|
|
Post by maryhig on Sept 19, 2019 5:07:45 GMT -5
Jesus himself said he is the son of God John 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? Also, when Jesus said to Peter "who do you say that I am" Peter said "you are the Christ the son of the living God". Jesus then said to Peter, "flesh and blood hath not revealed this to you, but my father which is in heaven" Jesus also told his disciples to tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ, Jesus didn't tell people he was the Christ, that came by revelation from God. The Christ means the Messiah, the anointed of God. And Jesus was certainly that. No one has wisdom and understanding of the Spirit like Jesus unless it comes from God. Well, of course. John was written for Gentiles. No the gospel is for both Jew and gentile. Romans 1 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. Also Jesus said to his apostles that they are to go out and preach the gospel to everyone in every nation. Not to the Jews only. So the gospel is for everyone, and those who truly believe and have faith in God will deny themselves, take up their cross and truly follow Jesus in word and deed. |
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 19, 2019 17:18:27 GMT -5
Well, of course. John was written for Gentiles. No the gospel is for both Jew and gentile. It is now, of course. But not then. |
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Sept 22, 2019 11:53:30 GMT -5
I think I know what you mean by that, but not entirely sure. Could you elaborate a bit more for me please? It is an error to believe that, to Jews, "messiah" meant "christ". The Jews DID NOT believe in a christ. The Jewish "messiah" was to come to deliver the Jewish people from their temporal oppressors. The word "christ" originates in Greek Paganism/Mythology, and it was commonly used for a person who was the "son of a god" whose earthly purpose was to "teach/prepare people" to join him in the afterlife when he "returned to his father/god". Augustine is responsible for (1) injecting Greek theology and (2) deciding Jesus was a "christ", thus transforming Jesos' Judaism into a Christian religion, known as Christianity today. Recall, Jesus never referred to himself as a "christ". Did Augustine influence the translation of Matthew's Gospel? Otherwise, God himself revealed to Peter that Jesus was the Christ! Matthew 16:16-18 King James Version (KJV) 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.Special thanks to Virgs. |
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Sept 22, 2019 15:04:21 GMT -5
Thanks for your reply Mary. We have been down this road a few times before. I am not here to convince you of a different view. I just wanted to offer another perspective. I don’t think any point is served by continuing a debate when you feel free to keep unilaterally reinterpreting the plain meaning of scripture by ‘spiritualising’ everything. When you say ‘death’ doesn’t mean actual death, and that every reference to physical death must be about self-sacrifice by believers (which is a legitimate thing, but a separate issue to the physical death and resurrection of our Lord), then we have no common ground for discussion. I will just mention one thought, what do you think the constant reference in the OT to things like ‘without the shedding of blood (literal blood not figurative self-sacrifice) there can be no forgiveness of sins’ and the whole program of physical sacrifice of animals prefiguring a greater offering, combined with many New Testament references to the Passover lamb? You cannot just explain it all away by hand-waving and coming up with a theology that is not recognisable by most of the world’s Christian believers. And I disagree that people trust in the death of Jesus so that they can go and do their own thing. That is such a misrepresentation. I for one trust that Jesus took the penalty I could never pay and that he has set me free to live for him and others. Not for myself. That is what I believe. It is not ALL about us and what we do. Respect and peace to you. It's the same blood that we are to drink to have life in us. Jesus came as a living sacrifice not a human one, and he sacrificed his whole life to live by the will of God and bring us the gospel and a new and living way to follow. We are reconciled to God by the word of God, once we hear, believe and repent and then we are to turn from sin and live by his will and bring the love of God and life of Christ to others. I was speaking to a young woman the other day, she has started coming to our meetings. She told me that she has been to many churches but only one told her that she must turn from wilfully sinning. The rest spoke mainly about Jesus dying on the cross for us so that we have no more sin that we are judged on, and that God doesn't see her sins anymore. This is not the truth, we will be judged on what we do good and bad, and those who know God and know the truth will be held more accountable than those who don't. As Jesus said to Pilate, "those who have handed me over to you have the greater sin," so it was a sin to hand Jesus over to be murdered and it was a greater sin because those who did so knew the laws of God and they knew "thou shalt not kill." And God has nothing to do with sin. Jesus said "this is your hour and the power of darkness," God is not the power of darkness God is light. Satan was in those who handed Jesus over to be murdered and they did so under the power of his darkness because they were envious of Jesus and their hearts were wicked before God. It was an evil act by men filled with wickedness. God is love, and Jesus was in the express image of God and he came as an example for us to follow. And that example does not include murder. But love, mercy peace and forgiveness. It was wrong before God to murder Jesus, God foreknew what they would do and told it through the prophets, and Jesus came to bare witness to the truth and he was willing to go through it to save as many as would believe in the gospel and turn from sin and turn to the living God. But that doesn't mean that it was right for those who did this wicked act to do so, or that we are saved by that act either. It was murder, and murder is a sin before God. Millions of Christians may believe it, but, only Satan teaches that we are still saved even if we carry on wilfully sinning. As he did to Eve from the beginning telling her that she will not surely die. But yes we will, we will be separated from God if we carry on wilfully sinning once we know the truth. And to be separated from God is to be dead to him, because we choose our flesh and this world before him. Sin is wrong before God and those who carry on wilfully sinning can't be saved, because God saves those who live by his will by helping them to overcome sin, saving them from the flesh and the ways of this world. Also, if they pleased not God in killing Jesus, then it was a sin to murder him! And God doesn't condone sin! 1 Thessalonians 2:14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: WHO BOTH KILLED THE LORD JESUS, AND THEIR OWN PROPHETS, AND HAVE PERSECUTED US; AND THEY PLEASE NOT GOD, and are contrary to all men:
In the Garden of Eden, God killed an animal to make clothes for them to cover themselves before He banished them out of the Garden... A picture of Jesus death to cover their nakedness/sins.
