| Paterology, Christology & Pneumatology The forum to discuss the doctrine & nature of God the Father, Christ the Son & the Holy Spirit. |
 | | 
24th October 2010, 12:04 AM
| | My heart leads me to Messianic Judaism
    
| | Join Date: 14th September 2009 Location: Thailand
Posts: 225
Blessings: 78,890 My Mood 
Reps: 129,080,869,029,998,992 (power: 129,080,869,030,002) | | | Advice
To John Zain
Your last sentence makes no sense to me.
Some think that Mary is just a vessel with no biological contribution to Jesus
[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']Now a lot of Christians are throwing me under the bus. How sweet it is ... tire tracks everywhere[/font]
[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']I am not one of those and I wish you God's blessing[/font] |
26th October 2010, 05:26 PM
| | Alten Schule Baptist
54  
| | Join Date: 8th March 2006 Location: OHIO
Posts: 598
Blessings: 57,410
Reps: 8,511,946,606,238,761 (power: 8,511,946,606,246) | | | John, was Adam fully a man before the fall?
__________________
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Gospel,
Bloody, Offensive
Crude, Obscene and Perfect
|
4th November 2010, 08:01 PM
| | Regular Member
 
 | | Join Date: 14th September 2010
Posts: 860
Blessings: 1,130,655
Reps: 70,625,185,861,416,512 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by Phileoeklogos  Now all you have to do is fix the rest of your "new" theory, Jesus was also fully man,
Jesus was not born again, He had no need to be, you have many points that you seemed
to have pulled from thin air, man's empty spirit, the male sperm of the incarnation, etc... Jesus was also fully man
How could Jesus have been "fully man", if He did not have man's sin nature?
Simple question.
Jesus was not born again, He had no need to be
“firstborn from the (spiritually) dead” (Colossians 1:18, Revelation 1:5)
“For whom He (Father God) foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to
the image of His Son, that He (Jesus) might be the firstborn among many brethren.”
(Romans 8:29)
Jesus holds the place of honor and pre-eminence among all who have been,
are now, and will be, “born again” spiritually … raised up to inherit eternal life.
"that the Christ would suffer, that He would be the first to rise from the dead,
and would proclaim light to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles.” Acts 26:23
 |
4th November 2010, 08:17 PM
|  | Friendly Neighborhood Spiderman
31  
| | Join Date: 13th September 2010 Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 3,033
Blessings: 11,192,336 My Mood 
Reps: 401,631,199,002,123,648 (power: 401,631,199,002,129) | | Originally Posted by BrendanMark God became man so that Man could become God. The common refrain of the early Fathers such as Irenaeus of Lyon and Athanasius
Not literally true of course. We do not become sons of God by nature but by adoption. But we are brought into the divine life by God, not by anything less than God. Only God could assume all of humanity into himself - sin, suffering, death and all - without changing his own infinite nature in doing so. The infinite is very different to the finite, whilst incorporating it. God sanctifies that which He assumes into His very life by assuming it into His life.
We experience something of the echo of this in prayerful contemplation and (comm)union with God in Christ by the grace of the Holy Spirit. We are brought into the divine life itself by the Incarnation and the Passion of God. No angel or messenger would do.
A God totally impersonal, distant and uninvolved in His creation may be worshiped and feared but cannot be loved with all the heart and soul, and does not reveal himself, even in this mystery, to humanity.
Very well said.
-CryptoLutheran
__________________
Heavenly Father, be with all Your children who dwell in the Land. In Christ's Name may there be peace for all who dwell there.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
5th November 2010, 12:58 AM
| | Member
| | Join Date: 27th November 2007
Posts: 285
Blessings: 162,241
Reps: 835,366,640,496,818 (power: 835,366,640,502) | | Originally Posted by John Zain In trying to explain the Triune GOD to Muslims,
I've come up with some new ideas on who Jesus was.
Obviously, these are far from orthodox. But, what do you think?
Most Christians believe:
1) a human is composed of body, soul, and spirit …
where the soul is composed of mind(intellect), will, and emotions.
2) when a person is “born again” (“born from above”),
the Holy Spirit takes up residence in the person’s spirit,
which was “empty” prior to this blessed event.
(Man’s “empty spirit” is why he searches for God and spiritual Truth.)
Jesus was the first “human” to have this “born-again” experience
“… that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.” (Romans 8:29).
Matthew 1: 18 she (Mary) was found with child of the Holy Spirit.
20 that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.
