18 Aug 11
Originally posted by RJHindsi don't think so, it does so. in mark, jesus is not born from a virgin, is not preexisting, is not god, does not have a convoluted genealogy. no child killing or anxious kings, no resurrection (in the earliest MS), no zombies. there is nothing mystical or special about him except that he was selected by god to perform god's miracles on earth and preach the gospel of the kingdom of god.
You think the Gospel of Mark depicts Jesus as a simple preacher?
18 Aug 11
2 edits
Originally posted by galveston75It is only a theory but not without merit.
Ok so it's now a theory with no proof and your willing to take RJ's "theory" instead of what the Bible says, that's your choice. If your satisfied with that and telling me that in your mind it's a contradiction in the Bible and the Bible lies "which you are" and that's ok without really trying to find out what that scripture means, then there isn't much I can do.
Revelation 11
The Two Witnesses www.biblegateway.com NASB version
1 Then there was given me a measuring rod like a staff; and someone said, “Get up and measure the temple of God and the altar, and those who worship in it. 2 Leave out the court which is outside the temple and do not measure it, for it has been given to the nations; and they will tread under foot the holy city for forty-two months. 3 And I will grant authority to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for twelve hundred and sixty days, clothed in sackcloth.” 4 These are the two olive trees and the two lampstands that stand before the Lord of the earth. 5 And if anyone wants to harm them, fire flows out of their mouth and devours their enemies; so if anyone wants to harm them, he must be killed in this way. 6 These have the power to shut up the sky, so that rain will not fall during the days of their prophesying; and they have power over the waters to turn them into blood, and to strike the earth with every plague, as often as they desire.
7 When they have finished their testimony, the beast that comes up out of the abyss will make war with them, and overcome them and kill them. 8 And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which mystically is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified. 9 Those from the peoples and tribes and tongues and nations will look at their dead bodies for three and a half days, and will not permit their dead bodies to be laid in a tomb. 10 And those who dwell on the earth will rejoice over them and celebrate; and they will send gifts to one another, because these two prophets tormented those who dwell on the earth.
11 But after the three and a half days, the breath of life from God came into them, and they stood on their feet; and great fear fell upon those who were watching them. 12 And they heard a loud voice from heaven saying to them, “Come up here.” Then they went up into heaven in the cloud, and their enemies watched them. 13 And in that hour there was a great earthquake, and a tenth of the city fell; seven thousand people were killed in the earthquake, and the rest were terrified and gave glory to the God of heaven.
Zechariah 4 is a cross reference referring to olive trees
Manny
18 Aug 11
3 edits
Originally posted by jaywillThe Gospel of Matthew also has Christ mention His own preexistence or existence as God before He was born.
The Gospel of Matthew also has Christ mention His own preexistence or existence as God before He was born.
"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I desired to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!" (Matthew 23:37)
It was always hich is after all entirely "the Revelation of Jesus Christ" anyway.[/b]
"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I desired to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!" (Matthew 23:37)
It was always God Himself who cared for Jerusalem, as a bird flutters over her young as in [b]Isaiah 31:5 and Deuteronomy 32:11-12. Therefore, for Jesus to say "I desired to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her brood under her wings," was for Jesus to indicate that He was the prexisting God Himself. He was there as God in the Old Testament. [/b]
no, it doesn't. this has nothing to do with a preexisting christ. jesus is possessed by the spirit of god (remember the baptism?) and the context is god speaking through jesus.
The four gospels depict four angles of Christ and seem to emphasize each respective angle though there is much overlap.
Matthew depicts Christ as a King - the King Savior.
Mark as a Servant or Slave - the Slave Savior.
Luke as the most normal Man - the Man Savior.
John as God Himself - the God Savior.
indeed, the earliest gospel depicts the simplest christ and the gravy gets laid on thicker in the later gospels in chronological order until in the latest gospel, john, jesus is almost (not quiet there yet!) god himself. you can follow the trinitarian's growing influence in christology as the years go by.
Revelation may have been slow to be considered by all "church fathers" as part of the canon. But it was not the only book to be slowly accepted.
i didn't comment about how slow it was to accept. i commented that it has nothing to do with the ministry of christ. and it is completely irrelevant to the point i'm making concerning the growing legend of christ in the chronological order [by estimated dates] of the gospels.
