- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
18 Oct 09
Originally posted by jaywillOne can admire the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth without babbling creeds or trite cliches. Gandhi did, and his actions - which were a reflection of the teachings of Jesus - were quite Christian, even though he would never identify himself as a Christian. How rwingett identifies himself is up to him, but he is intelligent enough that were you to take some of what he says to heart, you would undoubtably be a better Christian yourself.
rwingett. you are so impressed with Jesus being a socialist, why don't you become a disciple of Jesus ?
We will welcome you into the Christian brotherhood as one who recieves Jesus as the Lord, who happens to be a socialist.
Your socialism doesn't scare me. Receive Christ as your Lord and Master then, why don't you ?
19 Oct 09
Originally posted by jaywillSorry Jay but that makes no sence at all..........You playing with words again which makes it sound so far out in left field it's almost funny.
[b]=================================
So God infused him ( Jesus ) with this universality as you say but yet you say they are one? How can one part of a being do that to another part of himself? Or did God himself have something that was missing within himself? If something was missing then God is not complete or perfect with your reasoning if you still ...[text shortened]... God, "Godnizing" that created part in which He had been incarnated.... FOREVERRRRR !!!! Amen.
19 Oct 09
3 edits
Originally posted by galveston75==================================
Sorry Jay but that makes no sence at all..........You playing with words again which makes it sound so far out in left field it's almost funny.
Sorry Jay but that makes no sence at all..........You playing with words again which makes it sound so far out in left field it's almost funny.
======================================
No it is not at all. I can back it up 100%.
The Word BECAME flesh. If the Word BECAME flesh that means that He BECAME something that He previously was not. Otherwise it would not say that He BECAME that.
Yes or No ?
So God had divinity and put on flesh which He BECAME. John 1:14 - "And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us."
Of course as a Jehovah's Witness you do not believe that the Word was God. So you probably will not get this far. But your Arian belief that the Word was "a god" was rejected rightly so by the Christian brothers centries ago.
So moving on. It makes no sense to you that Christ's resurrection was a BIRTH ? Well let us see what Christ says about His resurrection:
"A woman, when she gives birth, has sorrow because her hour has come, but when she brings forth the little child, she no longer remembers the affliction because of the joy that a man has been born into the world.
Therefore you also now have sorrow, but I will see you again and your heart will rejoice, and no one takes your joy away from you." (John 16:21,22)
Jesus likens His trial of crucifixion and His resurrection as the BIRTH of a child into the world. Not only here, but the same concept in chapter 12:
"And Jesus answered them, saying, the hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.
Truly, truly, I say to you, Unless the grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it abides alone; but if it dies it bears much fruit." (John 12:23,24)
This too is like birth. It is the GERMINATION aspect of Christ's death and resurrection. His dying is like the falling of a grain into the earth. And His resurrection is the germinating birth of a new life.
Now let us come to Peter's application of Christ being declared by God the Son frmo the Second Psalm of David -"He said to Me: You are My Son. Today I have BEGOTTEN You" (Psa. 2:7)
"That God has fully fulfilled this promise to us their children in raising up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, "You are My Son; this day have I begotten You."
And as to His having raised Him up from the dead, no longer to return to courruption, He spoke in t his way, "I will give you the holy things of David, the faithful things." (Acts 13:33,34)
You never learned this down at the Kingdom Hall of Russellite theology. Now I tell you that the Apostle Peter applied Psalm 2 about the begetting of the Son of God to Christ's resurrection. He was incarnated the Only Begotten Son of God. But He was resurrected the Firstborn Son of God. The day of His resurrection was the day the Firstborn Son was BEGOTTEN of God. Acts 13:33 proves this. Here TODAY is the day of Christ's resurrection.
This is also the teaching of the Apostle Paul from the book of Romans. Christ was declared the Son of God in power in His resurrection;
"Concerning His Son, who came out of the seed of David according to the flesh, Who was designated the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness out of the resurrection of the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord..." (Romans 1:3,4)
Here the Apostle Paul does not refer to Jesus being designated Son of God at His birth or at His baptism (as recorded in the synoptics). Here in Romans Paul pinpoints the resurrection of Christ as the time when God designated Him the Son of God in power. This was the Firstborn Son of God.
