The Ones Who Are Left…

[Naomi25]

I hear you, but there is more to it, more to consider and factor in.

First, what you have described comes from the confusion of the use of the word "resurrection" for Christ rising from the dead--which He did do. But that is the nature of language confused by God, and it is only by the rest of scripture and by revelation from God unto all truth that we could possible put it all together. Please read all of this very carefully.

Jesus's so called resurrection from the dead in the flesh is a fact, but it is a completely different event from His ascension to be with the Father. His fleshly resurrection is like all of the accounts of Israel--in which case He is "the Last"--all of which is only a foreshadowing of things to come, and His part of Israel being a light upon a hill for all nations and peoples to see. For this very reason, before His ascension He even told Mary, “Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father” Which was also the case when He had Thomas touch His wounds.

The two events (Jesus' resurrection, and ascension) are not the same thing.

Which, granted, is confusing...for it is referred to as His "resurrection." But again, that is the limit of language confused by God, and it is only by the rest of what is written and God revealing it to us, that we can know the whole truth (all truth).

As for His ascension, Jesus Himself told the truth of it, saying "I go to the Father", and "Where I am going, you cannot go." Which, by itself, could easily be explained away. But he also expressed this mystery while praying to the Father, saying "I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; 21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22 And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one." John 17:20-22

Now again, this alone could easily be explained away. But not if you put it all together:

• God is spirit.
• I go to the Father.
• I go to prepare a place for you, that where I am you may be also.
• that they also may be one in Us.
• And thus we shall always be with the Lord.

Combined, each of these contribute a part of the mystery of us being one with God, whom is spirt. Not Him being where we are in the end, but us being where He is...where flesh and blood cannot inherit. Remember, in being made flesh and dwelling among us, Jesus lowered Himself, the end of which is not God lowering Himself, but rather us being raised up.

If we are to be One with God, He is not going to lower Himself. Period.

I…disagree.
Linguistically, it is easy to determine the difference between resurrection and ascension. One was a rising from death, the other was him leaving earth to return to his father.
And…I cannot help but feel you are, in your effort to explain our relationship with God and his with us, leaving out the work and mission of the Holy Spirit. Which changes the landscape here on earth significantly, as it does how God…and Christ…interacts with us, even though he is not present in flesh.
And…your statement that we are to be raised up to be One with God makes me a little nervous, and I would seek clarification on what you mean by that. There is, of course, certain biblical language that tells us that we are being adopted into God’s family, heirs with Christ. But…the notion that we may be LIKE Christ? Like I said…please clarify.

 

[ScottA]

I…disagree.
Linguistically, it is easy to determine the difference between resurrection and ascension. One was a rising from death, the other was him leaving earth to return to his father.
And…I cannot help but feel you are, in your effort to explain our relationship with God and his with us, leaving out the work and mission of the Holy Spirit. Which changes the landscape here on earth significantly, as it does how God…and Christ…interacts with us, even though he is not present in flesh.
And…your statement that we are to be raised up to be One with God makes me a little nervous, and I would seek clarification on what you mean by that. There is, of course, certain biblical language that tells us that we are being adopted into God’s family, heirs with Christ. But…the notion that we may be LIKE Christ? Like I said…please clarify.

Everything I said about us being One with God was a quote from scripture. If you believe that the Son and the Father are One, then it should not be so difficult to follow that Him in us and us in Him and Him in the Father is just as He describes it...as One.

But, it is also not even reasonable to consider that God's plan is to devolve to become One with us in the flesh, glorified or not-- He was already "perfect." Which is according to the scripture, that "you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect." Not the other way around. For this reason I have already said, it is not Him with us, so much as it is us with Him.

Might I suggest...that the reason most (perhaps including yourself) gravitate toward believing in a glorified fleshly physical resurrection, is simply due to the unknown? Or that the flesh has been allowed a vote in the matter even though it really does actually get to vote--you know, like a rigged election.

Nonetheless, harder sayings than the unknow possibilities of an unlimited spirit body compared with the known and familiar flesh body have already been voiced and excepted...like needing to eat of Jesus' flesh and drink His blood, for instance. The simple fact is, God being spirit and being perfect leaves nothing lacking, and makes the flesh a lesser choice or likelihood.

Anyway, the scriptures don't actually support a physical resurrection from the world into heaven, unless we lean in that direction in our interpretation. But then again, those votes are disqualified.

 

[Brakelite]

Well….if we are (and I suppose I mean me here!) supposing that the 1st resurrection is talking of those who are made spiritually alive with Christ….Christians…., then we must suppose that the ‘rest of the dead’ are everyone not found in Christ. Both those alive and dead at his return, unsaved, they are ‘spiritually dead’.
We know that at Christ’s return there will be a physical resurrection of both the just and unjust. It tells us so in both Daniel and John. And, of course, we see in other passages that speak specifically of those belonging to Christ and his return…Rapture passages, people term them. They describe believers in Christ…both dead and alive…being ‘translated’.
So…we know that even the unjust will ‘live again’ in some way…and yet…are still bound for the second death…the lake of fire. It is only those in Christ and have experienced the ‘first resurrection’ that need not fear the second death.

Anyway, that’s how I see it. Again…I’m not dogmatic on it, it’s just the best explanation I’ve heard that makes sense of all the passages. I’m not going to be devastated if I’m wrong. Could be that it’s speaking specifically of those martyred during the tribulation time. I…just don’t see other passages supporting that view.