Well, that is what you would say [concerning use of drugs in visions] because perhaps that is your personal experience.
no, that's what i would say because of its historical relevance.
18 Aug 11
Originally posted by VoidSpiritIt would be nice today if all our preachers were simple, like Jesus.
i don't think so, it does so. in mark, jesus is not born from a virgin, is not preexisting, is not god, does not have a convoluted genealogy. no child killing or anxious kings, no resurrection (in the earliest MS), no zombies. there is nothing mystical or special about him except that he was selected by god to perform god's miracles on earth and preach the gospel of the kingdom of god.
20 Aug 11
5 edits
Originally posted by VoidSpirit===============================
[b] The Gospel of Matthew also has Christ mention His own preexistence or existence as God before He was born.
"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I desired to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!" (Matthew 23:37)
It was alway l experience.
no, that's what i would say because of its historical relevance.[/b]
jaywill:
It was always God Himself who cared for Jerusalem, as a bird flutters over her young as in Isaiah 31:5 and Deuteronomy 32:11-12. Therefore, for Jesus to say "I desired to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her brood under her wings," was for Jesus to indicate that He was the prexisting God Himself. He was there as God in the Old Testament.
VoidSpirit:
no, it doesn't. this has nothing to do with a preexisting christ. jesus is possessed by the spirit of god (remember the baptism?) and the context is god speaking through jesus.
====================================
At the baptism the Spirit of God descended upon the Son to equip Him. As clothing or a uniform that Spirit of God was upon Him for work, for service.
Although Christ was born of Mary (Matt. 1:16), He was a child of the Holy Spirit.
" ... before they came together, was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 1:20)
The birth of Christ was directly of the Holy Spirit (v.20). His source was the Holy Spirit and His element was divine. Through the virgin Mary He put on flesh and blood, the human nature, taking the likeness of the glesh (Romans 8:2), the likeness of men (Phil. 2:7).
The WORD became flesh means that God became incarnate as a man. The WORD was with God and the WORD WAS GOD (John 1:1)
Since He was intrinsically divine, the baptism cannot be said to have added divinity to Him at that time.
Before Abraham came into existence He was the "I AM" of the eternal God who appeared to Moses (John 8:58 comp. Exodus 3:14)
The New Testament also does not say that God sent forth His Son from baptism. It says He sent for His Son "born of a woman" (Gal. 4:4) . So He arrived in the womb of Mary the Son of God with divinity.
The Son of God BORN of a woman. That is not the Son of God from His baptism when the Holy Spirit came upon Him at Jordon River.
And the Son is God - "But of the Son, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever ..." (Hebrews 1:8)
Christ spoke of the glory He had with the Father not from His baptism, but before the world was:
"And now, glorify Me along with Yourself, Father, with the glory which I had with You before the world was." (John 17:5)
Pointing to Christ's baptism to make His divinity incomplete was rejected rightly by the ancient Christian brothers centries ago. It is still a wrong teaching from you today.
==================
jaywill:
The four gospels depict four angles of Christ and seem to emphasize each respective angle though there is much overlap.
Matthew depicts Christ as a King - the King Savior.
Mark as a Servant or Slave - the Slave Savior.
Luke as the most normal Man - the Man Savior.
John as God Himself - the God Savior.
ViodSpirit:
indeed, the earliest gospel depicts the simplest christ and the gravy gets laid on thicker in the later gospels in chronological order until in the latest gospel, john, jesus is almost (not quiet there yet!) god himself. you can follow the trinitarian's growing influence in christology as the years go by.
=====================
You are assuming that addition to a simple presentation necessarily means the addition of wrong concepts.
I have no problem with Mark's presentation being earlier and more simple. It does not follow that John is adding wrong teaching to this in his Gospel.
It only means that such a profound Person as the Son of God best be gradually unveiled in a progressive way much the same as God is progressively revealed in the Old Testament.
================================
i didn't comment about how slow it was to accept. i commented that it has nothing to do with the ministry of christ. and it is completely irrelevant to the point i'm making concerning the growing legend of christ in the chronological order [by estimated dates] of the gospels.
