Did Jesus ever tell us that we no longer need to keep the law of Moses?

[posthuman]

How did He love us?

while we were yet sinners.

 

[Guojing]

so you are saying Jesus was wrong?
you are saying Jesus was ignorant?
you are saying Jesus spoke presumptuously?

dude.

how can you trust Him, and simultaneously think He didn't know what He was talking about?
by saying these things, you're casting doubt on everything He ever said.

I see that you are still trying to deliberately distort my explanation, even though I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Okay, this discussion is over.

 

[SimpleGardner]

Okay.
Right here in this post you implied I am a liar, slanderer, I give God a bad name, and I give God's people a bad name. Shall we continue?

Here on the homestead is a microcosm of the attitudes of world you might say. There are beautiful flowers and bees to pollinate them, there are fruit trees with delightful fresh fruit. There are pasture grasses for the animals. Each and every one of them has a place and can all be approached and guided. Everything has a place and seemingly works in an orchestrated harmony! Even the piles of smelly manure in the middle of the fields has a place, however, as important as it is to the whole system/order of nature it has yes to develop into anything that one would want to get too involved with! It is best left to be broken down into constituents that are less caustic and offensive, more beneficial! Does this make sense?

 

[SimpleGardner]

Now we understand that You know all things and that You have no need for anyone to question You. ​

Because of this, we believe that You came from God.​

“Do you finally believe?” Jesus replied.​

(John 16:30-31)​

​

i believe He set aside His glory. that's it.
He was never only partially God or not God -- 100% of 100% of time, He is 100% God: "the exact representation" ((Hebrews 1)) in flesh

I think this is an important study/discussion.

I would like to offer a question. If;

Heb 4:15 KJV For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

but;

Jas 1:12-13 KJV Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him. (13) Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

Does this speak to the vulnerability that God Himself subjected Himself to?

 

[Guojing]

I think this is an important study/discussion.

I would like to offer a question. If;

Heb 4:15 KJV For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

but;

Jas 1:12-13 KJV Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him. (13) Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

Does this speak to the vulnerability that God Himself subjected Himself to?

Interesting point, for me, I believe that Jesus could not have sinned, this is called the impeccability of Christ. He was not born with Adam's sinful nature, thus temptation have no hold on him, unlike us.

 

[lightbearer]

Here on the homestead is a microcosm of the attitudes of world you might say. There are beautiful flowers and bees to pollinate them, there are fruit trees with delightful fresh fruit. There are pasture grasses for the animals. Each and every one of them has a place and can all be approached and guided. Everything has a place and seemingly works in an orchestrated harmony! Even the piles of smelly manure in the middle of the fields has a place, however, as important as it is to the whole system/order of nature it has yes to develop into anything that one would want to get too involved with! It is best left to be broken down into constituents that are less caustic and offensive, more beneficial! Does this make sense?

Yes SimpleGardener thank you for taking the time to share! I think though we all have been that pile of manure at one time or may still have a little to a lot in us that needs to be broken down yet.

 

[SimpleGardner]

Interesting point, for me, I believe that Jesus could not have sinned, this is called the impeccability of Christ. He was not born with Adam's sinful nature, thus temptation have no hold on him, unlike us.

Adams nature is another topic, but that aside, how do you reconcile;

Heb 4:15 KJV For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.


with your statement; "I believe that Jesus could not have sinned,"?

Not a challenge, there are many things I have yet to see from the proper perspective and I appreciate yours brother. Please share. Thanks DG

 

[posthuman]

52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

You have the right to believe that of course. For my case, this verse will make no sense if Jesus was always all knowing, 100% of the time. But again, this kind of beliefs is personal so we can agree to disagree.

"you know all things" makes no sense if He does not know all things, especially in the case of John 16, where His reply is so you finally believe? - not at all indicative of disagreement with the statement, and also in the case of John 21, where Peter 'gets the answer right' on the third repetition of 'do you love me?'

scripture isn't pitted against scripture, but that's where we're at if we believe He is omniscient God, knowing all things, as scripture says, but also paradoxically think He doesn't know all things. this is all the more poignantly relevant when a person has a position like the one you are trying to defend: to wit, that Jesus made emphatic, declarative statements which were wrong, and He did so out of ignorance. that makes Him out to be not only inauthoritative, but untrustworthy and presumptuous.

rule of thumb: if you've got an interpretation that makes one scripture contradict another one, then you've got a wrong interpretation of one or both.

