|
Post by What Hat on Aug 13, 2014 9:44:40 GMT -5
Love is the most important happy pill! I have no idea if it's because of how we were created, but we definitely respond to it positively for the most part. As far as Jesus being 100% man and 100% God. Well that just doesn't add up for me. I don't even see much purpose for his life if he couldn't sin, couldn't experience pain. It would be a whole lot more impressive if he could have sinned and didn't, could have felt pain, yet agreed to be crucified etc. Not much danger of messing up if you're God so where was the sacrifice really. Snow, he definitely experienced pain and lot's of it. He was human just like we are so the pain would have been agonising. I think to die on a Roman cross, the most painful of deaths, was a pretty incredible sacrifice. But the sacrifice would have been of no effect if He wasn't God. There is little point in a Christian believing that we are reconciled to God through Christ's sacrifice if we don't believe He was God. It is also an incredible expression of grace that God would create us and then put then in place a plan where He physically enters humanity and makes the necessary sacrifice (via His Son) to enable us to be completely reconciled to God and be sinless before Him. A couple of thoughts come to mind. First, if it turns out you are wrong (along with all of Christian orthodoxy), that Jesus wasn't God after all, does that mean your life was a waste? Second, why is there 'little point' in Christ's sacrifice if he was the 'son of God' but not God himself? It strikes me that the sacrifice of a son is a greater sacrifice than to sacrifice yourself. Certainly, there are many examples of those who, when put to the test, gave their own life to save that of their child's. Personally, I think for God to sacrifice his son, not Himself as the Son, is a greater sacrifice and one in which we can be fully confident. The only reason I can see for making such a fuss about Jesus' relationship to God is to make people think orthodox Christianity offers an exclusive path to enlightenment and to ultimate redemption.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Aug 13, 2014 9:50:08 GMT -5
What I don't understand is the "third" one in the Trinity is (Sophia) which I had thought was a WOMAN! God forbid!
I know it says here, "God, His Word (Logos) and His Wisdom (Sophia)"
I thought Sophia was a Greek goddess.
Did they hijack the Greek goddess & change HER into a HE?
The Gnostic sects thought of Sophia as female. But that would have made the immaculate conception even weirder. The Holy spirit is supposed to have impregnated Mary, but how could that be if Wisdom (Holy spirit/Sophia) was female? They pretty much made it an all male trinity, but then we also read that the trinity doctrine came after the Sophia/Wisdom belief. I think that the Holy Spirit being called the "Comforter" by Jesus, would show us that the Holy Spirit is a nurturing spirit....so could "Sophia" indicate perhaps the "female" being thought of as nurturing? Not as sex.....we need to remember Jesus said that there would be no marriage or giving in marriage in the eternal heaven...so if that is true, then all spirits that are saved will more or less be of the same spirit as the Holy Spirit in that they are "male" but yet some had been female in their earthly life? I've wondered this often and I don't mean anything against the Holy Spirit at all, but in fact am trying to understand exactly who and what the Holy Spirit is and does...I know in my own experiences that the Holy Spirit IS definitely a nurturing spirit, but also a teaching spirit, a reminder spirit...I am not of the thought the Holy Spirit judges me but does cause me to stop and consider how I fit into whatever I'm thinking about other people and activites, etc Otherwords brings me into judging myself. And that often is leading me to remember that I'm not infalliable at all! That in all likelihood I've either know the circumstances personally or some day will be apt to know them! So again, it is a nurturing spirit that teaches us, comforts us, and leads us in the ways in which we should go! eh?
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Aug 13, 2014 10:01:40 GMT -5
Snow, he definitely experienced pain and lot's of it. He was human just like we are so the pain would have been agonising. I think to die on a Roman cross, the most painful of deaths, was a pretty incredible sacrifice. But the sacrifice would have been of no effect if He wasn't God. There is little point in a Christian believing that we are reconciled to God through Christ's sacrifice if we don't believe He was God. It is also an incredible expression of grace that God would create us and then put then in place a plan where He physically enters humanity and makes the necessary sacrifice (via His Son) to enable us to be completely reconciled to God and be sinless before Him. A couple of thoughts come to mind. First, if it turns out you are wrong (along with all of Christian orthodoxy), that Jesus wasn't God after all, does that mean your life was a waste? Second, why is there 'little point' in Christ's sacrifice if he was the 'son of God' but not God himself? It strikes me that the sacrifice of a son is a greater sacrifice than to sacrifice yourself. Certainly, there are many examples of those who, when put to the test, gave their own life to save that of their child's. Personally, I think for God to sacrifice his son, not Himself as the Son, is a greater sacrifice and one in which we can be fully confident. The only reason I can see for making such a fuss about Jesus' relationship to God is to make people think orthodox Christianity offers an exclusive path to enlightenment and to ultimate redemption. Again, I feel we need to look back to the scriptures to find out the why that Jesus was the price of our salvation. I've often said it and will say it, in Psalms 49:7 "None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:"Also, I've asked what better sacrifice then the creator dies for those he's created. He would understand how he had created them, how that he had given them free choice and that sometimes free choice causes mankind to sin and that would cause that mankind to need redeeming and the one who sins' brother cannot redeem him, but his creator sure can! Again I've mentioned in line with someone calling the Father cruel to have His own Son killed....I said, No I don't see it that way...The Father knew that the Son was not going to lose anything by being crucifed, but would gain something and that would be the right to sit on the right hand of the Father in His throne....also would have won the creditals to be the best advocate of human flesh, and also was not only the great Shepherd but became the High Priest forever after the order of Melchesidec. And not only that, the Son also visited those who were held captive in the depths of the grave...like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and any other God loving folks that had not lived to see the day of Jesus Christ on earth....so Jesus went down into those depths and preached the kingdom of heaven is at hand there as well and released those captives there. Otherwords IF Jesus had not paid due notice to those already dead, then when the resurrection time came, do you think that those who died before the advent of Jesus Christ would resurrect first before all the other Christ believers? I doubt it...... What Hat, you and I both have wondered if the gospel of Jesus Christ would not be preached over and over to those who die and go to the grave.....and perhaps that gospel does release other captives in those depths of the graves. We don't know, but it wouldn't be impossible as far as God is concerned...I don't think!
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Aug 13, 2014 10:05:09 GMT -5
BTW, I forgot to add that when Jesus was crucified, the Pharisees, Saducees, Priests and other Jews were crucifying the "Word of God"! And isn't it the "Word of God" that the scriptures tell us is "Truth" "Life" and "Light" and isn't that what Jesus said he was? "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Light."