================================
That seems simply your unbelief speaking. This unbelief is recorded in all four of the Gospels.
"Growing legend" is simply your disbelief speaking, nothing more.
And to imply that you believed until up to John's chronologically latter Gospel, I could probably show to be not the case. If you have a problem with John, I am pretty sure you also have a problem with Mark too.
"The latter added material made me skeptical" is probably only an excuse. Mark at leasts records the tension that arose between Christ and the religionists because He behaved as only God has the right to do so:
Mark 2:6,7 - "But some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, Why is this man speaking this way ? He is blaspheming ! Who can forgive sins exept One, God ?
Your "simpliest" gospel also shows His unbelieving opponents accusing the Son of blasphemy because like God alone, He forgives sins. We don't have to wait for John's gospel to see why some men would not believe in Christ.
Did Jesus correct their misunderstanding in Mark ? Look at the following verses 8 - 12. The Son of Man has authority on earth to act as God to forgive men their sins. It is as easy for Him as to miraculously heal the paralytic.
"Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, Your sins are forgiven, or to say, Rise and take up your mat and walk? "
Interestingly enough Jesus didn't say "Which is harder ..." but "Which is easier". Nothing is too hard for God (Genesis 18:14). So He said "Which is easier".
As God incarnate "the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins on earth ..." (Mark 2:10a)
=============================
no, that's what i would say because of its historical relevance.
===============================
The book of Revelation is historically and prophetically relevant. In this regard it is like Genesis, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Matthew, Luke, John, Romans or any other book of the divine revelation.
Some of what it tells us has not happened yet. Of course in the eyes of the eternal God it has already been accomplished. Praise God for that.
21 Aug 11
jaywill:
It was always God Himself who cared for Jerusalem, as a bird flutters over her young as in Isaiah 31:5 and Deuteronomy 32:11-12. Therefore, for Jesus to say "I desired to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her brood under her wings," was for Jesus to indicate that He was the prexisting God Himself. He was there as God in the Old Testament.
indeed and it fits my description of christ's growing legend.
At the baptism the Spirit of God descended upon the Son to equip Him. As clothing or a uniform that Spirit of God was upon Him for work, for service.
and this spirit is claimed to be the source of his power, inspiration and authority on earth. when he is done with this anointed duty, it will leave him and the authority returned to god alone. [i can't remember the book/verse, but it's in there]
" ... before they came together, was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 1:20)
...
The WORD became flesh means that God became incarnate as a man. The WORD was with God and the WORD WAS GOD (John 1:1)
virgin birth, preexisting deity...growing legend.
Since He was intrinsically divine, the baptism cannot be said to have added divinity to Him at that time.
that's not what the book says. the NT attributes christ's divinity to the presence of the holy spirit which entered him through the baptism.
Pointing to Christ's baptism to make His divinity incomplete was rejected rightly by the ancient Christian brothers centries ago. It is still a wrong teaching from you today.
the 'christian' brothers had an agenda and they increased christ's legend with each retelling of the tale and he evolved from a simple, anointed man to a divine god, hence the source of awful contradiction.
You are assuming that addition to a simple presentation necessarily means the addition of wrong concepts.
I have no problem with Mark's presentation being earlier and more simple. It does not follow that John is adding wrong teaching to this in his Gospel.
not necessarily. i'm making the observation that you can follow the increasing legend of christ with each retelling of the tale.
It only means that such a profound Person as the Son of God best be gradually unveiled in a progressive way much the same as God is progressively revealed in the Old Testament.
they didn't reveal him that way when the bible was canonized. he wasn't gradually unveiled. we have the earliest text (dated to have been written some decades after christ's 'ascension'😉 which is known to have been sourced from an earlier missing MS (may have been written during or shortly after christ's 'ascension'😉 to depict the simplest notion of christ. these documents would have contained everything there is to know about christ. all the other gospels that came after added new things to the story, until john's, which is way out there in never-never land.
That seems simply your unbelief speaking. This unbelief is recorded in all four of the Gospels.