no doubt, Luke 2:52 is difficult - what scripture isn't? but the difficulty is in reconciling the fact that this is God in the flesh with wisdom being 'added' to Him: for what can be added to God?

look just a few verses before this:

And the Child grew and became strong. He was filled with wisdom​

(Luke 2:40) ​

filled with wisdom. that's the same word usually translated "fulfilled" in the NT; it means to be "complete" or "perfect" -- so you've got Luke saying just a couple sentences before, Christ the child was perfect in wisdom. and then you have Him "proceeding" in wisdom in verse 52

is "proceeded" an accurate translation, you may ask? well, here:

prokoptó: to cut forward (a way), advance​

Original Word: προκόπτω​

Part of Speech: Verb​

Transliteration: prokoptó​

Phonetic Spelling: (prok-op'-to)​

Definition: to cut forward (a way), advance​

Usage: (originally of the pioneer cutting his way through brushwood), I advance, progress, make progress. ​

​

Cognate: prokóptō – properly, to cut (beat) to go forward; to advance (proceed). ​

​

​

this isn't the same word as "increase" -- and it's not unfaithful to the text to read it as He proceeded in terms of growing up as an human boy, and the way in which He proceeded was in wisdom, because He's already perfect in it, per v. 40, which is to say, He proceeded wisely through His years. the same understanding fits with the rest of v. 52 - the grace of God was on Him, per v. 40 again, and the favor of both God and man, and having maturity - these things being demonstrated by the recounting given in the verses between 40 & 52.
it is not incorrect to read this as describing how He proceeded rather than a list of things He increased in - especially given that a word singularly meaning to "increase" ((ex. pléthunó or auxanó )) is not being used here. at least, not in the original language. the "ἐν" in this phrase, προέκοπτεν ἐν τῇ σοφίᾳ, can just as properly mean "with" - so that it is read, He advanced with wisdom, and stature, and gracefully alongside God and man.

or you can just think He was largely ignorant the the whole time He lived on earth, but once He returned to heaven, found out just how wrong He had been about several things He taught. which is your position, which i really do not think is either respectful to His person or correct.

 

[SimpleGardner]

Yes SimpleGardener thank you for taking the time to share! I think though we all have been that pile of manure at one time or may still have a little to a lot in us that needs to be broken down yet.

Perfect accompanying song! So, there are many days that I find myself emerging or groping to emerge from some recessive darkness that I am being prodded to release. Those days often render me crippled as the clash for dominion is being denied the flesh.

Bless YHWH!



He is faithful to answer the cries of a broken and a contrite heart

This poem always gets me.


Search me, O God, my actions try,

And let my life appear

As seen by Thine all-searching eye—

To mine my ways make clear.



· Search all my sense, and know my heart

Who only canst make known,

And let the deep, the hidden part

To me be fully shown.



· Throw light into the darkened cells,

Where passion reigns within;

Quicken my conscience till it feels

The loathsomeness of sin.



· Search all my thoughts, the secret springs,

The motives that control;

The chambers where polluted things

Hold empire o'er the soul.



· Search, till Thy fiery glance has cast

Its holy light through all,

And I by grace am brought at last

Before Thy face to fall.



· Thus prostrate I shall learn of Thee,

What now I feebly prove,

That God alone in Christ can be

Unutterable love.



F. Bottome

 

[Guojing]

or you can just think He was largely ignorant the the whole time He lived on earth, but once He returned to heaven, found out just how wrong He had been about several things He taught. which is your position, which i really do not think is either respectful to His person or correct.

Why do you keep distorting and adding words that I did not used? Is there some kind of devious pleasure you derive from doing that?

 

[SimpleGardner]

"you know all things" makes no sense if He does not know all things, especially in the case of John 16, where His reply is so you finally believe? - not at all indicative of disagreement with the statement, and also in the case of John 21, where Peter 'gets the answer right' on the third repetition of 'do you love me?'

scripture isn't pitted against scripture, but that's where we're at if we believe He is omniscient God, knowing all things, as scripture says, but also paradoxically think He doesn't know all things. this is all the more poignantly relevant when a person has a position like the one you are trying to defend: to wit, that Jesus made emphatic, declarative statements which were wrong, and He did so out of ignorance. that makes Him out to be not only inauthoritative, but untrustworthy and presumptuous.

rule of thumb: if you've got an interpretation that makes one scripture contradict another one, then you've got a wrong interpretation of one or both.

