For all that fear hell

sdowney717 · Feb 14, 2018

As soon as I hear someone teach that the second coming already happened, I know they are in error, and heretical in their understanding.

What is Full preterism , see to be consistent with a view that says the second coming happened back in 70 AD requires a complete change from what the church has taught through its long history
http://www.reformedonline.com/uploads/1/5/0/3/15030584/full_preterism_.pdf

"Some of the peculiar teachings of full preterism are as follows. The second coming of Christ has already taken place including the rapture, the general resurrection from the dead and the final judgment; the old heavens and earth have completely passed away; and the new heavens and earth are present. The Great Commission has already been completely fulfilled (Mt. 28:18- 20). The Bridegroom has returned for His church. Both death and Hell (or Hades) have been cast into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:13-14)."

mkgal1 · Feb 14, 2018

We aren't talking about second coming. The text says, "coming of the son of man". It seems you're having difficulty separating the two.

What Matthew had written about "the coming of the Son of Man":

27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done. 28 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” (NIV)~Matthew 16:27-28

When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.~Matthew 10:23

4 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.~Matthew 24:34

And responding to the high priest, Jesus said, “You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”~Matthew 26:63-64

mkgal1 · Feb 14, 2018

What's written in Daniel about the Son of Man:

The Son of Man Presented

13“I kept looking in the night visions,
And behold, with the clouds of heaven
One like a Son of Man was coming,
And He came up to the Ancient of Days
And was presented before Him.

14“And to Him was given dominion,
Glory and a kingdom,
That all the peoples, nations and men of every language
Might serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion
Which will not pass away;
And His kingdom is one
Which will not be destroyed.~Daniel 7:13-14

*************
From the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America:

Son of Man is an important element of the eschatological-apocalyptic decorum in both Jewish and Christian texts; an eclectic decorum made of various elements such as, the Davidic king, the chosen servant of Deutero-Isaiah, and the "son of man" of Daniel.

Additional Jewish testimony to the messianic character of the text of Daniel 7:13 may be found in the Zohar , "And they[the Israelites] will exercise dominion both on high and here below, as it is written, 'And, behold, there came with the clouds of heaven one like unto a Son of Man' (Dan 7:13) alluding to the Messiah, concerning whom it is also written, 'And in the days of those kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom' (Dan2:44). Hence Jacob desired that the blessings should be reserved for that future time, and did not take them up immediately" (1:145b).

If Daniel 7 deals with the relationship between God the Father and God the Son, as the ancient Christian interpreters argued, then we can assume that the latter has a certain propensity towards weakness, or sharing in human weakness. This is why he was designated to become one of us long before he took flesh and became man. Paul underscores Christ's willingness to share in our weakness, when he writes, "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses (astheneias), but we have one who in every respect has been tested as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore approach the throne of grace with boldness, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need" (Heb 4:15-16). (NRSV) We might complement this Pauline text with a short paragraph from the so-called 'eschatological discourse' of Jesus, "Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see 'the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven' with power and great glory"(Matt 24:30). (NRSV) The "sign of the Son of Man" was interpreted by ancient readers as a reference to the sign of the cross, a fair interpretation, if one agrees with the etymology we have advanced above, and the rendition of the Aramaic phrase as "son of weakness." Thus, the sign of the "weak one" cannot be anything other than the cross, and God, as Paul points out, can imbue the symbol of the cross with the character of his divine power, "For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (1 Cor 1:18).

In the New Testament, the phrase "the Son of Man" is frequently on Jesus' lips, and in all cases, except one, it is a definite reference. Most of the time, Jesus uses this title to contrast his current state of humility and suffering with the glory and dominion he had before, and which he will reveal to the chosen ones at the end of time. The most consistent feature of the New Testament descriptions of "the Son of Man" is the judicial function of the exalted Jesus. The relevant texts speak of an exalted eschatological Son of Man (Matt 24:30; 25:31; 26:24; John 5:27; Acts7:56; Rev 14:14). Some of the New Testament texts using the phrase focus on the pre-existence in glory of the Son of Man, "No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man" (John 3:13; [NRSV] cf. 6:27, 62).

