The irreconcilable issue...

[JonD]

Im out of here. This forum site is a total disgrace. The owner/moderators are failing badly in allowing so much heretical and false teachings to have such a free rein as they do. They are either sympathetic to demonic false teachers such as Purity and his friends and covertly support this ungodly teaching or are simply and absolutely failing, if they do not support them and believe otherwise, their duty in the word of God and their duty to young easily influenced new Christians. Seriously, it can only be one or the other.
Consider yourselves moderators/owners rebuked.
Delete my account.

 

[Purity]

Im out of here. This forum site is a total disgrace. The owner/moderators are failing badly in allowing so much heretical and false teachings to have such a free rein as they do. They are either sympathetic to demonic false teachers such as Purity and his friends and covertly support this ungodly teaching or are simply and absolutely failing, if they do not support them and believe otherwise, their duty in the word of God and their duty to young easily influenced new Christians. Seriously, it can only be one or the other.
Consider yourselves moderators/owners rebuked.
Delete my account.

In a Christian debate forum this response is considered a good old fashion tantrum from one who cannot provide any arguments to contend earnestly for his faith.

You my fellow believer are in a bad way.

 

[nothead]

Im out of here. This forum site is a total disgrace. The owner/moderators are failing badly in allowing so much heretical and false teachings to have such a free rein as they do. They are either sympathetic to demonic false teachers such as Purity and his friends and covertly support this ungodly teaching or are simply and absolutely failing, if they do not support them and believe otherwise, their duty in the word of God and their duty to young easily influenced new Christians. Seriously, it can only be one or the other.
Consider yourselves moderators/owners rebuked.
Delete my account.

Ta ta holyboy....debate must not be HAMPERED if free speech is PROMOTED, and if free speech with reasonable restraints IS PROMOTED then not only the tea little-finger waggers will attend.

The question is if you want a BIBLE STUDY online or debate. IF DEBATE then it's a rockin arena, CAGE FIGHTING at it's finest.

And if you can't do the time, then you shouldna done the crime...or was it, if you can't take the heat, then you will beat a swift retreat. Yah, that sounds better.

 

[Rocky Wiley]

If Christians do not die then we made a hell of a mistake when we buried them in the cemetery.

Furthermore , we cannot be resurrected from the dead unless we first die

It is after we are resurrected to our new bodies that we never die.

It is called eternal life, we are destined for it , but we are not there yet.

What does this have to do with the opening post anyway ?

This has to do with understanding God's word. I have posted a more complete response at
http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/20226-important-to-understand-gods-word/

Can you show me your heaven going Scriptures? O where are my manners - please.

The above response to Arnie will answer your question also.

In Christian love!

 

[DPMartin]

Jesus is elohim under YHWH Elohim and over the angels 'elohim.' Any more questions? Your welcome.

Then what is it that you say the origin of Jesus Christ is, where is He from?

And how is it that Elohim which means Creator and Judge be under Elohim (Creator and Judge) in your theology considering you say Elohim "God" is One? You just said God under God the last time I checked that’s more than one isn’t it?

 

[Madad21]

Jesus and I...........kickin it back.....reading all the posts...

Huh?...what was that Jesus?...............oh-ya........here's the chips.

LOL :lol:

 

[nothead]

Then what is it that you say the origin of Jesus Christ is, where is He from?

And how is it that Elohim which means Creator and Judge be under Elohim (Creator and Judge) in your theology considering you say Elohim "God" is One? You just said God under God the last time I checked that’s more than one isn’t it?

A word study on 'elohim' may be appropriate. Or maybe you can drown in your ignorance. That one may work too. Dr Michael Heiser, "What is an elohim?" online pdf free for all to ponder and a TRINITARIAN to boot.

I would go to an all drawn out explanation, but really I have a day job. And in your case this explanation is gonna take a while.

 

[DPMartin]

A word study on 'elohim' may be appropriate. Or maybe you can drown in your ignorance. That one may work too. Dr Michael Heiser, "What is an elohim?" online pdf free for all to ponder and a TRINITARIAN to boot.

I would go to an all drawn out explanation, but really I have a day job. And in your case this explanation is gonna take a while.