no doubt, Luke 2:52 is difficult - what scripture isn't? but the difficulty is in reconciling the fact that this is God in the flesh with wisdom being 'added' to Him: for what can be added to God?

look just a few verses before this:

And the Child grew and became strong. He was filled with wisdom​

(Luke 2:40) ​

filled with wisdom. that's the same word usually translated "fulfilled" in the NT; it means to be "complete" or "perfect" -- so you've got Luke saying just a couple sentences before, Christ the child was perfect in wisdom. and then you have Him "proceeding" in wisdom in verse 52

is "proceeded" an accurate translation, you may ask? well, here:

prokoptó: to cut forward (a way), advance​

Original Word: προκόπτω​

Part of Speech: Verb​

Transliteration: prokoptó​

Phonetic Spelling: (prok-op'-to)​

Definition: to cut forward (a way), advance​

Usage: (originally of the pioneer cutting his way through brushwood), I advance, progress, make progress. ​

​

Cognate: prokóptō – properly, to cut (beat) to go forward; to advance (proceed). ​

​

​

this isn't the same word as "increase" -- and it's not unfaithful to the text to read it as He proceeded in terms of growing up as an human boy, and the way in which He proceeded was in wisdom, because He's already perfect in it, per v. 40, which is to say, He proceeded wisely through His years. the same understanding fits with the rest of v. 52 - the grace of God was on Him, per v. 40 again, and the favor of both God and man, and having maturity - these things being demonstrated by the recounting given in the verses between 40 & 52.
it is not incorrect to read this as describing how He proceeded rather than a list of things He increased in - especially given that a word singularly meaning to "increase" ((ex. pléthunó or auxanó )) is not being used here. at least, not in the original language. the "ἐν" in this phrase, προέκοπτεν ἐν τῇ σοφίᾳ, can just as properly mean "with" - so that it is read, He advanced with wisdom, and stature, and gracefully alongside God and man.

or you can just think He was largely ignorant the the whole time He lived on earth, but once He returned to heaven, found out just how wrong He had been about several things He taught. which is your position, which i really do not think is either respectful to His person or correct.

Greetings PH,

I would not take it personally or offensively if someone told me I will learn to Love and Serve God more every day I yield my heart, mind and body to that pursuit! Nor would I be offended if someone said I know more now than when I was a child.

It is more a comfort to realize that our Shepherd knows our frames not only as our Creator, but as a man who emerged through this existence through TIME which limits a mans ability to see ahead and too far behind without the faculties afforded by the Holy Spirit which He received without measure at 30. But within our confinements in TIME and the flesh that asserts itself upon us, I don't find it a stretch to believe or a liberty too far to consider that our Creator humbled Himself and and became flesh;

Php 2:5-9 KJV Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: (6) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: (7) But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: (8) And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. (9) Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:


I don't think it was a show, but was truly a step into our condition and TIME.

But that said I am willing to see the error of my ways on all things!

SG

 

[posthuman]

Why do you keep distorting and adding words that I did not used? Is there some kind of devious pleasure you derive from doing that?

i contend that i'm not distorting your position at all:

But the grace dispensation was a mystery hidden in God the Father, as Ephesians 3:9 stated. Jesus had no knowledge of that when he was still in the flesh.

you say here Jesus "had no knowledge" of what you call 'the grace dispensation' -- which is, what He accomplished by laying His life down on the cross. so you've got Him not even knowing why He was crucified.

When he proclaim Peter as the head of the church, it was based on the understanding that the Tribulation would have taken place immediately after the Jewish nation rejected him. He prophesy that in Luke 13:8.

and you've got Him completely mistaken about the foundation of His own church, and making false prophesies here.

what am i misrepresenting? you are pretty clearly telling me you literally believe Christ was ignorant about the things He talks about in Matthew 16 when He said them, and that out of ignorance, He makes false prophesies and false proclamations. i am telling you, maybe you don't understand what Jesus said about the rock He builds His church on, and what it means to see Him coming in His kingdom. if you are right, i can't read what Jesus says and trust He is telling the truth.

 

[posthuman]

Greetings PH,

I would not take it personally or offensively if someone told me I will learn to Love and Serve God more every day I yield my heart, mind and body to that pursuit! Nor would I be offended if someone said I know more now than when I was a child.