According to Daniel 7:13, the divine-human character "was coming" ( 'ātēhawā ), a vague expression which designates the appearance of Messiah as a lasting process: Messiah "was coming" before the great incarnation; and in Daniel's vision, "the Son of Man" was approaching the human observer, Daniel himself, but was unable to reach him at that point in time. On the contrary, he was approaching and "reached" (mě t, ā) "the Everlasting One." The use of the verb mě t, ā suggests that this encounter was a surprising, unexpected, event. Since the Messiah "was coming," but was never able to reach Daniel, we can infer that he was moving at that time only within the divine realm, and had not yet descended into human history. The quest of "the Son of Man" for "the Everlasting One" will be rewarded with a substantial release of power from the latter to the former (Dan 7:14). This release of power may be a reference to Messiah's eternal glory, about which Jesus spoke before his arrest, "So now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed" (John 17:5). (NRSV) However, Daniel 7:14 may also be a prophetic allusion to Christ's glorification after resurrection, "And Jesus came and said to them, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me'" (Matt 28:18). (NRSV)

The "Son of Man," then, is depicted as "coming with [or: upon] the clouds of the sky." In the Old Testament, the cloud is the garment or dwelling-place of deity, the symbol of its presence in the midst of the people. [6] Isaiah 19:1 lauds the "Lord riding upon a soft cloud"; at the transfiguration, the cloud was the sign of God's presence on the mountain (Matt 17:5 and parallels); and on the day of his ascension, Jesus was taken up in a cloud, "When he had said this, as they were watching, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight" (Acts 1:9). (NRSV)Similarly, at the end of time, a cloud will announce Christ's second coming, "Then they will see 'the Son of Man coming in a cloud' with power and great glory" (Luke 21:27). (NRSV) The recursive connection between this text and Daniel 7 is obvious, and reifies the specificities of Christ'srole as Son of Man and Son of God.~The Aramaic Phrase Bar ’ěnoš “Son of Man” (Dan 7:13-14) Revisited - Bible & Scripture - Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America

Hillsage · Feb 14, 2018

mkgal1 said:
We aren't talking about second coming. The text says, "coming of the son of man". It seems you're having difficulty separating the two.

Question. Do you have a differential definition of "son of man" compared to "son of God"?

sdowney717 · Feb 14, 2018

mkgal1 said:
We aren't talking about second coming. The text says, "coming of the son of man". It seems you're having difficulty separating the two.

What Matthew had written about "the coming of the Son of Man":

27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done. 28 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” (NIV)~Matthew 16:27-28

When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.~Matthew 10:23

4 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.~Matthew 24:34

And responding to the high priest, Jesus said, “You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”~Matthew 26:63-64

You seem to have forgotten that you yourself said this coming was the second coming of Christ back a few posts.... I had reposted what you wrote in post #152.

Here is what you said
Jesus said that when Jerusalem is surrounded by armies and is destroyed that would be the time of His second coming. This already happened between 63 A.D. and 70 A.D. (seven years).

mkgal1 · Feb 14, 2018

sdowney717 said:
You seem to have forgotten that you yourself said this coming was the second coming of Christ back a few posts.... I had reposted what you wrote in post #152.

I explained that I was quoting someone else for other information (and also admitted that I should have been more clear at the time). I have posted that three times already.

Are you going to address those passages?