Abraham sacrifice his son, Isaac and a ram was caught in the thicket to take his place. God revealed another type/picture of Jesus the Lamb of God to take our place on Calvary's Cross so we don't need to die the Second Death after the judgment day.
The Passover in the book of Exodus... The blood of the lamb put on the door posts of each home so when angel of death came he would Passover them and they would NOT be killed. It was also a prophetic feast revealing part of God's plan for the salvation of all mankind, "a shadow of things to come= Jesus the Lamb of God who takes away our sins by His death on Calvary's (Colossians 2:16-17; 1 Corinthians 10:1-11).
The Old Testament Passover Exodus 12 is a type of Christ's Passover in the New Testament fellowship/worship in I Cor. chapters 11-14. Christ/God incarnate in the person Jesus, as the sacrificial Lamb of God who takes away our sins.
|
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 22, 2019 19:44:43 GMT -5
It is an error to believe that, to Jews, "messiah" meant "christ". The Jews DID NOT believe in a christ. The Jewish "messiah" was to come to deliver the Jewish people from their temporal oppressors. The word "christ" originates in Greek Paganism/Mythology, and it was commonly used for a person who was the "son of a god" whose earthly purpose was to "teach/prepare people" to join him in the afterlife when he "returned to his father/god". Augustine is responsible for (1) injecting Greek theology and (2) deciding Jesus was a "christ", thus transforming Jesos' Judaism into a Christian religion, known as Christianity today. Recall, Jesus never referred to himself as a "christ". Did Augustine influence the translation of Matthew's Gospel? Otherwise, God himself revealed to Peter that Jesus was the Christ! Matthew 16:16-18 King James Version (KJV) 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.Special thanks to Virgs. Very possible. The Catholic church (and all western Christianity) from the very beginning have used "christ" and "messiah" interchangeably, as though they actually meant the same thing. Prior to that the Jews and gentiles were very aware of the differences. Augustine's contribution to Christianity is his discovery and infatuation with Paul's writing. Paul was a Jew, but a Hellenized Jew -- meaning he was of the Jews who never returned after the diaspora and obviously believed in christs of the Greek fashion. Augustine's disadvantage with Paul's writings is that Augustine spoke Latin, and Latin vocabulary was far much less sophisticated than Greek, and no one can be sure that Augustine even recognized that calling Jesus the Christ was not the same as calling him the messiah. The Bible does say that "they were first called Christians" in a Greek city, where Paul preached. Which makes perfect sense if Paul understood Jesus to be a christ rather than a messiah. Paul had his differences with Palestinian Jesus believers, a fact that by the time the Roman church adopted Greek theology made it necessary to somehow reconcile the differences between a messiah and a christ. Confusing the terms would surely accommodate that. |
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Sept 23, 2019 4:52:57 GMT -5
Did Augustine influence the translation of Matthew's Gospel? Otherwise, God himself revealed to Peter that Jesus was the Christ! Matthew 16:16-18 King James Version (KJV) 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.Special thanks to Virgs. Very possible. The Catholic church (and all western Christianity) from the very beginning have used "christ" and "messiah" interchangeably, as though they actually meant the same thing. Prior to that the Jews and gentiles were very aware of the differences. Augustine's contribution to Christianity is his discovery and infatuation with Paul's writing. Paul was a Jew, but a Hellenized Jew -- meaning he was of the Jews who never returned after the diaspora and obviously believed in christs of the Greek fashion. Augustine's disadvantage with Paul's writings is that Augustine spoke Latin, and Latin vocabulary was far much less sophisticated than Greek, and no one can be sure that Augustine even recognized that calling Jesus the Christ was not the same as calling him the messiah. The Bible does say that "they were first called Christians" in a Greek city, where Paul preached. Which makes perfect sense if Paul understood Jesus to be a christ rather than a messiah. Paul had his differences with Palestinian Jesus believers, a fact that by the time the Roman church adopted Greek theology made it necessary to somehow reconcile the differences between a messiah and a christ. Confusing the terms would surely accommodate that. Very interesting Bob. Substituting 'Messiah' for 'Christ' in God's revelation to Peter would read 'Thou art the Messiah, (who is also) the son of the living God.' The Jews were expecting a 'Messiah.' More thought needed I think? |