I feel that this is where those people were not accepting the "Word of God" much like they didn't want to look on the face of "Moses" after he'd been on the mtn. They were running scared of God and well should they have been.....they refused to see themselves in the face of God...or in the Word of God.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Aug 13, 2014 10:12:06 GMT -5
God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit; Older worker calls it a devilish, doctrine, do you agree? ~~ No. This like calling God is the devil. This teaching needs to be corrected among us. This is blasphemy for lack of understanding, and ignorant with the Scriptures. This is one of the reasons we are loosing the friends more and more every day they see many of the workers are so ignorant, and don't really who Jesus is. They learn more about Jesus.. He is God the Son after they leave the 2x2 group.From Kathy Lewis' (Ex-2x2) book: The church without a name 2x2s (4th and 5th generation) belief on the Trinity. The workers are usually very quiet about this subject because they know its importance to Christians. They will usually answer that the word “Trinity is not in the scripture”. They say, “We believe in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.” They usually end their statement with that, and a questioner usually accepts it without further interest. However, further inquiry is necessary. The workers do not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity and repudiate it as a Catholic heresy. They call it the “Argument of the Trinity”. One worker said that the “Trinity is the belief that God is the Father, Son, Holy Spirit and Mary the Mother of God.” The workers are very ignorant of what Christians mean by the term Trinity or at least they act ignorant. They wrongly say that Christians think that Jesus is his own Father. The workers say, “The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separate beings, united in spirit (attitude or purpose), not in essence.” And, they say “the Church is One with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” They believe that “there is only One God, the Father.” They state that Jesus is a just a man, the Son of God. 1 Chapter 15 7/16/2004The church without a name not believe that He (Jesus) is the Creator, or equal to God in any way. He isn’t to be worshiped. Some workers refuse to comment on this subject by saying that they don’t really know. They close their minds to the question of whether Jesus is the Creator, claiming it is of no importance. Some workers refer to II Timothy 2: 23 that says to avoid arguing over words. One older brother worker said, “the “Word” referred to in John 1:1 is Christ.” He said that the original Greek states that the “Word is god”, with a little “g”. In other words, Christ is a god. They say “Christ is the Word in the sense that He lived the Word so perfectly that He was the Word made flesh or the Word made clear to the world what God wants every human to be perfectly obedient to the Word.” There is so little teaching regarding the person of God, few people have any idea of who God is. It is not a well defined, verbalized concept. “Who God is” is not important to them. Only “who the ministry is” is important.However, they primarily view Jesus as only a man who was completely filled with the indwelling Spirit. And of course, they don’t believe the Spirit is God either. Sometimes they say they believe Jesus was fully human and fully divine, but if they were asked, they wouldn’t be able to explain what “divine” means. They assume that it means holy or sanctified. They state simply that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Since they don’t view the Holy Spirit as the Creator GOD, but only the power of God, they don’t really view Jesus as being much different than any other human being believer who is filled with the Spirit. They often refer to Jesus as our elder brother, inferring that He is a human child of God just as other humans, and our perfect example of what God wants all His children to be.They view the Holy Spirit as the power of God, not God and not a person. They refer to the Holy Spirit as “it.” Some workers refer to the Holy Spirit as being “the mother spirit” because the Greek word for spirit has a feminine article. They don’t believe the Holy Spirit is to be worshiped or prayed to because the Spirit doesn’t glorify itself, instead, “it” glorifies The Father and Son. They don’t view “it” as equal to God or a person of the Godhead. One of the earliest workers said, “There is One God, and Two Lords, the Lord God, and the Lord Jesus Christ.” They quote many verses to prove that Jesus is not God because He could not pray to Himself, nor sit down at His own right hand, nor speak from heaven saying, “This is my well beloved Son..."
They say that Jesus does not know the hour of His return to earth so that proves He isn’t omniscient. Instead of viewing Jesus as God who became man, they view Him as a man who became godlike. Thus giving the impression that other men can do the same. They believe that the workers are like Jesus because they have denied self in obedience to the Spirit. The illogical reasoning in this is that they believe that the Spirit enables believers to be obedient and deny self, yet they believe that self denial is the key to obtaining the Spirit which enables them to deny self. Since they are ignorant of the eternal plurality of God they aren’t able to comprehend the eternally infinite love of God. How could God be able to love in eternity past, if there was no one but the Father in existence prior to creation? Nathan ~ I agree with that assessment above as well as claim ignorance when professing pertaining to the nature of Christ, believing basically what the workers taught us ~ wrong as it may have been from their own ignorance. Honestly, it wasn't until after I had left the fellowship and started really studying my Bible as well as attending outside churches, that I learned my theology as taught from the past was haywire and not in line with God's Word.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Aug 13, 2014 10:21:53 GMT -5
Love is the most important happy pill! I have no idea if it's because of how we were created, but we definitely respond to it positively for the most part. As far as Jesus being 100% man and 100% God. Well that just doesn't add up for me. I don't even see much purpose for his life if he couldn't sin, couldn't experience pain. It would be a whole lot more impressive if he could have sinned and didn't, could have felt pain, yet agreed to be crucified etc. Not much danger of messing up if you're God so where was the sacrifice really. Snow, he definitely experienced pain and lot's of it. He was human just like we are so the pain would have been agonising. I think to die on a Roman cross, the most painful of deaths, was a pretty incredible sacrifice. But the sacrifice would have been of no effect if He wasn't God. There is little point in a Christian believing that we are reconciled to God through Christ's sacrifice if we don't believe He was God. It is also an incredible expression of grace that God would create us and then put then in place a plan where He physically enters humanity and makes the necessary sacrifice (via His Son) to enable us to be completely reconciled to God and be sinless before Him. I feel the most and hardest temptation Jesus faced was the night in the garden of Gethsemane! Here he had already been transfigured and also been "judged" by the Father at the time of his transfiguration....Jesus was ready to go to heaven right then and there, but NO, he must stay his course. But we remember he was in his 3rd decade of life. which I think perhaps was the high point of man's life in those days and certainly usually are in these days. We read that he prayed and the sweat upon his brow was like great drops of blood and this was to indicate that he was fighting a great battle...the battle that human flesh fights to keep from dying or being put to death...they are too young have too much going for them, etc But then Jesus came to the point and it took 3 prayers much the same...but to the point of "Nevertheless Thy Will be done." Hebs. mentions that time in that he was heard in that he feared! Who did he fear the most? It says later that he shared no shame in the cruel tree shame but he sure felt that he wanted to do His Father's Will and when he received enough strength through prayer to go on, he then arose and met with his betrayer! Something, I can tell you that rips the very heart out of you esp. when it is someone who has been quite close to you and shared in your life......but Jesus knew it was coming. I don't feel I could have gone through with it. The Christian comedian spoke about something that comes back to me because I can see thought it was funny, that it was true nonetheless.....he said that Mary bore the biggest testament who Jesus was the day Jesus was crucified, but standing there and not saying a word. Why wasn't she crying don't do it, etc Don't we all think that our mothers and fathers and grandparents would have been there trying to hang onto those soldiers arms as they were trying to throw the cross arm on that cross with Jesus nailed to it, to keep them from being able to do it? Don't we think we ourselves would have been crying, "He may be crazy, but don't kill him." And such comments as that, even to the point of being incarcerated ourselves for interrupting the workings of the authorities....but no, Mary stood there...probably with tears flowing surely...as Samuel had told her that even her heart would be broken.....but she knew the scriptures said that "that holy thing that is in thee" would die at the hands of his own people...his own people received him not....they crucified him for claiming to be the Son of God, being equal to God...etc John's vision of those innumerable people in white robes in heaven and was told that these were people from all nations that had washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb and had made them white.....yes, as What Hat says it took the sacrifice of the very essence of the Father, the one who created mankind to redeem all of mankind should they so choose to be redeemed! To wash their robes in the blood of the Lamb! People have said salvation is a bloody deal...we read of washing our robes in the blood of the Lamb, we read of Satan and his angels being tossed out of heaven by the archangel and his angels by their testimony of the blood of Jesus....and we read of Jesus' bride who has made herself ready, cleansed in the blood of Christ. Yes, Jesus will return to claim his bride, his scars will be evident...no other bridegroom is apt to suffer all that Jesus did just to make his chosen bride clean and white.....
|
|
|
Post by emy on Aug 13, 2014 16:31:26 GMT -5
...It tells me what is right or wrong, based on what I have observed in life, read etc. It also sometimes comforts me, sometimes through justification of what I've done that was less than stellar, or even seems to know when I am over reacting and having a pity party. Then my mind has the capability to prompt me with different ideas about the reality of my thoughts, again based on what I know or have learned in my life. ...
Snow, what I find different about what I call the Holy Spirit is that the interaction is specifically NOT based on anything already in my mind. Very simply, it's an Aha! moment that makes me wonder Where in the world did THAT come from?? The comfort and wisdom I sometimes feel is nothing to do with my thoughts. In fact, often it is simply a "washing over" feeling that is quite opposite of where my thoughts would have taken me.
