Wow, so what do you really believe? ...Statement of Faith

by **[email protected]** » Sat May 21, 2016 8:34 pm

Do you then fellowship with the Mormon and Jehovah Witness who likewise teach that one must submit to Christ, though they do not worship him as Apostle Thomas did, "My Lord and my God." Or do you fellowship with Muslims who likewise share passion for god, but they are offended to call Him "Father." Or do you fellowship with mystics and fools who delight in the unanswered foolery, but are offended that the Christian's eyes are not blind, but in fact opened to the answers God has revealed. God is not an elephant, but we are fools, yet do we mock God's most amazing grace, to make Himself known to foolish sinners? Do you fellowship with the Hindu who agrees that Jesus is god, but likewise thinks everything is god? Do you fellowship with the fringe labeling god a lady, neglecting God's rebuke to Israel who called their god, the 'queen of Heaven.'

Again... Christian faith includes both agreement with Biblical truth about God and action to obey this true God. So the hard work that remains is to be diligent knowing and growing closer to God and thus closer to each other, making Him known.

by **Paidion** » Sat May 21, 2016 11:10 pm

As I stated:

Christian fellowship is based on discipleship—on our mutual submission to the authority of our blessed Saviour!

Are Muslims disciples of Christ? Do they submit to His authority? Do you consider that Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are disciples of Christ who submit to His authority? Never mind what they teach. It's not what they teach; it's what they are (Are they disciples?) and what they do (Do they submit to Christ?)

by **[email protected]** » Sun May 22, 2016 6:34 am

Never mind what they teach.

Paidon, that statement is ridiculous. Someone can say they submit to the teaching of Christ, such as a Muslim, or appear to be a Christian such as a Mormon or Jehovah Witness, but if they do not agree with Jesus' teaching about himself, that he is 'I Am', then they are charlatans and hardly Christian. If Jesus is not worshiped as the crucified and risen Son of God, deity, then they follow a mere imagined Jesus, not the true Christ.

by **Holy-Fool-P-Zombie** » Sun May 22, 2016 7:13 am

Paidion and Jeff:

How do you respond to the Inclusivist position (i.e. (Positions for the Lost)), in response to your previous dialogue (i.e. your last 2 posts)? Let me share a couple quotes, from the article:

According to inclusivism (sometimes called “the faith principle”), Jesus is the particular savior of the world, but people can benefit from the redemptive work of Christ even though they die never hearing about Christ—if they respond in faith to God based on the revelation God has given them.

The inclusivist position has a long and distinguished history in the church. Such widely divergent thinkers as Justin, Thomas Aquinas, John Wesley, C. S. Lewis, and Pope John Paul II have affirmed it.[40] Today, it is the dominant view of the Roman Catholic Church and of mainline Protestants. Though the Eastern Orthodox Church has no officially sanctioned position, the inclusivistic views of Justin and other Greek fathers are widely cited with approval and many of the arguments for inclusivism are employed.[41] Inclusivism represents the closest thing to a consensus among Christians today.

by **[email protected]** » Sun May 22, 2016 7:58 am

Randy, that sounded like a serious post :-)

I'll respond after church.

by **Holy-Fool-P-Zombie** » Sun May 22, 2016 8:11 am

[email protected] wrote:Randy, that sounded like a serious post I'll respond after church.

It is a serous post, Jeff. You can usually tell, when I follow the path, of a Holy Fool Trainee. I have a laughing icon after the post - like this. :lol:

But the paradox is this: the Holy Fool Trainee path, is really a serious Christian path. Think of life as watching a serious Shakespeare play. Then the Bart injects some comic relief - at various strategic points.

I tried to sign up to a website the other day.
I entered my password "cheese pie", but it said my password wasn't stroganoff.

Two cows standing next to each other in a field, Daisy says to Dolly,
"I was artificially inseminated this morning."
"I don't believe you," said Dolly.
"It's true, no bull."

And No, Paidion and Jeff. I'm not here to argue against your response, to the inclusivist position. Except to say I side with it - along with the majority of Protestant, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches and theologians. I'm just here to see, how you respond to it :!:

Paidion: Is Paidion a given name or an adopted one :?:

According to 3813. paidion, it means "a young child". No offense met - just curious. :!:

by **[email protected]** » Sun May 22, 2016 11:59 am

I believe the entire sin debt of mankind is already paid and the final salvation of all mankind already guaranteed. Is that Inclusive? Very inclusive. Yet I also observe that no one is saved from a corrupt unbelieving heart until the Holy Spirit changes us. That dimension of salvation is exclusive. Very exclusive. Consider the unbelieving Jew and Romans, the religious and the irreligious, who hated both Christ and Paul, crucifying one and cutting the head off the other. I believe these Jews and Romans will be finally saved in the end, but their hearts were not yet changed and so fellowship would be difficult as you can imagine. So the gospel contains both the message of great hope for mankind and the call for individuals to repent from self-righteousness and receive the good news of Christ's righteousness, or else suffer the temporal consequences of rejecting the Lord God Jesus Christ. Don't you see that the message that Christ loves all mankind unconditionally is the message that the unbelieving hate? It offends their self-righteousness whether they follow the religious Jew or the irreligious Roman.

Randy, your question was whether someone could be spared consequence if they never formally declared themselves a Christian, but they were faithful to what revelation they had received. Romans 2:12-16 could be understood this way, as I am sure you already know. For myself, I am positive that Christ's judgment in these people's lives will be trustworthy, and I am especially thankful that the merciful Christ is their judge and not any of us judgmental fallen humans!

However, the question Paidon and I were debating is a bit different. Your question was about people who were faithful to the revelation they had received even if they didn't formally know Christ. However, Paidon and I were discussing people who were thoroughly introduced to Christ through the Scripture and testimony of believers yet they continue to reject His divine nature. Christ has declared his identity to them through the Scriptures, just as he did to the Jew and Roman in the first century. I understood Paidon to say that it does not matter what someone believes about the nature of the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, but if they are willing to submit to His ideals they are Christian. For example, the Mormons agree that one should obey Christ, but they reject his divinity, even saying he is the twin brother of Satan. Is such a person faithful to the revelation they have received? I think not. Christ himself warns that those who 'blasphme the spirit' will not be forgiven in this age or the coming. So those who claim to submit to the teaching of Christ only present a ruse if they are unwilling to also submit to Christ's teaching about Himself, no matter how much money they give to the poor.

by **davo** » Sun May 22, 2016 8:17 pm

[email protected] wrote:Don't you see that the message that Christ loves all mankind unconditionally is the message that the unbelieving hate?

