am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending . .

Rev 1:11 Saying, I (Jesus) am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last . .

And to love, adore, and praise Him who loved and died for me is no problem. I hope to be one in that assembly of believers called the four living ones present with My Lord when He sits on His own throne in Rev 4:2.

Rev 4:8 And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.

In Jesus’ name.

 

[Jun2u]

Find another verse of your choosing. I've played this game for for years.

You may be a player but I assure you I DO NOT PLAY concerning the things of God. The Bible must be taken seriously and obeyed, for it is life and death.

And I know I will have to do all the interpretaion becaause you have none.

What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

The word “trinity” is not found in Holy Writ nor the words “omniscient” and “omnipresent” yet the serious Bible student cannot deny that God is “all powerful” and “everywhere present.”

I don’t want to derail this thread, but if we are going to discuss the Deity of Christ then we ought to go to the Bible knowing nothing and let the Scriptures guide us what does the Bible have to say.

Scriptures tell us there is only One God (Deut 6:4) but it also insists there are three separate and distinct persons that subsist in the Godhead: Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.

When Paul gave his blessing to the church of Corinth in 2 Cor 13:14, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he said: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all. Amen.”

Since the Bible definitely shows that the Son is God, and it also indicates that the Father is God, and teaches that the Holy Spirit is God, this verse definitely shows there are three persons subsisting in the Godhead.

In Isaiah 6, Isaiah said in verse 5: “mine eyes have seen the King, JEHOVAH of hosts.” Although Isaiah has seen Jehovah seated upon the throne high and lifted up, the apostle John affirmed in John 12:41 that Isaiah actually beheld Christ. And then Paul declares that the message was given to Isaiah on this occasion after the vision, Isaiah 6:9 were really spoken by the Holy Spirit.

Isaiah said it was the Father. John said it was the Son. Paul said it was the Holy Spirit. Who IS this ONE JEHOVAH? Well, He is God the Father, God The Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

The above is just a starter. There are many more!

To God Be The Glory

 

[Ac28]

The story of Lazarus and the Rich man is a parable. A parable is an earthly story with a heavenly/spiritual meaning.

That means:

1) Abraham is a figure or type of God the Father.
2) Lazarus is a figure or type of all believers who are poor in spirits (Matthew 5:3).
3) The rich man is a figure or type of all the unsaved (Matthew 19:23-24; Mark 10:25-27).
4) At the cross, Jesus said: “Father into thy hands I commit my spirit” and told the thief, “today thou shalt be with me in paradise.” (Revelation 2:7, see also, 2 Corinthians 5:8).

You stated above that you’re not interested in debating yet you bring in Scriptures that do not pertain to the OP. Reading from your posts in other threads I know where you are coming from. You do NOT believe in the Deity of Christ which is a heresy according to the Bible.

Borrowing from what you’ve uttered above, “you might want to review what I’ve said at your leisure. You might be surprised with a sincere review” consider the following Scriptures:

Titus 2:13
13) Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
14) Who gave himself for us, that He might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.
15) These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke, with all authority. Let no man despise thee.

Hebrews 1:8
“But unto the Son he (Father) saith, Thy throne O God, is for ever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom.”

There are many more Scriptures I could offer to argue for the Deity of Christ, but this is just a sample and is not the correct forum.

To God Be The Glory

Every "type" is created by humans and is, therefore, subjective. There are NO "types" that are objective in the Bible.

The Pharisees used to keep the poor and invalid from grumbling by lying to them and telling them that, since their conditions were very bad while alive, they would be very good when they died. Christ turned the tables on the Pharisees in vs 25 by saying that, those who had it good, while alive, would have it bad after death.

The rich man and Lazarus (RM&L), Lk 16:19-31, is almost identical to what the Pharisees believed about the fictitious hell, as shown by the Pharisee, Josephus, in his "Discourse on Hades." This belief was 100% from tradition, with zero basis in scripture. RM&L is not a parable, since, technically, a parable is a continuous simile. Besides the above reason, RM&L is a satirical story, made up by Christ to insult the Pharisees and show them how stupid they were for believing such nonsense.

This made-up story, containing no reality, at all, doesn't imply any sin by the Rich man nor is there any mention of belief or salvation of either party. The ONLY reason given for the rich man's predicament is that, since he had it good while alive, he has it bad after death - vs 25. Of course, this is absurd, which leads it to being a satire. For anyone believing RM&L is a true story or has anything to do with reality, I have this bridge for sale.