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Aug 13, 2014 17:57:03 GMT -5
The doctrine of the Trinity is difficult and perplexing to us. Sometimes it is thought that Christianity teaches the absurd notion that 1+1+1=1. That is clearly a false equation. The term Trinity describes a relationship not of three gods, but of one God who is three persons. Trinity does not mean tritheism, that is, that there are three beings who together are God. The word Trinity is used in an effort to define the fullness of the Godhead both in terms of His unity and diversity.
The historic formulation of the Trinity is that God is one in essence and three in person. Though the formula is mysterious and even paradoxical, it is in no way contradictory. The unity of the Godhead is affirmed in terms of essence or being, while the diversity of the Godhead is expressed in terms of person.
Though the term Trinity is not found in the Bible, the concept is clearly there. On the one hand the Bible strongly affirms the unity of God (Deuteronomy 6:4). On the other hand the Bible clearly affirms the full deity of the three persons of the Godhead: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The church has rejected the heresies of modalism and tritheism. Modalism denies the distinction of persons within the Godhead, claiming that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are just ways in which God expresses Himself. Tritheism, on the other hand, falsely declares that there are three beings who together make up God.
The term person does not mean a distinction in essence but a different subsistence in the Godhead. A subsistence in the Godhead is a real difference but not an essential difference in the sense of a difference in being. Each person subsists or exists “under” the pure essence of deity. Subsistence is a difference within the scope of being, not a separate being or essence. All persons in the Godhead have all the attributes of deity.
There is also a distinction in the work done by each member of the Trinity. The work of salvation is in one sense common to all three persons of the Trinity. Yet in the manner of activity, there are differing operations assumed by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father initiates creation and redemption; the Son redeems the creation; and the Holy Spirit regenerates and sanctifies, applying redemption to believers.
The Trinity does not refer to parts of God or even to roles. Human analogies such as one man who is a father, son, and a husband fail to capture the mystery of the nature of God.
The doctrine of the Trinity does not fully explain the mysterious character of God. Rather, it sets the boundaries outside of which we must not step. It defines the limits of our finite reflection. It demands that we be faithful to the biblical revelation that in one sense God is one and in a different sense He is three.
Summary 1. The doctrine of the Trinity affirms the triunity of God. 2. The doctrine of the Trinity is not a contradiction: God is one in essence and three in person. 3. The Bible affirms both the oneness of God and the deity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. 4. The Trinity is distinguished by the work assumed by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. 5. The doctrine of the Trinity sets the limits of human speculation about the nature of God.
Biblical passages for reflection: Deuteronomy 6:4 Matthew 3:16-17 Matthew 28:19 2 Corinthians 13:14 1 Peter 1:2
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2014 1:07:08 GMT -5
So did he have the potential to sin, virgo? no i don't believe so
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Aug 14, 2014 9:36:49 GMT -5
Again, I feel we need to look back to the scriptures to find out the why that Jesus was the price of our salvation. I've often said it and will say it, in Psalms 49:7 "None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:"Also, I've asked what better sacrifice then the creator dies for those he's created. He would understand how he had created them, how that he had given them free choice and that sometimes free choice causes mankind to sin and that would cause that mankind to need redeeming and the one who sins' brother cannot redeem him, but his creator sure can! Again I've mentioned in line with someone calling the Father cruel to have His own Son killed....I said, No I don't see it that way...The Father knew that the Son was not going to lose anything by being crucifed, but would gain something and that would be the right to sit on the right hand of the Father in His throne....also would have won the creditals to be the best advocate of human flesh, and also was not only the great Shepherd but became the High Priest forever after the order of Melchesidec. And not only that, the Son also visited those who were held captive in the depths of the grave...like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and any other God loving folks that had not lived to see the day of Jesus Christ on earth....so Jesus went down into those depths and preached the kingdom of heaven is at hand there as well and released those captives there. Otherwords IF Jesus had not paid due notice to those already dead, then when the resurrection time came, do you think that those who died before the advent of Jesus Christ would resurrect first before all the other Christ believers? I doubt it...... What Hat, you and I both have wondered if the gospel of Jesus Christ would not be preached over and over to those who die and go to the grave.....and perhaps that gospel does release other captives in those depths of the graves. We don't know, but it wouldn't be impossible as far as God is concerned...I don't think! STR, you know what comes to mind for me from that verse? That no one can make us change, grow, be loving (redeem) ourselves, but ourselves. We are responsible for all the things we do to improve and no matter what anyone else does, says etc. can make those changes for us no matter how much they wish they could. The old saying "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink" seems to be a good analogy. Only we can redeem ourselves, no one else can. Again, this would teach us that we are responsible for our actions and that is an empowering concept imo. To have the power to change instead of having to depend on someone else for our 'salvation'. The Psalms 49 The Folly of Trusting in Riches To the chief Musician, A Psalm for the sons of Korah. 1 Hear this, all ye people; give ear, all ye inhabitants of the world: 2 both low and high, rich and poor, together. 3 My mouth shall speak of wisdom; and the meditation of my heart shall be of understanding. 4 I will incline mine ear to a parable: I will open my dark saying upon the harp. 5 Wherefore should I fear in the days of evil, when the iniquity of my heels shall compass me about? 6 They that trust in their wealth, and boast themselves in the multitude of their riches; 7 none of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him: 8 (for the redemption of their soul is precious, and it ceaseth for ever:) 9 that he should still live for ever, and not see corruption. 10 For he seeth that wise men die, likewise the fool and the brutish person perish, and leave their wealth to others. 11 Their inward thought is, that their houses shall continue for ever, and their dwelling places to all generations; they call their lands after their own names. 12 Nevertheless man being in honor abideth not: he is like the beasts that perish. 13 This their way is their folly: yet their posterity approve their sayings. Selah. 14 Like sheep they are laid in the grave; death shall feed on them; and the upright shall have dominion over them in the morning; and their beauty shall consume in the grave from their dwelling. 15 But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave: for he shall receive me. Selah. 16 Be not thou afraid when one is made rich, when the glory of his house is increased; 17 for when he dieth he shall carry nothing away: his glory shall not descend after him. 18 Though while he lived he blessed his soul, (and men will praise thee, when thou doest well to thyself,) 19 he shall go to the generation of his fathers; they shall never see light. 20 Man that is in honor, and understandeth not, is like the beasts that perish. Seems the Psalm was about trusting in monetary things and wealth!