That IMO is the typical evangelical mischaracterisation of the so-called “unbelieving”. There is nothing “unconditional” about the evangelical message that the so-called “unbelieving” dismiss… it’s like saying “FREE with every purchase over $30…” – THAT’S not “free” it is FULLY conditional, just like the evangelical message.

Spiritual maturity into the grace of God is not marked by who you exclude, or the groups you exclude, or the life styles you exclude. The mark of spiritual maturity into the grace of God is marked by the circle that gets bigger and wider, embracing more and more in understanding others, that in no matter what a man does he cannot escape the incredible mercy of God.

It is little wonder that folk grow up struggling with any inner faith when we in our religiosity have learnt go around saying things like: “God loves you!” – to which a respondent might ask… “How much does he love me?” – “Unconditionally!” we will say… “He has grace for your life!” “What kind of grace?” they will query – “Undeserved and unmerited favour, it's all yours!” “Well I'm not so sure I can believe all this” is their slightly unconvinced response – and what is our religious rejoinder… “then you'll burn in Hell forever!” (or fill in the appropriate universalist demarcation etc). Talk about a toxic and schizophrenic message.

[email protected] wrote:However, Paidon and I were discussing people who were thoroughly introduced to Christ through the Scripture and testimony of believers yet they continue to reject His divine nature.

NOWHERE in the gospels does Jesus require of any a belief in the theological proposition of his own divinity… to accept that he was FROM God was to believe that he Jesus carried God’s message with His imprimatur. That makes Jesus “divine” BUT not ontologically “God” – he was God to them like Moses was God to Pharaoh i.e., Jesus was God’s Man for the hour doing God’s job… which is WHY Jesus could say “if you’ve seen me you’ve seen the Father” and “I and the Father are one” i.e., they were on the SAME page.

[email protected] wrote:So those who claim to submit to the teaching of Christ only present a ruse if they are unwilling to also submit to Christ's teaching about Himself, no matter how much money they give to the poor.

Again Jeff… what was “Christ's teaching about Himself” in terms of *divinity* and what that was meant to mean?

by **[email protected]** » Sun May 22, 2016 9:04 pm

That IMO is the typical evangelical mischaracterisation of the so-called “unbelieving”.

I don't understand. Are you saying there are no unbelieving people? Isn't the heart of unbelief natural man's hatred of God and his grace?

John 8:57) The Jews therefore said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” 58) Jesus said to them, “Most certainly, I tell you, before Abraham came into existence, I AM.” 59) Therefore they took up stones to throw at him, but Jesus was hidden, and went out of the temple, having gone through the middle of them, and so passed by.

Here we see that the point that tipped the scales for the unbelieving Jews was Jesus' proclamation of his Divinity. They went livid.

by **DaveB** » Sun May 22, 2016 11:02 pm

Here is a more consistent, I think, explanation of Jn. 8.58 (from Christianmonotheism.com) If it is not convincing, I have others worded differently.

Jesus’ use of the divine title “I AM” [Gk., ego eimi] in John 8, verses 24 and 58 proves
his deity.
Response: At John 8:58 Jesus says, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I
am.” Trinitarians relate this statement to the account of Exodus 3:14 where “God said to
Moses, ‘I AM WHO I AM.’ And He said, ‘Say this to the people of Israel, “I AM has sent
me to you.”’” Was Jesus applying the title I AM to himself? Interestingly, someone other
than Jesus uses this exact same Greek phrase only ten verses later. At John 9:9 a man
whom Jesus had healed also says “I am.”8
[ego eimi] Should we conclude that this man is
part of a triune God? Certainly not, so the simple statement I am does not prove deity.
The I AM title was not revealed to Abraham, the ancestor mentioned by Jesus, but to
Moses hundreds of years after Abraham’s death. In his statement Jesus was expressing
his pre-eminence over Abraham in the plan of God. Why, then, did the Jews want to
stone him for what he said? To the Jews this self-exaltation by someone they considered
a nobody was a blasphemous degradation of Abraham’s position as a prophet in special
covenant with God, and they wanted to stone him for it. (Compare to the situation at
Acts 6:11.)
In John 8:24 Jesus proclaimed, “If you do not believe that I am, you shall die in your
sins.” Was he now alluding to the divine title? Twelve verses earlier he said, “I am the
light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of
life.” So what Jesus meant in verse 24 was simply, ‘If you do not believe that I am [who I
claim to be, namely, the light of the world], you shall die in your sins.’

by **DaveB** » Sun May 22, 2016 11:02 pm

Here is a more consistent, I think, explanation of Jn. 8.58 (from Christianmonotheism.com) If it is not convincing, I have others worded differently.

Jesus’ use of the divine title “I AM” [Gk., ego eimi] in John 8, verses 24 and 58 proves
his deity.
Response: At John 8:58 Jesus says, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I
am.” Trinitarians relate this statement to the account of Exodus 3:14 where “God said to
Moses, ‘I AM WHO I AM.’ And He said, ‘Say this to the people of Israel, “I AM has sent
me to you.”’” Was Jesus applying the title I AM to himself? Interestingly, someone other
than Jesus uses this exact same Greek phrase only ten verses later. At John 9:9 a man
whom Jesus had healed also says “I am.”8
[ego eimi] Should we conclude that this man is
part of a triune God? Certainly not, so the simple statement I am does not prove deity.
The I AM title was not revealed to Abraham, the ancestor mentioned by Jesus, but to
Moses hundreds of years after Abraham’s death. In his statement Jesus was expressing
his pre-eminence over Abraham in the plan of God. Why, then, did the Jews want to
stone him for what he said? To the Jews this self-exaltation by someone they considered
a nobody was a blasphemous degradation of Abraham’s position as a prophet in special
covenant with God, and they wanted to stone him for it. (Compare to the situation at
Acts 6:11.)
In John 8:24 Jesus proclaimed, “If you do not believe that I am, you shall die in your
sins.” Was he now alluding to the divine title? Twelve verses earlier he said, “I am the
light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of
life.” So what Jesus meant in verse 24 was simply, ‘If you do not believe that I am [who I
claim to be, namely, the light of the world], you shall die in your sins.’

by **DaveB** » Sun May 22, 2016 11:02 pm

Here is a more consistent, I think, explanation of Jn. 8.58 (from Christianmonotheism.com) If it is not convincing, I have others worded differently.