Sounds sound. At the end of the 1000 years, the new Jerusalem we are told descends upon the earth...1000 years after the first resurrection. The scripture says we are actually in that city, and outside the city are all the wicked, God and Magog, of all ages in history and they recognize their only hope it's to take over the city... That doesn't end well. So we are in heaven throughout the 1000 years reigning with Christ there, having a part to play in the judging of angels. That'll be interesting... While the wicked remain dead. It's all actually a really simple and logical plan. After that, the new heaven and the new earth which is once again given to the saints that they may have dominion over it. Now that is interesting because on the earth is the city which is the home to the King. Yet we are Kings of all that is outside the city, visiting the city it seems once a month to feast on the tree of life and to worship. This is a physical and emotional and sensorial reality to look forward to.

 

[Naomi25]

Everything I said about us being One with God was a quote from scripture. If you believe that the Son and the Father are One, then it should not be so difficult to follow that Him in us and us in Him and Him in the Father is just as He describes it...as One.

There is a world of difference between what the bible means by God being ‘in us, and us in him’…and being “one with God”. A difference of likeness and essence, and what the bible tells us of how God dwells with us and in us.

John 14:16-20
[16] And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper,(6) to be with you forever, [17] even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you. [18] “I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. [19] Yet a little while and the world will see me no more, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. [20] In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.

John 17:11
[11] And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.

John 17:21-23
[21] that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. [22] The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, [23] I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.

We can see in these passages that when Jesus speaks of “being one” there is two distinctions. He and the Father are one. And he prays that “they (us) shall be one”. Nowhere does he state that we shall be ‘One’ with God.
These passages also tell us that Christ shall be ‘in us’ as we shall ‘be in him’. I could have posted much of John, but it is made clear in the gospel that Christ’s promise to remain with us and in us is done through the sent Holy Spirit, dwelling in us presently…not some future expectation.

The idea that we can or shall ‘become One’ with God is not biblical or possible. God has attributes that even resurrected or “perfected” humans will never have.
In the OT we see many claims by God to be unique among all the gods (elohim). The Shema of Israel stands among them “Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one.” (Or, One God”)
And, in the NT, where for long years “monogenēs” has been translated as “only begotten” Son (regarding Christ), scholars have discovered that the root words ‘monos’ and ‘genos’ and accordingly, the Greek-English lexicon BDAG defines monogenēs as something “that is the only example of its category.”
So, in point of fact, Christ is “species unique”. Like YHWY, there is no other like him. The very claim by Christ that “he and the Father are one” was both outrageous AND revealing. It was outrageous because of the clear OT teachings that no other elohim were like YHWY…no other spiritual being shared his attributes. And it was revealing because it showed who Christ was.


So…no. No I do not believe that the bible is telling us we shall be “One” with God. In point of fact I believe the bible repeated tells us this is impossible.
That we can be united with (in) Christ in a wondrous way through the in dwelling of the Spirit? Now, that is something different. A drop of freshwater can reside within the ocean. And…in return, a pinch of salt from that ocean can be found in that drop of freshwater. But claiming that the drop of freshwater can become one with the ocean…share all of its attributes? That is different, and unbiblical.

But, it is also not even reasonable to consider that God's plan is to devolve to become One with us in the flesh, glorified or not-- He was already "perfect." Which is according to the scripture, that "you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect." Not the other way around. For this reason I have already said, it is not Him with us, so much as it is us with Him.

Forgive me…but…wasn’t it exactly the plan for Christ to enter into flesh? And to live a perfect life while in that flesh? And then to die for us while in that flesh?
If Christ had not become the second Adam, then we all would have still been paying for our sins under our original human father.

Might I suggest...that the reason most (perhaps including yourself) gravitate toward believing in a glorified fleshly physical resurrection, is simply due to the unknown? Or that the flesh has been allowed a vote in the matter even though it really does actually get to vote--you know, like a rigged election.

Everything is unknown, unless it is revealed by scripture…couldn’t we agree?
And I don’t gravitate towards a ‘fleshly physical resurrection’ simply because of the unknown, but because its what I see promised in scripture. Clearly. Repeatedly. And, as believed throughout history.
As for yourself…either you have selected the beliefs of Gnosticism or you are seeing things in scripture that I cannot….or you yourself have grabbed hold of a belief in the face of the unknown.

Nonetheless, harder sayings than the unknow possibilities of an unlimited spirit body compared with the known and familiar flesh body have already been voiced and excepted...like needing to eat of Jesus' flesh and drink His blood, for instance. The simple fact is, God being spirit and being perfect leaves nothing lacking, and makes the flesh a lesser choice or likelihood.

Anyway, the scriptures don't actually support a physical resurrection from the world into heaven, unless we lean in that direction in our interpretation. But then again, those votes are disqualified.

Mmm. Gnosticism.
And I’m sorry, but yes, the bible most certainly does support a physical resurrection. The passage in 1 Cor 15 I previously posted absolutely does, despite your disregard of it.
We can draw conclusions from other passages: like the fact that Jesus raised the dead and the dead were raised at his own resurrection. Both were signs of the Kingdom to come as much as proof of who he was.
We can see verses telling us of the ‘resurrections of the dead, just AND unjust’. Now…after Paul tells us that to ‘live is gain and to die is Christ’ and that ‘to depart is to be with Christ’. And Christ himself told the dying thief “today you’ll be with me in paradise. So…we surmise that the spirit does not sleep, it goes on after death. What then, is being resurrected at the time of Christ’s return? New spirit 2.0? Or, wait…it’d be 3.0 for Christians, wouldn’t it, as we have new life given to us at regeneration. That gets a bit confusing.
And then there are the passages of Christ’s return, and the ‘dead in Christ being raised first’, but then being joined in the air by other Christians, who then receive their ‘incorruptible bodies’. Except….if it were new incorruptible spirits we were getting, why didn’t Paul just say that? Why tell us it would be bodies we’d be getting. And why would the ‘dead in Christ’ need to ‘go first’…if their already in ‘spirit’, shouldn’t they be right to go? Unless we go back to the “spirit 3.0” thing again.
You get my point I trust.