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Aug 14, 2014 9:45:17 GMT -5
Yes, in God's law in the OT, there were specific things that had to be done to show that a person was sorry for when they sinned and broken God's law and what they had to do to seek forgiveness from a completely Holy God who had created them. But ultimately the law only made people aware of their sin, the regular offerings/day of atonement could never completely remove sin. Only God can remove sin permanently. So He entered the world to not only show us who He was, what He stood for and how to live but to deal with sin personally through the death of His son. If sin ultimately results in punishment/death (we all believe in justice) then presumably someone has to die in our place in order for us to be released from sin/death. The only one who can do that is God himself, because He can only forgive and remove sin completely. At the cross Jesus dies and his human nature dies - but his divine nature does not (hence earlier comment about 100% divine/100% human). Sin is dealt with and the bodily resurrection demonstrates that Christ lives on just as He always existed. I understand your point about why doesn't God just say "I'll forgive everyone and that's that...". Sure he could do it and let us know but how much more powerful that he enters humanity, like we are, experiences life like us, temptations like us and then dies in our place....and rises again. It's an incredibly powerful way to show us who he is, what he stands for and His ultimate rescue plan for us. At the cross, we see the pain in the relationship when the Father cannot bear to look upon the Son taking the sins of the world, past, present and future in His body. It's a powerful point in history - arguably the most powerful from a Christian perspective. I don't look at it as "why a God has to die to appease a part of itself" but rather that God provides an amazing mechanism as part of His plan for sin to be dealt with permanently. It's a demonstration of God's love for all people that He has created. But why would God need to enter a human body to find out what we experience? Being who he is, he would already know. I really don't see it as incredible at all. What did he have to lose really. If he was God, he would know he couldn't be killed. It seems like an awful lot of rigamaroll to go through when all he had to do was come down, make himself known, and tell everyone they had nothing to worry about. The whole deal makes absolutely no sense to me. In the first place there should be nothing we could do to warrant eternal damnation. Nothing. We are mere humans and he is our creator and all mighty. Why would he even need to forgive a lessor being for doing something wrong? And what could they actually do to a superior being that was wrong? It would be like having to forgive a baby for soiling it's diaper or crying in the night. Would anyone blame a child to the point where they needed to be forgiven, or if they didn't repent for such a thing, damn them eternally? That's pretty much the difference in levels or understanding or ability between a God and a human. At least one with the characteristics of the Christian God. Makes no sense at all to me. I think perhaps we need to look at "who" it was that was crucified on that cross...It was Jesus the human son of Mary and JOseph....or that is how the Jewish folks looked at him! His human flesh had never sinned, though having been tempted in all points like we are....his human flesh had to be perfect in order that the sacrifice of said human flesh would and could redeem other human flesh. It wasn't the God part of Jesus they crucified....and that's because they never could...though they in kind tried to crucify the Word of God, which was God and which was Jesus in the flesh. Two points in order to make Jesus crucifiction necessary or workable in saving the souls of mankind.....the first being he was the creator of said mankind and also he was in the same flesh as those he had created...he knew the pain, sorrow and shame to be hung on a tree...it's said that any man hung on a tree is cursed.....so it was a very very strong rejection of the man "Jesus" that the Jewish folks rejected, and they also rejected God, the Word of God at the same time....they were still depending on "physical behaviours, appearance and acts" to "redeem" them year by year.....and in Malachi we read God had said he didn't want their corrupted sacrifices...that He'd prefer mercy before sacrifice and He wanted them to learn about that.....
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Aug 14, 2014 9:56:02 GMT -5
BTW, I forgot to add that when Jesus was crucified, the Pharisees, Saducees, Priests and other Jews were crucifying the "Word of God"! And isn't it the "Word of God" that the scriptures tell us is "Truth" "Life" and "Light" and isn't that what Jesus said he was? "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Light." I feel that this is where those people were not accepting the "Word of God" much like they didn't want to look on the face of "Moses" after he'd been on the mtn. They were running scared of God and well should they have been.....they refused to see themselves in the face of God...or in the Word of God. So if they were crucifying the word of God, is there a chance this was all symbolic? Not in my thinking! I have to remember that the "WORD" is the only begotten of the Father! And that the Word turns out to be God as was the Father, God.....It says so in John 1...plainly and definitely..."In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God..." This is giving the Word as the only begotten Son of God a designated place in the Godhead, IMO.....Being very important to remember that it is spiritual more then symbolic and since spirit is not "felt" nor seen by human capacity, this is why you and others think it symbolic. Again this is rightly dividing the Word of God! The Jewish folks were trying to crucify the Word of God or the Truth of God when they crucified Jesus' body...however as the Word was God, they could not crucify it...they could refute it, scorn it, mock it and spit on it, etc but the still could not crucify the Word of God....they had to be content to crucify the human flesh that was the Word, the only begotten Son of God or God the Son!
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Aug 14, 2014 9:56:28 GMT -5
BTW, I forgot to add that when Jesus was crucified, the Pharisees, Saducees, Priests and other Jews were crucifying the "Word of God"! And isn't it the "Word of God" that the scriptures tell us is "Truth" "Life" and "Light" and isn't that what Jesus said he was? "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Light." I feel that this is where those people were not accepting the "Word of God" much like they didn't want to look on the face of "Moses" after he'd been on the mtn. They were running scared of God and well should they have been.....they refused to see themselves in the face of God...or in the Word of God. So if they were crucifying the word of God, is there a chance this was all symbolic? Not in my thinking! I have to remember that the "WORD" is the only begotten of the Father! And that the Word turns out to be God as was the Father, God.....It says so in John 1...plainly and definitely..."In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God..." This is giving the Word as the only begotten Son of God a designated place in the Godhead, IMO.....Being very important to remember that it is spiritual more then symbolic and since spirit is not "felt" nor seen by human capacity, this is why you and others think it symbolic. Again this is rightly dividing the Word of God! The Jewish folks were trying to crucify the Word of God or the Truth of God when they crucified Jesus' body...however as the Word was God, they could not crucify it...they could refute it, scorn it, mock it and spit on it, etc but the still could not crucify the Word of God....they had to be content to crucify the human flesh that was the Word, the only begotten Son of God or God the Son!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2014 10:29:51 GMT -5
Snow, Fixit, come, come now, isn't that a bit of a reach, putting your own perceptions a bit above reality? Perhaps you can explain specifically who, what Christian has tried to do this to either of you, or to anyone in your lifetime?
My own belief is that my Spirit God is a singular being with a plural existence, being Father (will); Son, (word) and Holy Ghost (power) is about as strong as anyone's, yet it certainly was never forced down my throat, nor have I ever knowingly attempted to do such a thing to another. My Lord did not do that, nor should any worshiping Him, to my understanding of what He came bringing humanity. Further, I personally believe any who attempt to do that, or ever have attempted to do it should hardly be able to even call themselves "Christian" much less think of anyone doing so as being "Christian."
However, this is just my personal opinion, often worth nothing to others, anyway!
|
|
|
Post by faune on Aug 14, 2014 12:54:55 GMT -5
The doctrine of the Trinity is difficult and perplexing to us. Sometimes it is thought that Christianity teaches the absurd notion that 1+1+1=1. That is clearly a false equation. The term Trinity describes a relationship not of three gods, but of one God who is three persons. Trinity does not mean tritheism, that is, that there are three beings who together are God. The word Trinity is used in an effort to define the fullness of the Godhead both in terms of His unity and diversity. The historic formulation of the Trinity is that God is one in essence and three in person. Though the formula is mysterious and even paradoxical, it is in no way contradictory. The unity of the Godhead is affirmed in terms of essence or being, while the diversity of the Godhead is expressed in terms of person. Though the term Trinity is not found in the Bible, the concept is clearly there. On the one hand the Bible strongly affirms the unity of God (Deuteronomy 6:4). On the other hand the Bible clearly affirms the full deity of the three persons of the Godhead: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The church has rejected the heresies of modalism and tritheism. Modalism denies the distinction of persons within the Godhead, claiming that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are just ways in which God expresses Himself. Tritheism, on the other hand, falsely declares that there are three beings who together make up God. The term person does not mean a distinction in essence but a different subsistence in the Godhead. A subsistence in the Godhead is a real difference but not an essential difference in the sense of a difference in being. Each person subsists or exists “under” the pure essence of deity. Subsistence is a difference within the scope of being, not a separate being or essence. All persons in the Godhead have all the attributes of deity. There is also a distinction in the work done by each member of the Trinity. The work of salvation is in one sense common to all three persons of the Trinity. Yet in the manner of activity, there are differing operations assumed by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father initiates creation and redemption; the Son redeems the creation; and the Holy Spirit regenerates and sanctifies, applying redemption to believers. The Trinity does not refer to parts of God or even to roles. Human analogies such as one man who is a father, son, and a husband fail to capture the mystery of the nature of God. The doctrine of the Trinity does not fully explain the mysterious character of God. Rather, it sets the boundaries outside of which we must not step. It defines the limits of our finite reflection. It demands that we be faithful to the biblical revelation that in one sense God is one and in a different sense He is three. Summary 1. The doctrine of the Trinity affirms the triunity of God. 2. The doctrine of the Trinity is not a contradiction: God is one in essence and three in person. 3. The Bible affirms both the oneness of God and the deity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. 4. The Trinity is distinguished by the work assumed by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. 5. The doctrine of the Trinity sets the limits of human speculation about the nature of God. Biblical passages for reflection: Deuteronomy 6:4 Matthew 3:16-17 Matthew 28:19 2 Corinthians 13:14 1 Peter 1:2 ~ Great post reflecting your thoughts on the Trinity! Thanks for sharing!