Jesus’ use of the divine title “I AM” [Gk., ego eimi] in John 8, verses 24 and 58 proves
his deity.
Response: At John 8:58 Jesus says, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I
am.” Trinitarians relate this statement to the account of Exodus 3:14 where “God said to
Moses, ‘I AM WHO I AM.’ And He said, ‘Say this to the people of Israel, “I AM has sent
me to you.”’” Was Jesus applying the title I AM to himself? Interestingly, someone other
than Jesus uses this exact same Greek phrase only ten verses later. At John 9:9 a man
whom Jesus had healed also says “I am.”8
[ego eimi] Should we conclude that this man is
part of a triune God? Certainly not, so the simple statement I am does not prove deity.
The I AM title was not revealed to Abraham, the ancestor mentioned by Jesus, but to
Moses hundreds of years after Abraham’s death. In his statement Jesus was expressing
his pre-eminence over Abraham in the plan of God. Why, then, did the Jews want to
stone him for what he said? To the Jews this self-exaltation by someone they considered
a nobody was a blasphemous degradation of Abraham’s position as a prophet in special
covenant with God, and they wanted to stone him for it. (Compare to the situation at
Acts 6:11.)
In John 8:24 Jesus proclaimed, “If you do not believe that I am, you shall die in your
sins.” Was he now alluding to the divine title? Twelve verses earlier he said, “I am the
light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of
life.” So what Jesus meant in verse 24 was simply, ‘If you do not believe that I am [who I
claim to be, namely, the light of the world], you shall die in your sins.’

by **davo** » Sun May 22, 2016 11:24 pm

[email protected] wrote:
davo wrote:That IMO is the typical evangelical mischaracterisation of the so-called “unbelieving”.

I don't understand. Are you saying there are no unbelieving people? Isn't the heart of unbelief natural man's hatred of God and his grace?

“Isn't the heart of unbelief natural man's hatred of God and his grace?” You couldn’t have expressed more perfectly the most errant of evangelical assumptions i.e., that natural man “hates God”, WRONG! Natural man is ignorant and or agnostic with regards to “God” – where hatred is learnt is via the imposition of false notions as to the personage of God, i.e., that God is a vengeful monster lurking with wrath at the nearest of infractions according to his capricious whims. Religianity has cast forth this vile caricature of God, so little wonder “thinking people” reject it – I too reject it.

[email protected] wrote:
John 8:57) The Jews therefore said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” 58) Jesus said to them, “Most certainly, I tell you, before Abraham came into existence, I AM.” 59) Therefore they took up stones to throw at him, but Jesus was hidden, and went out of the temple, having gone through the middle of them, and so passed by.

Here we see that the point that tipped the scales for the unbelieving Jews was Jesus' proclamation of his Divinity. They went livid.

Jesus wasn’t “proclaiming” divinity per se but rather declaring I AM he… listen to me, lest you perish, as per:

Deut 18:15, 18-19 “The Lord your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. … I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him.

by **Eaglesway** » Sun May 22, 2016 11:39 pm

[email protected] wrote:Do you then fellowship with the Mormon and Jehovah Witness who likewise teach that one must submit to Christ, though they do not worship him as Apostle Thomas did, "My Lord and my God." Or do you fellowship with Muslims who likewise share passion for god, but they are offended to call Him "Father." Or do you fellowship with mystics and fools who delight in the unanswered foolery, but are offended that the Christian's eyes are not blind, but in fact opened to the answers God has revealed. God is not an elephant, but we are fools, yet do we mock God's most amazing grace, to make Himself known to foolish sinners? Do you fellowship with the Hindu who agrees that Jesus is god, but likewise thinks everything is god? Do you fellowship with the fringe labeling god a lady, neglecting God's rebuke to Israel who called their god, the 'queen of Heaven.'

Again... Christian faith includes both agreement with Biblical truth about God and action to obey this true God. So the hard work that remains is to be diligent knowing and growing closer to God and thus closer to each other, making Him known.

A reasonable question would be, when did not understanding the orthodox Trinity doctrine become the same as being a Muslim. The doctrine as it stands today did not exist for 3 to 400 years. All of those saints who were martyred in the first century had no "Trinity", as such, and even if they did it was more like Tertullian's version and not called by the worshipful term.

Christian faith, above all else, involves fellowship with God through the reconciliation that is accessed through the Lordship of Jesus Christ. This is where Jesus planted the seed. This is where the apostles built upon the foundation. If understanding the orthodox view of the Trinity was a part of this foundation, I think Jesus Himself would have given a more systematic presentation on the construction of the deity.

Now, to be sure, I have no big issue with the Trinitarian view. The Godhead is a difficult issue. But understanding it is not where the seed in planted and salvation begins.

Having been raised in an atheist household, I never even considered the issue until quite some time after I was saved by a supernatural revelation that Jesus was the Son of God, that He was crucified for my sins, and that I must leave my life behind and follow Him as a disciple.

By the time I began to consider various Christian teachings on the godhead, I had already led many young people to the Lord, and seen many lives changed- all without any more doctrinal knowledge than I had accumulated through my own reading of the scriptures. Ironicly, of all the things the Holy Spirit instructed me in, the Trinity was not a priority for some reason.

So while I fully agree that some worship their theology and a shallow relationship with God, and not everyone who believes that Jesus "is" knows Him in a saving way.....

I dont think some of the doctrines people levy, within their organizations, as bottom line salvation requirements will all stand the light of Day.

I believe in the deity of Jesus, but I don't believe He is equal to the Father, and I can point to so many verses that prove it so(for me). So why must I embrace a term that commu nicates something I dont believe? Even tho what I believe is close to it, what I believe is not the same....

"For so it pleased the Father to make all the fulness of deity dwell in Him." As I read that, His deity is made full at the Father's pleasure.

"All authority on heaven and on earth is given me by my Father". As I read that Jesus has no inherent authority over all things that was not given to Him.

"But when He says, 'All things are put in subjection,' it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. 28 When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all."