ETA a few more passages. This is the context in which many believe the narrative of Matthew 24 ought to be placed:

41 When He approached Jerusalem, He saw the city and wept over it, 42 saying, “If you had known in this day, even you, the things which make for peace! But now they have been hidden from your eyes. 43“For the days will come upon you when your enemies will throw up a barricade against you, and surround you and hem you in on every side, 44and they will level you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation.”~Luke 19:41-44

******
27 And following Him was a large crowd of the people, and of women who were mourning and lamenting Him. 28But Jesus turning to them said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, stop weeping for Me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. 29“For behold, the days are coming when they will say, ‘Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bore, and the breasts that never nursed.’ 30“Then they will begin TO SAY TO THE MOUNTAINS, ‘FALL ON US,’ AND TO THE HILLS, ‘COVER US.’ 31“For if they do these things when the tree is green, what will happen when it is dry?”~Luke 3:27-31

mkgal1 · Feb 14, 2018

Hillsage said:
Question. Do you have a differential definition of "son of man" compared to "son of God"?

Not at the moment, I don't.

To be honest.....I've torn down most of what I'd previously been taught and am still in the process of rebuilding (and probably will NEVER complete that process

). I'm trying to look at Scripture with "fresh eyes" (but also trying to remain within the boundaries of what's been revealed to the Church).

Do you have a distinction you can share between the "son of man" and "son of God"?

mkgal1 · Feb 14, 2018

Hillsage said:
Question. Do you have a differential definition of "son of man" compared to "son of God"?

I see no reason to disagree with anything written here:

From the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America------>Together with the belief in the Holy Trinity, the doctrine of the Incarnation occupies a central position in the teaching of the Orthodox Church. According to Orthodox Faith, Jesus is much more than a pious man or a profound teacher of morality. He is the "Son of God who became the Son of Man.” The doctrine of the Incarnation is an expression of the Church's experience of Christ. In Him, divinity is united with humanity without the destruction of either reality. Jesus Christ is truly God who shares in the same reality as the Father and the Spirit. Moreover, He is truly man who shares with us all that is human. The Church believes that, as the unique God-man, Jesus Christ has restored humanity to fellowship with God.

By manifesting the Holy Trinity, by teaching the meaning of authentic human life, and by conquering the powers of sin and death through His Resurrection, Christ is the supreme expression of the love of God the Father, for His people, made present in every age and in every place by the Holy Spirit through the life of the Church. The great Fathers of the Church summarized the ministry of Christ in the bold affirmation, "God became what we are so that we may become what He is.”~Teachings of the Orthodox Church - Introduction to Orthodoxy Articles - Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America

----->When a king founds a city, if it is attacked by bandits from the carelessness of its citizens, he certainly does not neglect it, but avenges and reclaims it, for the sake of his own honor. How much more did God the Word of the all-good Father refuse to let humans, his work, go to corruption. He blotted out their death by the offering of his own body, and corrected their neglect by his own teaching, restoring all that was theirs by his own power. …

3. [The writer of Hebrews] explains why it was necessary for none other than God the Word himself to become incarnate: “For it was fitting that he, for whom and through whom all things exist, in bringing many sons unto glory, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through suffering”. [Heb 2:10] By this he means that the work of rescuing humanity from corruption belonged to none other than the Word of God who had made them in the beginning.
Athanasius on Christ | Christian History Institute

------>the Athanasian standards examined the incarnation of Jesus and affirmed that in the mystery of the incarnation the divine nature did not mutate or change into a human nature, but rather the immutable divine nature took upon itself a human nature. That is, in the incarnation there was an assumption by the divine nature of a human nature and not the mutation of the divine nature into a human nature. ~The Athanasian Creed by R.C. Sproul

As I understand it, the distinction is between the un-incarnate Christ (Son of God) and the incarnate Christ (Son of Man). "Son of man" is Jesus of Nazareth who although "emptied Himself" was still fully God....while still being fully human. As the Athanasian Creed says:

the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance [Essence] of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Substance [Essence] of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood into God. One altogether; not by confusion of Substance [Essence]; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the living and the dead.

Doug Melven · Feb 14, 2018

mkgal1 said:
I don't think we often realize how much of what we've been told for years (and read) shadows our understanding of Scripture. It's difficult to look at things with fresh eyes. The Mark passage seems to be one that comes up often in this discussion....but maybe try to look at it with the word "punishment" in place of "hell"? Try to strip away ideas of what sort of punishment that means. I happen to believe whatever sort of punishment it is....it has to be restorative and within the framework of love.