Never heard of Dr Michael Heiser, but this is what the rest of the world understands it to mean including the Hebrew view. The following is to help you with your desired word study that you don't have time for. Besides if you are supposed to be on the job, then aren't you ripping off your employer by spending time here when you are being paid to do otherwise?

Elohim - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim
Wikipedia
When used with singular verbs and adjectives elohim is usually singular, "god" or especially, the God. When used with plural verbs and adjectives elohim is ...
‎Etymology - ‎Canaanite religion - ‎Elohist - ‎Hebrew Bible

The Hebrew Name for God - Elohim - Hebrew for Christians
www.hebrew4christians.com/.../Elohim/elohim.htm...
Hebrew for Christians
The word Elohim is the plural of El (or possibly of Eloah) and is the first name for God given in the Tanakh: “In the beginning, God (Elohim) created the heavens ...
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Elohim - New Advent
www.newadvent.org › Catholic Encyclopedia › E

New Advent
Elohim is the common name for God. It is a plural form, but "The usage of the language gives no support to the supposition that we have in the plural form Elohim ...

Elohim - Theopedia, an encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity
www.theopedia.com/Elohim
“The word Elohim is the plural of El (or possibly Eloah) and is the first name of God given in the Old Testament: “In the beginning, God (Elohim) created the ...
You Can Prove What Elohim Means | Grace Communion ...
www.gci.org/God/Elohim2
Grace Communion International
They say that the Hebrew word elohim is a plural noun, showing that there is more than one God. Yet the Hebrew Bible plainly quotes God as saying that there is only one God.

Elohim | Define Elohim at Dictionary.com
dictionary.reference.com/browse/elohim
Elohim definition, God, especially as used in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. See more.
**********************************************************************

Again, what is it that you say the origin of Jesus Christ is, where is He from?

 

[nothead]

Never heard of Dr Michael Heiser, but this is what the rest of the world understands it to mean including the Hebrew view. The following is to help you with your desired word study that you don't have time for. Besides if you are supposed to be on the job, then aren't you ripping off your employer by spending time here when you are being paid to do otherwise?

Elohim - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim
Wikipedia
When used with singular verbs and adjectives elohim is usually singular, "god" or especially, the God. When used with plural verbs and adjectives elohim is ...
‎Etymology - ‎Canaanite religion - ‎Elohist - ‎Hebrew Bible

The Hebrew Name for God - Elohim - Hebrew for Christians
www.hebrew4christians.com/.../Elohim/elohim.htm...
Hebrew for Christians
The word Elohim is the plural of El (or possibly of Eloah) and is the first name for God given in the Tanakh: “In the beginning, God (Elohim) created the heavens ...
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Elohim - New Advent
www.newadvent.org › Catholic Encyclopedia › E

New Advent
Elohim is the common name for God. It is a plural form, but "The usage of the language gives no support to the supposition that we have in the plural form Elohim ...
Elohim - Theopedia, an encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity
www.theopedia.com/Elohim
“The word Elohim is the plural of El (or possibly Eloah) and is the first name of God given in the Old Testament: “In the beginning, God (Elohim) created the ...
You Can Prove What Elohim Means | Grace Communion ...
www.gci.org/God/Elohim2
Grace Communion International
They say that the Hebrew word elohim is a plural noun, showing that there is more than one God. Yet the Hebrew Bible plainly quotes God as saying that there is only one God.
Elohim | Define Elohim at Dictionary.com
dictionary.reference.com/browse/elohim
Elohim definition, God, especially as used in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. See more.
**********************************************************************
Again, what is it that you say the origin of Jesus Christ is, where is He from?

gooly. Nothead knows more than your experts all in a lump, a lump of conventional mush...

But not more than DOCTOR Michael Heiser man of La Mancha, or the Hour or whatever.

Whatever MY PATOOTY since he knows 5 times as much as you and more. AND I piggybacked offa him, onliest thing is if he knows the IMPLICATIONS of his own knowing, he would also know the original monotheism is the True Paradigm.

Elohim over 2000 times the One True God in the scripture. But about 10% of the time, kings, spirits, ghosts, false gods, angels, Judges of Torah, heavenly host, resurrected saints and Jesus the resurrected first brother of the New Covenant.