As I read that Jesus began under the Father's authority and will finish under the Father's authority, until the point at which there is no more need for authority, because all are one in love, having passed through the reconciliation that will come to all as they bow the knee to His Lordship and confess it unto the glory of God the Father, whether in this age or the one to come.

Certainly by many I am considered to be incorrect. There are other ways to view those verses. But for the life of me I can't see how my views are in any way sacriligeous or in any way contrary to saving faith or knowing Him.

by **[email protected]** » Mon May 23, 2016 5:03 am

The answer is because of worship.

Many people have an 'authoritarian' structure to their worldview thinking that if someone has authority over another then they are better or more important or if someone is under authority then they are less. Though God the Father could have delegated authority to one less than himself this is not a truthful view of the Father and Son who are equally God. This is important because it helps us understand that the call for our obedience is not demeaning. Though our resistance to obey demeans ourselves. God the Son is not lesser than God the Father because He is under His authority! How do we know that? Because of worship. Jesus himself made it plain that God alone is to be worshiped when he rebuked Satan and then later Jesus received worship from Thomas who called Christ both Lord and God.

And thankfully all mankind will likewise happily bow in worship to Christ as Lord God, hopefully sooner, but definitely later. And you too :-)

by **[email protected]** » Mon May 23, 2016 5:13 am

Do you then fellowship with the Mormon and Jehovah Witness who likewise teach that one must submit to Christ, though they do not worship him as Apostle Thomas did, "My Lord and my God." Or do you fellowship with Muslims who likewise share passion for god, but they are offended to call Him "Father." Or do you fellowship with mystics and fools who delight in the unanswered foolery, but are offended that the Christian's eyes are not blind, but in fact opened to the answers God has revealed. God is not an elephant, but we are fools, yet do we mock God's most amazing grace, to make Himself known to foolish sinners? Do you fellowship with the Hindu who agrees that Jesus is god, but likewise thinks everything is god? Do you fellowship with the fringe labeling god a lady, neglecting God's rebuke to Israel who called their god, the 'queen of Heaven.'

Again... Christian faith includes both agreement with Biblical truth about God and action to obey this true God. So the hard work that remains is to be diligent knowing and growing closer to God and thus closer to each other, making Him known.

A reasonable question would be, when did not understanding the orthodox Trinity doctrine become the same as being a Muslim. The doctrine as it stands today did not exist for 3 to 400 years. All of those saints who were martyred in the first century had no "Trinity", as such, and even if they did it was more like Tertullian's version and not called by the worshipful term.

I am defending the Trinity in this discussion, but please note that in my comments about Muslims I limited my comments to their rejection of Christ's Divinity. It is understood that the wording of the Trinity doctrine was developed over time, that is given. However, earlier Paidon has been objecting saying that it does not matter what ones teaches about Christ, but only that one obeys Christ. So I highlighted the Muslims as an extreme example of a religion that claims to obey Christ yet they reject his Divinity. However, accepting the Divinity of Christ has been a cardinal part of Christian faith from the beginning. This is easily seen when Thomas' eyes of faith were opened and he worshiped Jesus as Lord God. So the Muslims are obviously not Christian, in fact they persecute Christians. Nor is anyone Christian who rejects Christ's Divinity.

by **[email protected]** » Mon May 23, 2016 6:28 am

“Isn't the heart of unbelief natural man's hatred of God and his grace?” You couldn’t have expressed more perfectly the most errant of evangelical assumptions i.e., that natural man “hates God”, WRONG! Natural man is ignorant and or agnostic with regards to “God” – where hatred is learnt is via the imposition of false notions as to the personage of God, i.e., that God is a vengeful monster lurking with wrath at the nearest of infractions according to his capricious whims. Religianity has cast forth this vile caricature of God, so little wonder “thinking people” reject it – I too reject it.

Why then would mankind, both religious Jew and irreligious Roman conspire to crucify Christ? Because they had a false view of God? Well yes they did have a false view of God... that they were happy with. However, when the true God presented himself to mankind in the flesh our vile natures were exposed for what they are, self lovers and God haters. Why are you rejecting the gospel of Romans 3:9-31? Why ruin the good news by being offended about the bad news. Yes we are God haters by nature, but the heart of the good news is that God graciously loves us anyway! He loves sinners!

by **davo** » Mon May 23, 2016 9:15 am

[email protected] wrote:Why then would mankind, both religious Jew and irreligious Roman conspire to crucify Christ?

I fear this will go straight over your head BUT… to Rome Jesus was an insurrectionist, i.e., a challenge to Caesar, that is, Jesus is LORD not Caesar, and thus must be quashed. And to the Jews…

Jn 11:47-48 Then the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered a council and said, “What shall we do? For this Man works many signs. If we let Him alone like this, everyone will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and nation.”

The Jewish leadership crucified Jesus purely out of self interest.

[email protected] wrote:However, when the true God presented himself to mankind in the flesh our vile natures were exposed for what they are, self lovers and God haters.

This is just so dripping with fundy evangelical-speak without biblical warrant… :roll:

[email protected] wrote:Why are you rejecting the gospel of Romans 3:9-31? Why ruin the good news by being offended about the bad news.

Who’s rejecting Rom 3… ?? that passage DOESN’T declare all “God haters” as you are reading into the text (a constant problem), it states “all in sin” – THAT’S different. Your arbitrary carte blanch statements are just too much.

[email protected] wrote:Yes we are God haters by nature…

Perhaps YOU should own this yourself and STOP dumping this vile crap on all and sundry, i.e., YOU may have been a ‘God hater’ BUT that does NOT give you permission to misrepresent Scripture as assigning all else as God haters… this is just FALSE!!

by **[email protected]** » Mon May 23, 2016 9:45 am

I confess that I am a God-hater in my natural self. My sin not only breaks God's law, but is an offense against his person. Yet God loves me still.

by **davo** » Mon May 23, 2016 4:19 pm

[email protected] wrote:I confess that I am a God-hater in my natural self. My sin not only breaks God's law, but is an offense against his person. Yet God loves me still.

So HOW is it you let (choice) the natural you hate God given you know He loves you so? :shock:

by **Paidion** » Mon May 23, 2016 6:39 pm

Jesus said, “Who do people say that I am?”

His disciples replied, “Some say you are John the Baptist returned from the dead; others say Elijah or another of the prophets.”

Jesus replied, “But who do you say that I am?”