 

[Naomi25]

Sounds sound. At the end of the 1000 years, the new Jerusalem we are told descends upon the earth...1000 years after the first resurrection. The scripture says we are actually in that city, and outside the city are all the wicked, God and Magog, of all ages in history and they recognize their only hope it's to take over the city... That doesn't end well. So we are in heaven throughout the 1000 years reigning with Christ there, having a part to play in the judging of angels. That'll be interesting... While the wicked remain dead. It's all actually a really simple and logical plan. After that, the new heaven and the new earth which is once again given to the saints that they may have dominion over it. Now that is interesting because on the earth is the city which is the home to the King. Yet we are Kings of all that is outside the city, visiting the city it seems once a month to feast on the tree of life and to worship. This is a physical and emotional and sensorial reality to look forward to.

Well….I tend to view the 1000 years as a symbolic representation of the church age. After all, Christ did say that the Kingdom would come in a way that could not be observed, AND that it was already in their midst. And we also know that Christ is ruling and reigning in this age, as well as the next.
I understand that at his return…or perhaps just prior to it, the nations will attempt a last attack on the people of God…or, perhaps more importantly, the cosmic geography claimed by God (Jerusalem)…which would be your Armegeddon. Which will be foiled by Christ’s return, which will end the ‘1000’ years. The New Jerusalem will come down from heaven, as will all the believers who have died and gone to ‘rule and reign’ with him. And then Christ will set up his eternal, earthly kingdom. I do believe Christ will have an earthly kingdom…I just think it’s going to happen in the new age of eternity.

I should probably add….when I say “I think”…I do mean ‘think’…not ‘know’! This is a tremendously difficult subject and while I’m often pulled in a direction as to interpretation or meaning, I think it’s probably foolish to slam the doors shut on the possibility I’m just wrong!

 

[ScottA]

There is a world of difference between what the bible means by God being ‘in us, and us in him’…and being “one with God”. A difference of likeness and essence, and what the bible tells us of how God dwells with us and in us.

John 14:16-20
[16] And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper,(6) to be with you forever, [17] even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you. [18] “I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. [19] Yet a little while and the world will see me no more, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. [20] In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.

John 17:11
[11] And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.

John 17:21-23
[21] that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. [22] The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, [23] I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.

We can see in these passages that when Jesus speaks of “being one” there is two distinctions. He and the Father are one. And he prays that “they (us) shall be one”. Nowhere does he state that we shall be ‘One’ with God.
These passages also tell us that Christ shall be ‘in us’ as we shall ‘be in him’. I could have posted much of John, but it is made clear in the gospel that Christ’s promise to remain with us and in us is done through the sent Holy Spirit, dwelling in us presently…not some future expectation.

The idea that we can or shall ‘become One’ with God is not biblical or possible. God has attributes that even resurrected or “perfected” humans will never have.
In the OT we see many claims by God to be unique among all the gods (elohim). The Shema of Israel stands among them “Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one.” (Or, One God”)
And, in the NT, where for long years “monogenēs” has been translated as “only begotten” Son (regarding Christ), scholars have discovered that the root words ‘monos’ and ‘genos’ and accordingly, the Greek-English lexicon BDAG defines monogenēs as something “that is the only example of its category.”
So, in point of fact, Christ is “species unique”. Like YHWY, there is no other like him. The very claim by Christ that “he and the Father are one” was both outrageous AND revealing. It was outrageous because of the clear OT teachings that no other elohim were like YHWY…no other spiritual being shared his attributes. And it was revealing because it showed who Christ was.


So…no. No I do not believe that the bible is telling us we shall be “One” with God. In point of fact I believe the bible repeated tells us this is impossible.
That we can be united with (in) Christ in a wondrous way through the in dwelling of the Spirit? Now, that is something different. A drop of freshwater can reside within the ocean. And…in return, a pinch of salt from that ocean can be found in that drop of freshwater. But claiming that the drop of freshwater can become one with the ocean…share all of its attributes? That is different, and unbiblical.

John 17:21-23

"21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22 And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: 23 I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me."​

Not One? Not biblical?

Isaiah 59:1-2

"Behold, the LORD's hand is not shortened, That it cannot save; Nor His ear heavy, That it cannot hear. But your iniquities have separated you from your God; And your sins have hidden His face from you, So that He will not hear."​

Not One? Not biblical?

Ephesians 4:2-4

"with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling;"​

Not One? Not biblical?

Philippians 2:5-6

"Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,"​

Not One? Not biblical?

John 10:30

"I and My Father are one." (and we are His body)​

Not One? Not biblical?

1 Corinthians 12:13

"For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit."​

Not One? Not biblical?

Forgive me…but…wasn’t it exactly the plan for Christ to enter into flesh? And to live a perfect life while in that flesh? And then to die for us while in that flesh?
If Christ had not become the second Adam, then we all would have still been paying for our sins under our original human father.

That is only part of the story. That was the rescue, not the end game. The end was "that where I am, you might be also", mean with the Father.