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Sept 23, 2019 10:24:31 GMT -5
As I said, I see it very differently to you, God didn't need a human sacrifice to save us. And God certainly doesn't need to be a human sacrifice to save us from his own wrath! That's just doesn't make sense at all! Also, Jesus and his apostles spoke in the Spirit, so there are deeper meanings. The shedding of the blood isn't Jesus's literal blood. It's the same blood that we are to drink to have life in us. Jesus came as a living sacrifice not a human one, and he sacrificed his whole life to live by the will of God and bring us the gospel and a new and living way to follow. We are reconciled to God by the word of God, once we hear, believe and repent and then we are to turn from sin and live by his will and bring the love of God and life of Christ to others. I was speaking to a young woman the other day, she has started coming to our meetings. She told me that she has been to many churches but only one told her that she must turn from wilfully sinning. The rest spoke mainly about Jesus dying on the cross for us so that we have no more sin that we are judged on, and that God doesn't see her sins anymore. This is not the truth, we will be judged on what we do good and bad, and those who know God and know the truth will be held more accountable than those who don't. As Jesus said to Pilate, "those who have handed me over to you have the greater sin," so it was a sin to hand Jesus over to be murdered and it was a greater sin because those who did so knew the laws of God and they knew "thou shalt not kill." And God has nothing to do with sin. Jesus said "this is your hour and the power of darkness," God is not the power of darkness God is light. Satan was in those who handed Jesus over to be murdered and they did so under the power of his darkness because they were envious of Jesus and their hearts were wicked before God. It was an evil act by men filled with wickedness. God is love, and Jesus was in the express image of God and he came as an example for us to follow. And that example does not include murder. But love, mercy peace and forgiveness. It was wrong before God to murder Jesus, God foreknew what they would do and told it through the prophets, and Jesus came to bare witness to the truth and he was willing to go through it to save as many as would believe in the gospel and turn from sin and turn to the living God. But that doesn't mean that it was right for those who did this wicked act to do so, or that we are saved by that act either. It was murder, and murder is a sin before God. Millions of Christians may believe it, but, only Satan teaches that we are still saved even if we carry on wilfully sinning. As he did to Eve from the beginning telling her that she will not surely die. But yes we will, we will be separated from God if we carry on wilfully sinning once we know the truth. And to be separated from God is to be dead to him, because we choose our flesh and this world before him. Sin is wrong before God and those who carry on wilfully sinning can't be saved, because God saves those who live by his will by helping them to overcome sin, saving them from the flesh and the ways of this world. Also, if they pleased not God in killing Jesus, then it was a sin to murder him! And God doesn't condone sin! 1 Thessalonians 2:14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: WHO BOTH KILLED THE LORD JESUS, AND THEIR OWN PROPHETS, AND HAVE PERSECUTED US; AND THEY PLEASE NOT GOD, and are contrary to all men:
In the Garden of Eden, God killed an animal to make clothes for them to cover themselves before He banished them out of the Garden... A picture of Jesus death to cover their nakedness/sins.
Abraham sacrifice his son, Isaac and a ram was caught in the thicket to take his place. God revealed another type/picture of Jesus the Lamb of God to take our place on Calvary's Cross so we don't need to die the Second Death after the judgment day.
The Passover in the book of Exodus... The blood of the lamb put on the door posts of each home so when angel of death came he would Passover them and they would NOT be killed. It was also a prophetic feast revealing part of God's plan for the salvation of all mankind, "a shadow of things to come= Jesus the Lamb of God who takes away our sins by His death on Calvary's (Colossians 2:16-17; 1 Corinthians 10:1-11).
The Old Testament Passover Exodus 12 is a type of Christ's Passover in the New Testament fellowship/worship in I Cor. chapters 11-14. Christ/God incarnate in the person Jesus, as the sacrificial Lamb of God who takes away our sins.