Okay and no aspersions to how I cheat my boss. My boss is Jesus, sir. And I am self-employed so then my underboss is me. Hail boss, every morning. And I bow to him too.

 

[DPMartin]

gooly. Nothead knows more than your experts all in a lump, a lump of conventional mush...

But not more than DOCTOR Michael Heiser man of La Mancha, or the Hour or whatever.

Whatever MY PATOOTY since he knows 5 times as much as you and more. AND I piggybacked offa him, onliest thing is if he knows the IMPLICATIONS of his own knowing, he would also know the original monotheism is the True Paradigm.

Elohim over 2000 times the One True God in the scripture. But about 10% of the time, kings, spirits, ghosts, false gods, angels, Judges of Torah, heavenly host, resurrected saints and Jesus the resurrected first brother of the New Covenant.

Okay and no aspersions to how I cheat my boss. My boss is Jesus, sir. And I am self-employed so then my underboss is me. Hail boss, every morning. And I bow to him too.

Again, what is it that you say the origin of Jesus Christ is, where is He from?

 

[nothead]

Again, what is it that you say the origin of Jesus Christ is, where is He from?

God MADE him a little under the angels and in Heb 1 it sayeth OVER the angels because he, a mere man annointed overcame the whole world and all requirements, the biggest one being Shema, the Great Commandment of God.

So then he was a MADE MAN and not any mafia boogeyman in the hood. Who made him? GOD made him Jn 1 v. 14 the Word was "Jesus" and "Jesus" became flesh.

 

[DPMartin]

God MADE him a little under the angels and in Heb 1 it sayeth OVER the angels because he, a mere man annointed overcame the whole world and all requirements, the biggest one being Shema, the Great Commandment of God.

So then he was a MADE MAN and not any mafia boogeyman in the hood. Who made him? GOD made him Jn 1 v. 14 the Word was "Jesus" and "Jesus" became flesh.

but in that same text John also attests

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.

So now we have God "Elohim" meaning Creator and Judge as referred to in Hebrew the first chapter of Gen. And the Word of God that was made flesh in the case of Jesus Christ was in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, according to John. Who knows much more about the Lord God and the relationship in Jesus Christ then just about anyone who has taken breath. As far as I know that is at least two, not to mention the Holy Spirit. God and the Word of God that was made flesh, and the Holy Spirit, the Presence of God.

 

[nothead]

but in that same text John also attests

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.

So now we have God "Elohim" meaning Creator and Judge as referred to in Hebrew the first chapter of Gen. And the Word of God that was made flesh in the case of Jesus Christ was in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, according to John. Who knows much more about the Lord God and the relationship in Jesus Christ then just about anyone who has taken breath. As far as I know that is at least two, not to mention the Holy Spirit. God and the Word of God that was made flesh, and the Holy Spirit, the Presence of God.

You think JOHN was attesting to two Gods in Heaven? Two elohim in the hood I mean ethers? NO and this is 1) because he was an orthodox Jew 2) He said Jesus said "This is eternal life that they know YOU as the ONLY true God and also that they know ME as Jesus Christ whom YOU SENT.

And John 20:17 Jesus also says these red letter words:

[SIZE=.75em]17 [/SIZE]Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

So then? Two equal elohim in heaven is NOT KOSHER. And I assure you this was NOT what John meant in his prologue.

 

[DPMartin]

You think JOHN was attesting to two Gods in Heaven? Two elohim in the hood I mean ethers? NO and this is 1) because he was an orthodox Jew 2) He said Jesus said "This is eternal life that they know YOU as the ONLY true God and also that they know ME as Jesus Christ whom YOU SENT.

No that’s what you think I think, and that is what you say Father Son and Holy Spirit is. Three different God’s if you will. You’re not going to get it as long as you assume to know what others are thinking. Simple as that. There’s no real valid school of though that says there is three God’s when it comes to Father’ Son and Holy Spirit they all advocate that they are One. Even in the theology of the trinity let alone scripture. Of which you don’t get. You always fall back to some nonsense about what some one is thinking and again you are way off the mark. I didn’t realize you believe you can read minds. And there is no sense in continuing a conversation with some one who thinks they can read minds..