 

[ScottA]

Everything is unknown, unless it is revealed by scripture…couldn’t we agree?
And I don’t gravitate towards a ‘fleshly physical resurrection’ simply because of the unknown, but because its what I see promised in scripture. Clearly. Repeatedly. And, as believed throughout history.
As for yourself…either you have selected the beliefs of Gnosticism or you are seeing things in scripture that I cannot….or you yourself have grabbed hold of a belief in the face of the unknown.

No, the scriptures are just a vehicle of the Spirit...that has been confused. And Jesus didn't say he would send us more scriptures--they came as only part of the vehicle of the Spirit, the Helper. But He is not limited to writings. According to John, the world could not contain "all truth."

What is your point of mentioning Gnosticism?

But you also mention "belief" (mine). Let me just say, I do not "believe", nor did I believe and then come to "know" the things that I am speaking of. I first came to "know" God, and "belief" in the presents of God is not "belief", it is "knowledge." So, no, I did not just grab on to some belief.

Mmm. Gnosticism.
And I’m sorry, but yes, the bible most certainly does support a physical resurrection. The passage in 1 Cor 15 I previously posted absolutely does, despite your disregard of it.
We can draw conclusions from other passages: like the fact that Jesus raised the dead and the dead were raised at his own resurrection. Both were signs of the Kingdom to come as much as proof of who he was.
We can see verses telling us of the ‘resurrections of the dead, just AND unjust’. Now…after Paul tells us that to ‘live is gain and to die is Christ’ and that ‘to depart is to be with Christ’. And Christ himself told the dying thief “today you’ll be with me in paradise. So…we surmise that the spirit does not sleep, it goes on after death. What then, is being resurrected at the time of Christ’s return? New spirit 2.0? Or, wait…it’d be 3.0 for Christians, wouldn’t it, as we have new life given to us at regeneration. That gets a bit confusing.
And then there are the passages of Christ’s return, and the ‘dead in Christ being raised first’, but then being joined in the air by other Christians, who then receive their ‘incorruptible bodies’. Except….if it were new incorruptible spirits we were getting, why didn’t Paul just say that? Why tell us it would be bodies we’d be getting. And why would the ‘dead in Christ’ need to ‘go first’…if their already in ‘spirit’, shouldn’t they be right to go? Unless we go back to the “spirit 3.0” thing again.
You get my point I trust.

Paul says much about the resurrection, but you are cherry picking just part of the information. In addition to what appears to be a description of physical (fleshly) resurrection, he also clarifies that "it is not that body that is sown", and that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of the kingdom of God." --You can't just pick one of these passages--they all have to reconcile one with the other.

So, you are not being honest with me, or even yourself. You (after accusing me of being selective and grabbing hold of a belief) are forcing me to use scripture against scripture to show your error. I have no problem reconciling all scripture--but you are only supporting what you believe and apparently not wanting to hear every proof. Why go on with pages and pages of partial information as you have. If you don't understand, say so, but don't just present just a part of the information and and argue about what you do not know.

As for the dead rising first--do you not know that all of Israel (of whom Christ is the Last) having been promised a Savior, died before salvation came, before they were born again of God? The dead in Christ is Israel.

 

[Naomi25]

John 17:21-23

"21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22 And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: 23 I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me."​

Not One? Not biblical?

If you will recall, I point out that the bible, when it speaks of ‘Oneness’ is directly referring to the relationship either between Christ and the Father (like kind) or between Christians (like kind). When it speaks of being “in”…which is different than being ‘One’…then we see Christians being linked together with Christ.
And…as far as I can see, none of your verses contradict that. That passage above? “That they may be one in us”….’they’…that would be Christians. Christ is praying that Christians may be one…one body, one in unity and love, ‘in’ Christ. Which happens through the work and i dwelling of the Holy Spirit.
But nowhere here are we being told, or given leave to surmise that we, as Christians, are, or may become, one in likeness or kind, with God.

Isaiah 59:1-2

"Behold, the LORD's hand is not shortened, That it cannot save; Nor His ear heavy, That it cannot hear. But your iniquities have separated you from your God; And your sins have hidden His face from you, So that He will not hear."​

Not One? Not biblical?

The assumption that to be ‘separated from your God’ means that we were “One” with him beforehand, rather than just in fellowship and harmonious relationship as it was in the garden before sin fractured that, is rather telling, I’m sorry, and shows a presumption to read into the text. Unless you can somehow show that both Adam and Eve were one in like and kind with God in the garden. But…if that were so, they would not have HAD the rules given to them, they would have been making them…no? They would not have been innocent of ‘knowledge’ and been able to be deceived, or even separated from God so that the deception and sin could have taken place.
No. Not biblical.

.
Ephesians 4:2-4

"with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling;"​

Not One? Not biblical?

As before, the ‘oneness’ spoken of here is of like kindness…between Christians. There IS one body…the church. And it has one head: Christ. But what you are trying to say by claiming ‘oneness’ with Christ, is that we ALL must be the head. No, Christ is the head, and we are the body of Christ, wherein we are to become ‘one’….neither Jew nor Greek, neither male nor female, slave or free. But…one. How do we become this? Through the Spirit. Not all the different spirits of the world, or the spirits people claim…but THE Spirit, the Holy Spirit, whom Christ sent.
So: one body of Christians, yes.
One with Christ: no, not biblical.

Philippians 2:5-6

"Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,"​

Not One? Not biblical?

Philippians 2:5-11
Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.


Hmmm. This passage is quite significant, considering what you claim, don’t you think? Christ “did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped” but “emptied himself by taking the form of a servant”.

That rather implies two things, does it not? One, that he had that equality TO grasp (it outright tells us he was in the form of God), but gave it up for us. And two…that he did, indeed, in some way, humble himself for us by taking on flesh and dying.

