I am well informed-by the grace of God and acknowledge my own limitations.
Anything else?
Was Jesus crucified?
- Thread starter Johann
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
Anything else?
quietthinker
Well-Known Member
None of us know as we ought to know. Knowing this births humility, not a boasting of ones cognitive abilities.
Nothing to to with "head knowledge"-even demons believe, and they shudder.
But I concur that NONE of us know as we OUGHT to know-depends on how busy we are with worldly things-yes?
The world and it's pleasures-first-Scriptures and the Imperatives, last.
I don’t believe in a crucified deity.
Messiah’s deity is my deity. You already know that, so why are you asking?
By deity I mean Messiah is God-yes?
Isa 9:6 (5) For unto us a yeled is born, unto us ben is given; and the misrah (dominion) shall be upon his shoulder; and Shmo shall be called Peleh (Wonderful), Yoetz (Counsellor), El Gibbor (Mighty G-d), Avi Ad (Everlasting Father), Sar Shalom (Prince of Peace).
Isa 9:6 For unto us a Child is born; to us a Son is given; and the government is on His shoulder; and His name is called Wonderful Counselor, The Mighty El, The Prince of Peace, The one who Fathered Everlasting life.
Isa 9:6 ForH3588 Conj kî- כִּי־ a ChildH3206 N-ms ye·leḏ יֶ֣לֶד is born,H3205 H8795 V-Pual-Perf-3ms yul·laḏ- יֻלַּד־ unto usH0 Prep+1cp lā·nū לָ֗נוּ a SonH1121 N-ms bên בֵּ֚ן is given;H5414 H8738 V-Nifal-Perf-3ms nit·tan- נִתַּן־ Unto usH0 Prep+1cp lā·nū לָ֔נוּ and will beH1961 Conj-w+V-Qal-ConsecImperf-3fs wat·tə·hî וַתְּהִ֥י the governmentH4951 Art+N-fs ham·miś·rāh הַמִּשְׂרָ֖ה uponH5921 Prep ‘al- עַל־ His shoulder;H7926 N-msc+3ms šiḵ·mōw שִׁכְמ֑וֹ and will be calledH7121 H8799 Conj-w+V-Qal-ConsecImperf-3ms way·yiq·rā וַיִּקְרָ֨א His nameH8034 N-msc+3ms šə·mōw שְׁמ֜וֹ Wonderful,H6382 N-ms pe·le פֶּ֠לֶא Counselor,H3289 H8802 V-Qal-Prtcpl-ms yō·w·‘êṣ יוֹעֵץ֙ God,H410 N-ms ’êl אֵ֣ל MightyH1368 Adj-ms gib·bō·wr גִּבּ֔וֹר Everlasting-FatherH1 N-proper-ms ’ă·ḇî·‘aḏ אֲבִיעַ֖ד PrinceH8269 N-msc śar- שַׂר־ of Peace.H7965 N-ms šā·lō·wm שָׁלֽוֹם׃
Yes?=And it was not Hezekiah's son.
face2face
Well-Known Member
- Jun 22, 2015
- 4,777
- 636
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Australia
Your funny Johann - nice to hear from you but your data has long been on the losing side of this debate.
F2F
face2face
Well-Known Member
- Jun 22, 2015
- 4,777
- 636
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Australia
How refreshing to read common sense logic! Many like Johann will try and remove the head from the grooms body but they try in vain.
F2F
face2face
Well-Known Member
- Jun 22, 2015
- 4,777
- 636
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Australia
Election is a wonderful doctrine. However, it is not a call to favoritism, but a call to be a channel, a tool or means of others' redemption! In the Old Testament the term was used primarily for service; in the New Testament it is used primarily for salvation which issues in service.
The Bible never reconciles the seeming contradiction between God’s sovereignty and mankind's free will, but affirms them both! A good example of the biblical tension would be Romans 9 on God's sovereign choice and Romans 10 on mankind’s necessary response (cf. Rom. 10:11,13).
The key to this theological tension may be found in Eph. 1:4. Jesus is God’s elect man and all are potentially elect in Him (Karl Barth).
Jesus is God’s "yes" to fallen mankind’s need (Karl Barth).
Ephesians 1:4 also helps clarify the issue by asserting that the goal of predestination is not heaven, but holiness (Christlikeness). We are often attracted to the benefits of the gospel and ignore the responsibilities!