21 And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS …
23 “… the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they
shall call His name Immanuel,”which is translated, “God with us”.
Luke 1: 31 And behold, you (Mary) will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son,
and shall call His name JESUS.
35 And the angel answered (Mary) and said to her,
“The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you;
therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.
Note: Jesus was not the Son of God, He was just called “the Son of God”.
“Jesus” and “Son of God” are only names or titles.
Note: Jesus had no human father.
The male sperm used was miraculously provided by GOD’s Spirit.
The male sperm used was NOT tainted by man’s sin nature.
Jesus did NOT have a father with a sin nature, so Jesus did NOT have a sin nature.
Therefore, Jesus had the ability to live a sinless life.
Jesus “was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.” (Hebrews 4:15).
“… Him (Jesus) who knew no sin …” (2 Corinthians 5:21).
Can we say that baby Jesus was GOD?
Jesus was a MAN … he looked like a man, he talked like a man, etc.
At what point can we call baby Jesus “GOD”?
So, Jesus was not as much GOD as He was a MAN.
Jesus was more MAN than he was GOD.
Jesus was a MAN with GOD residing inside of Him.
The GOD inside Jesus was severely limited compared to what he was used to.
This is why Jesus made comments such as: “My Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28).
This is why Jesus spent so much time praying to Father GOD for heavenly help:
discernment, guidance, wisdom of what to say and do, the Holy Spirit’s power, etc.
Jesus was a MAN without sin, but he did NOT know everything.
And he did NOT have spiritual power of his own; he relied on the Holy Spirit’s power.
Jesus was NOT “fully GOD” OR “fully MAN”.
Many Christians say that he was BOTH.
If Jesus was “fully GOD”, why was he always praying to the Father for various things?
If Jesus was “fully GOD”, why did he need the Holy Spirit to provide spiritual power?
If Jesus was “fully GOD”, then surely he would have FULL spiritual powers.
If Jesus was “fully MAN”, he would have had our sin nature!!!
So, WHO really was Jesus?
Jesus was the GOD-MAN, yes … “fully GOD”, no … “fully MAN”, no.
The miraculous GOD-MAN … a MAN without sin … was just what the Doctor ordered.
The perfect, final, and ultimate blood sacrifice for the atonement (forgiveness) of man's sins.
The necessity for this atonement through blood is taught in both Old and New Testaments.
John
These ideas are unorthodox, but none of them are new.The "newest" of these have been around, and soundly refuted for 1500 years or more. I applaud your zeal in educating Muslims about our faith; but, I fear, you are doing more harm than good. You must learn before you teach.
God bless
Jax |
5th November 2010, 10:57 AM
| | Regular Member
| | Join Date: 14th September 2010
Posts: 860
Blessings: 1,130,655
Reps: 70,625,185,861,416,512 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by jax5434 John, These ideas are unorthodox, but none of them are new.The "newest" of these have been around, and soundly refuted for 1500 years or more. I applaud your zeal in educating Muslims about our faith; but, I fear, you are doing more harm than good. You must learn before you teach. I said they are "new" to me.
I'm not getting any "learning" here.
No explaining at all, just "Go with the old orthodox religion".
I'm not saying anyone is wrong.
I'm just asking for my questions to be answered.
Seems like they're unanswerable because the Trinity is unexplainable.
And that's okay. I was just hoping. |
6th November 2010, 07:26 PM
| | Alten Schule Baptist
54
| | Join Date: 8th March 2006 Location: OHIO
Posts: 598
Blessings: 57,410
Reps: 8,511,946,606,238,761 (power: 8,511,946,606,246) | | Originally Posted by John Zain Jesus was also fully man
How could Jesus have been "fully man", if He did not have man's sin nature?
Simple question.
Jesus was not born again, He had no need to be
“firstborn from the (spiritually) dead” (Colossians 1:18, Revelation 1:5)
“For whom He (Father God) foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to
the image of His Son, that He (Jesus) might be the firstborn among many brethren.”
(Romans 8:29)
Jesus holds the place of honor and pre-eminence among all who have been,
are now, and will be, “born again” spiritually … raised up to inherit eternal life.
"that the Christ would suffer, that He would be the first to rise from the dead,
and would proclaim light to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles.” Acts 26:23
To answer the first quote above, the sin nature is not a necessary condition of being "Man", Adam and Eve were both human before the fall, Jesus was a man, I would suggest studying Romans 5 and Hebrews 2. If the sin nature is a necessary component of humanity, what will we be after our perfection?