Nathan, there's a natural and a spiritual. Jesus wasn't a literal human sacrifice. He was a living sacrifice. And he took up his cross, the same cross that we have to take up and die to self as he was dead to self. Jesus was murdered. And in Thessalonians 1, chapter 2, (as seen below, ) Paul clearly says that they pleased not God in murdering Jesus. So if they pleased not God in murdering him, then it's not the work of God. It's the work of evil and wicked men. God doesn't need a human sacrifice, he needs a living sacrifice. And we are to also become a living sacrifice when we follow Jesus. And lay our lives down, losing our life for Christ's sake. And in doing so we save it. 1 Thessalonians 2:14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: 2:15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; AND THEY PLEASE NOT GOD, and are contrary to all men: |
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 23, 2019 13:01:22 GMT -5
Did Augustine influence the translation of Matthew's Gospel? Otherwise, God himself revealed to Peter that Jesus was the Christ! Matthew 16:16-18 King James Version (KJV) 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.Special thanks to Virgs. Very possible. The Catholic church (and all western Christianity) from the very beginning have used "christ" and "messiah" interchangeably, as though they actually meant the same thing. Prior to that the Jews and gentiles were very aware of the differences. Augustine's contribution to Christianity is his discovery and infatuation with Paul's writing. Paul was a Jew, but a Hellenized Jew -- meaning he was of the Jews who never returned after the diaspora and obviously believed in christs of the Greek fashion. Augustine's disadvantage with Paul's writings is that Augustine spoke Latin, and Latin vocabulary was far much less sophisticated than Greek, and no one can be sure that Augustine even recognized that calling Jesus the Christ was not the same as calling him the messiah. The Bible does say that "they were first called Christians" in a Greek city, where Paul preached. Which makes perfect sense if Paul understood Jesus to be a christ rather than a messiah. Paul had his differences with Palestinian Jesus believers, a fact that by the time the Roman church adopted Greek theology made it necessary to somehow reconcile the differences between a messiah and a christ. Confusing the terms would surely accommodate that. Good points Bob. We know that Paul taught a different gospel to what the apostles did and it would have been partly because he mixed in his Greek Gods mythology in with the story. The Christos had been around for a long time and Paul would have been familiar with it. |
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 23, 2019 14:39:46 GMT -5
Very possible. The Catholic church (and all western Christianity) from the very beginning have used "christ" and "messiah" interchangeably, as though they actually meant the same thing. Prior to that the Jews and gentiles were very aware of the differences. Augustine's contribution to Christianity is his discovery and infatuation with Paul's writing. Paul was a Jew, but a Hellenized Jew -- meaning he was of the Jews who never returned after the diaspora and obviously believed in christs of the Greek fashion. Augustine's disadvantage with Paul's writings is that Augustine spoke Latin, and Latin vocabulary was far much less sophisticated than Greek, and no one can be sure that Augustine even recognized that calling Jesus the Christ was not the same as calling him the messiah. The Bible does say that "they were first called Christians" in a Greek city, where Paul preached. Which makes perfect sense if Paul understood Jesus to be a christ rather than a messiah. Paul had his differences with Palestinian Jesus believers, a fact that by the time the Roman church adopted Greek theology made it necessary to somehow reconcile the differences between a messiah and a christ. Confusing the terms would surely accommodate that. Very interesting Bob. Substituting 'Messiah' for 'Christ' in God's revelation to Peter would read 'Thou art the Messiah, (who is also) the son of the living God.' The Jews were expecting a 'Messiah.' More thought needed I think? If you'll notice, Jesus' most common reference to himself was "son of MAN". In ancient times the "of someone" was like one's surname. Of course, if one is inclined to believe in his dual divine/human nature, it can easily be interpreted to have some "christlike" inference.  |
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Sept 23, 2019 15:52:08 GMT -5
Very interesting Bob. Substituting 'Messiah' for 'Christ' in God's revelation to Peter would read 'Thou art the Messiah, (who is also) the son of the living God.' The Jews were expecting a 'Messiah.' More thought needed I think? If you'll notice, Jesus' most common reference to himself was "son of MAN". In ancient times the "of someone" was like one's surname. Of course, if one is inclined to believe in his dual divine/human nature, it can easily be interpreted to have some "christlike" inference. The terms Son of Man, Messiah, were 100% human being only descriptive terms. Some interpretations give the meaning of the term 'Christ' as 'the anointed one,' or God's Chosen or anointed one.' No very much difference on that account. The divine nature in Christ is God's spirit, just as any follower of Christ can be divine, at least according to Peter and the writer of Hebrews who were the only NT writers to use the term. Certainly God, nor Jesus ever used the term or described themselves as such. A very much overplayed, misunderstood and misused term in describing God or Jesus, based on their own statements. Yes I can easily see God revealing to Peter that Jesus was the human being Messiah (not seen by most Jews), and also the human being son of God (not understood by most Jews once it was publicly revealed). Nowhere in scripture did God ever state that he himself, or any part of him, or any other spiritual being would ever descend from Heaven to become the Jewish Messiah, saviour of the world, or son of God. |
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 24, 2019 0:35:15 GMT -5