God’s call (election) is for time as well as eternity!
Doctrines come in relation to other truths, not as single, unrelated truths. A good analogy would be a constellation versus a single star. God presents truth in eastern, not western, genres. We must not remove the tension caused by dialectical (paradoxical) pairs of doctrinal truths (God as transcendent versus God as immanent. Ex.: Security vs. perseverance; Jesus as equal with the Father vs. Jesus as subservient to the Father; Christian freedom vs. Christian responsibility to a covenant partner; etc.).
The theological concept of "covenant" unites the sovereignty of God (who always takes the initiative and sets the agenda) with a mandatory initial and continuing repentant, faith response from mankind (cf. Mark 1:15; Acts 3:16,19; 20:21).
Be careful of proof-texting one side of the paradox and depreciating the other! Be careful of asserting only your favorite doctrine or system of theology!
Makes sense-doesn't it?
Thank God for-
The Parable of the Prodigal Son
Luk 15:11 And he said, A certain man had two sons:
Luk 15:12 And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living.
Luk 15:13 And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living.
Luk 15:14 And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he began to be in want.
Luk 15:15 And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine.
Luk 15:16 And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him.
Luk 15:17 And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger!
Luk 15:18 I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee,
Luk 15:19 And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants.
Luk 15:20 And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.
Luk 15:21 And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son.
Luk 15:22 But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet:
Luk 15:23 And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry:
Luk 15:24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.
Luk 15:25 Now his elder son was in the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard musick and dancing.
Luk 15:26 And he called one of the servants, and asked what these things meant.
Luk 15:27 And he said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound.
Luk 15:28 And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and intreated him.
Luk 15:29 And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends:
Luk 15:30 But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.
Luk 15:31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.
Luk 15:32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.
face2face
Well-Known Member
- Jun 22, 2015
- 4,777
- 636
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Australia
It just feels forced doesnt it Johann?
In every way Jesus is the beginning of Gods spiritual creation and in him we have life. Blessed be the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ is how the Apostles understood the position of Christ. Was he subject to God as we are? Was he raised to life as we will be? Did he suffer in the flesh? Was he held under deaths dominion and condemned to die?
For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. Romans 6:9
Do you, @Brakelite & @quietthinker honestly believe God, the ruler of heaven and earth was held under deaths dominion? That Yahweh the Almighty was held under deaths condemnation?
If you really think about it, you will see the victory God had in His son - this truth hurts, it might not be palatable but nothing about God is easy!
F2F
face2face
Well-Known Member
- Jun 22, 2015
- 4,777
- 636
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Australia
Brakelite
Well-Known Member
No need for v countless rebuttals and scriptures to prove anything. Jesus is God for the simple and only reason, He is the Son of God. Like Father, like Son. Easy huh. After all, what else could He be?
Problem is-you don't like it-and again-THE TOPIC ON THE DEITY OF CHRIST SHOULD BE ALLOWED-THIS IS A DENIAL TO THE RESURRECTION-THE CORE DOCTRINE-AND IF THIS FORUM IS NOT INTERESTED IN "OPENING THE FORBIDDEN THREAD" OF THE TRIUNE GODHEAD-BAN ME!!
THERE'S THREADS GALORE ON NON ESSENTIALS-WHO IS THIS ADMIN WHO GAVE THIS WEAK-PATHETIC EXCUSE -VOTE HIM/HER OUT-!
THE TRIUNE GODHEAD IS LINKED WITH THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST-
HECK-EVEN MICHAEL BROWN AND SAM SHAMOUN WOULD QUESTION THE INTEGRITY OF THESE 'DESICION-MAKERS'
J.
Brakelite
Well-Known Member
The Son of God F2F. The Son of God gave His life for you. Do you have children F2F? Were they born in your image and likeness? Not exactly I would think, because human DNA and genetics don't allow for perfect reproductions... But divine DNA(or whatever constitutes divinity) must produce perfection. God had a Son to send to this earth. See John 3:16,17. Hebrews tells us He was the express image of the Father. The Son created all things. He was not a part of the created universe. He was outside creation, doing the Father's will. He was and is equal to the Father in every respect, except in rank. Jesus Himself said that He and the Father are one. Different personalities, but one in ways we are not informed of. That my friend informs us that the sacrifice of the Son was of such a nature that it is incomprehensible for us to imagine... The pain of the Father being separated from His Son in His most trying hour, and the pain of the Son being separated from His Father was such we will never understand. The relationship between Father and Sin was closer and more intimate than that between Creator and the created. Jesus is not a created angel. God did not give an angel the responsibility to create. Nor did His existence begin in Bethlehem.