To answer the second quote above, Jesus was not born again, He was not the first to have a born-again experience, He was sinless, you quote Hebrews 4:15 & 2Cor 5:21 in your OP on this point, therefore He had no need to be born-again, He has life in Himself and gives it to whomever He will, John 5:21&26, Hebrews 7:26.
Born from the dead is not new birth , but resurrection, Romans 8:29, in saying that “He might be the firstborn among many brethren”, has nothing to do with Jesus being born-again, but His relationship to the redeemed, "firstborn" is His rank, His position in the order of the resurrection, the "many brethren" ie.. the redeemed, will follow after Him, He is the first resurrected man, it's the same in Col 1:18 & Rev 1:5, " firstborn of the dead ", no mention in Scripture associating Jesus as “firstborn” has any hint, mention or discussion of Jesus being “born-again. You have inserted this notion into Romans 8:29, Col 1:18 & Rev 1:5 , you use Acts 26:23 as a proof text, but that is a clear reference to the resurrection, read Paul's sermon in Acts 13. This "born-again Jesus" doctrine has been around longer than you or I, and I hope this is not something that you want to hold on to, it is actually blasphemous.
As you state above,
"Jesus holds the place of honor and pre-eminence among all who have been,
are now, and will be, “born again” spiritually … raised up to inherit eternal life."
that is correct, that is a true statement, He holds that place among us, but the scripture you are using to support Jesus being "born again" all refer to resurrection.
__________________
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Gospel,
Bloody, Offensive
Crude, Obscene and Perfect
|
6th November 2010, 08:24 PM
| | Regular Member
| | Join Date: 14th September 2010
Posts: 860
Blessings: 1,130,655
Reps: 70,625,185,861,416,512 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by Phileoeklogos
To answer the first quote above,
the sin nature is not a necessary condition of being "Man", Adam and Eve were both human before the fall, Jesus was a man, I would suggest studying Romans 5 and Hebrews 2. If the sin nature is a necessary component of humanity, what will we be after our perfection?
An excellent point that I have over-looked.
But, I thought Jesus' reason for coming was to wipe away that "component of humanity".
To answer the second quote above,
Jesus was not born again, He was not the first to have a born-again experience, He was sinless, you quote Hebrews 4:15 & 2Cor 5:21 in your OP on this point, therefore He had no need to be born-again, He has life in Himself and gives it to whomever He will, John 5:21&26, Hebrews 7:26. Born from the dead is not new birth , but resurrection, Romans 8:29, in saying that “He might be the firstborn among many brethren”, has nothing to do with Jesus being born-again, but His relationship to the redeemed, "firstborn" is His rank, His position in the order of the resurrection, the "many brethren" ie.. the redeemed, will follow after Him, He is the first resurrected man, it's the same in Col 1:18 & Rev 1:5, " firstborn of the dead ", no mention in Scripture associating Jesus as “firstborn” has any hint, mention or discussion of Jesus being “born-again. You have inserted this notion into Romans 8:29, Col 1:18 & Rev 1:5 , you use Acts 26:23 as a proof text, but that is a clear reference to the resurrection, read Paul's sermon in Acts 13. This "born-again Jesus" doctrine has been around longer than you or I, and I hope this is not something that you want to hold on to, it is actually blasphemous.
This might easily be all correct ... I have to check it. Thank you.
However, the main thing about the "born again from above" experience
is the Holy Spirit coming in and staying there.
As you state above, "Jesus holds the place of honor and pre-eminence among all who have been,
are now, and will be, “born again” spiritually … raised up to inherit eternal life."
that is correct, that is a true statement, He holds that place among us, but the scripture you are using to support Jesus being "born again" all refer to resurrection.
Check yourself ... you really do not agree with the statement.
The "among" means Jesus was first in our group of people who have been born again.
You have shed valuable light on both points. Thanks again, born again.
NEWs Flash for all of the rest of you ...
None of us knows everything.
We're supposed to edify and build one another up,
help each other, etc. ... not tear each other down.
End of sermon.
Over and out.
Sleep well.
Bye.
.
Last edited by John Zain; 6th November 2010 at 08:39 PM.
|
7th November 2010, 09:41 PM
| | Alten Schule Baptist
54
| | Join Date: 8th March 2006 Location: OHIO
Posts: 598
Blessings: 57,410
Reps: 8,511,946,606,238,761 (power: 8,511,946,606,246) | | | But, I thought Jesus' reason for coming was to wipe away that "component of humanity".