 

[Willie T]

Every "type" is created by humans and is, therefore, subjective. There are NO "types" that are objective in the Bible.

The Pharisees used to keep the poor and invalid from grumbling by lying to them and telling them that, since their conditions were very bad while alive, they would be very good when they died. Christ turned the tables on the Pharisees in vs 25 by saying that, those who had it good, while alive, would have it bad after death.

The rich man and Lazarus (RM&L), Lk 16:19-31, is almost identical to what the Pharisees believed about the fictitious hell, as shown by the Pharisee, Josephus, in his "Discourse on Hades." This belief was 100% from tradition, with zero basis in scripture. RM&L is not a parable, since, technically, a parable is a continuous simile. Besides the above reason, RM&L is a satirical story, made up by Christ to insult the Pharisees and show them how stupid they were for believing such nonsense.

This made-up story, containing no reality, at all, doesn't imply any sin by the Rich man nor is there any mention of belief or salvation of either party. The ONLY reason given for the rich man's predicament is that, since he had it good while alive, he has it bad after death - vs 25. Of course, this is absurd, which leads it to being a satire. For anyone believing RM&L is a true story or has anything to do with reality, I have this bridge for sale.

It is absolutely absurd, because Abraham, himself, was one of the richest men to ever live in those days.

 

[Triumph1300]

This made-up story, containing no reality, at all, doesn't imply any sin by the Rich man nor is there any mention of belief or salvation of either party. The ONLY reason given for the rich man's predicament is that, since he had it good while alive, he has it bad after death - vs 25. Of course, this is absurd, which leads it to being a satire. For anyone believing RM&L is a true story or has anything to do with reality, I have this bridge for sale.

Could you please make up a list of the "made up biblical stories" ?
Should be interesting to see what you would throw out. ;-)

 

[Ac28]

View attachment 3268

Could you please make up a list of the "made up biblical stories" ?
Should be interesting to see what you would throw out. ;-)

I'm not throwing anything out. We're talking about Lazarus and the Rich man, which is obviously a made up story

 

[Enoch111]

Every "type" is created by humans and is, therefore, subjective. There are NO "types" that are objective in the Bible.

Ac28,

All your posts indicate that you have your own man-made theology which you promote at every opportunity. Since the Bible has the words "type" and "anti-type", what you have stated above is NONSENSE.

The rich man and Lazarus (RM&L), Lk 16:19-31, is almost identical to what the Pharisees believed about the fictitious hell...

If Hell (Hades) was fictitious, Christ would not have treated it as real. You are now calling the Lord Jesus Christ a liar. A very serious matter.

Besides the above reason, RM&L is a satirical story, made up by Christ to insult the Pharisees and show them how stupid they were for believing such nonsense.

More NONSENSE from the promoter of nonsense. There is absolutely no indication that Christ was telling the Pharisees how stupid they were. In fact, he was telling the naysayers, and the promoters of Soul Sleep and Annihilationism, that their beliefs are stupid.

This made-up story, containing no reality, at all

Another attempt at making Christ out to be a liar. And you expect people to accept your nonsensical theology?

For anyone believing RM&L is a true story or has anything to do with reality, I have this bridge for sale.

And for anyone who would take you seriously, this should be a red flag. You are truly clueless about spiritual things.

 

[Helen]

I'm not throwing anything out. We're talking about Lazarus and the Rich man, which is obviously a made up story

Say who?

If Jesus said..Luke 16:20
" And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,.." ..." But Abraham said, ...."

That is good enough for me. Just because Jesus spoke them in story form does NOT mean that they were not real people...or that Jesus did not know of the events...

I could tell my grandkids a story from just after the 11 W.War it would be in story form...but the message I relay to them is as a parable, yet it happened and had a message in it for my grandkids.

As @Triumph1300 asked, what will you throw out next?

It is a slippery slope when we start casting doubt on things in the bible.
Story's with meanings and warning yes, but it does not negate that they were also fact.

 

[Ac28]

So, if it's a true story, everything in it must be true, right?

So, you must both believe that the reason the 2 people were in the particular situation they were in, is fully explained in vs 25, right? And, if you're sucker enough to believe that, you must believe that every person who ever had it good, while alive, will be tormented in hell, after death, and everyone that had it bad, while alive, will have it good, after death. Why? Because that's Exactly what it says in vs 25. So, according to this passage, the only reason people go to hell is because they had things good while alive. Sin or non-belief is not mentioned, so that had nothing to do with it.