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Aug 14, 2014 13:16:24 GMT -5
No Mother, no daughter....not diverse. Lacking. Lopsided.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 14, 2014 16:20:41 GMT -5
The doctrine of the Trinity is difficult and perplexing to us. Sometimes it is thought that Christianity teaches the absurd notion that 1+1+1=1. That is clearly a false equation. The term Trinity describes a relationship not of three gods, but of one God who is three persons. Trinity does not mean tritheism, that is, that there are three beings who together are God. The word Trinity is used in an effort to define the fullness of the Godhead both in terms of His unity and diversity. The historic formulation of the Trinity is that God is one in essence and three in person. Though the formula is mysterious and even paradoxical, it is in no way contradictory. The unity of the Godhead is affirmed in terms of essence or being, while the diversity of the Godhead is expressed in terms of person. Though the term Trinity is not found in the Bible, the concept is clearly there. On the one hand the Bible strongly affirms the unity of God (Deuteronomy 6:4). On the other hand the Bible clearly affirms the full deity of the three persons of the Godhead: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The church has rejected the heresies of modalism and tritheism. Modalism denies the distinction of persons within the Godhead, claiming that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are just ways in which God expresses Himself. Tritheism, on the other hand, falsely declares that there are three beings who together make up God. The term person does not mean a distinction in essence but a different subsistence in the Godhead. A subsistence in the Godhead is a real difference but not an essential difference in the sense of a difference in being. Each person subsists or exists “under” the pure essence of deity. Subsistence is a difference within the scope of being, not a separate being or essence. All persons in the Godhead have all the attributes of deity. There is also a distinction in the work done by each member of the Trinity. The work of salvation is in one sense common to all three persons of the Trinity. Yet in the manner of activity, there are differing operations assumed by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father initiates creation and redemption; the Son redeems the creation; and the Holy Spirit regenerates and sanctifies, applying redemption to believers. The Trinity does not refer to parts of God or even to roles. Human analogies such as one man who is a father, son, and a husband fail to capture the mystery of the nature of God. The doctrine of the Trinity does not fully explain the mysterious character of God. Rather, it sets the boundaries outside of which we must not step. It defines the limits of our finite reflection. It demands that we be faithful to the biblical revelation that in one sense God is one and in a different sense He is three. Summary 1. The doctrine of the Trinity affirms the triunity of God. 2. The doctrine of the Trinity is not a contradiction: God is one in essence and three in person. 3. The Bible affirms both the oneness of God and the deity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. 4. The Trinity is distinguished by the work assumed by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. 5. The doctrine of the Trinity sets the limits of human speculation about the nature of God. Biblical passages for reflection: Deuteronomy 6:4 Matthew 3:16-17 Matthew 28:19 2 Corinthians 13:14 1 Peter 1:2 Thanks for taking the effort to lay this out. I have only a few questions to try and understand this. What is the essence or essential nature of God, applicable to all three persons? Since God is never God "in essence" but only and at all times in the three persons, can you focus on this essence and explain it? How does each of the three persons subsist in the Godhead? Do all three subsist in the same manner, or does each of the three person subsist in the Godhead in a unique way reflecting the unique aspects of that particular person? For example, we know that the Christ could say, that only the Father knows, but would the Spirit ever say that? Can you reflect on how the Jesus as the Man subsisted in the Godhead versus Jesus as God subsisting in the Godhead? Can you comment on the relationship of Jesus and the Holy Spirit (Comforter). Did they subsist in the Godhead while Jesus was a Man? What I'm getting at is, how does the picture of the three persons subsisting in the Godhead change when we consider the man who came to Earth, Jesus, versus Jesus Christ at God's right hand?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 14, 2014 16:25:12 GMT -5
Snow, Fixit, come, come now, isn't that a bit of a reach, putting your own perceptions a bit above reality? Perhaps you can explain specifically who, what Christian has tried to do this to either of you, or to anyone in your lifetime?
My own belief is that my Spirit God is a singular being with a plural existence, being Father (will); Son, (word) and Holy Ghost (power) is about as strong as anyone's, yet it certainly was never forced down my throat, nor have I ever knowingly attempted to do such a thing to another. My Lord did not do that, nor should any worshiping Him, to my understanding of what He came bringing humanity. Further, I personally believe any who attempt to do that, or ever have attempted to do it should hardly be able to even call themselves "Christian" much less think of anyone doing so as being "Christian."
However, this is just my personal opinion, often worth nothing to others, anyway! Dennis, was that my comment? I don't remember saying that. Dennis, I don't know where the quote came from, but I did chant the Apostle's Creed every Sunday for my most of my first sixteen or so years. When that happens, the thinking person is bound to question.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Aug 15, 2014 13:09:35 GMT -5
I think perhaps we need to look at "who" it was that was crucified on that cross...It was Jesus the human son of Mary and JOseph....or that is how the Jewish folks looked at him! His human flesh had never sinned, though having been tempted in all points like we are....his human flesh had to be perfect in order that the sacrifice of said human flesh would and could redeem other human flesh. It wasn't the God part of Jesus they crucified....and that's because they never could...though they in kind tried to crucify the Word of God, which was God and which was Jesus in the flesh. Two points in order to make Jesus crucifiction necessary or workable in saving the souls of mankind.....the first being he was the creator of said mankind and also he was in the same flesh as those he had created...he knew the pain, sorrow and shame to be hung on a tree...it's said that any man hung on a tree is cursed.....so it was a very very strong rejection of the man "Jesus" that the Jewish folks rejected, and they also rejected God, the Word of God at the same time....they were still depending on "physical behaviours, appearance and acts" to "redeem" them year by year.....and in Malachi we read God had said he didn't want their corrupted sacrifices...that He'd prefer mercy before sacrifice and He wanted them to learn about that..... Ok, I get you believe that it was the human part that got crucified, but that human part still had what I would call 'inside information' about who he was and that would make it pretty easy to do what is called a 'sinless life', let himself be crucified etc. Just because he was supposedly human, doesn't mean he experienced life like we do because we do not have the advantage of knowing who we are, in this case God, and that we can't die. I would think these aspects of his knowledge would make it a whole lot easier to be sinless, die etc. However, that all aside, there is still no reason for him to have to die to forgive his creation. None whatsoever. He is the judge, he can simply just forgive. We know that these people believed a blood sacrifice had to be done to please their God, and this story about Jesus is really just a product of that belief. That's how I see it. Also, knowing about the religious beliefs of earlier religions, it also appears very similar in that their needed to be a dying/rising god/man to full fill that type of belief. Very pagan in that sense. So you see why I find the whole story to be so evidently based on the beliefs of the time. It doesn't say exactly how many days After the earth was created that Adam and Ever were kicked out of the garden for disobedience...so that pagan stories could possibly be had....I don't quite get that is correct either. However, in order that Adam and Eve might be clothed to cover their shameful lusts, God had to kill some beast for the skins to make their robes. So "blood" was sacrificed from the beginning and seems mankind realizes even in the pagan world that "blood" being the "life giving fluids" is the BEST known salvation tool! Now as you mention God could just judge each person and given them their dues....HE definitely will do that AFTER it is determined what their status of eternal life is according to the Lamb's Book of Life. IMO There will be "books of deeds" in which each individuals lifetime deeds are recorded and there with God will judge each individual for them. It still is going to take a "blood" sacrifice in order that "life" is sustained. You know the helps and properties of healthy "blood"...think about it, how precious it is! It really is far more precious then the gifts that 3 Kings gave Jesus...the frankincense, gold and myrrh! And those 3 are nothing to sneeze at!