Peter answered and said, “Thou art the Logos, existing in the Father as his rationality and then, by an act of his will, being generated, in consideration of the various functions by which God is related to his creation, but only because Scripture speaks of a Father, a Son and a Holy Spirit, each member of the Trinity being coequal with every other member and each acting inseparably with and interpenetrating every other member, with only an economic subordination within God, but causing no division which would make the substance no longer simple.”

And Jesus answered, saying, “Huh?”

by **[email protected]** » Mon May 23, 2016 8:18 pm

Paidon, Paidon, I hope you are not avoiding our earlier more important point. You seemed to be saying earlier that it did not matter what one believes about the nature of Christ or the Holy Spirit's identity as long as one obeyed them or at least followed their ideals.

Davo>
So HOW is it you let (choice) the natural you hate God given you know He loves you so?

Actually my natural self is crucified with Christ so that I, my natural self, no longer lives, but Christ lives in me, Galatians 2:20. So my unregenerate nature which hated Christ died when I became a Christian and now super natural love grows.

by **Eaglesway** » Mon May 23, 2016 9:54 pm

Paidion wrote:Jesus said, “Who do people say that I am?”

His disciples replied, “Some say you are John the Baptist returned from the dead; others say Elijah or another of the prophets.”

Jesus replied, “But who do you say that I am?”

Peter answered and said, “Thou art the Logos, existing in the Father as his rationality and then, by an act of his will, being generated, in consideration of the various functions by which God is related to his creation, but only because Scripture speaks of a Father, a Son and a Holy Spirit, each member of the Trinity being coequal with every other member and each acting inseparably with and interpenetrating every other member, with only an economic subordination within God, but causing no division which would make the substance no longer simple.”

And Jesus answered, saying, “Huh?”

LOL Right on.

by **davo** » Mon May 23, 2016 9:58 pm

[email protected] wrote:Actually my natural self is crucified with Christ so that I, my natural self, no longer lives, but Christ lives in me, Galatians 2:20.

This is the unconvincing elasticity of your evangelicalism… you endlessly shift the goal posts to suit when the *religious-talk* doesn’t add up, as in, THIS is what you said…

[email protected] wrote:I confess that I am a God-hater in my natural self.

Now conveniently the real you no longer exists?? :roll:

by **Eaglesway** » Mon May 23, 2016 10:06 pm

[email protected] wrote:Paidon, Paidon, I hope you are not avoiding our earlier more important point. You seemed to be saying earlier that it did not matter what one believes about the nature of Christ or the Holy Spirit's identity as long as one obeyed them or at least followed their ideals.

Supernatural love grows by relationship. Knowedge puffs up, love edifies. If I understand all mysteries and have not love I am as a clanging cymbal.

The question you ask (so typical of orthodox Trinitarianism) assunes that there can be no other true interpretation of the scriptures concerning the nature of Christ and the identity of the Holy Spirit than the one you believe.

What if you are in error? Would this mean you are unsaved? Would this disqualify all the work the Lord has done in your life thus far?

Is it possible to have an understanding of the nature of Christ and the identity of Christ that is different than yours and just as, or more- correct?

Is it possible that what is acceptable to God in those understandings is more generous than the typical Trintarian soteriology?

Well of course it is- No man can say that Jesus Christ is Lord except by the Holy Spirit. Jesus is my Lord and my Savior. I am washed in His blood, renewed by the Holy Spirit and illumined by His word- yet I do not see the Deity in the same way as you do.

I have been a believer for forty two years. I have been blessed to lead many souls to Him.

The question is a shallow one. Does it matter what one believes about the nature of Jesus Christ and the identity of the Holy Spirit? Of course. Does that mean everyone must see it as you do, or as the Roman Catholic Church does, in order to be in a relationship with Him?

Of course not.

by **DaveB** » Mon May 23, 2016 11:27 pm

A most excellent post!!! Succinctly put, I say!!

by **[email protected]** » Mon May 23, 2016 11:30 pm

Now conveniently the real you no longer exists??

In whatever sense Paul understood that there was both a dead natural man that still lived in him as well as a transformed new man that had taken over, then I am with Paul. For Paul said, Romans 7:17, "So now it is no more I that do it, but sin which dwells in me."

I see you guys have now taken to mocking me and my Christian faith.

by **DaveB** » Mon May 23, 2016 11:49 pm

I was just going to edit my post, as it probably gave the impression I was teaming up against you or something - which is far from the truth. I was applauding because Eaglesway had put succinctly what I was trying to say.
But there is nothing personal here Jeff - you are articulate and intelligent and I think good-natured about the thread. It is not, I hope, about an us-vs-you thing here at all.
I'll try to be more temperate, brother.

by **Eaglesway** » Tue May 24, 2016 12:45 am

Certainly no mocking here Jeff. Disagreement perhaps, but no disrespect intended, and sincere apologies offerred if I have offended.

by **davo** » Tue May 24, 2016 12:50 am

[email protected] wrote:
davo wrote:Now conveniently the real you no longer exists??

In whatever sense Paul understood that there was both a dead natural man that still lived in him as well as a transformed new man that had taken over, then I am with Paul. For Paul said, Romans 7:17, "So now it is no more I that do it, but sin which dwells in me."

But how can you claim such certainty for your own position of that which you say “In whatever sense Paul understood that…” – you cannot claim “Paul” when you don’t grasp his understanding… surely you are attaching YOUR understanding and simply claiming such to be Paul’s???

[email protected] wrote:I see you guys have now taken to mocking me and my Christian faith.

No… don’t deflect robust enquiry in the name of mockery, that is just avoidance, IMO.

by **LLC** » Tue May 24, 2016 2:22 am

The Bible describes the Spirit of God in many different ways or speaks of God as if He is composed of many separate "Spirits". The following are just a few examples.
Revelation 5:6 "And I looked, and behold, in the midst of the throne and of the four living creature, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as though it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent out into all the earth."
John 16:13 "However, when He, the Spirit of truth has come, He will guide you in all truth."
Ephesians 1:17 "that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him."
Hebrews 10:29 " Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing , and insulted the Spirit of grace?"
Isaiah 11:2 "The Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon Him, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord."
Zechariah 12:10 "And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication."
Proverbs 8:22 "The Lord possessed me (wisdom) at the beginning of His way."