If you'll notice, Jesus' most common reference to himself was "son of MAN". In ancient times the "of someone" was like one's surname. Of course, if one is inclined to believe in his dual divine/human nature, it can easily be interpreted to have some "christlike" inference. The terms Son of Man, Messiah, were 100% human being only descriptive terms. Some interpretations give the meaning of the term 'Christ' as 'the anointed one,' or God's Chosen or anointed one.' No very much difference on that account. The divine nature in Christ is God's spirit, just as any follower of Christ can be divine, at least according to Peter and the writer of Hebrews who were the only NT writers to use the term. Certainly God, nor Jesus ever used the term or described themselves as such. A very much overplayed, misunderstood and misused term in describing God or Jesus, based on their own statements. Yes I can easily see God revealing to Peter that Jesus was the human being Messiah (not seen by most Jews), and also the human being son of God (not understood by most Jews once it was publicly revealed). Nowhere in scripture did God ever state that he himself, or any part of him, or any other spiritual being would ever descend from Heaven to become the Jewish Messiah, saviour of the world, or son of God. Reasonable. Actually, The Jews even today believe that there have been many messiahs in their history. Every king in Jewish history was called a messiah because they were literally anointed with oil in their ceremonies. Some non-Jews also were considered anointed ones -- the king of Persia who facilitated the return of Jews to Palestine and the building of their temple. |
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Sept 24, 2019 3:36:03 GMT -5
The terms Son of Man, Messiah, were 100% human being only descriptive terms. Some interpretations give the meaning of the term 'Christ' as 'the anointed one,' or God's Chosen or anointed one.' No very much difference on that account. The divine nature in Christ is God's spirit, just as any follower of Christ can be divine, at least according to Peter and the writer of Hebrews who were the only NT writers to use the term. Certainly God, nor Jesus ever used the term or described themselves as such. A very much overplayed, misunderstood and misused term in describing God or Jesus, based on their own statements. Yes I can easily see God revealing to Peter that Jesus was the human being Messiah (not seen by most Jews), and also the human being son of God (not understood by most Jews once it was publicly revealed). Nowhere in scripture did God ever state that he himself, or any part of him, or any other spiritual being would ever descend from Heaven to become the Jewish Messiah, saviour of the world, or son of God. Reasonable. Actually, The Jews even today believe that there have been many messiahs in their history. Every king in Jewish history was called a messiah because they were literally anointed with oil in their ceremonies. Some non-Jews also were considered anointed ones -- the king of Persia who facilitated the return of Jews to Palestine and the building of their temple. This makes sense as every King or ruler is supposed to represent God's rule on earth, therefore were possibly 'messiah' figures. It might in some way explain their wayward beliefs in expecting a messiah-king figure who would overthrow Roman rule? Any person in authority who spoke on behalf of God was indeed a God in the sense they were representing God on earth. Jesus tells us this himself when he quoted from the OT. |
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 24, 2019 18:12:46 GMT -5
Reasonable. Actually, The Jews even today believe that there have been many messiahs in their history. Every king in Jewish history was called a messiah because they were literally anointed with oil in their ceremonies. Some non-Jews also were considered anointed ones -- the king of Persia who facilitated the return of Jews to Palestine and the building of their temple. This makes sense as every King or ruler is supposed to represent God's rule on earth, therefore were possibly 'messiah' figures. It might in some way explain their wayward beliefs in expecting a messiah-king figure who would overthrow Roman rule? We have to remember that in the ancient Israel it was a theocracy -- that is, the government and the religion were one and the same thing, meaning that the king was God's king in the country. The king was not anointed because he WAS the great messiah, he was anointed as routine procedure for kings. All "messiah" actually meant was "anointed". That's true, of course. But in Jesus day that wasn't the case. Palestine was a colonized territory of the Pagan emperor in Rome. The Biblical record of Jesus' understanding of that day was to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's". In the OT tithing was precisely what we call "income tax" today -- since tithing was to the government, whish was synonymous with God. The Jews who were offended with the occupation of Palestine by the Romans were protesting the occupation by paying their "sacred offerings" to the temple keepers instead of the governing coffers. I'm not sure most Christians know this about the requirement or non-requirement of tithing to one's clergy. |
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Sept 25, 2019 3:29:31 GMT -5
This makes sense as every King or ruler is supposed to represent God's rule on earth, therefore were possibly 'messiah' figures. It might in some way explain their wayward beliefs in expecting a messiah-king figure who would overthrow Roman rule? We have to remember that in the ancient Israel it was a theocracy -- that is, the government and the religion were one and the same thing, meaning that the king was God's king in the country. The king was not anointed because he WAS the great messiah, he was anointed as routine procedure for kings. All "messiah" actually meant was "anointed".That's true, of course. But in Jesus day that wasn't the case. Palestine was a colonized territory of the Pagan emperor in Rome. The Biblical record of Jesus' understanding of that day was to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's". In the OT tithing was precisely what we call "income tax" today -- since tithing was to the government, whish was synonymous with God. The Jews who were offended with the occupation of Palestine by the Romans were protesting the occupation by paying their "sacred offerings" to the temple keepers instead of the governing coffers. I'm not sure most Christians know this about the requirement or non-requirement of tithing to one's clergy. The tithing question is one that causes so much controversy today. It is used by many churches to subtly coerce members of their congregation to tithe despite it not being a requirement for the NT church. In some countries it is law that members of the Catholic Church must tithe and it is collected as a tax on behalf of the church. Regarding the Gods' issue. Jesus had to remind the Pharisees that those who spoke on behalf of God were in fact Gods contextually, because they represented God. They had and spoke with God's authority. The Pharisees had forgotten this and misunderstood Jesus, thinking he was making out that he was God himself. By representing God he was indeed a God in the context of Psalm 82, but pointed out to them that he was the son of God (human being), not God himself. The Catholic Church misappropriated this context in respect of their Pope, making out he is the equivalent of God on earth. No stoning of him by the Pharisees! Psalm 82 King James Version (KJV) 82 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. 