It is more a comfort to realize that our Shepherd knows our frames not only as our Creator, but as a man who emerged through this existence through TIME which limits a mans ability to see ahead and too far behind without the faculties afforded by the Holy Spirit which He received without measure at 30. But within our confinements in TIME and the flesh that asserts itself upon us, I don't find it a stretch to believe or a liberty too far to consider that our Creator humbled Himself and and became flesh;

Php 2:5-9 KJV Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: (6) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: (7) But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: (8) And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. (9) Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:


I don't think it was a show, but was truly a step into our condition and TIME.

But that said I am willing to see the error of my ways on all things!

SG

"made Himself of no reputation" = set aside His glory, IMO. humbled Himself. He didn't cease to be the eternal Creator by inserting Himself into time, which is His own creation also. 'in the form of man' and also 'in the form of God' is in this passage. He is 100% both.

it is not something humanly comprehensible, and i don't think we should be too troubled to be profoundly incapable of describing and understanding this - but i do think we should, in fear of God, take no view of Him that makes Him ever wrong, ignorant, or incapable.

 

[Guojing]

i contend that i'm not distorting your position at all:



you say here Jesus "had no knowledge" of what you call 'the grace dispensation' -- which is, what He accomplished by laying His life down on the cross. so you've got Him not even knowing why He was crucified.



and you've got Him completely mistaken about the foundation of His own church, and making false prophesies here.

what am i misrepresenting? you are pretty clearly telling me you literally believe Christ was ignorant about the things He talks about in Matthew 16 when He said them, and that out of ignorance, He makes false prophesies and false proclamations. i am telling you, maybe you don't understand what Jesus said about the rock He builds His church on, and what it means to see Him coming in His kingdom. if you are right, i can't read what Jesus says and trust He is telling the truth.

If you don’t understand what mystery I was referring in Ephesians 3:9, don’t jump to conclusions about my views, and just ask politely for clarifications. If you don’t want to do so, that is also fine, just ignore my postings.

Don’t keep putting words into people’s mouths, unless you are deliberately trying to be antagonistic. I know of the history both of us have in the previous discussion about modus tollens. Normally I try to keep no record of such history and engage people on a fresh slate each time. I now think doing that with you in this thread was a mistake on my part.

 

[SimpleGardner]

"made Himself of no reputation" = set aside His glory, IMO. humbled Himself. He didn't cease to be the eternal Creator by inserting Himself into time, which is His own creation also. 'in the form of man' and also 'in the form of God' is in this passage. He is 100% both.

it is not something humanly comprehensible, and i don't think we should be too troubled to be profoundly incapable of describing and understanding this - but i do think we should, in fear of God, take no view of Him that makes Him ever wrong, ignorant, or incapable.

I appreciate your sentiment completely! I do wonder however how to interpret the "Humbled Himself" dynamic if it was just a physical show without any vulnerability. I don't wish, intend or have any casual approach to this consideration. I am compelled by the Holy Spirit to understand, in order to fully appreciate the fullness of the sacrifices our Creator made for us! That, IMHO is the part that I think we should hope to overcome our finite concept of love for! As I draw closer to God it is with increasing frequency that His character is illuminated with incredible humility! So much so that it is devastatingly forceful on my own lack of humility and love! This is the greatest lesson our Creator lovingly persists in with us in order to "Bring us to the Birth!"

Jesus even refers to man as such:
Joh 10:34-36 NIV Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? (35) If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— (36) what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?

 

[Guojing]

Adams nature is another topic, but that aside, how do you reconcile;

Heb 4:15 KJV For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.


with your statement; "I believe that Jesus could not have sinned,"?

Not a challenge, there are many things I have yet to see from the proper perspective and I appreciate yours brother. Please share. Thanks DG

My view is that whenever Paul talks about sin, he is almost always talking about sin as a noun..

So when he said Jesus was without sin in Hebrews , he is referring to the same sin as a noun, as in romans 5:12-19.

Because he does not have the sinful nature in him, he could not have sinned as a verb.

It’s like after our rapture, when our new bodies will not have the same sinful nature. Sin will have no grip on us, unlike now.

 

[NayborBear]

To say thoughts of making your "iggy list", as well as EG's "list", didn't lightly cross my mind, a time er 2? Would be a mistake. Because, at that time in this thread? The posts were getting rather "heated?"
Upon reading of your work/family schedule however? It's all GOOD PH!

