This really grabbed me today!

[face2face]

It means someone who is not a servant becomes a servant.

True.

So you believe the form of a servant is not speaking to nature, as the essential nature of a servant is like any man, but the demeanour of a slave as their characteristics?

 

[Johann]

But I did notice something the other day. No Christian says Jesus didn’t come in human form. Heck, no Muslim says it either! I’ve never heard a single Christian say Jesus did not come in human form. So as a test, John didn’t give us a good one. Or did he…? Because John is the same one that said, and He WAS God. So I think he meant anyone one who says God did not come in human form.

Yes, you did. But you also gave a Hebrew translation from the greek which I didn’t understand why, that’s all.

And at any rate, I get confused by the whole Greek thing too. So even if quoting it in a Hebrew translation wasn’t puzzling to me, the Greek still would be. Although…I seem to get some understanding when Lambano explains the Greek…and I get my mind seriously blown when epi explains the OT Hebrew! He leaves me speechless many times!

Won't do it again
J.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

True.

So you believe the form of a servant is not speaking to nature, as the essential nature of a servant is like any man, but the demeanour of a slave as their characteristics?

I have no idea what you just said or asked. I read it three times.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Won't do it again
J.

tsk! You can do it. I just didn’t understand why so I asked!

 

[stunnedbygrace]

I've seen this mixture of Hebrew terms in English New Testament contexts. Our Messianic-Jewish brothers and sisters do it, and that's understandable. I've also run across Gentile wannabees who wish to emulate Messianic Jews.

Well, I don’t think that’s our Johann! I rather thought he was maybe practicing his Hebrew. Which makes sense if you’ve begun to learn it.

 

[face2face]

I have no idea what you just said or asked. I read it three times.

When it states "taking on the form of a slave" you would say this is telling us that Jesus portrayed the characteristics of a slave? This has nothing to do with his nature?

 

[Johann]

True.

So you believe the form of a servant is not speaking to nature, as the essential nature of a servant is like any man, but the demeanour of a slave as their characteristics?

Form of a servant (μορφὴν δούλου)
The same word for form as in the phrase form of God, and with the same sense. The mode of expression of a slave's being is indeed apprehensible, and is associated with human shape, but it is not this side of the fact which Paul is developing. It is that Christ assumed that mode of being which answered to, and was the complete and characteristic expression of, the slave's being. The mode itself is not defined. This is appropriately inserted here as bringing out the contrast with counted not equality with God, etc. What Christ grasped at in His incarnation was not divine sovereignty, but service.
Was made in the likeness of men (ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος)
Lit., becoming in, etc. Notice the choice of the verb, not was, but became: entered into a new state. Likeness. The word does not imply the reality of our Lord's humanity, μορφή form implied the reality of His deity. That fact is stated in the form of a servant. Neither is εἰκών image employed, which, for our purposes, implies substantially the same as μορφή. See on Col_1:15. As form of a servant exhibits the inmost reality of Christ's condition as a servant - that He became really and essentially the servant of men (Luk_22:27) - so likeness of men expresses the fact that His mode of manifestation resembled what men are. This leaves room for the assumption of another side of His nature - the divine - in the likeness of which He did not appear. As He appealed to men, He was like themselves, with a real likeness; but this likeness to men did not express His whole self. The totality of His being could not appear to men, for that involved the form of God. Hence the apostle views Him solely as He could appear to men. All that was possible was a real and complete likeness to humanity. What He was essentially and eternally could not enter into His human mode of existence. Humanly He was like men, but regarded with reference to His whole self, He was not identical with man, because there was an element of His personality which did not dwell in them - equality with God. Hence the statement of His human manifestation is necessarily limited by this fact, and is confined to likeness and does not extend to identity. “To affirm likeness is at once to assert similarity and to deny sameness” (Dickson). See on Rom_8:3.
Vincent

Don't think you would be able to grasp this, yet, but have listened to reputable scholars explaining this.
And even I cannot grasp the immutability of Elohim, keep on believing and let your outward actions match your inward profession, IF we have been sealed with the Holy Spirit.
Won't bother you again.
J.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

When it states "taking on the form of a slave" you would say this is telling us that Jesus portrayed the characteristics of a slave? This has nothing to do with his nature?

I would say He became human and therefore He WAS human. Though He didn’t have a human father.

 

[Johann]

Well, I don’t think that’s our Johann! I rather thought he was maybe practicing his Hebrew. Which makes sense if you’ve begun to learn it.