FIRSTBORN
This word "firstborn" (prōtotokos) is used in the Bible in several distinct senses.
1. its OT background refers to
a. the firstborn belongs to YHWH (BDB 114, KB 131, cf. Exod. 13:2,12; 22:29; 34:19; Num. 3:13)
b. the pre-imminence of the firstborn son of the family (cf. Deut. 21:17; Ps. 89:27; Luke 2:7; Rom. 8:29; Heb. 11:28)
2. its use in Col. 1:15 speaks of Jesus as the first of creation which is a possible OT allusion to Pro. 8:22-31, or God's agent of creation (cf. John 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:15-16; Heb. 1:2)
3. its use in Col. 1:15,18; 1 Cor. 15:20,23; Rev. 1:5 refers to Jesus as the firstborn from the dead
4. it is an OT title used of the Messiah (cf. Ps. 89:27; Heb. 1:6; 12:23); it is a title which combines several aspects of the primacy and centrality of Jesus.
1Co 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
1Co 10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
1Co 10:3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
1Co 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
1Co 10:5 But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.
1Co 10:6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.
Christ. . As the source of their supply, He is called the Rock. Compare Deu_32:4, Deu_32:15, Deu_32:18, Deu_32:30, Deu_32:31, Deu_32:37. Psa_19:14; &c.
ἐκ πνευματ. ἀκολ. πέτρας· ἡ δὲ πέτρα ἦν ὁ Χ.] from a spiritual rock that followed them; the Rock, however (which we speak of here), was Christ. Πνευματικῆς has the emphasis; it corresponds to the preceding πνευματικόν, and is explained more specifically by ἡ δὲ π. ἦν ὁ Χ. The relation denoted by ἀκολουθούσης, again, is assumed to be self-evident, and therefore no further explanation is given of the word. The thoughts, to which Paul here gives expression, are the following:—(1) To guard and help the Israelites in their journey through the wilderness, Christ accompanied them, namely, in His pre-existent divine nature, and consequently as the Son of God (= the Λόγος of John),
who afterwards appeared as man (comp Wis_10:15 ff.). (2) The rock, from which the water that they drank flowed, was not an ordinary natural rock, but a πέτρα πνευματική; not the mere appearance or phantasm of a rock, but an actual one, although of supernatural and heavenly origin, inasmuch as it was the real self-revelation and manifestation of the Son of God, who invisibly accompanied the host on its march; it was, in other words, the very Christ from heaven, as being His own substantial and efficient presentation of Himself to men (comp Targ. Isa_16:1, and Philo’s view, p. 1103 A, that the rock was the σοφία).
(3) Such being the state of the case as to the rock, it must of necessity be a rock that followed, that accompanied and went with the children of Israel in their way through the desert; for Christ in His pre-existent condition, the heavenly “substratum,” so to speak, of this rock, went constantly with them, so that everywhere in the wilderness His essential presence could manifest itself in their actual experience through the rock with its abundant water; and, in point of fact, did so manifest itself again and again. In drinking from the rock, they had their thirst quenched by Christ, who, making the rock His form of manifestation, supplied the water from Himself, although this marvellous speciality about the way in which their thirst was met remained hidden from the Israelites.