Moving on.....
In an attempt in keeping my rather lengthy post and your replies to them, and then, my reply/ies back to your reply. To which I shall answer in bold, if I don't get messed up , in somewhat a "coherent" fashion? As much, er perhaps more for my benefit, as well as future readers? (course this is going to make for an even more lengthy post....But we've reams of paper! Right? )


Can we agree, PH, that there is "GOD" who "reigns" from "everlasting TO everlasting?" aka "The ANCIENT of DAYS", " the 7 Spirits of GOD"/The "INVISABLE GOD", "The GOD of ALL AGES", "GOD! Whom NO ONE KNOWS HIS Name, save HE, HIMSELF?" Can we agree on this?

Can we agree that this same GOD, by the power of HIS Word, stablished "points" For HIS GOOD PLEASURE, in HIS Eternal Kingdom, that are referred to as earth/heaven ages?

Can we agree that "by the POWER of HIS WORD", that during the course, of "one", aka this current earth/heaven age, HE would send a SAVIOR in flesh? This same Jesus of Nazareth? aka "The word, made flesh." Can we agree on this?

yes, yes, yes.
Agreed

Can we agree that Melchizadek, was also a flesh man? That he, being a Priest of the Most High GOD! That he (how can I say) "FOUNDED" (BY GOD'S GOOD PLEASURE) this SAME NAMED "order of Melchizadek", To which this SAME Jesus of Nazareth, was "elevated" ABOVE his fellow (priests), to be SENT to be born of flesh, by this SAME "GOD of ALL AGES?" Can we agree on this?

hmm...
((no comment))
(my argument)
Hebrews 7 (KJV)
For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; BUT MADE LIKE unto the Son of God; [Therefore, He ALSO] abideth a priest continually.
IOW? The Most High GOD, has more Priests that minister unto HIM! aka "The Order of Melchizedek."
Jesus is we "gentiles" High Priest! As Israel is yet blinded, until the "Fullness OF the gentiles" come.

And because of Jesus's OBEDIENCE per GOD'S instructions, after being baptised by John. God stated "THIS DAY!" "HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE!" This SAME Jesus of Nazareth! Can we agree on this?

no, Christ didn't become the Son of God by obedience. He wasn't at some point "not the Son" and later "become" the Son.
He was baptized because it was 'fitting' -- this is what He told John, who wasn't lying when He called Him the Lamb beforehand, even the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world: the world which was created through Him, for Him, and by Him.
(my argument)
Hebrews 1
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:
4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: [From this point forward] a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even THY God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness ABOVE thy fellows.
13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?
Amittedly, PH, it requires discernment to rightly divide some things. And even MORE discernment in the rightly dividing of other things.
IOW? One cannot "connect dots" one cannot see.

Then, can we agree that the "spirit of TRUTH", mistakenly referred to as the "Spirit of God", and/or "the gift of the Holy Spirit", which leads us unto ALL TRUTH. Is "LIMITED" by the faith of the believer him/herself, into WHAT, and HOW MUCH TRUTH, it is ABLE to "guide" one UNTO? Can we agree on this?

Can we agree that due to one's "lack" of faith, that Jesus HAD to return TO the Father, so as the Father WOULD SEND "another comforter", (expressly) BECAUSE the "guiding" of one unto ALL TRUTH, can be pretty "deceiving/seducing", UNTIL (a) PROPER DISCIPLINE is learned? Can we agree on this?

i don't think it is a mistake to call the Spirit of Truth the Spirit of God. the Spirit of Truth is definitely the spirit sent by Christ to and received by His sheep ((John 14:17, 15:26, 16:13; 1 John 4:6, 5:6)). but this is the same spirit that dwells in us, and is called the Spirit of God in 1 Corinthians 3:16, 6:11, 7:40, 12:3, 14:37, etc. the NT talks about the Spirit of God being the Spirit which we received, which dwells in us, by which we are sanctified, by which we are being transformed and renewed, and also taught. unless Jesus was wrong ((are you with Guojing on that? LOL BBQ HDTV WWF?)) it's the same Spirit He sent, to indwell us, to teach us, and to comfort us. John records this in his gospel, and then in a letter ((1st John)) talks about the 'Spirit of Truth' in the same way that Peter & Paul speak about what they call the 'Spirit of God'
i think it's the same, just different names.
you may reply, '7 spirits of God' per Revelation, and i understand where you're coming from on that, just don't think it's the right perspective mathematically. i would say, 'but God is one, and His Spirit is one - speaking of 7 spirits is like speaking of the trinity; it's a wonderful and deep mystery - a matter of measures as though in two radically different coordinate systems, and doesn't defy the singularity of God'

so, the Spirit of Truth = Spirit of God in my understanding. just as for God all things are possible, for the Spirit of God all things are possible - because God is One and His Spirit is tantamount to Himself ((by measure)) - so the Spirit is not "limited" -- to me, that is an impossibility. He may refrain from doing something, but that doesn't mean He is unable to do something. ((obviously not talking about sin: God cannot lie is not a statement limiting Him, in the sense i am using the word 'limit' -- that's because of who He is, not because of something beyond the extent of His power or authority))