But, either way, it does not help your argument. God the Father and Jesus Christ are one…can BE one, as they are both God…they are of like kind. And, well, this passage doesn’t even try to claim that we, humans, should think we can be of that ‘kind’.

John 10:30

"I and My Father are one." (and we are His body)​

Not One? Not biblical?

I feel like your trying to repeat “Not One, Not biblical?” As if it’ll drive home your point or make the outrage more significant. The problem is, you’ve simply failed to address what I was saying, so it sort of falls flat, sorry.
Of course the Father and Christ are One. I never said they were not. They are both God; the same kind, the same likeness…the same attributes. This claim that Jesus made was one of the reasons the Jews wanted to kill him, they knew he was making a claim of divinity with this statement.
Your problem remains. The bible speaks of ‘Oneness’ with the Father and Christ, and within the body, but not ‘Oneness’ between them. A Christian can be ‘in’ Christ, he in them, through the presence and work of the Holy Spirit, but ‘One’? No. We will never have God’s attributes.
And this bible verse clearly doesn’t say it.

1 Corinthians 12:13

"For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit."​

Not One? Not biblical?

That is only part of the story. That was the rescue, not the end game. The end was "that where I am, you might be also", mean with the Father.

Again, ‘oneness’ here is speaking about within the Christian body…likeness to likeness.
I think you need to stop dancing around this ‘Oneness’ language and start getting on with it. Where are the verses, if you please, that show we are to “be like God”. And by that I mean, we are to receive his attributes. Because if you cannot produce them, your claims are empty.

 

[Brakelite]

If you will recall, I point out that the bible, when it speaks of ‘Oneness’ is directly referring to the relationship either between Christ and the Father (like kind) or between Christians (like kind). When it speaks of being “in”…which is different than being ‘One’…then we see Christians being linked together with Christ.
And…as far as I can see, none of your verses contradict that. That passage above? “That they may be one in us”….’they’…that would be Christians. Christ is praying that Christians may be one…one body, one in unity and love, ‘in’ Christ. Which happens through the work and i dwelling of the Holy Spirit.
But nowhere here are we being told, or given leave to surmise that we, as Christians, are, or may become, one in likeness or kind, with God.



The assumption that to be ‘separated from your God’ means that we were “One” with him beforehand, rather than just in fellowship and harmonious relationship as it was in the garden before sin fractured that, is rather telling, I’m sorry, and shows a presumption to read into the text. Unless you can somehow show that both Adam and Eve were one in like and kind with God in the garden. But…if that were so, they would not have HAD the rules given to them, they would have been making them…no? They would not have been innocent of ‘knowledge’ and been able to be deceived, or even separated from God so that the deception and sin could have taken place.
No. Not biblical.



As before, the ‘oneness’ spoken of here is of like kindness…between Christians. There IS one body…the church. And it has one head: Christ. But what you are trying to say by claiming ‘oneness’ with Christ, is that we ALL must be the head. No, Christ is the head, and we are the body of Christ, wherein we are to become ‘one’….neither Jew nor Greek, neither male nor female, slave or free. But…one. How do we become this? Through the Spirit. Not all the different spirits of the world, or the spirits people claim…but THE Spirit, the Holy Spirit, whom Christ sent.
So: one body of Christians, yes.
One with Christ: no, not biblical.



Philippians 2:5-11
Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.


Hmmm. This passage is quite significant, considering what you claim, don’t you think? Christ “did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped” but “emptied himself by taking the form of a servant”.

That rather implies two things, does it not? One, that he had that equality TO grasp (it outright tells us he was in the form of God), but gave it up for us. And two…that he did, indeed, in some way, humble himself for us by taking on flesh and dying.

But, either way, it does not help your argument. God the Father and Jesus Christ are one…can BE one, as they are both God…they are of like kind. And, well, this passage doesn’t even try to claim that we, humans, should think we can be of that ‘kind’.



I feel like your trying to repeat “Not One, Not biblical?” As if it’ll drive home your point or make the outrage more significant. The problem is, you’ve simply failed to address what I was saying, so it sort of falls flat, sorry.
Of course the Father and Christ are One. I never said they were not. They are both God; the same kind, the same likeness…the same attributes. This claim that Jesus made was one of the reasons the Jews wanted to kill him, they knew he was making a claim of divinity with this statement.
Your problem remains. The bible speaks of ‘Oneness’ with the Father and Christ, and within the body, but not ‘Oneness’ between them. A Christian can be ‘in’ Christ, he in them, through the presence and work of the Holy Spirit, but ‘One’? No. We will never have God’s attributes.
And this bible verse clearly doesn’t say it.



Again, ‘oneness’ here is speaking about within the Christian body…likeness to likeness.
I think you need to stop dancing around this ‘Oneness’ language and start getting on with it. Where are the verses, if you please, that show we are to “be like God”. And by that I mean, we are to receive his attributes. Because if you cannot produce them, your claims are empty.

What she said^^^^^^^^^

 

[Brakelite]

It smacks of occult elitism... The adept and the initiate... When we have someone claiming "inner knowledge" due to a greater grasp of spirituality, and that those who don't understand aren't. 'spiritual'. This is the way of gnosticism and secret societies.

 

[Naomi25]

No, the scriptures are just a vehicle of the Spirit...that has been confused.

And let me guess. You have the correct interpretation…one that has been revealed to you and now you are here to reveal it to those unenlightened.
Like I said: Gnosticism

.And Jesus didn't say he would send us more scriptures--they came as only part of the vehicle of the Spirit, the Helper. But He is not limited to writings. According to John, the world could not contain "all truth."