2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah. 3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. 4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked. 5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course. 6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. John 10 KJV 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? 37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. This is the context in which God enthroned Jesus. Jesus was receiving his inheritance and was about to rule over heaven an earth, having been granted all authority by God to do so. He was to reign on behalf of God until such time as he defeats all his enemies and then returns that authority to his God and his Father. When God refers to Jesus as 'O God,' he is not referring to him as thee God or God almighty, but it is a title and name which accompanies his new position as he reigns on behalf of God. It should be understood in much the same way as Psalm 82 or John 10 above, only now he is reigning in his Father's stead. Hebrews 1:8 King James Version (KJV) 8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. (Virgs) |
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 25, 2019 12:29:45 GMT -5
This makes sense as every King or ruler is supposed to represent God's rule on earth, therefore were possibly 'messiah' figures. It might in some way explain their wayward beliefs in expecting a messiah-king figure who would overthrow Roman rule? We have to remember that in the ancient Israel it was a theocracy -- that is, the government and the religion were one and the same thing, meaning that the king was God's king in the country. The king was not anointed because he WAS the great messiah, he was anointed as routine procedure for kings. All "messiah" actually meant was "anointed".That's true, of course. But in Jesus day that wasn't the case. Palestine was a colonized territory of the Pagan emperor in Rome. The Biblical record of Jesus' understanding of that day was to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's". In the OT tithing was precisely what we call "income tax" today -- since tithing was to the government, whish was synonymous with God. The Jews who were offended with the occupation of Palestine by the Romans were protesting the occupation by paying their "sacred offerings" to the temple keepers instead of the governing coffers. I'm not sure most Christians know this about the requirement or non-requirement of tithing to one's clergy. The Romans were upset by the tithing to the temple priests, but they did get a portion of it. It's one reason why they started charging for every little thing they did and it's why Jesus was so upset with the temple priests. He felt they'd sold out to the Romans and were charging for things such as healings and blessings that came from God in the first place in his opinion, therefore no charge should have been made for these things. |
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 25, 2019 15:54:18 GMT -5
We have to remember that in the ancient Israel it was a theocracy -- that is, the government and the religion were one and the same thing, meaning that the king was God's king in the country. The king was not anointed because he WAS the great messiah, he was anointed as routine procedure for kings. All "messiah" actually meant was "anointed".That's true, of course. But in Jesus day that wasn't the case. Palestine was a colonized territory of the Pagan emperor in Rome. The Biblical record of Jesus' understanding of that day was to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's". In the OT tithing was precisely what we call "income tax" today -- since tithing was to the government, whish was synonymous with God. The Jews who were offended with the occupation of Palestine by the Romans were protesting the occupation by paying their "sacred offerings" to the temple keepers instead of the governing coffers. I'm not sure most Christians know this about the requirement or non-requirement of tithing to one's clergy. The Romans were upset by the tithing to the temple priests, but they did get a portion of it. It's one reason why they started charging for every little thing they did and it's why Jesus was so upset with the temple priests. He felt they'd sold out to the Romans and were charging for things such as healings and blessings that came from God in the first place in his opinion, therefore no charge should have been made for these things. The Sadducees who controlled the temple were collaborating with the Romans -- which annoyed the Jews. That was also why Jesus was turned over to the Romans for committing treason. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2020 3:00:48 GMT -5
Maryhig
Hi, I'm Mary, we to have house meetings but our meetings are focused on God and Christ Jesus, and we read all of the Bible. We don't believe that salvation is though anyone else but Jesus. He is the way the truth and the life. His the way is the way, the way he teaches and the way he lived is the only way back to the father and those who truly follow him follow him in word and deed, Jesus is our example to follow. There is no religion that reconciles us to the father. No denomination is fully right they all have man made add ons. But that doesn't mean all the people are hell bound. God looks at the heart and only he can judge every one of us. I just believe the way Jesus taught, he says follow me, not follow a certain denomination. So I follow him and live according to the way he taught and showed us to.
James said that true and undefiled religion before God the father is this, to visit the fatherless and the widows in their affliction and to remain unspotted to the world.
And that is what we do when we truly love God with all our hearts, because if we truly love God with our all, we will remain unspotted from the world as we turn from sin and live by his will, and if we help and visit those we see in need, then we are loving our neighbour as ourselves. And these are the two greatest commandments that we should live by and in doing so, we truly follow Jesus.