"Growing legend" is simply your disbelief speaking, nothing more.
it is my observation speaking. anyone who studies these sources would make the same observations, but may come up with different conclusions. from other observations, i have noticed how easy it is for a legend to be born and the christians had ample time to make the legend happen.
And to imply that you believed until up to John's chronologically latter Gospel, I could probably show to be not the case. If you have a problem with John, I am pretty sure you also have a problem with Mark too.
"The latter added material made me skeptical" is probably only an excuse. Mark at leasts records the tension that arose between Christ and the religionists because He behaved as only God has the right to do so:
sorry to give you that implication. that is not the source of my disbelief.
Mark 2:6,7 - "But some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, Why is this man speaking this way ? He is blaspheming ! Who can forgive sins exept One, God ?
the intent of this is to show the pharesses rejection of christ and his radical new ideas. they did have a point, but that is a completely different discussion.
Your "simpliest" gospel also shows His unbelieving opponents accusing the Son of blasphemy because like God alone, He forgives sins. We don't have to wait for John's gospel to see why some men would not believe in Christ.
they were rejecting christ's alleged authority, given him by the spirit of god.
Did Jesus correct their misunderstanding in Mark ? Look at the following verses 8 - 12. The Son of Man has authority on earth to act as God to forgive men their sins. It is as easy for Him as to miraculously heal the paralytic.
...
Interestingly enough Jesus didn't say "Which is harder ..." but "Which is easier". Nothing is too hard for God (Genesis 18:14). So He said "Which is easier".
this is consistent with christ's claim that he had the authority and power of god by the presence of god's spirit within him.
As God incarnate "the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins on earth ..." (Mark 2:10a)
no, not as god incarnate but by the presence of the holy spirit within does he have this authority.
The book of Revelation is historically and prophetically relevant. In this regard it is like Genesis, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Matthew, Luke, John, Romans or any other book of the divine revelation.
still not relevant to my argument.
21 Aug 11
5 edits
Originally posted by VoidSpiritHey, how do you QUOTE like that ?jaywill:
It was always God Himself who cared for Jerusalem, as a bird flutters over her young as in Isaiah 31:5 and Deuteronomy 32:11-12. Therefore, for Jesus to say "I desired to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her brood under her wings," was for Jesus to indicate that He was the prexisting God Himself. He was there as G .
still not relevant to my argument.
Reading through your responses they are perculiar. It seems that you do accept up to a point what you want to believe about the teaching of the NT. But when this point is exceeded you make charge of added fabrication and legend building.
You want to believe that the Holy Spirit came on Jesus and constituted Him in some way a messenger of God. That much is OK. Now when the same NT speaks further to you, Oh no, now THAT is addition, legend building, added fabrication.
How do I know you have not simply drawn your line of demarcation where on THIS side you have the NT teaching YOU accept and on THAT side you have embellished legend making ?
How do I know you have not simply drawn a line to include on the authentic side, what you want to believe about this Jesus Christ ?
Now you say, some passage talks about the Spirit of God leaving Jesus. No it doesn't.
Sounds like you may be making an reference to 1 Cor. 15:15:27,28
"For He has subjected all things under His feet, But when He says that all things are subjected, it is evident that all things are except Him who has subjected all things to Him.
And when all things have been subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to Him, that God may be all in all."
If that is what you were refering to, it says NOTHING about the Holy Spirit no longer being in, upon, around the Son of God.
Now for legend building I would recommend you look up on YouTube Dr. Gary Habermas who is the well versed in the historicity of Christ.
Sample - Case for the Resurrection of Christ - short debate:
And he does not assume that the text of the NT is divinely inspired. He is a strict Evidentialist.
He would argue that there was NOT enough time for the building of a legendary Christ as you charge in the Gospels after Mark. Your suggestion is akin to saying that the Jewish Holocaust of World War II was a legend making which occured within some 25 years of the end of WW II.
No, the original generation has to be long gone, long dead to not be able to contest legendary embellishments. Only as the last survivors of the Holocaust die out could it be possible for a legendary charge be made that the Holocaust never really happened.
The Christ that we read of in the NT would have need much more time to be concocted in a legendary manner then what we have as the early NT writings.