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Aug 15, 2014 13:19:28 GMT -5
Nathan, I still don't see how it can be of any worth if someone is tempted but can't give in to temptation? It's a forgone conclusion what the outcome will be. It wouldn't take any effort at all. Don't you see that? Also, being God he would already know what we go through without having to experience it in a human body. It just comes with the territory. After all, he is all knowing. A sacrifice that cannot be otherwise, isn't much of a sacrifice imo. If you can't fail, where was the sacrifice? Snow, there was a great cost to Jesus to know that his life was soon to be taken away from him by those whom should have received him with open arms, but they instead, were "jealous" of him....Pilate knew it was for envy that the chief priest and his minions were calling out to ccrucify Jesus. Now think about the Garden of Gethsemane experience and that there should be NO doubt the cost that came to Jesus as he knew his time was coming to be hung on the cruel tree. Doesn't it say that he prayed so hard that the sweat o fhis brow was like great drops of blood? Here was a very young man, about the age of other men who would be expecting to have a home, children, wife(s) and jobs and extended family responsibilities, but no, Jesus had all that taken away "in the human body" sense! Yes, he also had the God in him and never lost that, it never died on that cross...though his enemies sure thought they would be getting rid of all of him! I can just feel that horrible burden Jesus had knowing that as a young human man that what he knew was coming was something that NO one would every ask to experience...but it was as Peter was told, it was prophecied that the Saviour would die as he did. Yes, Jesus had to pray heavily and whole heartedly 3 different times before he could face his enemies who were going to turn him over to the Greek rulers so that they could call for his execution by cross!
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Aug 15, 2014 13:25:15 GMT -5
It doesn't say exactly how many days After the earth was created that Adam and Ever were kicked out of the garden for disobedience...so that pagan stories could possibly be had....I don't quite get that is correct either. However, in order that Adam and Eve might be clothed to cover their shameful lusts, God had to kill some beast for the skins to make their robes. So "blood" was sacrificed from the beginning and seems mankind realizes even in the pagan world that "blood" being the "life giving fluids" is the BEST known salvation tool! Now as you mention God could just judge each person and given them their dues....HE definitely will do that AFTER it is determined what their status of eternal life is according to the Lamb's Book of Life. IMO There will be "books of deeds" in which each individuals lifetime deeds are recorded and there with God will judge each individual for them. It still is going to take a "blood" sacrifice in order that "life" is sustained. You know the helps and properties of healthy "blood"...think about it, how precious it is! It really is far more precious then the gifts that 3 Kings gave Jesus...the frankincense, gold and myrrh! And those 3 are nothing to sneeze at! Oh, the pagan world is no stranger to blood sacrifices. In fact, I would go as far as to say all the current religions have their roots in pagan religions and that's why you see blood sacrifices in some of them. In a way Christianity still believes it was necessary by partaking of the emblems which signify a blood sacrifice. We know that before the Hebrews started worshiping Yahweh exclusively, they had other gods much like any other pagan religion. So it makes sense that their legends have a pagan root. I often wonder who was the first one to decide making sex a sin except in very limited circumstances was a good way to control mankind. Telling people that a very natural instinct is a sin is a good way of keeping them coming back and confessing that they can't quite squelch that natural urge and so then they believe they have sinned. When it was tied in with eternal damnation for sinning, they had them no matter which way they looked at it. Paul wrote to Timothy about those who would come defying marriage etc. And that's what we have witnessed in the 2x2 religion! It has done nothing other then made some of the better genetic and moral raised men into lusters and an inability to keep their flesh under control....the real problem is when the workers first had sex, that was when the seed was soon that there would never be enough of that for them! One overseer even told that to a reprofessing convert! The workers have excused one another's fleshly lust failures believing that it was just a way to enable the worker to stay in the harvest field and they NEVER for some odd reason considered that it was a sin...fornication is a sin...mostly a sin against the one who commits it. Now I know some have even committed adultery with the married ladies in the religion...I have NO idea how many, but I'm sure if the need was pressing there'd be some woman glad to releave them!
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Aug 15, 2014 14:01:57 GMT -5
Paul wrote to Timothy about those who would come defying marriage etc. And that's what we have witnessed in the 2x2 religion! It has done nothing other then made some of the better genetic and moral raised men into lusters and an inability to keep their flesh under control....the real problem is when the workers first had sex, that was when the seed was soon that there would never be enough of that for them! One overseer even told that to a reprofessing convert! The workers have excused one another's fleshly lust failures believing that it was just a way to enable the worker to stay in the harvest field and they NEVER for some odd reason considered that it was a sin...fornication is a sin...mostly a sin against the one who commits it. Now I know some have even committed adultery with the married ladies in the religion...I have NO idea how many, but I'm sure if the need was pressing there'd be some woman glad to releave them! I know this is a hard subject for you, and I respect that. Knowing what they believe I guess you could say it is a huge let down because it makes them hypocrites. To teach one thing and do another is not honorable. However, if there had never been that stigma/sin attached to the natural act of sex, we wouldn't see so many struggling and failing to achieve it. There would be no need for hypocrisy when they failed because it wouldn't be taught as a sin in the first place. I find it so hard to understand why people think God would give his creation an enjoyable way of reproducing and then making it a sin and something to avoid except for reproduction under the 'right' circumstances. Early man didn't marry. They may have chosen partners, and they may have stayed with only one, but it would have been done out of choice, not because it was a sin to do otherwise. It is a powerful way to control when you take such a major natural instinct and make it a punishable sin. Perhaps I should try to give a better understanding of my thoughts about fornication, adultery in the 2x2s. The main reason, I so utterly chapped is that the ONE worker I would have sworn against anybody that would have told me that he had fornicated once muchless many other times! I would have been greatly "offended" on his part. Well, truth does come out...I incidentally read in his own handwriting about all his affairs, etc! It wasn't written to me, I was thinking someone was sharing something of his bible thoughts with me, so I continued reading the notes and was caught up in the biggest surprise of my life! IMO, I feel that morally he should have removed himself from the work when he started getting tempted at the second affair! One affair can be excused, of course, depending on the statistics around it....but when he proved he was unable to do without according to the rules of the workership, then he should have removed himself from that workership and gotten married and had his convenient wife and perhaps some children...nonetheless! As it is, his fornication while in the work has made him likely pretty near ineffectual in dealing with CSA and rapist perps in the workership! This is something that the workers never considered back when CSA and raping was slid under the proverbial carpet...they never thought that all of that was going to overflow out from under that proverbial carpet and then those who had been involved even in immoral acts of their own, would find themselves quite ineffectual overseers! And should their immorality hit the fellowship around the world, likely they become ineffectual workers! So it is with great sadness(actually a strong grief) that I've had to try and fit these facts into my knowledge of the workership/fellowship! I'm terribly sorry that a very good moral man was brought so low to have to do what he's said he did! And I know that if he, a morally raised man, has problems with fornication/adultery then it is just as likely that a great number of his peers are caught up in the same spot.....and that is more great grief!