If Lambano wants to be personal, give him a go with me, I will be happy to oblige.
J.

 

[Brakelite]

Are you Preterist?
Sounds like you're saying Christ has ALREADY come, might be wrong, on this platform anything is possible.
J.

Historicist.

 

[Johann]

Historicist.

In philosophy, historicism is an approach to history that assigns a particular meaning to an event according to that event’s context within the arc of history. In some cases, this results in viewing historical change as a power in and of itself. Historicism can be as extreme as claiming that certain changes are “historically inevitable,” as though history were a force on par with gravity or magnetism. In most cases, however, the term historicism simply refers to a careful interpretation of events with a mind to their cultural, historical, and political contexts.

In theology, historicism is an approach to eschatology and prophecy in general. In historicism biblical prophecies are interpreted as representative of literal historical events. Historicism looks at the whole of Bible prophecy as a sweeping overview of church history, from Pentecost to the end times. This approach involves interpreting symbols or figures in the Bible as metaphors for actual events, nations, or persons of history. Historicism was especially popular during the Reformation, when it was used to suggest that the Catholic Church was part of the end-times apostasy, with the pope as the Antichrist.

Historicism is distinguished from other views of eschatology: idealism (the events of Revelation are entirely symbolic of the cosmic struggle between good and evil); preterism (the events of Revelation were fulfilled in AD 70); and futurism (the events of Revelation await a future, end-times fulfillment during the tribulation and beyond). Historicism falls between preterism and futurism in its approach: according to historicism, most of Revelation is symbolic of persons and events in world history. The book of Revelation was prophecy when John wrote it, according to historicists, but most of the book has already been fulfilled in our day.

Here are some examples of how historicism usually interprets events in Revelation: the seven churches in Revelation 2–3 are symbolic of seven ages of church history, starting with the apostolic church (the church of Ephesus) and ending with the modern-day, lukewarm church (the church of Laodicea). The seals in chapters 4—7 represent the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. The “little scroll” given to John in chapter 10 is a picture of the Protestant Reformation. The beasts of chapters 12 and 13 represent Catholicism and the papacy. Other passages in Revelation are linked to the invasion of the Huns, the spread of Islam, and the rise of the modern missionary movement.

Historicism has varied applications to the concepts of a rapture, tribulation, and second coming of Christ. In some cases, historicism has been abused by those attempting to predict a specific date for the return of Jesus, such as the Millerites in 1844 and Harold Camping in 1994 and 2011. As one would expect, all such attempts at pinpointing the return of Christ have failed, and they will continue to fail (see Matthew 24:36).

Historicism, so popular with the Reformers, remained a dominant perspective on eschatology through the 19th century. However, due to its nebulous interpretation method (no two historicists agree on what symbols go with what historical events) and the fact that John’s original readers could not have understood the book of Revelation in a historicist manner, the historicist view is not widely held today.

Something like this?
J.

 

[Brakelite]

But I did notice something the other day. No Christian says Jesus didn’t come in human form. Heck, no Muslim says it either! I’ve never heard a single Christian say Jesus did not come in human form. So as a test, John didn’t give us a good one. Or did he…? Because John is the same one that said, and He WAS God. So I think he meant anyone one who says God did not come in human form.

If you understand what Catholics mean by 'immaculate conception', and what John and Paul means when they say, 'in the likeness of sinful flesh' you'll understand that the official Catholic teaching cannot embrace Jesus as fully human.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

If Lambano wants to be personal, give him a go with me, I will be happy to oblige.
J.

I don’t think he was talking about you. You know what I thought when I read his post? It makes me laugh when people speak in King James English. Like they’ll say something like…why are you mad? Have I done anything unto you? It’s almost like…they think it’s holy to talk that way…?

 

[Johann]

I don’t think he was talking about you. You know what I thought when I read his post? It makes me laugh when people speak in King James English. Like they’ll say something like…why are you mad? Have I done anything unto you? It’s almost like…they think it’s holy to talk that way…?

Too many holy Joe's on this platform.


2Ti 2:18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
2Ti 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.
2Ti 2:20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.
2Ti 2:21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.

