This really grabbed me today!

[Johann]

the kingdom of heaven is within you

My question is still not being answered, is that because you don't know?
J.

 

[Johann]

Jesus said of the Rabbis, 'forever learning but never coming to a knowledge of the truth'
I wonder if the same trip applies to Christian circles?

Another "Day dreamer"
J.

 

[Johann]

Are you attempting to impress me since I think you have the wrong member.
Don't assume
Hope that helps
J.

whole fulness dwelt.—ἐν αὐτῷ is emphatic, in Him and in Him alone.—κατοικεῖ: “permanently dwells”. The reference is to the Exalted State, not only on account of the present, but of the context and Paul’s Christology generally.—πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος: “all the fulness of the Godhead”. πᾶν is emphatic, the whole fulness dwells in Christ, therefore it is vain to seek it wholly or partially outside of Him. πλ. τ. θ. is not to be taken (as by Ol.) to mean the perfection of Divinity, i.e., ideal holiness. Nor can it mean the Church, for which Eph_1:23 gives no support, nor yet the universe, either of which must have been very differently expressed. The addition of θεότητος defines πλ. as the fulness of Deity. The word is to be distinguished from θειότης as Deity, the being God, from Divinity, the being Divine or Godlike. The passage thus asserts the real Deity of Christ.—σωματικῶς.


This word is very variously interpreted. The reference is usually taken to be to the glorified body of Christ, or (as by Lightf.) to the Incarnation, and the word is translated “in bodily fashion”. Apart from the question whether the word naturally expresses this, there is the difficulty caused by the contrast implied in its emphatic position. This contrast is sometimes thought to be to the pre-incarnate state, but this has no relevance here. A contrast to the angels might be in point, but they were closely connected with bodies, so the contrast in this respect did not exist. But neither is Soden’s view that while the angels have bodies what is expressed in them is only θειότης (Rom_1:20) not πλ. τ. θεότητος, a tenable explanation, since this is just read into the words, not elicited from them; nor could such a distinction have occurred to the readers. This interpretation of σωμ., then, as expressing the indwelling of the fulness in a body, although said by Abbott to be “the only one tenable,” is encumbered with grave difficulties, and has been rejected by several commentators. Many have taken it to mean “really” (recently Bleek, Kl[12], Everling, Cremer). This is supported by the contrast of σῶμα with σκιά in Col_2:17, the indwelling is real and not shadowy or typical. But σωματικῶς could hardly express this shade of meaning unless the antithesis was expressed. Oltramare translates “personally, in His person”. But he quotes no instances of the adverb, but only of σῶμα. And Haupt’s criticism is just, that this sense might suggest that in God Himself it dwelt impersonally. After an elaborate examination of the various views, Haupt puts forward the explanation that σωματ. relates to τ. πλ. τ. θ., and is to be translated “in the form of a body”. The meaning he takes to be that the fulness exists in Christ as a body, that is as a complete and organic whole. This suits the context and the general argument better than the reference to Christ’s own body. In contrast to the distribution of the fulness among the angels, or to the view that it dwelt only partially in Him, Paul insists that all the fulness dwells in Him, and not fragmentarily but as an organic whole. This view, like Oltramare’s, is supported only by references to the use of σῶμα. This is not a fatal objectiön, and its harmony with the context makes it the most probable interpretation.
[12] Klöpper.

If you want to "quote" a commentary, give the full passage, not selective.

Hope that helps
J.

 

[Johann]

Your lack of exegesis has been noted .

Without your commentary you cannot exegete anything, me, I stick to the morphology of Greek and Hebrew.
Hope that helps
J.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Bit of a dumb question

......if I believed that my position was scripturally untenable, would I hold to it?...would you?

Well, your question was your question.

 

[ChristisGod]

A legend in his own Mind lol . Nothing but cut n pastes with no exegesis. A commentary expert .