But it is sufficient. And trustworthy. Which many ‘spirits’ and claims are not. You are making some fairly bold claims. And I’m not sure I see them approved of or taught in scripture. And if its not in there, then its not Spirit breathed.
Or…do you suppose I’m going to take your word for it? A dude on the Internet? No offence.

.
What is your point of mentioning Gnosticism?

“Within early Christianity, the teachings of Paul and John may have been a starting point for Gnostic ideas, with a growing emphasis on the opposition between flesh and spirit, the value of charisma, and the disqualification of the Jewish law. The mortal body belonged to the world of inferior, worldly powers, and only the spirit or soul could be saved. The term gnostikos may have acquired a deeper significance here.
Gnostics considered the principal element of salvation to be direct knowledge of the supreme divinity in the form of mystical or esoteric insight.”

Oh…I don’t know. You think the resurrection will be spiritual only. That we’ve got the ‘spark of the divine’ within us…or are headed that way. And that you have the ‘true knowledge’ of what they bible is supposed to say.

.
But you also mention "belief" (mine). Let me just say, I do not "believe", nor did I believe and then come to "know" the things that I am speaking of. I first came to "know" God, and "belief" in the presents of God is not "belief", it is "knowledge." So, no, I did not just grab on to some belief.
Paul says much about the resurrection, but you are cherry picking just part of the information. In addition to what appears to be a description of physical (fleshly) resurrection, he also clarifies that "it is not that body that is sown", and that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of the kingdom of God." --You can't just pick one of these passages--they all have to reconcile one with the other.

I don’t believe I am ‘cherry picking’ just part of what Paul has to say.
You say that Paul “appears to describe a physical resurrection” but then ‘clarifies’ that “it is not that body that is sown”, and “flesh and blood can inherit the Kingdom of God”.
It would seem to me that you have just as much a problem.
What must any bible reader, or scholar, do when they come to any apparent ‘contradictory’ passages in scripture?
The first rule of thumb is always “let scripture interpret scripture”.
What do we find elsewhere in scripture? The key place most go is Christ’s resurrection. After all, Paul outright tells us he is the first fruits of the resurrection. And we see that even though he is risen, he interacts with physical things. But…still…he does things not normal for ‘this flesh’. It is possible this is just because he is God and he is using his divine nature. But Paul points us there for some reason.
Another thing to consider is angels. What if a spiritual body is not what we’ve been led to believe? Angels certainly have the ability to be seen or not seen…be incorporeal or corporeal as they chose…to move about in space time freely. But we see repeatedly in scripture, mostly the OT, them interacting physically as well.
Again, as I mentioned in a previous post, we have all the verses that lead us to expect a physical resurrection because those being ‘resurrected’ are already in spirit! What would they be resurrected to…or from, if they were to remain spirit?
And lastly, there is the picture we have in the beginning, in the garden…and at the end…in the garden.
God’s plan for humanity was a good one. It was a physical one, where we worked this earth and interacted with one another. What makes you think that in the new age we’ll be without bodies just because we’ll be without sin? If Christ, and angels can interact physically, and Christ had the first fruits of the resurrection bodies we will have, and angels are, without a doubt ‘spiritual beings’, then it begs the question…or rather…I’d say it begs direct and specific proof that says we shall not have physical bodies.

.
So, you are not being honest with me, or even yourself. You (after accusing me of being selective and grabbing hold of a belief) are forcing me to use scripture against scripture to show your error. I have no problem reconciling all scripture--

Well, in all fairness, you were the one who first suggested people (ahem, even myself) were going around believing in ‘things’ simply because of the unknown factor of it all. Which was rather presumptuous.
Scripture against scripture to show my error, huh?
I await with baited breath.

. but you are only supporting what you believe and apparently not wanting to hear every proof. Why go on with pages and pages of partial information as you have. If you don't understand, say so, but don't just present just a part of the information and and argue about what you do not know.

I’m sorry. But are you entirely serious?
Wait. Let me get this straight. I’m “only supporting what I believe”. - Well of course. I’d be a fool to support your side, which is insupportable anyway.
I’m also “not wanting to hear every proof” - really? Where have to told you to hush up? Or is this just because I’m not lapping up what you say?
I “go on with pages and pages of partial information” - oh dear. I have barely begun. Do you REALLY want to see pages? I think you just poked the wrong person.
“If you don’t understand just say so, but don’t just present a part of the information and argue about what you do not know” - oh! The coup d'état! Call me stupid in the parting swing!

Dear sir. You are full of hot air and little else. Where is YOUR biblical proof. And I’m not even saying ‘partial’….. I’ve seen some casual references you’ve done little to back up and a few verses that clearly, and obviously do NOT support your claims. Your best defence is “I’ve got the special sauce”…by which you mean, “I’ve got the special inside info, so listen to me.”

Uh huh. Sure.

. As for the dead rising first--do you not know that all of Israel (of whom Christ is the Last) having been promised a Savior, died before salvation came, before they were born again of God? The dead in Christ is Israel.

“Do you not know”…?
Truly I say unto you….none of that made any sense.

 

[quietthinker]

So then, no being guide into all truth, and no hearing what the Spirit says to the churches?

Sounds like quenching the spirit.

Quenching is done when solutions are sought in areas God has not revealed. Everything needed for our peace and internal security is provided in the scriptures and it is the role of the Spirit to bring these things to our awareness and joy.

 

[Davy]

Maybe the parable doesn’t ‘go into the future 1000 years’ because there’s not one…? Or…at least, not one in the sense most people would argue.