Paul's letters are the earliest Christian documents we have. And a Christ who is God manifest in the flesh to die for our sins, resurrect, and become an indwelling life giving Spirit (1 Cor. 15:45) of One who will come again with His kingdom, is what we see in these earliest Christian documents.
Now, I MUST know what passage you mean that teaches that the Holy Spirit is NOT with Christ forever. If you cannot produce it, you should retract that such a passage exists.
Fair ?
21 Aug 11
Originally posted by jaywillI think "voidspirit" is a good name for this Guy. Whatever you say,
Hey, how do you QUOTE like that ?
Reading through your responses they are perculiar. It seems that you do accept up to a point what you want to believe about the teaching of the NT. But when this point is exceeded you make charge of added fabrication and legend building.
You want to believe that the Holy Spirit came on Jesus and constituted Him in ...[text shortened]... orever. If you cannot produce it, you should retract that such a passage exists.
Fair ?
he will probably say, "No it isn't."
21 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywill
Hey, how do you QUOTE like that ?
html tags. if you know how to make things bold, just replace the letter 'b' with the word 'quote'
Reading through your responses they are perculiar. It seems that you do accept up to a point what you want to believe about the teaching of the NT. But when this point is exceeded you make charge of added fabrication and legend building....
don't get me wrong, i think the whole thing is a myth. my position is one of observation in following the growing legend of christ in the gospels. perhaps at the earliest roots, christ started off as a simple preacher, one of many in the land and probably lived and died some time before the claimed date of the birth of the legendary christ.
How do I know you have not simply drawn a line to include on the authentic side, what you want to believe about this Jesus Christ ?
it's not as simple as that. i don't want to believe anything about anything. i just want to examine what evidence there is on a particular subject and draw possible conclusions from that.
Now you say, some passage talks about the Spirit of God leaving Jesus. No it doesn't.
Sounds like you may be making an reference to [b]1 Cor. 15:15:27,28
"For He has subjected all things under His feet, But when He says that all things are subjected, it is evident that all things are except Him who has subjected all things to Him.
And when all things have been subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to Him, that God may be all in all."
If that is what you were refering to, it says NOTHING about the Holy Spirit no longer being in, upon, around the Son of God.
that is the one, thanks. christ will no longer have authority and since his authority is imparted by the spirit of god, it is logical to conclude that the spirit has returned to god alone and god is now "all in all," suggesting that god is not "all in all" currently, since he has loaned his "authority" to christ until christ can accomplish his mission and defeated his last enemy, which in this case is "death."
He would argue that there was NOT enough time for the building of a legendary Christ as you charge in the Gospels after Mark.
he can argue, but it won't be true. it doesn't take very long for legends to develop. we've had several in the last century. a couple examples, loch ness monster (1933), roswell (1947). urban legends are popping in and out on a regular basis. some stick around longer than others, some may even one day become a religion.
Your suggestion is akin to saying that the Jewish Holocaust of World War II was a legend making which occured within some 25 years of the end of WW II.
No, the original generation has to be long gone, long dead to not be able to contest legendary embellishments. Only as the last survivors of the Holocaust die out could it be possible for a legendary charge be made that the Holocaust never really happened.
such requirements aren't necessary, charges of a legendary holocaust already exist. but we are not discussing other legends here, we are discussing the legend of christ.
Paul's letters are the earliest Christian documents we have. And a Christ who is God manifest in the flesh to die for our sins, resurrect, and become an indwelling life giving Spirit (1 Cor. 15:45) of One who will come again with His kingdom, is what we see in these earliest Christian documents.
i don't see that depicted as you claim. those verses are talking about the resurrection of people into a heavenly body.
22 Aug 11
6 edits
Originally posted by VoidSpiritOriginally posted by jaywill
[b]Hey, how do you QUOTE like that ?
html tags. if you know how to make things bold, just replace the letter 'b' with the word 'quote'
[quote]
Reading through your responses they are perculiar. It seems that you do accept up to a point what you want to believe about the teaching of the NT. But erses are talking about the resurrection of people into a heavenly body.