 

[stunnedbygrace]

The Bible very clearly says that Christ is God. The opening words of John’s Gospel tell us “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” John 1:1-3

Even the very words John started with are a great clue! He was specifically and quite clearly opening with the same exact words that Genesis begins with. It was his clear intention to draw us there and place Jesus there as the one who said, let there be. He also then goes on to say that Jesus is the light spoken of before sun and moon were created.

Some think Jesus was created at the very moment God said let there be light but I rather think it was more like He was saying, let the light shine in this dark place. And it was the first time it says, and God saw something was good. (why do you call Me good? There is only one who is good?)

It’s all so…breathtaking!

 

[Heart2Soul]

I truly believe Isaiah has some strong evidence of the Trinity argument...especially pay attention to 21-25
Isaiah 45 (KJV)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
¹⁸ For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.
¹⁹ I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.
²⁰ Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that cannot save.
²¹ Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.
²² Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.
²³ I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.
²⁴ Surely, shall one say, in the LORD have I righteousness and strength: even to him shall men come; and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed.
²⁵ In the LORD shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory.

 

[face2face]

Your question makes zero sense to what I have said.
How do you connect what you replied to my post?

Well it seems the question of what Jesus gained from his mother hasn't been answered since I hit the sack last night. @Johann ran a mile so lets ask it again. If Jesus pre-existed, which I don't believe he did, but lets make the assumption...what of his person did he receive from his mother, if not in bodily form? Keeping in mind Jesus was in the line of Adam, Abraham and David. I mean Yahweh is not a Jew, but Jesus is; Yahweh is not a man, but Jesus is. Now it's impossible to say the exalted Jesus is the same Jesus who pre-existed, because then you not only have the problem of Mary, but all her lineage.

Or, does the Trinity force you to say Jesus gained "nothing" from his Jewish line, he only pretended to look like Jesus, but now returns as a god in another form?

 

[stunnedbygrace]

I truly believe Isaiah has some strong evidence of the Trinity argument...especially pay attention to 21-25
Isaiah 45 (KJV)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
¹⁸ For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.
¹⁹ I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.
²⁰ Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that cannot save.
²¹ Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.
²² Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.
²³ I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.
²⁴ Surely, shall one say, in the LORD have I righteousness and strength: even to him shall men come; and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed.
²⁵ In the LORD shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory.

I definitely see Jesus in there. I still don’t see a trinity, but I see Jesus there.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Well it seems the question of what Jesus gained from his mother hasn't been answered since I hit the sack last night. @Johann ran a mile so lets ask it again. If Jesus pre-existed, which I don't believe he did, but lets make the assumption...what of his person did he receive from his mother, if not in bodily form? Keeping in mind Jesus was in the line of Adam, Abraham and David. I mean Yahweh is not a Jew, but Jesus is; Yahweh is not a man, but Jesus is. Now it's impossible to say the exalted Jesus is the same Jesus who pre-existed, because then you not only have the problem of Mary, but all her lineage.

Or, does the Trinity force you to say Jesus gained "nothing" from his Jewish line, he only pretended to look like Jesus, but now returns as a god in another form?

Well, we can pretty much assume you think He obtained a body of fallen and sinful flesh from her!

 

[Brakelite]

What? Uncomfortable with God declaring His righteousness in the life, death and resurrection of His Son?

That's not quite how you put it...

God, to declare His Righteousness needed to do so in Sins Flesh

Why are you presenting simple scripture on a way that makes it complicated?

KJV Romans 8:2-4
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Have I given any indication that I disagree with the above verses from Romans, or are just wanting an argument?

 

[Johann]

A legend in his own Mind lol . Nothing but cut n pastes with no exegesis. A commentary expert .

Nothing wrong with that, you cannot fault anything posted, and I quoted your commentary in full, not being selective.
You are full of yourself, I am here to give glory to Christ Jesus.
J.