Not sure what you mean, because that's not really a parable Apostle Paul was giving about the gathering to Jesus Christ when He comes. I suggest you go over the 1 Thessalonians 4 chapter more carefully, and it is hard linked to what Jesus said in Matthew 24:31 and Mark 13:27.

 

[ScottA]

If you will recall, I point out that the bible, when it speaks of ‘Oneness’ is directly referring to the relationship either between Christ and the Father (like kind) or between Christians (like kind). When it speaks of being “in”…which is different than being ‘One’…then we see Christians being linked together with Christ.
And…as far as I can see, none of your verses contradict that. That passage above? “That they may be one in us”….’they’…that would be Christians. Christ is praying that Christians may be one…one body, one in unity and love, ‘in’ Christ. Which happens through the work and i dwelling of the Holy Spirit.
But nowhere here are we being told, or given leave to surmise that we, as Christians, are, or may become, one in likeness or kind, with God.



The assumption that to be ‘separated from your God’ means that we were “One” with him beforehand, rather than just in fellowship and harmonious relationship as it was in the garden before sin fractured that, is rather telling, I’m sorry, and shows a presumption to read into the text. Unless you can somehow show that both Adam and Eve were one in like and kind with God in the garden. But…if that were so, they would not have HAD the rules given to them, they would have been making them…no? They would not have been innocent of ‘knowledge’ and been able to be deceived, or even separated from God so that the deception and sin could have taken place.
No. Not biblical.



As before, the ‘oneness’ spoken of here is of like kindness…between Christians. There IS one body…the church. And it has one head: Christ. But what you are trying to say by claiming ‘oneness’ with Christ, is that we ALL must be the head. No, Christ is the head, and we are the body of Christ, wherein we are to become ‘one’….neither Jew nor Greek, neither male nor female, slave or free. But…one. How do we become this? Through the Spirit. Not all the different spirits of the world, or the spirits people claim…but THE Spirit, the Holy Spirit, whom Christ sent.
So: one body of Christians, yes.
One with Christ: no, not biblical.



Philippians 2:5-11
Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.


Hmmm. This passage is quite significant, considering what you claim, don’t you think? Christ “did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped” but “emptied himself by taking the form of a servant”.

That rather implies two things, does it not? One, that he had that equality TO grasp (it outright tells us he was in the form of God), but gave it up for us. And two…that he did, indeed, in some way, humble himself for us by taking on flesh and dying.

But, either way, it does not help your argument. God the Father and Jesus Christ are one…can BE one, as they are both God…they are of like kind. And, well, this passage doesn’t even try to claim that we, humans, should think we can be of that ‘kind’.



I feel like your trying to repeat “Not One, Not biblical?” As if it’ll drive home your point or make the outrage more significant. The problem is, you’ve simply failed to address what I was saying, so it sort of falls flat, sorry.
Of course the Father and Christ are One. I never said they were not. They are both God; the same kind, the same likeness…the same attributes. This claim that Jesus made was one of the reasons the Jews wanted to kill him, they knew he was making a claim of divinity with this statement.
Your problem remains. The bible speaks of ‘Oneness’ with the Father and Christ, and within the body, but not ‘Oneness’ between them. A Christian can be ‘in’ Christ, he in them, through the presence and work of the Holy Spirit, but ‘One’? No. We will never have God’s attributes.
And this bible verse clearly doesn’t say it.



Again, ‘oneness’ here is speaking about within the Christian body…likeness to likeness.
I think you need to stop dancing around this ‘Oneness’ language and start getting on with it. Where are the verses, if you please, that show we are to “be like God”. And by that I mean, we are to receive his attributes. Because if you cannot produce them, your claims are empty.

I was not posing an argument, but filling in the details, that you might see more clearly and come to question the partial information that you are looking at as incomplete.

Nonetheless, if you want to believe that Jesus' body is not One with Him (God), not biblical, that is your choice.

 

[ScottA]

But it is sufficient. And trustworthy. Which many ‘spirits’ and claims are not. You are making some fairly bold claims. And I’m not sure I see them approved of or taught in scripture. And if its not in there, then its not Spirit breathed.
Or…do you suppose I’m going to take your word for it? A dude on the Internet? No offence.

No, that is wrong. The scriptures themselves say that the scriptures need to be discerned spiritually.

And let me guess. You have the correct interpretation…one that has been revealed to you and now you are here to reveal it to those unenlightened.
Like I said: Gnosticism

No...the Spirit has the correct interpretation. But, yes, I can tell you it by the same Spirit. And when I do that which is exactly according to scripture, you default to name calling. You know, I really want to see this through, but you are making it difficult. You.

“Within early Christianity, the teachings of Paul and John may have been a starting point for Gnostic ideas, with a growing emphasis on the opposition between flesh and spirit, the value of charisma, and the disqualification of the Jewish law. The mortal body belonged to the world of inferior, worldly powers, and only the spirit or soul could be saved. The term gnostikos may have acquired a deeper significance here.
Gnostics considered the principal element of salvation to be direct knowledge of the supreme divinity in the form of mystical or esoteric insight.”

Oh…I don’t know. You think the resurrection will be spiritual only. That we’ve got the ‘spark of the divine’ within us…or are headed that way. And that you have the ‘true knowledge’ of what they bible is supposed to say.

I don't know all about that 'ism stuff, but I do know that God is spirit, we who are His are born of His spirit, we go to Him, and we will be like Him. All biblical. But it all results in name calling? Just an observation...but there is no love in that result.