And John 20:17 Jesus also says these red letter words:

17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

And when the Holy Spirit came upon more then one person at Pentecost how does that work in your theology? Are you going to tell me that the Holy Spirit isn’t the Presence of God? And since the Holy Spirit is the Presence of God how can the Presences of God dwell within a man, if if God is in Heaven only?

 

[nothead]

No that’s what you think I think, and that is what you say Father Son and Holy Spirit is. Three different God’s if you will. You’re not going to get it as long as you assume to know what others are thinking. Simple as that. There’s no real valid school of though that says there is three God’s when it comes to Father’ Son and Holy Spirit they all advocate that they are One. Even in the theology of the trinity let alone scripture. Of which you don’t get. You always fall back to some nonsense about what some one is thinking and again you are way off the mark. I didn’t realize you believe you can read minds. And there is no sense in continuing a conversation with some one who thinks they can read minds..

Fine I can discontinue this convo easily. But let me say every TRIN under the sun is completely confused AS TO what exactly he believes concerning a Three-in-One God.

He doesn't know if they are they. He doesn't know if HE is they. He doesn't know if They are He. He doesn't know if they are ONE. He says they are but he doesn't really know HOW.

He SAYS a compound one, that THEY are a unity of One. One WHAT? He does not know. God BEING he says but this God BEING is not SUBSTANCE exactly since this just means Gods of like kind. Not ESSENCE exactly because well this is speculation. And not FREQUENCY exactly since this is just harmonic gods as God.

It all comes down to this. The trinity God is heretical and pagan to the core. It is confusion from the start and it is mind blowing in it's audacious pugnaciousness.

AGGRESSIVE since God said nothing whatsoever about being the number three at all, so Trinitarians oddly act as if the NUMBER Three is not a number but a state.
Of cohesive coherence, of what they again, DO NOT KNOW.

So then unless you deny being trin, I will be on your case. CHASTISING you as much as the mods will allow. I know they have their limits. My time here MAY be short.

And when the Holy Spirit came upon more then one person at Pentecost how does that work in your theology? Are you going to tell me that the Holy Spirit isn’t the Presence of God? And since the Holy Spirit is the Presence of God how can the Presences of God dwell within a man, if if God is in Heaven only?

His Spirit is omnipresent. But His spirit is not a separate Person of the so-called Godhead. "Godhead" is a misnomer and does not fit trin theology. GodHEADS is more accurate.

 

[shturt678]

Comment: The writer (presumably Paul) is reflecting how Jesus is fully flesh and blood i.e human in every respect, and not a hybrid of natures as Trinitarians purport!

The irreconcilable issue: Nowhere in the Epistle does the writer discuss, draw on OT prophecies, or provide context for Jesus being fully God and fully man in respect to nature.

Maybe your correct, let's take another look at Heb.1:3 in light of Ps.77:10; 118:16; Exod.15:6; Isa.48:13; and etc. and etc. Heb.1:3, "who being his glory's effulgence and his being's impress, and as bearing all the (existing) things by means of the uttered word of his power, after having wrought for himself cleansing from the sins, sat down at the right hand of the majesty on high; etc. - v.4"

"His being's" Ypostasis is used in a variety of meanings, but since it's here predicated of God it denotes the reality or actuality of His being. To "his glory's," which is the revelation of His being. The English has no compatable term, hence the A.V. uses "person," the R.V., "substance," both of which only approach the Greek term. The philosophical use of even hypostaasis is foreign to our passage; also Philo's nonpersonal use of the word. The theological hypostatsis; that which is and by itself whether it be a person or not originated much later although the word was then applied to the three distinct Persons in the Trinity thus we use the unity ("realiter") of the man Jesus in union with the divine at His conception.

Instead fo saying only "at the right (hand) of God," we have the greater expression "at the right (hand) of the majesty."
This abstract term "the majesty" denotes the omnipotent glory of God, and it is folly to imagine that it has either a right or a left side. The term "majesty" makes this the clearest of the pertinent passages in the O.T., eg, Ps.77:10, and etc., and etc. "The majesty" or "greatness" is infinite; to sit down at its right is taken from Ps.110:1, ie, one of my favorites. United with the Son of the Highest, ie, human nature.



Comment: An unfounded assumption is being made that God became man

The assumption looks pretty founded to me.