Luke 16:25
But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

ByGrace, I thought you one of the more intelligent ones that didn't believe in Hell. If you think RM&L is a true story, you have to believe in hell, right?

Willie T posted a good link on post #3. This sums up the entire story perfectly. Thanks, Willie!

"Lazarus was blessed, not because he was a sincere child of God, full of faith and trust, not because he was good, but simply because he was poor and sick. If this be interpreted literally, the only logical lesson to be drawn from it is, that unless we are poor beggars full of sores, we will never enter into future bliss; and that if now we wear any fine linen and purple, and have plenty to eat every day, we are sure of future torment.

Like I said, if anyone believes this totally fictitious story is truth, I have this bridge for sale

 

[Helen]

ByGrace, I thought you one of the more intelligent ones that didn't believe in Hell. If you think RM&L is a true story, you have to believe in hell, right?

I do not like the word banded about as hell. It does not mean what people claim that it means.
I hate the flippant way people speak of the unsaved " going to hell."

I do believe in the punishment of loss of reward..and the darkness and wailing and gnashing of teeth when people see what could have been their portion..but they chose to live the good life and not "take up their cross and follow."

That to me is the hell of it...

I believe that "Our God is a consuming Fire.." as the word says.
He has dealt with sin through Jesus Christ.

...but that enough from me!

 

[Nancy]

Then read how the laws of Israel came way after Abraham since he had married his sister, whom was the daughter of his father's wife, which was not sinful since the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve had no one else to marry except kin.

That situation wherein Abraham lied to save his own life for the time he and his wife were in that area, is hardly the same situation wherein a rich man was ignoring the plight of the beggar at the gate daily.

You had initially commented on the riches of Abraham's being the problem when it was the way the rich man ignored the beggar that was the problem.

Abraham's righteousness was by believing in Him; and not by works as Paul testified in Romans 4th chapter. So read that.

So if good works did not please God but by believing in Him, then whatever contentions you have about Abraham "lying" about his wife being his sister... long before the laws of Israel had come.....is moot since all have sinned anyway in regards to the man that Abraham had "lied" to.

"there were lots of other people around. Cain built a city. there must have been people to live in it. God announces that if anyone kills Cain for his crime the punishment will be terrible. Who was he warning? Why was Cain working the soil and Abel tending the flocks? For there to have been specialization I would guess there were plenty of people. Genesis 4 requires that there are other people in the world besides Adam and Eve. Genesis 5 then goes on to account for the genealogy of Adam to Noah and his sons. Adam was the first man because he lived in the garden with God, and was cast out, bringing God's curse down our heads. After Cain killed Abel he was sent away, and he went and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden. I would guess that's where his wife is from. But it would seem that her name is not remembered. It was a long time ago, and not many people back then knew how to write in 4000 B.C., so I guess there wouldn't be too many records to check if somebody forgot."

It seems significant to me that the end of Genesis 4, when Adam and Eve have another baby after the death of Abel says "At that time men began to call on the name of the LORD". Before that, there were people, but they did not know anything about God or the difference between good and evil. This is the moment of the fall of man which ultimately requires our salvation."
~ Luigi Fontaine

 

[Triumph1300]

So, you must both believe that the reason the 2 people were in the particular situation they were in, is fully explained in vs 25, right? And, if you're sucker enough to believe that, you must believe that every person who ever had it good, while alive, will be tormented in hell, after death, and everyone that had it bad, while alive, will have it good, after death. Why? Because that's Exactly what it says in vs 25. So, according to this passage, the only reason people go to hell is because they had things good while alive.

I think in this case you are the "sucker" and not us.
(Your expression, btw)

In no way does it mean that this was the cause of him being lost.
It merely means that he was treated very well but showed no thankfulness for his blessings.

The rich man did not allow his blessings to bring him to the Lord, and Lazarus did not allow his poverty to keep him from the Lord.

 

[Ac28]

Ac28,

All your posts indicate that you have your own man-made theology which you promote at every opportunity. Since the Bible has the words "type" and "anti-type", what you have stated above is NONSENSE.

If Hell (Hades) was fictitious, Christ would not have treated it as real. You are now calling the Lord Jesus Christ a liar. A very serious matter.