Yes, and He does so by the Gospel, to represent man before the Father, Christ had to become a man, but there was no need for Him to have a sin nature.
However, the main thing about the "born again from above" experience
is the Holy Spirit coming in and staying there.
The "main thing" about the new birth, is being given spiritual life, the sinner is dead in trepasses and sins, he cannot see or enter the kingdom of God, do you think that Jesus was ever in that condition? Jesus being given the Spirit without measure is not being born from above, the sinner needs life, Christ has life.
__________________
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Gospel,
Bloody, Offensive
Crude, Obscene and Perfect
|
23rd November 2010, 01:34 PM
|  | The Inquisitor
| | Join Date: 8th August 2002 Location: North West England
Posts: 4,985
Blessings: 76,242 My Mood 
Reps: 19,248,596,051,188,072 (power: 19,248,596,051,203) | | Originally Posted by John Zain In trying to explain the Triune GOD to Muslims,
I've come up with some new ideas on who Jesus was.
Obviously, these are far from orthodox. But, what do you think?
Most Christians believe:
1) a human is composed of body, soul, and spirit …
where the soul is composed of mind(intellect), will, and emotions.
2) when a person is “born again” (“born from above”),
the Holy Spirit takes up residence in the person’s spirit,
which was “empty” prior to this blessed event.
(Man’s “empty spirit” is why he searches for God and spiritual Truth.)
Jesus was the first “human” to have this “born-again” experience
“… that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.” (Romans 8:29). No. The reference to the Messiah as 'the firstborn among many brethren' is a reference to the fact that the Messiah was the first ever human creature to be resurrected (as distinct from being raised from the dead to die again a second time). It has nothing to do with the initial stage of spiritual regeneration (i.e. becoming 'born again') since the Messiah was not born '...dead in his trespasses and sins'?! Originally Posted by John Zain Matthew 1: Originally Posted by John Zain 18 she (Mary) was found with child of the Holy Spirit.
20 that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.
21 And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS …
23 “… the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they
shall call His name Immanuel,”which is translated, “God with us”.
Luke 1: 31 And behold, you (Mary) will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son,
and shall call His name JESUS.
35 And the angel answered (Mary) and said to her,
“The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you;
therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.
Note: Jesus was not the Son of God, He was just called “the Son of God”.
“Jesus” and “Son of God” are only names or titles. Not true. The term 'Son of God' in relation to the Messiah/Christ is a reference to the fact that the Divine Creator (YHWH) now also exists as a human creature as well as the Divine Creator. Jesus of Nazareth is the human incarnation of the Divine Creator, YHWH. As Divine (i.e. the Second Person of the Trinity) the Messiah is Himself God, not God's son. As human, (i.e. Jesus of Nazareth) the Messiah is God's Son (i.e. the human incarnation of YHWH) but not God Himself. The name Jesus (of Nazareth) meaning 'saviour' (Isa.43:10-13) and the title 'Son of God' are not just for 'decoration'. They actually reflect reality. Originally Posted by John Zain Note: Jesus had no human father. Originally Posted by John Zain The male sperm used was miraculously provided by GOD’s Spirit.
The male sperm used was NOT tainted by man’s sin nature.
Jesus did NOT have a father with a sin nature, so Jesus did NOT have a sin nature.
Therefore, Jesus had the ability to live a sinless life.
Jesus “was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.” (Hebrews 4:15).
“… Him (Jesus) who knew no sin …” (2 Corinthians 5:21). The use of human (or even (forgive my apparent irreverence but I'm making a valid point) 'Divine') sperm is pure conjecture?! The Scriptures do not even hint at how the Holy Spirit brought about the Messiah's conception?! The reason why the Messiah is sinless is precisely because He is YHWH Himself, incarnate as a man and, as such, was not included as part of the seed of Adam. As far as we know, it has nothing to do with spermatozoa?! Originally Posted by John Zain Can we say that baby Jesus was GOD? Originally Posted by John Zain Jesus was a MAN … he looked like a man, he talked like a man, etc.
At what point can we call baby Jesus “GOD”?
So, Jesus was not as much GOD as He was a MAN.