The irreconcilable issue: Nowhere in the Epistle does the writer discuss, draw on prophecies, provide context for God becoming man. In fact the writer is specific at a certain day and time God fathered a Son...he did not become the Son and the Son did not become the Father Heb 1:5

Ps.2:7 & Heb.1:5 The first appropriation is taken from Ps.2:7 of course. Peter attributes this Psalm to David. You really opened yourself up to a real beating which isn't my intend thus apologize to you sir. The reference is to IISam.7, especially to 7:14, 16, to the seed of David who should reign in the Davidic Kingdom and on the Davidic throne forever and ever. Hope you're ducking some of these blows? It's this everlasting King Himself who in the psalm appropriated YHWH as having said to Him: "Son of mine art thou!" etc.

This word is echoed in the N.T. when at the Godman Jesus' water baptism God said to Him: "Thou art my beloved Son!" Lk.3:22.

Comment: The "idea" is not clear as we shall see from his own words.

The irreconcilable issue: The author & editor of the commentary have made two assumptions and now question the idea as being clear; lets see what evidence they use to support their idea.

I was curious if you actually know who the writer of Hebrews is? Does make a difference, ie, the 'implicatude' of the writer.

Comment: Here the author misses the entire point as to why Jesus needed to be raised up out of Adam, David & Abraham - God's righteousness was declared through an obedient life and that life and blood was an offering to God (as it was upon the altar)
Supporting texts: 1 Cor 15:45; Matt 1:1 - life is in the blood Lev 17:11

The irreconcilable issue: The authors basis of atonement is God becoming condemned man, whereas the Bible states emphatically, its the cleansing from pure blood (not literal) which represents an "obedient life" in whole service to Yahweh - not that Yahweh was being obedient to Yahweh.



Comment: See how Hypostasis destroys the atonement principles? Jesus had to be fully human and be tempted in all points as we are - his nature was condemned to die and death reigned over him all the days of his mortal life - he needed to die to sin (flesh) once that God might declare his righteousness through weak condemned nature, that through death he would destroy that which has the power of death, the devil (Sin = Rom 6:23).

The irreconcilable issue: The author introduces a mystery and rightly so! He is unable to reconcile hypostasis with Jesus' nature (and the atonement principles).




Comment: Notice how the author uses the word perfect? Because he doesn't understand the nature of Jesus he is torn between the nature of God and the nature of Man.

Jesus states "none good" Matt 19:17
Jesus states only perfection found in the Father Matt 5:48
Jesus was made perfect - by putting of sins flesh Heb 5:9
Jesus made perfect through suffering Heb 2:10
Jesus' brothers and sisters are yet to be made perfect in him Heb 11:40

These and many Scriptures teach us that Jesus and his servants are imperfect in nature and that God has nothing to do with such imperfection other than to totally destroy it all the while upholding His righteousness.

Jesus is said to be crucified through weakness which the author has not consider in his "perfect nature" idea. Paul in 2 Cor 13:4 teaches his flesh was put to death through weakness and that he only lives because of the Spirit or rightly rendered, Power of God. Paul is also right to associated us with Christs weakness (imperfection in nature) due to its latent desires which prompt carnal thinking, temptation and sin.

Because the author of the commentary cannot see the indescribable agony which Jesus experienced every day of his probation (Luke 12:50NET) he has entirely missed the divine teaching on the atonement.

The irreconcilable issue: Trinitarians are forced between a "perfect nature" and an "imperfect one"; the Bible teaches that all flesh is corrupt and worthy of putting to death. In this matter the editor and author have acted foolishly Gal 3:3

God divine nature must be completely removed from the nature of Jesus Christ in order for the atonement to be understood.



This superiority was never in nature as he was made a little lower than they, but in his exalted position he was clothed with the divine nature and given a name and authority greater than theirs. The author needs to appreciate Hebrews 1 is speaking of Jesus' inheritance while Heb 2 is speaking to his probation in the flesh.

Jesus was equal with man in terms of being condemned to death as all men, but in mind (Logos) he was only ever like his Father.