I don’t believe I am ‘cherry picking’ just part of what Paul has to say.
You say that Paul “appears to describe a physical resurrection” but then ‘clarifies’ that “it is not that body that is sown”, and “flesh and blood can inherit the Kingdom of God”.
It would seem to me that you have just as much a problem.
What must any bible reader, or scholar, do when they come to any apparent ‘contradictory’ passages in scripture?
The first rule of thumb is always “let scripture interpret scripture”.
What do we find elsewhere in scripture? The key place most go is Christ’s resurrection. After all, Paul outright tells us he is the first fruits of the resurrection. And we see that even though he is risen, he interacts with physical things. But…still…he does things not normal for ‘this flesh’. It is possible this is just because he is God and he is using his divine nature. But Paul points us there for some reason.
Another thing to consider is angels. What if a spiritual body is not what we’ve been led to believe? Angels certainly have the ability to be seen or not seen…be incorporeal or corporeal as they chose…to move about in space time freely. But we see repeatedly in scripture, mostly the OT, them interacting physically as well.
Again, as I mentioned in a previous post, we have all the verses that lead us to expect a physical resurrection because those being ‘resurrected’ are already in spirit! What would they be resurrected to…or from, if they were to remain spirit?
And lastly, there is the picture we have in the beginning, in the garden…and at the end…in the garden.
God’s plan for humanity was a good one. It was a physical one, where we worked this earth and interacted with one another. What makes you think that in the new age we’ll be without bodies just because we’ll be without sin? If Christ, and angels can interact physically, and Christ had the first fruits of the resurrection bodies we will have, and angels are, without a doubt ‘spiritual beings’, then it begs the question…or rather…I’d say it begs direct and specific proof that says we shall not have physical bodies.

I have given the other scriptures, reconciled them (unlike your own argument), and explained that all physical foreshadowings are not the actual event, but that Jesus' ascension is the real event. And I also (as do the scriptures) explained how it cannot be physical or in the flesh.

But you bring up another point, of why would the resurrection be spiritual if they are already spirit? That is a good and fair question.

The reason is, that it may appear that we are being resurrected "to" God, and we are. But more importantly, we are being resurrected "from" the world (and its elements, which are destine to be dissolved with fervent heat, and with fire). This again is why flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God...and this alone should satisfy the scriptural need to know the actual truth.

I’m sorry. But are you entirely serious?
Wait. Let me get this straight. I’m “only supporting what I believe”. - Well of course. I’d be a fool to support your side, which is insupportable anyway.
I’m also “not wanting to hear every proof” - really? Where have to told you to hush up? Or is this just because I’m not lapping up what you say?
I “go on with pages and pages of partial information” - oh dear. I have barely begun. Do you REALLY want to see pages? I think you just poked the wrong person.
“If you don’t understand just say so, but don’t just present a part of the information and argue about what you do not know” - oh! The coup d'état! Call me stupid in the parting swing!

Dear sir. You are full of hot air and little else. Where is YOUR biblical proof. And I’m not even saying ‘partial’….. I’ve seen some casual references you’ve done little to back up and a few verses that clearly, and obviously do NOT support your claims. Your best defence is “I’ve got the special sauce”…by which you mean, “I’ve got the special inside info, so listen to me.”

Uh huh. Sure.

I don't have "a side", I am for all truth...which I have indeed supported. Your not hearing it, does not make it "insupportable." As for the "hush up", you simply reject what I have given you to fill in those things which would give you a true and complete scriptural picture...and if it were not so, if you were not rejecting the scriptural additions that I have brought to the table, we would not be debating. And I am not calling you stupid...stubborn maybe, but definitely emotional. After all, you have resorted to 'ism and name calling. Which is so typical... all truth has been promised by the very means I am advocating...and your response is to fight. This is the same behavior that killed the prophets of old. This is fruit, bad fruit.

As for biblical proof, I gave it...and was willing to give so much more.

“Do you not know”…?
Truly I say unto you….none of that made any sense.

Of course.

 

[ScottA]

Quenching is done when solutions are sought in areas God has not revealed. Everything needed for our peace and internal security is provided in the scriptures and it is the role of the Spirit to bring these things to our awareness and joy.

Ah, No, quenching the Spirit, is being told to expect that all truth is coming via the Spirit, and then not being open to it with anticipation. That same behavior killed the prophets of old. But here we are seeing the daggers come out again.

 

[quietthinker]

Ah, No, quenching the Spirit, is being told to expect that all truth is coming via the Spirit, and then not being open to it with anticipation. That same behavior killed the prophets of old. But here we are seeing the daggers come out again.

daggers coming out again??

 

[ScottA]

daggers coming out again??

I have been called a Gnostic, an over-spiritualizer (as if that very essence of God were evil), and told I was full of hot air, in as little as the last 24 hrs, just for filling in missing scriptures pertaining to the discuss, because my rationale was the Spirit and all truth. But I am just one who sides with the Spirit against those who side with the flesh, there are others.

The point is, it goes on here all the time--the flesh waging war against the Spirit.

 

[quietthinker]

I have been called a Gnostic, an over-spiritualizer (as if that very essence of God were evil), and told I was full of hot air, in as little as the last 24 hrs, just for filling in missing scriptures pertaining to the discuss, because my rationale was the Spirit and all truth. But I am just one who sides with the Spirit against those who side with the flesh, there are others.

The point is, it goes on here all the time--the flesh waging war against the Spirit.

what has that got to do with the communication between you and me?

 

[ScottA]

what has that got to do with the communication between you and me?

Perhaps nothing. But you asked about the daggers coming out when we were discussing the quenching of the Spirit.