Maryhig
kenco69 Hi Just wondering are you an ex 2x2 not that it makes any difference. Do you have a ministry and are you in Ireland as your believes are similar to mine Do you meet every Sunday and what form does your meeting take. Do yo gather round and partake of the emblems. Sorry for all the questions but I once was a 2x2 Kenco69 I've replied on another thread too, as you asked this question there, this is a copy. Hope that's ok. Hello, sorry I've just seen your post. No I'm not a 2x2, we are known as "cooneyites" because we have meetings that were started by Edward Cooney, but we are followers of Jesus Christ, and all emphasis in our meetings is on God the father and Christ Jesus and the teachings of Jesus and his apostles. We also read all of the Bible, old and new testaments in our meetings. We don't have workers as such, we all are workers and do the works of God, we are only servants and we are all equal and we read mainly the KJV Bible. I'm not in Ireland but many of my family are from there. I'm in Wales. We have a meeting on a Sunday morning and 3 evenings a week for whomsoever can attend. Any questions please ask. 😊 for dmmichgood |
|
|
|
Post by iam on Mar 12, 2020 23:24:02 GMT -5
Well, of course. John was written for Gentiles. No the gospel is for both Jew and gentile. Romans 1 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. Also Jesus said to his apostles that they are to go out and preach the gospel to everyone in every nation. Not to the Jews only. So the gospel is for everyone, and those who truly believe and have faith in God will deny themselves, take up their cross and truly follow Jesus in word and deed. In what ways do you considering is "denying yourself". Specifically. That may be too personal for you to reply to, but just wondering? |
|
|
|
Post by iam on Mar 12, 2020 23:37:36 GMT -5
Do you have the ritual of passing bread and wine in your Sunday meetings? I'm not sure you have ever said if you do or not. Yes, but we do it in rememberence of the life of Jesus. Jesus said, "take this in rememberence of me" he didn't say "remember my death" so we remember him. To eat his flesh and drink his blood... someone told.me once that if you could imagine how DIFFICULT, repulsive it would be to actually do that for real...that's how hard it is...spiritually. And it is too. I experience it. To be spiritually minded is indeed life and peace. |
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Mar 13, 2020 18:35:35 GMT -5
I have been in churches for a while now and have never heard that we can wilfully sin. That is a made up misconception by those who do not understand the concept. We all sin because we are human and because we sin God has made a way that we are forgiven through the death of Jesus on the Cross if we accept and believe in him. If we have the Spirit of Christ we will not continue to wilfully sin because the spirit of Christ is not in us. Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. Sacrifice has always been literal and physical. The Jews offered up physical sacrifice and Jesus was the final sacrifice. Jesus died for our sin or else he died in vain. Was the blood sacrifice of killing animals in the Old Testament done by evil men or at God's instruction? It was God's will that Jesus should die like that. He said not your will but thine be done. Bears repeating. Thank you. |
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Mar 13, 2020 18:42:32 GMT -5
Very interesting Bob. Substituting 'Messiah' for 'Christ' in God's revelation to Peter would read 'Thou art the Messiah, (who is also) the son of the living God.' The Jews were expecting a 'Messiah.' More thought needed I think? If you'll notice, Jesus' most common reference to himself was "son of MAN". In ancient times the "of someone" was like one's surname. Of course, if one is inclined to believe in his dual divine/human nature, it can easily be interpreted to have some "christlike" inference. The “Son of man” comes from Daniel 7:13 |
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Mar 13, 2020 18:50:18 GMT -5
If you'll notice, Jesus' most common reference to himself was "son of MAN". In ancient times the "of someone" was like one's surname. Of course, if one is inclined to believe in his dual divine/human nature, it can easily be interpreted to have some "christlike" inference. The “Son of man” comes from Daniel 7:13 It was a common title among ALL Mideastern Pagan religions, especially Mithraism as practiced by the Roman army in Jesus day. |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 13, 2020 19:55:37 GMT -5
I've replied on another thread too, as you asked this question there, this is a copy. Hope that's ok. Hello, sorry I've just seen your post. No I'm not a 2x2, we are known as "cooneyites" because we have meetings that were started by Edward Cooney, but we are followers of Jesus Christ, and all emphasis in our meetings is on God the father and Christ Jesus and the teachings of Jesus and his apostles. We also read all of the Bible, old and new testaments in our meetings. We don't have workers as such, we all are workers and do the works of God, we are only servants and we are all equal and we read mainly the KJV Bible. I'm not in Ireland but many of my family are from there. I'm in Wales. We have a meeting on a Sunday morning and 3 evenings a week for whomsoever can attend. Any questions please ask. 😊 for dmmichgood
That was four & a half Years before you quote this 2019 much later reply of hers.
I remember her first posts here, - you must not have noted those posts. |
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Mar 13, 2020 19:58:32 GMT -5
The “Son of man” comes from Daniel 7:13 It was a common title among ALL Mideastern Pagan religions, especially Mithraism as practiced by the Roman army in Jesus day. I’ve noticed that. It’s been noted somewhere that Barabas who was released instead of Jesus , that his name means son of man. So it’s just kind of strange that the Son of man was crucified instead of the son of man. Ironic, no? |
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Mar 13, 2020 21:16:44 GMT -5
It was a common title among ALL Mideastern Pagan religions, especially Mithraism as practiced by the Roman army in Jesus day. I’ve noticed that. It’s been noted somewhere that Barabas who was released instead of Jesus , that his name means son of man. So it’s just kind of strange that the Son of man was crucified instead of the son of man. Ironic, no? It's less ironic than the notion that " Son of man" assigns divinity upon one and " son of man" doesn't. |
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Mar 13, 2020 21:31:14 GMT -5
I’ve noticed that. It’s been noted somewhere that Barabas who was released instead of Jesus , that his name means son of man. So it’s just kind of strange that the Son of man was crucified instead of the son of man. Ironic, no? It's less ironic than the notion that " Son of man" assigns divinity upon one and " son of man" doesn't. Old habit that was the way I was taught to do since I was 4 years old. It might be hard to change it? Mainly because most Christians still do it? Of course it likely means little to people who don’t believe in such. 😉 |