Comment: Yes this is true because there is no divine revelation on the two facets of his nature because his nature was as Paul express "Sins flesh" Rom 8:3 - A combination of sins flesh with divine nature would be only achievable if God could bring together light and darkness. Not only is this physically impossible the spiritual implications for any Christian would be catastrophic. God can and will only ever "divide" Gen 1:4;7

The irreconcilable issue: Here is Pauls teaching on the mystery Eph 5:32; 6:19; Col 1:26,27; 2:2 - Paul has gone to great lengths in the Epistle to Hebrews and the Romans to explain Jesus is in every respect the exact same flesh and his brothers. Heb 2:17 - in fact his High Priest status could only be achieved on that very basis Heb 5:1 (to represent them)

How could Jesus possess a hybrid nature and be like us in every way and represent us in our imperfect condition if as this author suggests there is a great mystery surrounding his nature?

Now that is irreconcilable!.



Comment: He is not interested in a debate because he has just admitted that he has no evidence or proof in what he believes. This is the irreconcilable issues for most in this forum.

Notice his words "how closely?" Pauls states in every way, every respect his nature was the same as those he came to represent.

There is doubt in this mans mind as to how closely Jesus was like his brothers and its that doubt which is caused by the Trinity.



Comment: Finally after struggling to understand the verse as the author intended he is now forced to find a way to bring preexitence into the verse in a desperate attempt to support the Trinity.

The verse reads: “So, since children have flesh and blood in common (kekoinōnēken), he also shares (meteschen) in these same things.”

The Greek here is extremely simple where meteschen is often associated with ownership i.e. the condemned nature which Jesus bore was his entirely from birth Gal 4:4 and its was one he required saving from Heb 5:7

Conclusion:

I choose not to explore the atonement principles any deeper than stating that Jesus shared "our" exact nature and offered up a life of obedience to his Father, which was acceptable in His sight. The result of such a life was "declared" to be the Son of God (Rom 1:4) note: "by" the resurrection from the dead. In this declaring through his Son he also declared His own righteous treatment of flesh and blood (for all those who are in bondage to it) - Heb 2:15

Whom God hath set forth (Jesus) a propitiation through faith in his (Jesus) blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; (Romans 3:25)

What the audience reading this needs to focus on is how was Gods righteousness manifested through Jesus Christ both in his nature and his sacrifice, death, resurrection from the dead.

I can tell you all here and now that it had nothing at all to do with God becoming man in the flesh - nothing what so ever.

P.


Old Jack - Jesus shared in "our" nature not God's! - I think you need to go back and read Heb 2:14.

To emphasise this point the author states Jesus sharing in condemned nature in every respect and being an acceptable sacrifice for sin is able to... And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
(Hebrews 2:15)

Of Jesus also Heb 5:7

Middle aged Purity over here keeping old Jack in his box!

Always trying to think outside the 'box,' Jack

Comment: The writer (presumably Paul) is reflecting how Jesus is fully flesh and blood i.e human in every respect, and not a hybrid of natures as Trinitarians purport!

The irreconcilable issue: Nowhere in the Epistle does the writer discuss, draw on OT prophecies, or provide context for Jesus being fully God and fully man in respect to nature.



Comment: An unfounded assumption is being made that God became man

The irreconcilable issue: Nowhere in the Epistle does the writer discuss, draw on prophecies, provide context for God becoming man. In fact the writer is specific at a certain day and time God fathered a Son...he did not become the Son and the Son did not become the Father Heb 1:5



Comment: The "idea" is not clear as we shall see from his own words.

The irreconcilable issue: The author & editor of the commentary have made two assumptions and now question the idea as being clear; lets see what evidence they use to support their idea.



Comment: Here the author misses the entire point as to why Jesus needed to be raised up out of Adam, David & Abraham - God's righteousness was declared through an obedient life and that life and blood was an offering to God (as it was upon the altar)
Supporting texts: 1 Cor 15:45; Matt 1:1 - life is in the blood Lev 17:11

The irreconcilable issue: The authors basis of atonement is God becoming condemned man, whereas the Bible states emphatically, its the cleansing from pure blood (not literal) which represents an "obedient life" in whole service to Yahweh - not that Yahweh was being obedient to Yahweh.



Comment: See how Hypostasis destroys the atonement principles? Jesus had to be fully human and be tempted in all points as we are - his nature was condemned to die and death reigned over him all the days of his mortal life - he needed to die to sin (flesh) once that God might declare his righteousness through weak condemned nature, that through death he would destroy that which has the power of death, the devil (Sin = Rom 6:23).