Jesus and His disciples are in Jerusalem....to the valley of Gehenna is near to them (I've even read it was within their view):

---->They went on from there and passed through Galilee. He did not want anyone to know it; 31 for he was teaching his disciples, saying to them, ‘The Son of Man is to be betrayed into human hands, and they will kill him, and three days after being killed, he will rise again.’ 32 But they did not understand what he was saying and were afraid to ask him.~Mark 9:30-32

Another Exorcist
38 John said to him, ‘Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.’ 39 But Jesus said, ‘Do not stop him; for no one who does a deed of power in my name will be able soon afterwards to speak evil of me. 40 Whoever is not against us is for us. 41 For truly I tell you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ will by no means lose the reward.~Mark 9: 38-40

and the parallel:

The Reward of Service
…41Whoever receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward, and whoever receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man will receive a righteous man’s reward.And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones who is my disciple, truly I tell you, that person will certainly not lose their reward.~Matthew 10:42

.....then it goes into the famous text about sin.

After :41 in Mark He goes on to talk about what will happen to those who offend one of the little ones.

9:42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
9:43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

Then Jesus says 3 times: 44, 46, 48
Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

If Jesus repeats something like that, we should take special notice.
There is nothing restorative about a fire that will not be quenched.
Also, if someone could be saved by fire purification, why did Jesus Christ have to go through all of what He went through?
Or do you think that after being punished for an age they will be given the choice to accept Christ as Savior?
There is absolutely no Biblical evidence for such a thing.
Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

And if people were allowed to make a choice after a period of punishment, why would anyone accept Christ in this life?
There are many people today who are trying to earn salvation by there good works.
Many people feel they must be punished for there own sins, and they would accept burning for an age.

Hillsage · Feb 14, 2018

mkgal1 said:
To be honest.....I've torn down most of what I'd previously been taught and am still in the process of rebuilding (and probably will NEVER complete that process

).

Welcome to 'the walk' in 'the Spirit of truth'. Some of what I tore down I rebuilt with, some I discarded.

Do you have a distinction you can share between the "son of man" and "son of God"?

I believe that Jesus was the "son of man" after the flesh, and He was "son of God" after the spirit of Christ which was in Jesus when He was born. He never had 'the Holy Spirit' until He was 30.

Hillsage · Feb 14, 2018

mkgal1 said:
I see no reason to disagree with anything written here:

From the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America------>......According to Orthodox Faith, Jesus is much more than a pious man or a profound teacher of morality. He is the "Son of God who became the Son of Man.” The doctrine of the Incarnation is an expression of the Church's experience of Christ. In Him, divinity is united with humanity without the destruction of either reality. Jesus Christ is truly God who shares in the same reality as the Father and the Spirit. Moreover, He is truly man who shares with us all that is human. The Church believes that, as the unique God-man, Jesus Christ has restored humanity to fellowship with God.

OK, this post is going to be deep....probably too deep....no offense intended....just saying hang on. But here goes;

Personally I struggle above with "he was the son of God who became the son of man".

"In the beginning was THE WORD" not 'the son of God'. And THE WORD was God as a spirit because "God is spirit". And 'THE spirit WORD gave up equality with spirit God' and "became ('sinful') "flesh and dwelt among us" as a son of man."

In the beginning the Father was spirit, the Word was spirit, the Holy Spirit was spirit.
JOH 4:24 God is spirit,.