The problem I have with the Trinitarian theory is that many who believe in it will say, that if you don't believe that God is three separate "Persons" or Spirits in one, then you are denying God. To me, this is the same as saying that if you don't believe that wisdom, truth, grace, etc., are all separate "Persons" or "Spirits" of God, each with their own identities, then you are also denying God.

by **[email protected]** » Tue May 24, 2016 6:27 am

Thanks for the continued discussion and words above.

I may have to drop out of some of the detail, but want to bring to conversation back to the purpose of this post. I am the recruitment officer for an organization seeking to 1) advance the good news of the final victory of grace for all mankind, 2) recruit ambassadors to respectfully appeal both within and without Christendom, and 3) develop a brief and Biblical statement of faith. So the purpose of this post was to get comment on a proposed statement of faith and make revision as persuaded. I have already made revision in the past from thoughtful comments.

The proposed statement does not mentioned the word Trinity, but does mention God in three persons. While I appreciate the recent discussion, that expression in the proposed statement is not going to change. I must confess I've found it difficult to follow all the objections from the recent discussion. Frankly, I not sure you would all agree exactly with one another. I think the recent points I have made could be briefly summarized as...

1. That Christian faith includes both agreement to facts about who God is as well as love, obedience, and worship for God.
2. That since Christ is worshiped as God that He both equal with God and a distinct conversational person within the Godhead.
3. That those denying that Christ is very God are not Christians (though if interested in following him they are on a good path).
4. That the Holy Spirit is also a distinct from both the Father and the Son, but that he may overlook misunderstandings about his identity.
5. That Trinitarianism itself can be idolatrous, but not always, and parting ways with the terminology seems argumentative and loses a great audience.

I think the recent activity on this post has been offended or objects to one or more of these statements. Well we may need to agree to disagree because nothing said thus far is changing my opinion on any of the five points above. Though I am always open to further discussion. Yet I would hate to get in a 'fist fight' that makes it more difficult to be great friends when the Holy Spirit finally persuades us all, whether in this life or when we see Christ face to face.... for there will be no disagreement then!

Anyway here is the current status of my proposed statement for anyone that doesn't have the time to read through the entire post....

===

1. In one true God, existing eternally as one God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, John 14:9-21, who is in essence spirit, John 4:24, light, 1 John 1:5, and love, 1 John 4:8.

2. That the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments are the unique, inerrant, inspired Word of God in the original autographs, and the final authority in all matters of faith and conduct, 2 Tim 3:16.

3. In the sovereignty and active rule of God in creation, the fall, history, revelation, redemption, and final judgment, Romans 8:20-21.

4. That man was created by God in His image, but that since Adam's fall, all men are sinful and by nature objects deserving of God's wrath, Ephesians 2:3.

5. That Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, fully human and fully divine, eternally existing as God, yet born in time of a virgin, and that He lived a sinless and perfect life, 2 Timothy 2:5.

6. In the historic death of Jesus as the full and only atonement, guaranteeing loving forgiveness for the sins of all mankind, in His bodily resurrection from the dead, and in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, 1 John 2:1-2.

7. That all mankind is justified by the loving grace of God and redeemed on the basis of the death of Christ alone, which is received through faith alone, Ephesians 2:8-9.

8. That the Holy Spirit is the effective agent in regeneration, bringing individuals to faith and transformed lives, 2 Corinthians 3:18.

9. In one invisible, universal church, the Body of Christ, to which all true believers belong, and in local churches accountable to God, governed by officers with the authority to rule in matters of belief and discipline, Hebrews 13:17.

10. That believing mankind is rewarded in paradise after death, while unbelievers suffer punishment in Hades after death merited by their sinful nature and their rejection of the grace of Christ, Luke 16:19-31.

11. In the future, visible, physical return of the Lord Jesus Christ in glory, Titus 2:13.

12. In the final resurrection of redeemed mankind to the enjoyment of God forever, and the damnation of those excluded from the Book of Life to the Lake of Fire prepared for the Devil and his angels for the ages of the ages, Matthew 25:31-46 and Revelation 20:10.

by **davo** » Tue May 24, 2016 7:53 am

[email protected] wrote:…but want to bring to conversation back to the purpose of this post. I am the recruitment officer for an organization seeking to 1) advance the good news of the final victory of grace for all mankind, 2) recruit ambassadors to respectfully appeal both within and without Christendom, and 3) develop a brief and Biblical statement of faith. So the purpose of this post was to get comment on a proposed statement of faith and make revision as persuaded.

Just a thought for future conversation’s sake… it may have been useful to have stated the above in your very first entry as the means for why you were bringing up the topic etc.

by **maintenanceman** » Tue May 24, 2016 10:00 am

Jeff said:

I think the recent activity on this post has been offended or objects to one or more of these statements. Well we may need to agree to disagree because nothing said thus far is changing my opinion on any of the five points above. Though I am always open to further discussion. Yet I would hate to get in a 'fist fight' that makes it more difficult to be great friends when the Holy Spirit finally persuades us all, whether in this life or when we see Christ face to face.... for there will be no disagreement then!

Hi Jeff, I think that being on this (and other) forums is not necessarily to persuade another poster (?) but for all those who are seeking and may not have heard other viewpoints or may be on the fence about an issue. Many read and do not post. Your view has been seen by many I would say. And then they read folks who are opposed to your view. And I agree with you, when we see Christ, there will be no disagreement. But the rub is in what we are between now and then

The problem with statements of faith is that you can paint yourself into a corner, and if ego isn't in check, pride will take over and no amount of persuasion will chink the armor. If you have something worth while to say, why do you need to predicate it with saying what you do or don't believe? Could a fluctuating statement of faith may be worse that none at all?

Just wondering.

Have a good one!

Chad

by **LLC** » Tue May 24, 2016 10:27 am

For me, saying that Jesus is God but not the Father(God) and the Holy Spirit is also God but not the Father (God) is a statement that leads to a lot of confusion. It seems like one who can't make up his mind as to who God is. I would say that if a person believes that Jesus is God, then He should be followed and worshipped as He showed us how to do. If one believes Jesus was a just a man who followed and worshipped the one true God, and we follow His example and do the same, then I suppose that this would lead us to the same place

by **DaveB** » Tue May 24, 2016 11:45 am

LLC wrote: If one believes Jesus was a just a man who followed and worshipped the one true God,

LLC - I appreciate your comments.
I take a position between "Jesus is God" and "Jesus is just a man". That position is that Jesus is the Son of God the Father, (not God the Son), but as a fully human being with one, human nature, with a unique relationship to the Father, and in fact was the long-promised Messiah whom God has exalted as Lord, and who is the express image of the Father's wisdom and glory. As such he is worthy to be worshiped - BUT we do not worship him as God.