The irreconcilable issue: The author introduces a mystery and rightly so! He is unable to reconcile hypostasis with Jesus' nature (and the atonement principles).




Comment: Notice how the author uses the word perfect? Because he doesn't understand the nature of Jesus he is torn between the nature of God and the nature of Man.

Jesus states "none good" Matt 19:17
Jesus states only perfection found in the Father Matt 5:48
Jesus was made perfect - by putting of sins flesh Heb 5:9
Jesus made perfect through suffering Heb 2:10
Jesus' brothers and sisters are yet to be made perfect in him Heb 11:40

These and many Scriptures teach us that Jesus and his servants are imperfect in nature and that God has nothing to do with such imperfection other than to totally destroy it all the while upholding His righteousness.

Jesus is said to be crucified through weakness which the author has not consider in his "perfect nature" idea. Paul in 2 Cor 13:4 teaches his flesh was put to death through weakness and that he only lives because of the Spirit or rightly rendered, Power of God. Paul is also right to associated us with Christs weakness (imperfection in nature) due to its latent desires which prompt carnal thinking, temptation and sin.

Because the author of the commentary cannot see the indescribable agony which Jesus experienced every day of his probation (Luke 12:50NET) he has entirely missed the divine teaching on the atonement.

The irreconcilable issue: Trinitarians are forced between a "perfect nature" and an "imperfect one"; the Bible teaches that all flesh is corrupt and worthy of putting to death. In this matter the editor and author have acted foolishly Gal 3:3

God divine nature must be completely removed from the nature of Jesus Christ in order for the atonement to be understood.



This superiority was never in nature as he was made a little lower than they, but in his exalted position he was clothed with the divine nature and given a name and authority greater than theirs. The author needs to appreciate Hebrews 1 is speaking of Jesus' inheritance while Heb 2 is speaking to his probation in the flesh.

Jesus was equal with man in terms of being condemned to death as all men, but in mind (Logos) he was only ever like his Father.



Comment: Yes this is true because there is no divine revelation on the two facets of his nature because his nature was as Paul express "Sins flesh" Rom 8:3 - A combination of sins flesh with divine nature would be only achievable if God could bring together light and darkness. Not only is this physically impossible the spiritual implications for any Christian would be catastrophic. God can and will only ever "divide" Gen 1:4;7

The irreconcilable issue: Here is Pauls teaching on the mystery Eph 5:32; 6:19; Col 1:26,27; 2:2 - Paul has gone to great lengths in the Epistle to Hebrews and the Romans to explain Jesus is in every respect the exact same flesh and his brothers. Heb 2:17 - in fact his High Priest status could only be achieved on that very basis Heb 5:1 (to represent them)

How could Jesus possess a hybrid nature and be like us in every way and represent us in our imperfect condition if as this author suggests there is a great mystery surrounding his nature?

Now that is irreconcilable!.



Comment: He is not interested in a debate because he has just admitted that he has no evidence or proof in what he believes. This is the irreconcilable issues for most in this forum.

Notice his words "how closely?" Pauls states in every way, every respect his nature was the same as those he came to represent.

There is doubt in this mans mind as to how closely Jesus was like his brothers and its that doubt which is caused by the Trinity.



Comment: Finally after struggling to understand the verse as the author intended he is now forced to find a way to bring preexitence into the verse in a desperate attempt to support the Trinity.

The verse reads: “So, since children have flesh and blood in common (kekoinōnēken), he also shares (meteschen) in these same things.”

The Greek here is extremely simple where meteschen is often associated with ownership i.e. the condemned nature which Jesus bore was his entirely from birth Gal 4:4 and its was one he required saving from Heb 5:7

Conclusion:

I choose not to explore the atonement principles any deeper than stating that Jesus shared "our" exact nature and offered up a life of obedience to his Father, which was acceptable in His sight. The result of such a life was "declared" to be the Son of God (Rom 1:4) note: "by" the resurrection from the dead. In this declaring through his Son he also declared His own righteous treatment of flesh and blood (for all those who are in bondage to it) - Heb 2:15

Whom God hath set forth (Jesus) a propitiation through faith in his (Jesus) blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; (Romans 3:25)

What the audience reading this needs to focus on is how was Gods righteousness manifested through Jesus Christ both in his nature and his sacrifice, death, resurrection from the dead.