Noticed there is a sniping pun on the KJV


2Ti 2:20 Notwithstanding in a great house are not onely vessels of gold & of siluer, but also of wood and of earth, and some for honour, and some vnto dishonour.
2Ti 2:21 If any man therefore purge him selfe from these, he shalbe a vessell vnto honour, sanctified, and meete for the Lord, and prepared vnto euery good worke.
2Ti 2:22 Flee also from the lustes of youth, and follow after righteousnes, faith, loue, and peace, with them that call on the Lorde with pure heart,
2Ti 2:23 And put away foolish and vnlearned questions, knowing that they ingender strife.
2Ti 2:24 But the seruant of ye Lord must not striue, but must be gentle toward all men, apt to teache, suffering the euill,

I enjoy this, knowing it is the infallible word of the Lord.
But what I also noticed is the trend to go back to being "giddy: and that is not my character.

Shalom. Have a good day.
J.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Come to think of it, I’ve also heard people pray aloud in king James English! I always thought I prayed very ugly compared to how I heard others pray. I’m not trying to mock, but it just makes me laugh. I don’t say, and Lord, I ask, in Jesus name, that you would thus and thus. I just say…Lord, I need $200 to pay this bill or they will cut off the electricity. Or I say…I need Your wisdom here because I’m confused.

 

[Brakelite]

In philosophy, historicism is an approach to history that assigns a particular meaning to an event according to that event’s context within the arc of history. In some cases, this results in viewing historical change as a power in and of itself. Historicism can be as extreme as claiming that certain changes are “historically inevitable,” as though history were a force on par with gravity or magnetism. In most cases, however, the term historicism simply refers to a careful interpretation of events with a mind to their cultural, historical, and political contexts.

In theology, historicism is an approach to eschatology and prophecy in general. In historicism biblical prophecies are interpreted as representative of literal historical events. Historicism looks at the whole of Bible prophecy as a sweeping overview of church history, from Pentecost to the end times. This approach involves interpreting symbols or figures in the Bible as metaphors for actual events, nations, or persons of history. Historicism was especially popular during the Reformation, when it was used to suggest that the Catholic Church was part of the end-times apostasy, with the pope as the Antichrist.

Historicism is distinguished from other views of eschatology: idealism (the events of Revelation are entirely symbolic of the cosmic struggle between good and evil); preterism (the events of Revelation were fulfilled in AD 70); and futurism (the events of Revelation await a future, end-times fulfillment during the tribulation and beyond). Historicism falls between preterism and futurism in its approach: according to historicism, most of Revelation is symbolic of persons and events in world history. The book of Revelation was prophecy when John wrote it, according to historicists, but most of the book has already been fulfilled in our day.

Here are some examples of how historicism usually interprets events in Revelation: the seven churches in Revelation 2–3 are symbolic of seven ages of church history, starting with the apostolic church (the church of Ephesus) and ending with the modern-day, lukewarm church (the church of Laodicea). The seals in chapters 4—7 represent the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. The “little scroll” given to John in chapter 10 is a picture of the Protestant Reformation. The beasts of chapters 12 and 13 represent Catholicism and the papacy. Other passages in Revelation are linked to the invasion of the Huns, the spread of Islam, and the rise of the modern missionary movement.

Historicism has varied applications to the concepts of a rapture, tribulation, and second coming of Christ. In some cases, historicism has been abused by those attempting to predict a specific date for the return of Jesus, such as the Millerites in 1844 and Harold Camping in 1994 and 2011. As one would expect, all such attempts at pinpointing the return of Christ have failed, and they will continue to fail (see Matthew 24:36).

Historicism, so popular with the Reformers, remained a dominant perspective on eschatology through the 19th century. However, due to its nebulous interpretation method (no two historicists agree on what symbols go with what historical events) and the fact that John’s original readers could not have understood the book of Revelation in a historicist manner, the historicist view is not widely held today.

Something like this?
J.

That would be reasonably fair synopsis, but I would like to address a number of the details at a more convenient time zone. . Unless someone else has that more convenient time zone they are welcome to jump in

 

[Brakelite]

hmm…a clue to what? We should expect counterfeits.

Tomorrow.

 

[Johann]

Lord, I need $200 to pay this bill or they will cut off the electricity. Or I say…I need Your wisdom here because I’m confused.

Nope, don't agree with you
I knew somehow it was a mistake walking, or trying to walk with you and here is where you and I part ways.
J.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Oh please save us from froward Christians!

 

[Johann]

Oh please save us from froward Christians!

Christ Jesus just did, you still have much to learn.
Maybe the medication is a bit too strong since we all have out aches and pains and scars.
I am here to be edified, not LOLLING..which reminds me, the rabbis have a saying-There is a time to laugh, and it is not now-
J.