[/b]
don't get me wrong, i think the whole thing is a myth. my position is one of observation in following the growing legend of christ in the gospels. perhaps at the earliest roots, christ started off as a simple preacher, one of many in the land and probably lived and died some time before the claimed date of the birth of the legendary christ.
Don't you think it is perculiar ? If you think it is false myth from start to finish, then WHY argue that the divinity of Christ should be understood in THIS way (baptism) and not in THAT way (pre-existence)?
A person who really considered everything written there to be bogus wouldn't bother debating on which was the proper theological understanding of Christ's deity.
It sounds like you are reluctantly willing to accept the lesser of two claims. If you HAVE to recognize a divine Jesus Christ, you prefer that it be because of His baptism and not because He was the pre-existent God in eternity.
Are you evolving from a former Arian Christology to discarding any New Testament teaching altogether ?
it's not as simple as that. i don't want to believe anything about anything. i just want to examine what evidence there is on a particular subject and draw possible conclusions from that.
Well, the earliest NT documents are those of Paul. And he includes a summary of what he received from others and continued to teach himself.
"For I delivered to you, first of all, that which also I received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; And that He was buried, and that He has been raised on the third day according to the Scriptures;
And that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve; Then He appeared to over five hundred brothers at one time, of whom the majority remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles;
And last of all He appeared to me also, as one born prematurely. For I am the least of the apostles, whom am not fit to be called and apostle, because I persecuted the church of God." (1 Cor. 15:3-9)
This most premitive summary tells us what was being taught in the Christian churches from around 50 AD. We're right on top of the events. Christ being crucified [and raised] around 30 AD.
What Paul passed on did not start with him. He received what was already being circulatedd by the witnesses to Christ's resurrection he mentions - mainly Cephas (Peter) and the 12 and James. Almost five hundred witnesses were still alive who could dispute any alterations, additions, or embellishments Paul was propogating in Corinth or other cities.
This may not be enough for you to believe. It should be enough to prove that this is what THEY believed around 50 AD Christ being crucified and raised around 30 AD.
Now you say, some passage talks about the Spirit of God leaving Jesus. No it doesn't.
Sounds like you may be making an reference to 1 Cor. 15:15:27,28
that is the one, thanks. christ will no longer have authority and since his authority is imparted by the spirit of god, it is logical to conclude that the spirit has returned to god alone and god is now "all in all," suggesting that god is not "all in all" currently, since he has loaned his "authority" to christ until christ can accomplish his mission and defeated his last enemy, which in this case is "death."
No. Hebrews 12:8 says "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, yes, even forever."
He is not "the same" until the end of the millennium but "FOREVER" .
I count yesterday to be from the resurrection. From the resurrection He is the same from now on unto eternity.
In the same chapter of the same letter Paul writes "the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45) The life giving Spirit is the Holy Spirit. So the Holy Spirit is Jesus Christ in His "pneumatic" form.
Is the Lord Jesus as the divine ZOE life giving Spirit only until some future date? Or is He the life giving Holy Spirit forever ? He is the life giving Spirit who will be IN the disciples forever:
" ... the Spirit of reality, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not behold Him or know Him; but you know Him, because He abides with you and shall be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I am coming to you." (John 14:17,18)
The Spirit of reality was WITH the disciples in Jesus who was WITH them.
In the future He will not only be with them but IN them - "He abides with you and shall be IN you."
Resurrection will allow Jesus Christ to enter into the disciples. But His coming to them is the coming of the Spirit who will be with them FOREVER - "And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Comforter, that He may be with you FOREVER." (v.16)
Christ enters into man as "a life giving Spirit" and this is FOREVER.
Paul writes to the Corinthians that to be a Christian is to have Jesus Christ living in you - "Test yourselves whether you are in the faith; prove yourselves. Or do you not realize about yourselves that Jesus Christ is in you, unless you are disapproved?" (2 Cor. 13:5,6)
Jesus Christ is within those who receive Him for ever. And He is within the believers as the Spirit of reality, the Another Comforter, who is to be with them FOREVER. There will be no separation between the Spirit of God and Jesus Christ. For it is as the Spirit of God, the ZOE life giving Spirit that He can enter into His believers to give them eternal life.