I can tell you all here and now that it had nothing at all to do with God becoming man in the flesh - nothing what so ever.

P.


Old Jack - Jesus shared in "our" nature not God's! - I think you need to go back and read Heb 2:14.

To emphasise this point the author states Jesus sharing in condemned nature in every respect and being an acceptable sacrifice for sin is able to... And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
(Hebrews 2:15)

Of Jesus also Heb 5:7

Middle aged Purity over here keeping old Jack in his box!

 

[justaname]

The fact that he himself partook of the same nature sums up the perfect humanity of Jesus. When this statement is set over against the statements in chapter 1, about the divine Sonship of Jesus, the mystery deepens. His superiority to angels is set against his equality with man. There can never be a wholly satisfactory explanation of these two facets of his nature, because man has no suitable frame of reference in which to consider it. There are no human analogies.

​Morris is genius and Spirit lead...It is the scriptures that present what some stumble over...Jesus is both divine and human...incarnation!

 

[Purity]

​Morris is genius and Spirit lead...It is the scriptures that present what some stumble over...Jesus is both divine and human...incarnation!

Justaname, welcome back, its been a while.

Morris is unsure, uncertain and vague calling upon mysterious knowledge and is the reason why so many Trinitarian's are confused on this subject - how can you define your belief in something which still remains a mystery? Its all locked up and only the Ecclesiatical Powers hold the keys - well as they purport. What we are doing here is breaking this subject open for those willing and enquiring minds to test and prove all things.

P.
Old Jack must return to reading his Bible especially Heb 2:14,15 in its context.
P.

 

[justaname]

Justaname, welcome back, its been a while.

Morris is unsure, uncertain and vague calling upon mysterious knowledge and is the reason why so many Trinitarian's are confused on this subject - how can you define your belief in something which still remains a mystery? Its all locked up and only the Ecclesiatical Powers hold the keys - well as they purport. What we are doing here is breaking this subject open for those willing and enquiring minds to test and prove all things.

P.


Old Jack must return to reading his Bible especially Heb 2:14,15 in its context.
P.

Well unfortunately you are mistaken because Morris is certain. Certain of the clear revelation of the human nature of Jesus given plainly by scripture. Certain of the divine nature plainly revealed earlier in the epistle he is expounding upon. Certain of his own humanity and inability to draw experiential reference to the incarnation called Jesus of Nazareth. It is not a mystery knowledge being sought to comprehend what is revealed, God is incomprehensible by nature. That which can be expressed has been through the scriptures and the HolySpirit, yet even what is expressed is difficult to comprehend as you so plainly display. This is why you deny the Lord that purchased you, unfortunate. I am still praying for you. :mellow:

And let me be certain I have no desire to don your indoctrination goggles. I can read the scriptures easily through the revelation given plainly in the text for myself.

 

[Purity]

Well unfortunately you are mistaken because Morris is certain.

No, read his comments; his uncertaintity is spread throughout. Do I need to quote them agian?

Certain of the clear revelation of the human nature of Jesus given plainly by scripture. Certain of the divine nature plainly revealed earlier in the epistle he is expounding upon.

No his doubt is evidenced in his inability to define the Lords nature as anything but a mystery! You and I know this answer is admission of error!~

Certain of his own humanity and inability to draw experiential reference to the incarnation called Jesus of Nazareth. It is not a mystery knowledge being sought to comprehend what is revealed, God is incomprehensible by nature.

God is Spirit
Jesus was Sins Flesh Rom 8:3

Its comprehenible to those who understand and that's the point - Morris admits confusion.

That which can be expressed has been through the scriptures and the HolySpirit, yet even what is expressed is difficult to comprehend as you so plainly display. This is why you deny the Lord that purchased you, unfortunate. I am still praying for you. :mellow:

And let me be certain I have no desire to don your indoctrination goggles. I can read the scriptures easily through the revelation given plainly in the text for myself.

If this is true, words like "every respect" speaking to Jesus' nature being the exact same as yours shouldn't be hard for you to grasp. .

I need to ask this seriously - do you believe your nature is part divine and part sins flesh?

P.