Of course - we do worship Jesus, and the Father through Him, and will worship him forever as Lord and Elder Brother, the mediator between His Father and ours (who is the only true God).

by **Holy-Fool-P-Zombie** » Tue May 24, 2016 6:13 pm

I'm not sure how this fits into a statement of faith. but I found it interesting. What does everyone think :?:

:

by **DaveB** » Tue May 24, 2016 6:41 pm

Beats me, but I guess it's more interesting than my post! Fits into this thread somehow?

by **Holy-Fool-P-Zombie** » Tue May 24, 2016 8:14 pm

DaveB wrote:Beats me, but I guess it's more interesting than my post! Fits into this thread somehow?

Of, course. It's what led the black Christian speaker, to his beliefs and statement of faith :!:

by **DaveB** » Tue May 24, 2016 8:31 pm

Okey-dokey!

by **Eaglesway** » Tue May 24, 2016 8:41 pm

LLC wrote:For me, saying that Jesus is God but not the Father(God) and the Holy Spirit is also God but not the Father (God) is a statement that leads to a lot of confusion. It seems like one who can't make up his mind as to who God is. I would say that if a person believes that Jesus is God, then He should be followed and worshipped as He showed us how to do. If one believes Jesus was a just a man who followed and worshipped the one true God, and we follow His example and do the same, then I suppose that this would lead us to the same place

Kind of subjective. We all have the tendency to define reality by our own experience, and the scriptures concerning the deity are not all that clear or it would not have taken a couple hundred years and the intrusion of emperor Constantine to work out the terminology and the details now known as the Trinity. At one point in the struggle Constantine was of another persuasion, and Arminius was in the ascendency and Anathasius was in disfavor. On such carnal circumstances as the whims of the Emperor of Rome these things were established- and that causes me concern

To me, it is a sublime exploration involving no fear or confusion because I don't see God as being so invested in our definitions and catechisms.

From my perspective He delights in our questions and challenges and is not worried about exactly how we see it because, "Who has known the mind of the Lord and who has been His counselor."

We see through a glass darkly, whether we will admit it, or not.

One thing I feel certain of(doesnt mean I am right, but nevertheless I do feel certain about it) is that God has not given, as yet, to men, a clear view through the veil into these things we discuss and upon which we speculate. Weighting our speculations down with the gravity of another persons eternal destiny or their present standing before the Lord is(imo) presumptuos- but regardless, I know He loves me, He knows me and I know Him, and I am satisfied .

by **Paidion** » Wed May 25, 2016 2:18 pm

3. That those denying that Christ is very God are not Christians (though if interested in following him they are on a good path).

If that is true, then this would include Jesus Himself. For in His prayer to the Father, he said:

And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. (John 17:3)

He not only addressed His Father as "the only true God" but by that little conjunction "and" indicated that He Himself was someone OTHER THAN "the only true God."

by **Paidion** » Wed May 25, 2016 9:33 pm

Paidion: Is Paidion a given name or an adopted one According to 3813. paidion, it means "a young child". No offense met - just curious.

In reviewing the posts, I encountered this question today. I hadn't noticed it until today.

Yes, "Paidion" is a name I chose as an identity in posting to forums. I selected it for its original meaning "trained little child." I hoped to be exactly that (in spirit), though I know I have failed in that role many times. The verbal form of the word in Greek means "to train a child." But later, "paidion" came to mean any "little child" as you have indicated. "Paidion" is the diminutive form of "pais" which simply means "child."

By the way "paidion" is pronounced "pie-dee-on", with the emphasis on the second syllable.

by **Eaglesway** » Wed May 25, 2016 9:47 pm

I believe Jesus is God very God, because "so it pleased the Father to meke all the fulness dwell in Him." He is God very God because YHWH planted a seed of Himself in the womb of Mary. The holy child born from her whom was the first and last incarnation of God, the unique, only begotten Son.

This does not make the Son equal to the Father, except by the faulty "logic" of men who insist that God, who is the source of all things and does as He pleases, was not "pleased to make all fulness dwell in Jesus"- even tho the scriptures say He did. They say Jesus was already filled from eternity past, but that's not what the scriputres indicate imo.

Then, after His resurrection and ascension, Jesus "received the Holy Spirit" and poured it forth upon all who call on His name in sincerity and faith, the Lord and Messah, The Son of God. God was "in Christ, the Messiah, the Anointed One. Anointed wth what? Anointed with the Holy Spirit wthout measure, filled up to all the fulness of God, the Author and Finisher, the first of many sons unto glory- the prototype.

And of His fulness have we all received, with exponentially multiplied grace

And you are in Him having been filled.

The whole creation eagerly awaits the revelation of the sons of God.

But having sat around and chewed this over with Sir Anthony Buzzard(Biblical Unitarian authority), who believes Jesus is not "God very God", because he thinks logic forbids that God could make Himself dwell in Jesus in such fulness, I wonder where these logic restraints come from, because all true logic comes through the Logos, who is both the Wisdom and the Power of God, God manifest in the flesh.

If you say to me, "Jesus cannot be God very God without being co-equal to the Father", I would say, "Thats not what the scriptures lay-out, everything Jesus is was vested in Him by the Fathers good pleasure, and He said so plainly on multiple occasions."

If you say to me, "Jesus cannot be less than the Father and still be God very God", I would say, "Why, because you say that is the full spectrum of logic? Or is that just the limit of your perception?"

The scriptures give many indications that Jesus is truly God, very God. The scriptures give many indications that the Father is greater than Jesus. You say that is not possible? Your logic dictates that? I should rely on the interpretaions of religionists past and the wisdom of the degenerate "great ones" like Augustine, Calvin, Knox and Luther? Over the words of Jesus, Paul and John?

But to say if you do not believe Jesus is God very God,(and exactly as te orthodox Trinity doctrine defines it?) they cannot be "in Christ"? Yikes!