"And this is the testimony, that God has given to us eternal life and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life." (1 John 5:11,12)
If Christ stops being the Spirit, then eternal life stops for the believers. Then it is not eternal life. He became a life giving Spirit (1 Cor. 15:45) in order to dispense Himself into us as eternal life.
Whatever 1 Cor 15:27,28 means it cannot mean that Christ one day ceases to be the life giving Spirit which He became. The eternal life is in God's Son. And to HAVE the Son is to HAVE the eternal life. There is no other way for man to HAVE the Son except the Son be in pneumatic form as the Spirit:
"Now the Lord is the Spirit" (2 Cor. 3:17)
The Spirit is "the eternal Spirit (Hebrews 9:14).
If He said "I will not leave you as orphans; I am coming to you" (John 14:18) then how can we believe that He will then leave the disciples as orphans in the future by no longer being the life giving Spirit of reality?
The "He" of the Spirit of reality in verse 17 suddenly becomes the "I" of Jesus Himself in verse 18.
"... the Spirit of reality ... He abides with you and shall be in you; I will not leave you as orphans; I AM COMING TO YOU."
If Christ will no longer be the Holy Spirit then man cannot have eternal life. For the Spirit is " the Spirit of life" :
"For the law of the Spirit of life has freed me in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and of death." (Rom. 8:3)
he can argue, but it won't be true. it doesn't take very long for legends to develop. we've had several in the last century. a couple examples, loch ness monster (1933), roswell (1947). urban legends are popping in and out on a regular basis. some stick around longer than others, some may even one day become a religion.
Legends do develop. But I showed you that your theory of a developing lesson making a simple human preacher a resurrecte Son of God is unlikely.
How do I know that the content of the message of Christ so bothers you that you are compelled to convince yourself that Jesus Christ is as unimportant to your life personally as the Loch Ness Monster or the Roswell space aliens ?
Perhaps the importance of the message of the need for salvation bothers you complacency to the point that you wish to think of Jesus Christ and His teaching as benigh as Roswell or the Loch Ness monster.
Guilt by association.
Besides, your legend building will not work because of the prophecies which preceeded Jesus by centries which obviously in many cases could only refer to Jesus.
For example - Isaiah 53 which details the redemptive death and resurrection of a Suffering Servant for the sins of the people. It certainly was not inserted into the book of Isaiah after the facts by Christians.
such requirements aren't necessary, charges of a legendary holocaust already exist. but we are not discussing other legends here, we are discussing the legend of christ.
They are on the rise as the generation of experiencers of it begin to die off.
In 50 AD approximately there were at least almost 500 witnesses to the resurrection, whom Paul publically refered to, who could have protested that Paul was embellishing history concerning Jesus.
You should come to terms with the fact that Paul boldly mentions many contemporary persons who could have come forward and informed the Corinthians that Paul was lying about the essential message of the Christian gospel.
Do the writings of Peter and James and John confirm Paul's teaching or contradict it concerning the basic tenets of the Gospel ?
22 Aug 11
Originally posted by VoidSpiritjaywill:
It was always God Himself who cared for Jerusalem, as a bird flutters over her young as in Isaiah 31:5 and Deuteronomy 32:11-12. Therefore, for Jesus to say "I desired to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her brood under her wings," was for Jesus to indicate that He was the prexisting God Himself. He was there as G ...[text shortened]... .
still not relevant to my argument.
that's not what the book says. the NT attributes christ's divinity to the presence of the holy spirit which entered him through the baptism.
No. The NT ascribes His divinity of the Son of God at least from being conceived in the womb of Mary.
"And the angel answered and said to her, The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you;
THEREFORE also the holy thing which is born will be called the Son of God." (Luke 1:35)
22 Aug 11
Don't you think it is perculiar ? If you think it is false myth from start to finish, then WHY argue that the divinity of Christ should be understood in THIS way (baptism) and not in THAT way (pre-existence)?
i discuss many fictional things that i've read. i recently had a compelling discussion with my friend concerning the dune novel. should i not have done so because it's fictional?