Jesus was more MAN than he was GOD. The human incarnation is exactly that - a HUMAN incarnation. The One Who has incarnated is Divine but He has incarnated as a human creature not the Divine Creator (since He already exists as the Divine Creator). YHWH is Divine, Jesus of Nazareth is human, the Messiah/Christ simultaneously exists as both Divine and human. It's as simple as that. Originally Posted by John Zain Jesus was a MAN with GOD residing inside of Him. NO! Absolutely not! The Incarnation is NOT 'God in a gorilla suit'?! The incarnation is NOT God dressing up in a human carcass with a zip up the back?! The Incarnation IS God coming into existence as a 100% authentic human creature (just like the rest of us (Heb.2:17)) whilst continuing to exist as the 100% authentic Divine Creator. Originally Posted by John Zain The GOD inside Jesus was severely limited compared to what he was used to. Originally Posted by John Zain This is why Jesus made comments such as: “My Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28).
This is why Jesus spent so much time praying to Father GOD for heavenly help:
discernment, guidance, wisdom of what to say and do, the Holy Spirit’s power, etc.
Jesus was a MAN without sin, but he did NOT know everything.
And he did NOT have spiritual power of his own; he relied on the Holy Spirit’s power. The Divine Creator is in no way limited by His Incarnation as a human creature (?!). It is the human creature that, just like the rest of us, is limited by virtue of existing as a human creature rather than the Divine Creator. The human creature declared the Divine Creator to be greater than himself (Jn.14:28) because any human creature who declared otherwise would, quite rightly, be locked up in a looney bin. It is a self evident fact (at least to all intelligent and reasonable people) that the Divine Creator is infinitely greater than any/all His human creatures. However, the same Messiah also declared that He and His Father were One (Jn.10:30-33) showing that He (i.e. the incarnate Messiah/Christ) existed as Divine as well as human. You are correct in saying that the human creature is not omniscient since He Himself declared that only the Tri-Personal Divine Creator (and not just the Father) is aware of the eschatological timetable and He has chosen not to share that information in advance with any human creature including His own incarnation (Mark.13:32). Originally Posted by John Zain Jesus was NOT “fully GOD” OR “fully MAN”. Originally Posted by John Zain Many Christians say that he was BOTH.
If Jesus was “fully GOD”, why was he always praying to the Father for various things?
If Jesus was “fully GOD”, why did he need the Holy Spirit to provide spiritual power?
If Jesus was “fully GOD”, then surely he would have FULL spiritual powers.
If Jesus was “fully MAN”, he would have had our sin nature!!!
So, WHO really was Jesus?
Jesus was the GOD-MAN, yes … “fully GOD”, no … “fully MAN”, no. It is the Messiah/Christ who is both authentic Divine Creator and authentic human creature. As Divine Creator the Messiah is YHWH but as human creature He is Jesus of Nazareth. As human (and especially as a Jewish human), the Messiah is under the same obligation to pray to His Father in Heaven as the rest of us. There is nothing incongruous about this. As Divine, the Messiah is absolutely self-sufficient and self-sustaining but as human He chose to avail Himself of the same resources that were available to all men (i.e. the Holy Spirit) rather than to take unfair advantage by using His own power as Divine (which would immediately nulify his role as judge on the Day of Judgement). The Messiah IS authentic Divine Creator and as such DOES have absolute Power. The Messiah IS authentic human creature and as such does NOT have a sinful nature since a sinful nature is NOT integral to being human (Adam and Eve were created sinless not sinful). The idea that the physical is inherently sinful is Gnostic not Judeo-Christian. No. The Messiah/Christ is the 'God-Man'. As God, the Messiah is YHWH whilst as human the Messiah is Jesus of Nazareth. Even as incarnate, only YHWH is our true 'Jesus'/Saviour (Isa.43:10-13). Originally Posted by John Zain The miraculous GOD-MAN … a MAN without sin … was just what the Doctor ordered. Originally Posted by John Zain
The perfect, final, and ultimate blood sacrifice for the atonement (forgiveness) of man's sins.
The necessity for this atonement through blood is taught in both Old and New Testaments. I've said enough. Simonline.
__________________
THE MESSIAH IS ONE PERSON SIMULTANEOUSLY EXISTING IN TWO (DISTINCT BUT NOT SEPARATE) WAYS AS TWO (MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE) NATURES - DIVINE [YHWH] AND HUMAN [JESUS OF NAZARETH]. THE MESSIAH EXISTS FIRST AND FOREMOST AS THE DIVINE CREATOR AND ONLY IN A SECONDARY SENSE AS THE HUMAN CREATURE.
Last edited by Simonline; 24th November 2010 at 07:02 AM.
| | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