More NONSENSE from the promoter of nonsense. There is absolutely no indication that Christ was telling the Pharisees how stupid they were. In fact, he was telling the naysayers, and the promoters of Soul Sleep and Annihilationism, that their beliefs are stupid.

Another attempt at making Christ out to be a liar. And you expect people to accept your nonsensical theology?

And for anyone who would take you seriously, this should be a red flag. You are truly clueless about spiritual things.

Why do you always try to drag everything down to your extremely low level of tradition-alism?

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

"there were lots of other people around. Cain built a city. there must have been people to live in it. God announces that if anyone kills Cain for his crime the punishment will be terrible. Who was he warning?

If you consider why Adam gave the name of Eve to his wife , it means she was literally the mother of all the living...

Genesis 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

Then you can understand the warning against any one taking vengeance on Cain because they were all family members to Cain & Abel.

Why was Cain working the soil and Abel tending the flocks? For there to have been specialization I would guess there were plenty of people.

The problem here is the assumption that there were no other children besides Cain & Abel. It's not like after those two were born, Adam & Eve took a break in multiplying per God's commandment. And yet here they are as adults, one working the soil while the other tended domesticated flocks.

Genesis 4 requires that there are other people in the world besides Adam and Eve.

All descendants in one form of fashion from Adam & Eve. Otherwise, non relatives would have no need of a warning to NOT go after Cain for killing Abel. That was why Cain was afraid because they were all family members living on that one land earth. It was not like the world today with divided continents where Cain would have a hope of fleeing to in order to hide.

Genesis 5 then goes on to account for the genealogy of Adam to Noah and his sons. Adam was the first man because he lived in the garden with God, and was cast out, bringing God's curse down our heads. After Cain killed Abel he was sent away, and he went and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden. I would guess that's where his wife is from. But it would seem that her name is not remembered. It was a long time ago, and not many people back then knew how to write in 4000 B.C., so I guess there wouldn't be too many records to check if somebody forgot."

The purpose of the genealogy was for Israel's family tree as the "sons of God". The story of Cain & Abel was to explain how godly Seth was considered as a replacement for godly Abel from whom Israel's family tree was linked to. There was no need to go into any other offshoots from Adam & Eve as they were not of the godly lineage of Seth.

But it is interesting that when the godly lineage of Seth started marrying outside their godly family tree, seeing the daughters of men, it shows the consequence for the motivation to heed God's commandment as the nation of Israel not to marry outside the nation of Israel. Sure as sin, when any Israelite did, pagan beliefs and sinful practices came in that cause the nation of Israel to sin against God.

That is why Noah and his family were the only survivors of that family line of Seth, because his three sons married within the godly lineage of Seth and continued the practice that the sons of God had been doing in presenting themselves to please the Lord as Abel had done in presenting an acceptable offering.

One can fathom that the Book of Job was one of the patriarchs before Moses that continued the godly practice of the sons of God after the flood.

It seems significant to me that the end of Genesis 4, when Adam and Eve have another baby after the death of Abel says "At that time men began to call on the name of the LORD". Before that, there were people, but they did not know anything about God or the difference between good and evil. This is the moment of the fall of man which ultimately requires our salvation."
~ Luigi Fontaine

Adam knew God and it is obvious to me that Seth listened to why he was conceived and that was to replace godly Abel from which Israel sprung from. His motivation to please his parents to ease the loss of their child, Abel, can be fathom as it was God that inspired him to be godly.

 

[Nancy]

If you consider why Adam gave the name of Eve to his wife , it means she was literally the mother of all the living...

Genesis 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

Then you can understand the warning against any one taking vengeance on Cain because they were all family members to Cain & Abel.



The problem here is the assumption that there were no other children besides Cain & Abel. It's not like after those two were born, Adam & Eve took a break in multiplying per God's commandment. And yet here they are as adults, one working the soil while the other tended domesticated flocks.



All descendants in one form of fashion from Adam & Eve. Otherwise, non relatives would have no need of a warning to NOT go after Cain for killing Abel. That was why Cain was afraid because they were all family members living on that one land earth. It was not like the world today with divided continents where Cain would have a hope of fleeing to in order to hide.