Since the apostle’s words thus clearly and completely explain themselves, we have no right to ascribe to Paul, what was a later invention of the Rabbins, the notion that the rock rolled along after the marching host (Bammidbar, R. S. 1; Onkelos on Num_21:18-20; and see Wetstein and Schöttgen, also Lund, Heiligth., ed. Wolf, p. 251); such fictions as these, when compared with what the apostle actually says, should certainly be regarded as extravagant aftergrowths (in opposition to Rückert and de Wette). It is just as unwarrantable, however, to explain away, by any exegetical expedient, this rock which followed them, and which was Christ. The attempts which have been made with this view run directly counter to the plain meaning of the words; e.g. the interpretation of Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Piscator, Drusius, Grotius, Lightfoot, Billroth, al[1587] (which dates from Theodore of Mopsuestia), that the rock means here what came from it, the water (!), which, they hold, followed the people and prefigured Christ (ἦν). That ἦν denotes here significabat (so too Augustine, Vatablus, Salmasius, Bengel, Loesner, al[1588]), is a purely arbitrary assumption, seeing that Paul neither says ἐστί, nor τύπος ἦν, or the like, nor even indicates in any way in the context a typico-allegorical reference. This applies also against what Ch. F. Fritzsche has in his Nova opusc. p. 261: “The rock in the wilderness was a rock of blessing, strength, and life-giving for the Jews, and thus it prefigures Christ,” etc. Paul does not say anything of the sort; it is simply his expositors who insert it on their own authority. Baur, too, does violence to the apostle’s words (comp his neut. Theol. p. 193), by asserting that Paul speaks of Christ as the πνευμ. πέτρα only in so far as he saw a type which had reference to Christ in the rock that followed the Israelites, according to the allegoric interpretation which he put upon it.[1590] See, in opposition to this, Räbiger, Christol. Paul. p. 31 f.; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 319. The ordinary exposition comes nearer to the truth, but fails to reach it in this respect, that it does not keep firm enough hold of the statement, that “that rock was Christ,” and so of its identity with Him, but takes Christ to be the Rock only in an ideal and figurative sense, regarding Him as different from the rock from which the water flowed, but as the author of its supply. So, in substance, Chrysostom,[1591] Oecumenius, Theophylact, Melanchthon, Cornelius a Lapide, and many others, among whom are Flatt, Kling in the Stud. und Krit. 1839, p. 835; Osiander, Neander, Hofmann.[1592]
[1583] Bengel well says: “Si plura essent N. T. sacramenta, ceteris quoque simile quiddam posuisset Paulus.” At the same time, it should be observed that the ecclesiastical notion of a sacrament does not appear in the N. T., but is an abstraction from the common characteristics of the two ordinances in question. Both, however, are equally essential and characteristic elements in the fellowship of the Christian life. Comp. Baur, neut. Theol. p. 200; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 353.
[1587] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.
[1588] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.
[1590] Baur is wholly unwarranted in taking πνευματικός, ver. 3 f., in the sense of typical or allegorically significant. His appeal to Rev_11:8 and Barnab. 10 is irrelevant.
[1591] οὐ γὰρ ἡ τῆς πέτρας φύσις τὸ ὕδωρ ἠφίει φησὶν οὐ γὰρ ἂν καὶ πρὸ τούτου ἀνέβλυζεν, ἀλλ ἑτέρα τις πέτρα πνευματικὴ τὸ πᾶν εἰργάζετο, τουτέστιν ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ παρὼν αὐτοῖς πανταχοῦ καὶ πάντα θαυματουργῶν.
[1592] Comp. his Schriftbew. I. p. 171: “The rock from which the water flowed was a natural one, and stood fast in its own place; but the true Rock that really gave the water was the öåÌø éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì (Isa_30:29), was Jehovah, who went with Israel.” By not calling the Rock God, but Christ, the apostle points forward, as it were (according to Hofmann), to the application which he is about to make of the words, namely, to the cup which Christ gives us to drink. But Paul’s words are so simple, clear, and definite, that it is impossible to get off by any quid pro quo. For the rest, it is to be observed that in this passage, as in the previous one, where the crossing of the sea is taken as a typical prefiguration of baptism, we have doubtless a Rabbinical process of thought on the part of the apostle, which, as such, is not to be measured by the taste of our day, so that this unvarnished exegetical conception of it might be set down as something “absurd,” as is done by Hofmann. The Rabbinical culture of his time, under which the apostle grew up, was not done away with by the fact of his becoming the vessel of divine grace, revelation, and power. Comp. Gal_4:22 ff. Our passage has nothing whatever to do with Isa_30:29, where men go up into the temple to Jehovah, the Rock of Israel. It is of importance, however, in connection with Paul’s doctrine regarding the pre-existence of Christ and its accordance with the doctrine of the Logos.
H-Meyer.
J.
Easy, yes. But not correct. I’m sorry that Board policy doesn’t allow it to be discussed.
What he Is called in scripture.
- Status
Similar threads