Something and Someone was BORN into the universe. Christ's resurrection was the beginning of a new creation in which MAN was Godnized. The created part that He took on in incarnation was desginated the Firstborn Son of God.
He wore this deified human nature in ascension back to the eternal throne and He retains it for eternity.
This is a short post. So I do not write all that I need to. But Acts 13:33 and Romans 1:2,3 along with other passages prove that Christ's resurrection was a BIRTH. Man was brought into God.
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
19 Oct 09
Originally posted by jaywillOnly according to John.
==================================
Sorry Jay but that makes no sence at all..........You playing with words again which makes it sound so far out in left field it's almost funny.
=====================================
No it is not at all. I can back it up 100%.
The Word BECAME flesh. If the Word [b]BECAME flesh that means that He ] ...[text shortened]... hat He previously was not. Otherwise it would not say that He BECAME that.
Yes or No ?
[/b]
19 Oct 09
13. The brothers and sisters of Jesus was never mentionned by the gospels.
If he hadn't any, then Joseph and Mary never made love. Neither before the birth of Jesus (as actually mentionned in teh gospels), nor after, and Joseph and Mary died married but as virgins. This is however highly unprobable.
This means that the decendants of Mary might still be walking on this Earth. One might be you, one might be me.
19 Oct 09
14. Jesus is very upset with the way crap on about him rather than following their own dharmas.
15. Jesus is very frustrated and continually wonders why 'christians' cant think for themselves and forever need to repeat his historical feats and sermons , as if repeating them enough times would make them true.
19 Oct 09
3 edits
Originally posted by Badwater=================
Only according to John.
Only according to John.
====================
What is that suppose to mean ? You expect everything one gospel writer writes has to appear in every other gospel to be true? There are truths that are "only according to" Matthew and "only according to" Mark and "only according to" Luke.
So what ?
So we find "And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us (and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only Begotten of the Father), full of grace and reality." (John 1:14) ONLY written in the Gospel of John. We do not see Mark, Matthew, or Luke putting it just the same way. So this means that it is "only accorsing to John" and therefor not significant ??
It is no wonder that any in depth study of the New Testament you regard as my "babbling".
Anyway. Not that I asked you, (rather I addressed galveston) it is still a "Yes". So my point stands so far.
19 Oct 09
Originally posted by karoly aczelJesus is not patronizing self righteous skeptics.
14. Jesus is very upset with the way crap on about him rather than following their own dharmas.
15. Jesus is very frustrated and continually wonders why 'christians' cant think for themselves and forever need to repeat his historical feats and sermons , as if repeating them enough times would make them true.
And no amount of self righteous looking down their noses at believers in Christ is going to win them browny points at the day of their own final judgment.
19 Oct 09
Originally posted by jaywill16. ..And all self-righteous people will have the blessing of Jesus, for they are truly trying to follow his lead. Not copy it.
Jesus is not patronizing self righteous skeptics.
And no amount of self righteous looking down their noses at believers in Christ is going to win them browny points at the day of their own final judgment.
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
19 Oct 09
Originally posted by jaywill🙄 Yeah, whatever...
[b]=================
Only according to John.
====================
What is that suppose to mean ? You expect everything one gospel writer writes has to appear in every other gospel to be true? There are truths that are "only according to" Matthew and "only according to" Mark and "only according to" Luke.
So what ?
So we find [b ...[text shortened]... u, (rather I addressed galveston) it is still a "Yes". So my point stands so far.[/b]
19 Oct 09
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywillOnly Jesus is refered to as "The Word" Jay. God is never refered to as that. Show me where God is called "The Word"???
[b]==================================
Sorry Jay but that makes no sence at all..........You playing with words again which makes it sound so far out in left field it's almost funny.
======================================
No it is not at all. I can back it up 100%.
The Word BECAME flesh. If the Word BECAME flesh that rove that Christ's resurrection was a BIRTH. Man was brought into God.[/b]