(my response)
Agreed. It isn't a mistake! It IS however, a "lack of discernment" that breeds "confusion." That leads to a "breaking down" of the "government" on the shoulder of Jesus Christ. Or, that Jesus Christ "bares" on His shoulder/s. Of which, "limits" the "lateral movements" of GOD into and out of His Son. Just as it limits the lateral movements of GOD into and out of the "GIFT" of His Holy Spirit. And, likewise for the Son's lateral movements into and out of the Father, as well as into and out of the gift of the Holy Spirit. As well as the lateral movements of the gift of the Holy Spirit's lateral movements, into and out of the Son, as well, as the Father. It would seem this is done to deliberately cause confusion, and contention within, or even between believers.
And, as can be witnessed here in the BDF.
That contention between Saved believers, contending with those seeking inheritance. Which are viewed by the saved ones as a "works" salvation. But, it isn't! Works for inheriting the Kingdom of God YIELDS eternal life. Goes above and beyond "everlasting" life. For THIS "everlasting" SHALL end, at the 7th trump. Eternal life? NEVER ends!


Can we then agree, that "limited TRUTH", is/are the reason/s why Jesus would say: "if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not."

yes, i can agree with an understanding that what one might call "limited knowledge and/or understanding" is exactly the same as what another might call "limited truth" -- not that THE TRUTH is constrained but that the person does not possess it completely

(my response)
Agreed. One can ONLY "connect the dots" one can see.
And this is where the "Soconian" mindset, cleverly devises "work-a-rounds" to resolve those "dots" that "just don't CONNECT right."
The Socinians held to a rationalistic approach to Scripture and to faith. This philosophical approach, especially in regard to biblical doctrine, declares that all religious matters must be fully reconcilable with human reason, and that theological matters pertaining to the nature of God cannot be beyond the finite understanding of the human mind.


I WANT you to agree with me, that I, am not Christ! Nope! Not am! Don't WANNA be! NOT GONNA be!
Nor, am I God! Don't WANNA be! NOT GONNA BE!
I am QUITE content on GOD being GOD! And, as EQUALLY content on Christ being the "ONLY WAY" TO the Father! Of which I TRULY believe, and confess!

Just testifying to the"sadness" I see in how many believers sell themselves so short, when it comes to that which transpires after one is "confessed" by Jesus, TO the Father!

100%
and i understand how you got there, just have a couple shall we say 'technical objections' in the foundational logic

(my response)
Thank you!
Am looking forward in discussing these technical objections.

 

[NayborBear]

@posthuman Egadz...The "dreaded" 10,000 character limit.

 

[NayborBear]

Sorry to disappoint. We are talking apples and oranges. So on to apples. Are the elect and the remnant the predestined, foreknew in the "adopted" with the inheritance from the 1st earth age? or do they have a separate "place"

Could you try that again? Only "slower" this time?

 

[lightbearer]

Guojing said:
Jesus also said this "Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

Did that turn out to be true?

.

lightbearer said:

Yes.

Guojing said:
You are waiting for me to ask you to elaborate?

lightbearer said:
Nice.
Sorry I am Pressed this morning for time Guojing . Lord willing we will post later. Interesting screen name my friend. Does it have a meaning?

Quick question, How Many deaths are there, and if more than one which one is Jesus referring to?

I interpret as Jesus was referring to physical death. I see no reason to allegorize that verse.

Me either. So you don't think the Spiritual death and the second death are a reality?

Let's take a look. The context is the final judgement. Not the Romans in 70 AD or the transfiguration. To say that it is either of those events would be extremely allegoric. As read the passages below please consider what was highlighted.

Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward EVERY man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
(Mat 16:24-28 KJV)
And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it. For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away? For WHOSOEVER shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels. But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.
(Luk 9:23-27 KJV)