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Aug 15, 2014 14:13:55 GMT -5
It doesn't say exactly how many days After the earth was created that Adam and Ever were kicked out of the garden for disobedience...so that pagan stories could possibly be had....I don't quite get that is correct either. However, in order that Adam and Eve might be clothed to cover their shameful lusts, God had to kill some beast for the skins to make their robes. So "blood" was sacrificed from the beginning and seems mankind realizes even in the pagan world that "blood" being the "life giving fluids" is the BEST known salvation tool! Now as you mention God could just judge each person and given them their dues....HE definitely will do that AFTER it is determined what their status of eternal life is according to the Lamb's Book of Life. IMO There will be "books of deeds" in which each individuals lifetime deeds are recorded and there with God will judge each individual for them. It still is going to take a "blood" sacrifice in order that "life" is sustained. You know the helps and properties of healthy "blood"...think about it, how precious it is! It really is far more precious then the gifts that 3 Kings gave Jesus...the frankincense, gold and myrrh! And those 3 are nothing to sneeze at! Amen, sister, there is no greater sacrifice when a man laid down his own life for someone he loves. Jesus was willing to leave the perfectness in heaven, to live in a human body, to be tempted of the world, flesh and the devil yet without sin or yield to sin. Matthew 4:4-11
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,
6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God (Jesus).
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
11 Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.
....Jesus had to be a perfect sacrificial God/Lamb to pay for our sins. He died so we can live forever more with God through Hid life and death on Calvary's Cross... It shows Jesus greatest love for His creation of mankind. life begets life.If it weren't for the love Jesus has for us, I doubt any of us would be able to get near to the throne of grace! Also, Jesus loved the Father so that he wanted to obey Him perfectly! JMO! Lately when I repeat John 3:16 to myself, I actually feel that love from God overflowing to sinners like me..."For God so 'loved' the world that He gave His only Son, that whosoever believeth on him, should not perish but have everlasting life." That verse was given to me during our preparations for my cousin's funeral about 2 months ago! This cousin still believed that the 2x2 religion was the only true way, however he had not darkened the mtg. doors in over probably 40 yrs! His widow was very concerned that he had not done anything to show his profession of faith, and she was very worried about that. I had given her John 3:16 the day before but she was so scattered in her mind, it didn't stick with her! After she'd stood there by his casket looking on him, and worrying about his lack of going to mtgs. or showing any kind of activity toward his profession of faith. I asked her if she remembered the verse I had given her the day before. She thought a min. then said remind me of it. I repeated it to her.....and then she looked up at me and said, "But ******, Jerry believed in Jesus Christ." I thought a min. and then I said to her, "Well.....let's just leave it right there with John 3:16!" It dawned on her what that verse said and she shook her head yes, and turned away from the casket and looked up at me and said, "YES! let's leave it right there." I have had NO other words from her that says she's worrying any more about her husband's eternal salvation! Since that day, I've had a couple of times I've had to take the same verse in light of someone else....one professing in spite of knowing the negative things going on and another who'd passed away before then......."should not perish, but have everlasting life."
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 15, 2014 15:05:05 GMT -5
Nathan, I still don't see how it can be of any worth if someone is tempted but can't give in to temptation? It's a forgone conclusion what the outcome will be. It wouldn't take any effort at all. Don't you see that? Also, being God he would already know what we go through without having to experience it in a human body. It just comes with the territory. After all, he is all knowing. A sacrifice that cannot be otherwise, isn't much of a sacrifice imo. If you can't fail, where was the sacrifice? Snow, there was a great cost to Jesus to know that his life was soon to be taken away from him by those whom should have received him with open arms, but they instead, were "jealous" of him.... Pilate knew it was for envy that the chief priest and his minions were calling out to ccrucify Jesus. Now think about the Garden of Gethsemane experience and that there should be NO doubt the cost that came to Jesus as he knew his time was coming to be hung on the cruel tree. Doesn't it say that he prayed so hard that the sweat o fhis brow was like great drops of blood? Here was a very young man, about the age of other men who would be expecting to have a home, children, wife(s) and jobs and extended family responsibilities, but no, Jesus had all that taken away "in the human body" sense! Yes, he also had the God in him and never lost that, it never died on that cross...though his enemies sure thought they would be getting rid of all of him! I can just feel that horrible burden Jesus had knowing that as a young human man that what he knew was coming was something that NO one would every ask to experience...but it was as Peter was told, it was prophecied that the Saviour would die as he did. Yes, Jesus had to pray heavily and whole heartedly 3 different times before he could face his enemies who were going to turn him over to the Greek rulers so that they could call for his execution by cross! If we could just get beyond the belief that the reasons the chief priest etc., wanted Jesus put to death really had nothing to do with their being "jealous" or "envious," of Jesus we would realize that it was their way of life that the priests didn't want disrupted.
They had a cushy job & were very well paid. They came from the affluent Jewish families. They didn't care whether the poorer Jewish people suffered.
The priests just did not want him to upset their wealthy lifestyle.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Aug 15, 2014 17:21:02 GMT -5
Perhaps I should try to give a better understanding of my thoughts about fornication, adultery in the 2x2s. The main reason, I so utterly chapped is that the ONE worker I would have sworn against anybody that would have told me that he had fornicated once muchless many other times! I would have been greatly "offended" on his part. Well, truth does come out...I incidentally read in his own handwriting about all his affairs, etc! It wasn't written to me, I was thinking someone was sharing something of his bible thoughts with me, so I continued reading the notes and was caught up in the biggest surprise of my life! IMO, I feel that morally he should have removed himself from the work when he started getting tempted at the second affair! One affair can be excused, of course, depending on the statistics around it....but when he proved he was unable to do without according to the rules of the workership, then he should have removed himself from that workership and gotten married and had his convenient wife and perhaps some children...nonetheless! As it is, his fornication while in the work has made him likely pretty near ineffectual in dealing with CSA and rapist perps in the workership! This is something that the workers never considered back when CSA and raping was slid under the proverbial carpet...they never thought that all of that was going to overflow out from under that proverbial carpet and then those who had been involved even in immoral acts of their own, would find themselves quite ineffectual overseers! And should their immorality hit the fellowship around the world, likely they become ineffectual workers! So it is with great sadness(actually a strong grief) that I've had to try and fit these facts into my knowledge of the workership/fellowship! I'm terribly sorry that a very good moral man was brought so low to have to do what he's said he did! And I know that if he, a morally raised man, has problems with fornication/adultery then it is just as likely that a great number of his peers are caught up in the same spot.....and that is more great grief! That would be a great shock I'm sure. Actually, when I first joined TMB I was still naive enough to think they were celibate, though I must admit I didn't give it much thought. It was a shock for me to hear it and it really shouldn't have been. It's funny how we can be so street wise and still have little corners of naivety. I guess I blame it more on the fact that I was never an adult in the 2x2's, and so I never thought to question it, mostly because I was a child. I did know about CSA among the elders which I remember at the time shocked me when I found out about it at 14 years of age, but it never occurred to me then that the workers did it too. So I can only imagine how betrayed, for lack of a better word, you must have felt after putting so many years into the group only to find out they weren't who they said they were. Snow, I believe the vast majority of workers are celibate.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Aug 15, 2014 19:39:38 GMT -5
Snow, I believe the vast majority of workers are celibate. I imagine you're right. Most, I would hope, take their preaching seriously and live by it. I can still understand if some like STR feel somewhat disillusioned when they find out some they respected did not live by their preaching. Yes, I understand that, too.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Aug 15, 2014 22:20:38 GMT -5
Sharon wrote:
I think that Jesus had settled any struggle he had with human desires before the Garden of Gethsemane. I'm thinking of what he told the twelve when he asked them who do people say I am? When Peter answered correctly, he urged them to not tell others and then he told them what he would be facing at Jerusalem. (Matt. 16; Mark 8; Luke 9) I firmly believe he was not lamenting human loss but was fearing his human spirit would fail to yield to the Holy Spirit.