 

[Brakelite]

Error after error,

Joh 1:1 In the beginning [of the ages] was [already pre-existent] the Word [Christ], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (Gen_1:1)


was = was [already pre-existent]. Creation is not mentioned till Joh_1:3. "The Word had no beginning". See Joh_1:3; Joh_17:5. 1Jn_1:1. Eph_1:4. Pro_8:23. Psa_90:2. Compare Joh_8:58. Not the same "was "as in Joh_1:14.
the Word. Greek. Logos. As the spoken word reveals the invisible thought, so the Living Word reveals the invisible God. Compare Joh_1:18.

the Word was God. This is correct. The Art. designates "the Word" as the subject. The order of the words has to do only with the emphasis, which is thus placed on the predicate, while "the Word "is the subject.
was God. Here "God "is without the Art., because it denotes the conception of God as Infinite, Eternal, Perfect, Almighty, &c. Contrast Joh_4:24.


In the beginning — of all time and created existence, for this Word gave it being (Joh_1:3, Joh_1:10); therefore, “before the world was” (Joh_17:5, Joh_17:24); or, from all eternity.
was the Word — He who is to God what man’s word is to himself, the manifestation or expression of himself to those without him. (See on Joh_1:18).

On the origin of this most lofty and now for ever consecrated title of Christ, this is not the place to speak. It occurs only in the writings of this seraphic apostle.
was with God — having a conscious personal existence distinct from God (as one is from the person he is “with”), but inseparable from Him and associated with Him (Joh_1:18; Joh_17:5; 1Jn_1:2), where “THE FATHER” is used in the same sense as “God” here.

was God — in substance and essence God; or was possessed of essential or proper divinity. Thus, each of these brief but pregnant statements is the complement of the other, correcting any misapprehensions which the others might occasion. Was the Word eternal?

It was not the eternity of “the Father,” but of a conscious personal existence distinct from Him and associated with Him. Was the Word thus “with God?” It was not the distinctness and the fellowship of another being, as if there were more Gods than one, but of One who was Himself God - in such sense that the absolute unity of the God head, the great principle of all religion, is only transferred from the region of shadowy abstraction to the region of essential life and love.

But why all this definition? Not to give us any abstract information about certain mysterious distinctions in the Godhead, but solely to let the reader know who it was that in the fullness of time “was made flesh.” After each verse, then, the reader must say, “It was He who is thus, and thus, and thus described, who was made flesh.”
Fausset.

J.

The only aspect of what you present here with which I find difficult to accept, is that part of the trinitarian traditional formula that demands that "inseparable" nature between Christ and His Father. To believe that, it means there was a component of Christ still joined to the Father at His death on Calvary, suggesting Jesus did not "surely die".

 

[Brakelite]

I’ve started the timer on the stove. I went with one minute.

Lol.

 

[ChristisGod]

The only aspect of what you present here with which I find difficult to accept, is that part of the trinitarian traditional formula that demands that "inseparable" nature between Christ and His Father. To believe that, it means there was a component of Christ still joined to the Father at His death on Calvary, suggesting Jesus did not "surely die".

I’m working on a paper right now that deals with that very question in my thesis . I might post it soon .

 

[face2face]

I’m working on a paper right now that deals with that very question in my thesis . I might post it soon .

Jesus was 100% completely and utterly dead - he did not exist in any form for 3 days...anything beyond this makes a mockery of the atonement.

 

[quietthinker]

Another "Day dreamer"
J.

Johann, I see your reply above as a side step; a convenient way of not considering my earlier statement could apply to you......and I wonder why the accusing decoy?

 

[face2face]

That's not quite how you put it...

Why are you presenting simple scripture on a way that makes it complicated?

KJV Romans 8:2-4
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Have I given any indication that I disagree with the above verses from Romans, or are just wanting an argument?

People here are reluctant to look deeply at this subject because it absolves trinitarian doctrine. The key to the atonement and salvation is found in the nature of Christ which is why the Apostle Paul spends so much time expounding it. No argument here just contending earnestly as usual.

 

[face2face]

Well, we can pretty much assume you think He obtained a body of fallen and sinful flesh from her!

And his appearance irrelevant you think?