JOH 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.....:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,

------>the Athanasian standards examined the incarnation of Jesus and affirmed that in the mystery of the incarnation the divine nature did not mutate or change into a human nature, but rather the immutable divine nature took upon itself a human nature. That is, in the incarnation there was an assumption by the divine nature of a human nature and not the mutation of the divine nature into a human nature. ~The Athanasian Creed by R.C. Sproul

I kind of disagree with the above point too. I believe that our sin nature is in 'the flesh'.
Even as Paul supports in saying "in my flesh dwells no good thing" and also;

ROM 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

But, just because Jesus had a sinful flesh sin nature, I don't believe He ever gave in to that nature and sinned!!! But that sin nature was tempted in Him just like it tempts us, because he was made just like us;

HEB 2:17 Therefore he had to be made like his brethren in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make expiation for the sins of the people. 18 For because he himself has suffered and been tempted, he is able to help those who are tempted.

If He was made like me in every respect, then He had a sin nature of sinful flesh. If He was ever tempted like me, then He was tempted because of that sin nature. But, just as I don't 'have' to give in every time I'm tempted, by my sin nature.... so also He NEVER GAVE IN ONCE.

As I understand it, the distinction is between the un-incarnate Christ (Son of God) and the incarnate Christ (Son of Man). "Son of man" is Jesus of Nazareth who although "emptied Himself" was still fully God....while still being fully human.

I lean toward the un-incarnate WORD, became 'sinful flesh' 'and dwelt among us' as the son of man. But the WORD, after it was incarnated as sinful flesh, was then given 'the spirit of Christ' from God as the human spirit which dwelt in the flesh of the 'son of man'. And it was that 'spirit of Christ' from God, which made Jesus the 'Son of God'.

The same happens for us, after becoming born again spirits...or spiritual children. We start growing to become manifested Sons of God after the spirit. Even women have the 'son spirit' of Christ in them enabling them to be 'sons of God'. Women love that part when I explain it to them.

And because Jesus was born with the spirit of Christ in Him to begin with, he never needed to be 'born again from above' like us, so that we too might have "the spirit of Christ in us, the hope of glory."

So, how ya doing with all this?

Doug Melven · Feb 15, 2018

Hillsage said:
So, how ya doing with all this?

Most of that I agree with.
But, I don't believe Jesus had a sin nature, as that is what is passed on by the seed of man.
But Jesus did not have a human father. But He did the LIKENESS of sinful flesh.
But, because you do state that Jesus never sinned even once I don't see how this is a point to quibble over.

Then right at the end you state that Jesus did not need to be born-again.
Being resurrected from the dead is being born again.
We are raised from the dead just as Jesus was raised from the dead.
Romans 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

Acts 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee

mkgal1 · Feb 15, 2018

Hillsage said:
I lean toward the un-incarnate WORD, became 'sinful flesh' 'and dwelt among us' as the son of man. But the WORD, after it was incarnated as sinful flesh, was then given 'the spirit of Christ' from God as the human spirit which dwelt in the flesh of the 'son of man'. And it was that 'spirit of Christ' from God, which made Jesus the 'Son of God'.

Right.....I do prefer the use of "Word" instead of Son of God as well (but I think it's also necessary to make the distinction between "Son of God" and "Son of Man" as well, since those terms are used in the Bible--does that make sense?

Language is tricky. When you read a word or phrase it may conjure up all sorts of images and ideas....but then I can read the same word or phrase, I may imagine different things. That's why I think we ought to look at the Bible as more like poetry (but remaining within the confines the Holy Christian Church has given us if we want to claim Christianity).

I'm also struggling with your use of "sinful flesh" as attributed to Jesus. Are you saying that because it's said "He took on our sin"? To me that seems to be separating "flesh" from "spirit" like the beliefs of the Gnostics that vilified the flesh. To my mind.....one of the most eye-opening things to think about is how God (in Jesus) was literally encased in human flesh when He was in Mary's womb. Human flesh can't be that detestable to God (but, obviously, sin is!).

mkgal1 · Feb 15, 2018

Hillsage said:
Personally I struggle above with "he was the son of God who became the son of man".

"In the beginning was THE WORD" not 'the son of God'. And THE WORD was God as a spirit because "God is spirit". And 'THE spirit WORD gave up equality with spirit God' and "became ('sinful') "flesh and dwelt among us" as a son of man."