It sounds like you are reluctantly willing to accept the lesser of two claims. If you HAVE to recognize a divine Jesus Christ, you prefer that it be because of His baptism and not because He was the pre-existent God in eternity.
if there was enough evidence to recognize christ as a preacher, i would do so.
if there was enough evidence to recognize christ as a divine being, i would do so.
but as it stands, there is only a collection of manuscripts bound in a book with little or no external evidence supporting it, so i recognize it as a myth along with other great works of mythology.
Are you evolving from a former Arian Christology to discarding any New Testament teaching altogether ?
ah, poor arius...but no, my background is armenian orthodox. i was brought up on the miaphysitism doctrine. some years back, sir anthony buzzard was kind enough to send me his book, co-authored by charles hunting, and this helped me along, though by that time i had already become a deist because i had deemed the biblegod too psychologically damaged as a being worthy of worship.
is it not interesting that there were so many conflicting ideas on what christ was back then? and even now, 2000 years later, the debate is not over.
Well, the earliest NT documents are those of Paul. And he includes a summary of what he received from others and continued to teach himself.
[...](1 Cor. 15:3-9)
doesn't sound like he is describing a preexisting christ.
No. Hebrews 12:8 says "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, yes, even forever."
it doesn't say he will have his authority forever. if you think it does say that, it would be a contradiction.
In the same chapter of the same letter Paul writes [b]"the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45) The life giving Spirit is the Holy Spirit. So the Holy Spirit is Jesus Christ in His "pneumatic" form.
the spirit of god is the life giving spirit and the last adam became a life giving spirit when the spirit of god occupied his body. it will remain there until christ defeats his final enemy, "death" and then it will return to god.
Is the Lord Jesus as the divine ZOE life giving Spirit only until some future date? Or is He the life giving Holy Spirit forever ? He is the life giving Spirit who will be IN the disciples forever:
once the resurrection has occurred (concerning everyone, not christ) and death is defeated, he won't need that power anymore and as the text states, it will return to god alone.
Resurrection will allow Jesus Christ to enter into the disciples. But His coming to them is the coming of the Spirit who will be with them FOREVER - "And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Comforter, that He may be with you FOREVER." (v.16)
christ is talking about someone else here, another comforter, not himself.
If Christ stops being the Spirit, then eternal life stops for the believers. Then it is not eternal life. He became a life giving Spirit [b](1 Cor. 15:45) in order to dispense Himself into us as eternal life.
no such assumption is in the bible. the spirit of god doesn't cease being if its no longer giving authority to christ and returns to god alone. christ was never the first, only or last person to have god's spirit.
Legends do develop. But I showed you that your theory of a developing lesson making a simple human preacher a resurrecte Son of God is unlikely.
it is unlikely and very rare. you don't get those very often. but every once in a while, preachers come, become legends and a religion is formed around them. joseph smith was one of them, it's not hard to imagine that a preacher called jesus christ could have done it as well.
How do I know that the content of the message of Christ so bothers you that you are compelled to convince yourself that Jesus Christ is as unimportant to your life personally as the Loch Ness Monster or the Roswell space aliens ?
how do i know that you're a genuine christian rather than a more sophisticated imposter than rjhinds?
Guilt by association.
hehe. you'll have to do better than that. really. my personal motives or yours are irrelevant.
Besides, your legend building will not work because of the prophecies which preceeded Jesus by centries which obviously in many cases could only refer to Jesus.
completely different discussion. christ hasn't fulfilled a single messianic prophecy as described in the OT. he does fit the description of a false prophet however.
For example - Isaiah 53 which details the redemptive death and resurrection of a Suffering Servant for the sins of the people. It certainly was not inserted into the book of Isaiah after the facts by Christians.
umm, no. keep it in context please. earlier (41, 44, 45, 49) isaiah identified god's servant as israel.
They are on the rise as the generation of experiencers of it begin to die off.
it's more complicated than that. since this is an international forum and people can go to jail discussing it in some countries, let's leave that out of the discussion.
Do the writings of Peter and James and John confirm Paul's teaching or contradict it concerning the basic tenets of the Gospel ?
of the canonical works, and despite some contradictions, they are mostly in agreement and i doubt any of them believed in a preexisting christ.