The movement to return to primitive apostolic faith should receive a modicum of respect, and a nod to the possibility that these catechisms and systematic theologies have not been evolutionary steps toward enlightenment so much as tangents and degenerations from the true faith, "once and for all delivered to the saints"

Its a direction more than a destination, because to the one who has more shall be given, he that has not, even that which he has shall be taken away.

I know, I am insane and content with my madness, MUAHAHAHAHA :lol:

by **LLC** » Thu May 26, 2016 1:42 am

Eaglesway, you mentioned that Jesus was "God very God" who made all of His fullness dwell in Jesus. To me, this is basically saying that Jesus was simply God in a man's body. If this the case, and as some say Jesus was fully God and fully human at the same time, then I suppose that in some instances, He would be talking about Himself as God. At other times, He would be talking about Himself as a human in order to set the example for us. If one so happened to be God Himself in a human body, would He really tell people this? For one thing, many would just think the person is a nut job. Secondly, we might get the idea that if this human person is God, that means we are all God as well. How does one go about describing God as a human while He is not really human, and that we as humans, while we have many God given attributes,we are not God?

On another note, the Old Testament speaks of people being filled with the Holy Spirit.
Exodus 35:30-31 says this: "And Moses said to the children of Israel, "See, the Lord has called by name Bezaleel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah; and He has filled him with the Spirit of God, in wisdom and understanding, in knowledge and all manner of workmanship."
Exodus 40: 34 mentions the glory of the Lord filling the tabernacle. "Then the cloud covered the tabernacle of meeting, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle."
What do you make of Luke 3:22 and Matthew 3:16 that say the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus right after He was baptized?

by **[email protected]** » Sat May 28, 2016 3:49 pm

Thanks DaveB... BTW your private message receipt is turned off

by **DaveB** » Sat May 28, 2016 9:10 pm

Thx for the heads-up!

by **Eaglesway** » Sat May 28, 2016 9:43 pm

LLC wrote:Eaglesway, you mentioned that Jesus was "God very God" who made all of His fullness dwell in Jesus. To me, this is basically saying that Jesus was simply God in a man's body. If this the case, and as some say Jesus was fully God and fully human at the same time, then I suppose that in some instances, He would be talking about Himself as God. At other times, He would be talking about Himself as a human in order to set the example for us. If one so happened to be God Himself in a human body, would He really tell people this? For one thing, many would just think the person is a nut job. Secondly, we might get the idea that if this human person is God, that means we are all God as well. How does one go about describing God as a human while He is not really human, and that we as humans, while we have many God given attributes,we are not God?

On another note, the Old Testament speaks of people being filled with the Holy Spirit.
Exodus 35:30-31 says this: "And Moses said to the children of Israel, "See, the Lord has called by name Bezaleel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah; and He has filled him with the Spirit of God, in wisdom and understanding, in knowledge and all manner of workmanship."
Exodus 40: 34 mentions the glory of the Lord filling the tabernacle. "Then the cloud covered the tabernacle of meeting, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle."
What do you make of Luke 3:22 and Matthew 3:16 that say the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus right after He was baptized?

by **Eaglesway** » Sat May 28, 2016 10:10 pm

LLC, I enjoyed your post. Very good perspectives and questions. These are the logical dilemma that put fear and awe in the hearts of those who are willing to examine the issues surrounding the definitions of deity.

I don't claim to have all those answers. I mostly answer questions with other questions when it comes to this topic, because I don't think there is a systematic theology that is sufficient to the task- which is why I object to all the little boxes and the ribbon of soteriology wrapped around them.
I dont think a little confusion is bad, if it leads to more truth- and easy answers are not always complete answers. I receive no sense of completion from the orthodox trinitarian doctrine, so I query and postulate- from the scriptures.

I believe Jesus was completely limited to humanity in His incarnation. He did not ever know all things while in His human body. He never possessed all power while in His human body(my opinion). He did not receive the "spirit without measure" until after His resurrection and ascension. ("the Spirit was not yet given because Jesus was not yet glorified"..."Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear.")

Paul says God "made" all the fulness dwell in Him(Col 1), and that He is the "fulness of deity in bodily form"(Col 2). The kicker to that is that He was born of a virgin. He did not receive a sinful nature anymore than Adam was created with one. Adam chose it. Jesus, the second Adam, did not. He resisted unto death, He overcame through the life that was in Him- by faith.

The reason I say He was God very God, in a sense, as I am defining it- is that God took a piece of Himself and placed it in the womb of Mary. The uncorrupted replication of His divine nature that came forth as a seed(Logos) was Jesus, the "radiance of the Father's glory and express image(grk charakter) of His nature" (Hebrews 1)

I believe in the pre-existence of Jesus...And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed. Jn 17:5

Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross Phil 2

When He died, all that He was with the Father was planted in the earth/clay/us, to be raised up in His likeness. (Except a grain of wheat fall into the earth and die it cannot bear fruit like unto itself)

We receive the "word implanted" which is able to save our souls(James somewhere)

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which lives and abides for ever. 1 Pet 1:23

He is the unique, only begotten God -Son of God, but while on earth He walked completely by faith. Faith was His portal and His fountain. Morning by morning He gathered manna as He waited upon the Father and quieted His soul for the days demands,

During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Hebrews 5:7

We are adopted by the implanted word, grafted in to Him, taken out of Adam, reborn into the true Vine, Messiah Jesus. As "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself" it is "Christ in you the hope of glory" that makes us children of God.

No confusion there, we are not God, we are however, through Jesus, being "filled up unto all the fulness of God" and glorified because of the free gift of grace.

It is grace that qualifies us through adoption. It was obedience, birthright and inheritance that qualified Him.

by **Paidion** » Sat May 28, 2016 10:52 pm

Hi Eaglesway, you wrote:I believe Jesus was completely limited to humanity in His incarnation. He did not ever know all things while in His human body.

If we accept the book of Revelation as valid, then He didn't know all things after His resurrection either.

The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John ... (Rev 1:1 ESV)

Revelation was written after Jesus' resurrection. The above verse indicates that God gave Jesus a revelation of things to take place quickly, and Jesus revealed it to John, who then wrote it down.

By the way, the Greek word "ταχος" means "quickly," not necessarily "soon." It may refer to events taking place and ending quickly, even though they may occur thousands of years later. Both the Holman Christian Standard Bible and Young's Literal Translation render the word as "quickly."
Rotherham translates it as "with speed."