The purpose of the genealogy was for Israel's family tree as the "sons of God". The story of Cain & Abel was to explain how godly Seth was considered as a replacement for godly Abel from whom Israel's family tree was linked to. There was no need to go into any other offshoots from Adam & Eve as they were not of the godly lineage of Seth.

But it is interesting that when the godly lineage of Seth started marrying outside their godly family tree, seeing the daughters of men, it shows the consequence for the motivation to heed God's commandment as the nation of Israel not to marry outside the nation of Israel. Sure as sin, when any Israelite did, pagan beliefs and sinful practices came in that cause the nation of Israel to sin against God.

That is why Noah and his family were the only survivors of that family line of Seth, because his three sons married within the godly lineage of Seth and continued the practice that the sons of God had been doing in presenting themselves to please the Lord as Abel had done in presenting an acceptable offering.

One can fathom that the Book of Job was one of the patriarchs before Moses that continued the godly practice of the sons of God after the flood.



Adam knew God and it is obvious to me that Seth listened to why he was conceived and that was to replace godly Abel from which Israel sprung from. His motivation to please his parents to ease the loss of their child, Abel, can be fathom as it was God that inspired him to be godly.

Yes, you do make good points, especially now that I know more about the genealogies, and see the whole Gospel threaded within them, thanks to ByGrace ♥ Had to come from Seth. Sooo, he "knew" his sister. How strange and horrible that is now a days, lol. Thanks, food for thought.
-nancy

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

Hi Brother APAK & thanks for your reply. I reckon I'm reading it different.

Joh 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, BUT (Except, or other than.) He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

To me Jesus was in heaven as God before time, equal with God (Php 2:6), and to come to die for us, He made Himself of no reputation in Php 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

God bless you in Jesus' name.

I believe the Rich man and Lazuras is a illustration or parable. It is designed to teach us something, yes but not to teach us that a hellfire place actually exists and that a drop of water could actually bring you comfort if it did actually exist. It really is funny that people will actually believe something truly exists or is real just because the story begins with some phrase like, " Once upon A time," or "There was this man,". Like I said the illustration does teach us the truth about something, but you can't look at the story literally, or see just on the surface. We have to remember when Jesus Christ spoke to the crowds he spoke in illustrations, or parables. Jesus Christ could read the hearts of people and he wanted those who would look beneath what he said those people who were truly genuine about what he was truly saying. It's easy to look only on the surface of what Jesus said regarding the ,Rich man and Lazarus, but those that do will believe in unreasonable ideas like a drop of water could comfort you or that everyone belonging to God can literally fit in Abraham Bosom. It is an illustration or parable which teaches something else other than what is literally being said.

 

[Heart2Soul]

So you really think Jesus already was in heaven before his ascension? You are weighing your interpretation and stating it as a fact based on one poorly explained verse, where internet writers agree with you. Quite gutsy. I would look at scripture in a larger context before I would stake this claim.

Larry can you explain to me what Emmanuel means in light of Jesus and God without just stating the term and without revealing your comprehension. Usually I have to protract meanings of verses and terms for everyone else.



Thanks.

What does the scripture say.....
John 1 King James Version (KJV)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Can you explain this?

 

[Enoch111]

Why do you always try to drag everything down to your extremely low level of tradition-alism?

Looks like you don't know the meaning of traditionalism.

 

[APAK]

What does the scripture say.....
John 1 King James Version (KJV)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Can you explain this?

Heart2Soul: if you insist I can give you a longer version later.

Here's a really short version: From the start, God's logos or internal thoughts, internal words, plans and purpose came from God alone. This was God's logos. Logos have never meant to be a person separate from God, let alone Jesus. This fake meaning was 'forced in' as a new definition to link Jesus as part of a trinity by the 4th century.....and to give him deity status...even to say he made the heavens and the earth...so wrong

God used his logos (words) to bring everything into existence...
God also used his logos to plan mankind's salvation....

He created Jesus as the man with his own spirit (and power) indwelt in him to complete the critical portion of the plan of salvation or LOGOS (word) verse 14. As we know the crucial piece of this plan was successfully executed. Jesus became the man of God to save mankind of their sins. God could not complete this part of his plan. He needed a real human as the sacrifice for sin.

Logos = God's internal thoughts (plans, purpose, potential actions) to be externally and dynamically executed in this 3D-T world. John was speaking of a specific logos in John 1 - God's plan of salvation using a son of man (last Adam) he created around 4 BC..

Bless you,

APAK