Jesus surely wasn't lamenting his return to heaven and leaving his human joy behind when he said this: And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.(John 17:5)
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Aug 16, 2014 9:07:01 GMT -5
The doctrine of the Trinity is difficult and perplexing to us. Sometimes it is thought that Christianity teaches the absurd notion that 1+1+1=1. That is clearly a false equation. The term Trinity describes a relationship not of three gods, but of one God who is three persons. Trinity does not mean tritheism, that is, that there are three beings who together are God. The word Trinity is used in an effort to define the fullness of the Godhead both in terms of His unity and diversity. The historic formulation of the Trinity is that God is one in essence and three in person. Though the formula is mysterious and even paradoxical, it is in no way contradictory. The unity of the Godhead is affirmed in terms of essence or being, while the diversity of the Godhead is expressed in terms of person. Though the term Trinity is not found in the Bible, the concept is clearly there. On the one hand the Bible strongly affirms the unity of God (Deuteronomy 6:4). On the other hand the Bible clearly affirms the full deity of the three persons of the Godhead: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The church has rejected the heresies of modalism and tritheism. Modalism denies the distinction of persons within the Godhead, claiming that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are just ways in which God expresses Himself. Tritheism, on the other hand, falsely declares that there are three beings who together make up God. The term person does not mean a distinction in essence but a different subsistence in the Godhead. A subsistence in the Godhead is a real difference but not an essential difference in the sense of a difference in being. Each person subsists or exists “under” the pure essence of deity. Subsistence is a difference within the scope of being, not a separate being or essence. All persons in the Godhead have all the attributes of deity. There is also a distinction in the work done by each member of the Trinity. The work of salvation is in one sense common to all three persons of the Trinity. Yet in the manner of activity, there are differing operations assumed by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father initiates creation and redemption; the Son redeems the creation; and the Holy Spirit regenerates and sanctifies, applying redemption to believers. The Trinity does not refer to parts of God or even to roles. Human analogies such as one man who is a father, son, and a husband fail to capture the mystery of the nature of God. The doctrine of the Trinity does not fully explain the mysterious character of God. Rather, it sets the boundaries outside of which we must not step. It defines the limits of our finite reflection. It demands that we be faithful to the biblical revelation that in one sense God is one and in a different sense He is three. Summary 1. The doctrine of the Trinity affirms the triunity of God. 2. The doctrine of the Trinity is not a contradiction: God is one in essence and three in person. 3. The Bible affirms both the oneness of God and the deity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. 4. The Trinity is distinguished by the work assumed by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. 5. The doctrine of the Trinity sets the limits of human speculation about the nature of God. Biblical passages for reflection: Deuteronomy 6:4 Matthew 3:16-17 Matthew 28:19 2 Corinthians 13:14 1 Peter 1:2 Thanks for taking the effort to lay this out. I have only a few questions to try and understand this. What is the essence or essential nature of God, applicable to all three persons? Since God is never God "in essence" but only and at all times in the three persons, can you focus on this essence and explain it? How does each of the three persons subsist in the Godhead? Do all three subsist in the same manner, or does each of the three person subsist in the Godhead in a unique way reflecting the unique aspects of that particular person? For example, we know that the Christ could say, that only the Father knows, but would the Spirit ever say that? Can you reflect on how the Jesus as the Man subsisted in the Godhead versus Jesus as God subsisting in the Godhead? Can you comment on the relationship of Jesus and the Holy Spirit (Comforter). Did they subsist in the Godhead while Jesus was a Man? What I'm getting at is, how does the picture of the three persons subsisting in the Godhead change when we consider the man who came to Earth, Jesus, versus Jesus Christ at God's right hand? From what I find in Scripture it is enough for me to accept the doctrine of the Trinity in faith just as I have accepted in faith that my salvation depends alone on what Jesus Christ accomplished at Calvary. [17] Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. [18] All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; [19] that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. [20] Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. [21] For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Corinthians 5:17-21 ESV). As to the Trinity and the Deity of Christ I will leave you with the comments of Professor Jim Packer: The question is whether the man Christ Jesus was and remains God in person or not. So the issue is whether as a matter of public, objective, cosmic space-time fact, Jesus Christ was a divine person – the Word made flesh without ceasing to be God’s Son, which is what John affirms in the famous fourteenth verse of the first chapter of his gospel – or whether despite what John and the other New Testament writers, notably Paul and the writer to the Hebrews, thought and taught, Jesus was not God become man and ought to be accounted for in other terms. This is as far-reaching an issue as can well be imagined. On it hangs your view both of God and salvation. Take the matter of God first. We need to realise that the doctrine of the Trinity is not an idle fancy or speculation about God in the abstract but a specific claim about the Lord Jesus Christ, so the doctrine of the Incarnation is not an idle fancy or speculation about Jesus in isolation but a specific claim about God. For what the doctrine of the Trinity says is that the relationship of Jesus the Son to the Father and the Spirit, which the gospels depict and epistles affirm, is a revelation of that endless fellowship of mutual love and honour which is the final, definitive description of God’s eternal reality. And what the doctrine of the Incarnation says is that the Triune God loves sinners, and therefore in unity with God the Father and God the Spirit, God the Son has come to us where we are and identified wholly with the human condition in order to save us. All the works of the Trinity external to the Godhead are undivided, says the old tag ( Omnia opera Trinitatis ad extra indivisa sunt): so it needs to be understood that, as indeed the gospel records make it very plain, the Son became human at the command of the Father, by the power of the Holy Spirit and in the joy of loving union with both; and that when this cry of dereliction on the cross Jesus testified to the god-forsakenness at conscious level, at a deeper level the togetherness of the Godhead remained intact. That Jesus knew this, even if for those three dark hours he could not feel it, is surely clear from his first and last words on the cross: ‘Father, forgive them,’ and ‘Father , into thy hands I commit my spirit’ Luke 23:34, 36. Denial that the Incarnation is fact, however, undercuts the whole of this. On the one hand, it takes away at a stroke all grounds for supposing the Trinity to be fact. On the other hand, it constitutes a denial that, when mankind was perishing in sin and had forfeited God’s favour and provoked his wrath, the Father loved the world enough to give his only Son to become poor so that we might be made rich, and to bear the unimaginable agony in enduring the sinner’s death so that we might know righteousness and life. There is no escaping the point that non-incarnational Christologies say is that, contrary to what Christians always thought and what their liturgies and hymns have hitherto expressed, God did not come in person to save the world after all: for whoever, Jesus was, and whatever he did, he was not God. Putting this point biblically, Paul’s great statement that the Father ‘did not spare his own son’ (the verb talks of the cost to the Father) ‘but gave him up for us all’ (that verb speaks of the cost to the Son), is being denied; and the effect of this denial is to rob us of all warrant for embracing Paul’s glorious inference – ‘will he [the Father] not give us all things with him’? Romans 8:32. In other words, deny the Incarnation, and Jesus’ death, just because it is not now the death of God’s Son and not therefore the most costly gift that God could bestow, loses its significance as the guarantee of every other gift that God can devise. This is a heavy loss which, one feels, should make advocates of the new Christology pause and reconsider. What, now, of the link between the Incarnation and Salvation? Here the basic point is that we are going to deny that Jesus was God incarnate, we cannot ascribe to him any mediatorial ministry involving anything which it takes God to do. How much then, do we stand to lose of the Saviour’s ministry as we have hitherto understood it? The answer of the New Testament from its own standpoint, and equally of the protagonists of ‘humanitarian’ Christologies from theirs: seems to be: practically all of it. For both objective reconciliation through Christ, and personal renewal in Christ as its consequence, will have to go. Take reconciliation first. Paul tells us, if I read him right, that God’s reconciling work in Christ took the form of a substitutionary sacrifice in which ‘for our sake he (the father) made him (the Son) to be sin who knew no sin’ (2 Corinthians 5:19, 21): that is to say, our sins were imputed to Christ as the personally innocent and sinless sacrificial victim, according to the typical Old Testament pattern, and he died under God’s curse in our place. ‘Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become’ – the natural rendering would be, ‘by becoming’ – ‘a curse for us’ (Galatians 3:13). The curse is, of course, the sentence of spiritual death, the appropriate judicial retribution
|
|