|
rudyw
Senior Member
Posts: 623
|
Post by rudyw on Jun 1, 2022 20:22:35 GMT -5
By the way, it was God's will that Jesus was to go through whatever was set before him (including the cross), and bare it and show love and mercy in return, showing us how to overcome evil with good. God's will isn't for us to murder one another, but love one another. God doesn't need to use wickedness and murder for us to be saved. Only wicked men murder, and they are under the influence of the devil not God. We are not saved by Jesus dying on the cross, we are reconciled by him being dead to self, this is the true death by which we are saved by, and Jesus was dead to the flesh in order, to bring us the truth. It is this death in which we glorify God. And this is the death by which we are reconciled to God. And we are reconciled by the word of God. It says in the Bible that God was in Christ reconciling the world into himself, in the lifetime of Jesus and that we are reconciled by the ministry of reconciliation, by the word of God. No need for a human sacrifice! Jesus was saving in his lifetime because he was a living sacrifice, and he was saving those who truly believed in him, those who truly followed him and lived by what he taught, obeying the word of God and following his example. I just read Matthew 4 last night. The chapter includes the temptation of Jesus by the devil. Why was this story included in the Gospel? It was included to show us that Jesus was blameless. He overcame temptation. “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin” (Hebrews 4:15) If Jesus had sinned, he would have died like the rest of us, and he wouldn’t have been resurrected. The Bible calls him the Second Adam, because he didn’t fall into sin as the first Adam did. I think that Jesus’ sinless life is of the utmost importance. His death was the final victory, because death can only hold the sinner, not the sinless, because ‘The wages of sin is death.’ If we identify with Jesus, and hold him as our lord, we abide in him. The Father sees Jesus in us. The blood of Jesus was kind of like‘finishing the race’ or ‘crossing the finish line’, having finished his earthly course without giving into the flesh. That’s how I see the death/blood of Jesus. |
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Jun 3, 2022 3:38:00 GMT -5
By the way, it was God's will that Jesus was to go through whatever was set before him (including the cross), and bare it and show love and mercy in return, showing us how to overcome evil with good. God's will isn't for us to murder one another, but love one another. God doesn't need to use wickedness and murder for us to be saved. Only wicked men murder, and they are under the influence of the devil not God. We are not saved by Jesus dying on the cross, we are reconciled by him being dead to self, this is the true death by which we are saved by, and Jesus was dead to the flesh in order, to bring us the truth. It is this death in which we glorify God. And this is the death by which we are reconciled to God. And we are reconciled by the word of God. It says in the Bible that God was in Christ reconciling the world into himself, in the lifetime of Jesus and that we are reconciled by the ministry of reconciliation, by the word of God. No need for a human sacrifice! Jesus was saving in his lifetime because he was a living sacrifice, and he was saving those who truly believed in him, those who truly followed him and lived by what he taught, obeying the word of God and following his example. I just read Matthew 4 last night. The chapter includes the temptation of Jesus by the devil. Why was this story included in the Gospel? It was included to show us that Jesus was blameless. He overcame temptation. “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin” (Hebrews 4:15) If Jesus had sinned, he would have died like the rest of us, and he wouldn’t have been resurrected. The Bible calls him the Second Adam, because he didn’t fall into sin as the first Adam did. I think that Jesus’ sinless life is of the utmost importance. His death was the final victory, because death can only hold the sinner, not the sinless, because ‘The wages of sin is death.’ If we identify with Jesus, and hold him as our lord, we abide in him. The Father sees Jesus in us. The blood of Jesus was kind of like‘finishing the race’ or ‘crossing the finish line’, having finished his earthly course without giving into the flesh. That’s how I see the death/blood of Jesus. Hi again, I agree with the first part of your post, but we are dead to God, until we are born anew through Christ, by the power of the Spirit. That's what the wages of sin is death means, it means sin keeps us separated from God (dead to him). But Jesus brought us the truth and a way that brings us life. And when we follow him and deny ourselves and take up our cross, then that's when we start to die to self as the Spirit strengthens us to overcome the flesh and the ways of this world, that's if we are obeying the word of God. Those who truly love God will live by his will and turn from sin. The blood of Christ Jesus is the life, that's why Jesus said if you don't eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you. Meaning if we don't take all of him in, his words and his life, then we have no life in us, as you said the father sees Jesus in us, well that's what he wants to see anyway. And he sees his life in us when his life is lived through us, as we live it out and are renewed and washed by the living water of the word, through Christ by the power of the Spirit as we walk in the Spirit and obey the word of God in our daily lives. And that's why Jesus came and showed us an example, so we always have him to look back on to see if we still are in the way so we stay living stones built upon a solid foundation and Christ being our cornerstone. Those who truly belong to him and are in the way will have the life of Christ seen in and through them as they follow Jesus in word and deed. But Christ can't be seen in and through us if we are still living to please ourselves, we are to be dead to our old sinful ways and alive in God, renewed, and brought from death to life. You don't use a dirty cup to drink from, you use a clean one. And we are to be clean vessels for God to use, and for that our old life in the world and the lusts of the flesh have to go. We were reading Romans 6 last night in our meeting, and in this chapter it talks about death to self. We die but we live, Paul was dead to his old life and alive in God, he said he died daily, this can't have been literal death it was death to self, and this is the death that glorifies God, this is the death that we are reconciled to God through Jesus by, but we are saved by his life. |
|