I can't tell, are you having trouble with the verbiage or the actual concept that the Word is the same as the Son of God? IOW......do you believe the Word is distinct from the Son of God?

mkgal1 · Feb 15, 2018

Doug Melven said:
There is nothing restorative about a fire that will not be quenched.

Fire is restorative and purifying in the purging of impurities in metals (like gold) which is the imagery that's often mentioned in the Bible .......and God is our consuming fire (Hebrews 12:29).....and His power is unique.

God is also LOVE....which is the only power that can change the hardened hearts of mankind.

And it depends on what you think of when you read the words, "will not be quenched". That also means "it won't be stopped". IOW....God's LOVE will never end.....will never be hindered.....will never be stopped. Do you remember the famous passage about LOVE?

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.~ 1st Corinthians 13

Replace "fire" with LOVE, and consider these attributes of LOVE (it ALWAYS protects.....ALWAYS hopes.....ALWAYS perseveres, yet you are putting a "deal ends date" on God's love). I just can't reconcile that with Scripture. I can't believe that He will ever give up on us....and death has been defeated by Him, so it's not a hindrance to Him.

Doug Melven said:
Also, if someone could be saved by fire purification, why did Jesus Christ have to go through all of what He went through?

We aren't "saved by fire purification". We are ALL saved by His grace and mercy. Remember.....we are all penned in together in disobedience so that He can have mercy on us ALL (Romans 11:32). And that's actually the point....He didn't *have to* go through what He went through on the cross.....He *chose* to of His own free will so that we will be saved. He demonstrated His love for us on that cross (while we were still sinners).

I believe ALL of us will go through purification of His fire.....burning off the dross that's not of His kingdom. None of us are perfect.....but I believe He will purify us and make us so.

Doug Melven said:
Or do you think that after being punished for an age they will be given the choice to accept Christ as Savior?

You're still holding onto the idea that a person has to say certain words (it seems). I believe that once ALL see God in His glory....there will be no resisting His powerful love. "Every knee will bow.....every tongue will confess". I don't pretend to know the chronological timeline of events.....or how things will happen....that's not our place.....I just trust that He is powerful and loving enough to transform ALL hearts.

Doug Melven said:
And if people were allowed to make a choice after a period of punishment, why would anyone accept Christ in this life?
There are many people today who are trying to earn salvation by there good works.
Many people feel they must be punished for there own sins, and they would accept burning for an age.

That question always stuns me to where I am not even sure what to say. It makes me wonder what sort of experiences the person asking (because this is asked ALL the time in this discussion) has had with relationships. The only thing I can think of as a response is that we love because He first loved us. And.....

For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. 15 And He died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for Him who died for them and was raised again~2 Corinthians 5:14-15

There are several definitions for "compel"....but I believe the one that probably fits the best is "urge; push"--it just can't be helped or stopped.....like all our natural laws. For instance: if you drop an apple off a building....it's naturally going to fall downward (cheesy example....but I hope it makes my point). If one encounters God's genuine love....one can't help but respond in love. Some people have obstacles to seeing or receiving God's genuine love (or, most unfortunately.....it's never even been shown to them)....and I don't think God will hold that against them. He WILL show them His love in all its glory (I believe).....and just like that apple falling from up high can't resist gravity......that person won't be able to resist God's love.

But another thing that confuses me about that question is, if it were possible to NOT respond in love immediately......why would we ever consider postponing to love a God like ours? Why miss out on that time and experience? Would you do that with human relations? Since you have a dog in your profile....am I wrong in presuming you love dogs? Can you help that....can you postpone it.....or is it just a natural response?

mkgal1 · Feb 15, 2018

Doug Melven said:
if someone could be saved by fire purification, why did Jesus Christ have to go through all of what He went through?

I also wanted to add on to this that we--most likely--differ in our views on the cross (which is connected to our views on the afterlife). I don't any longer believe in the substitutionary atonement “theory” (and that’s all it is)---I believe in His incarnation to demonstrate His love for us. This article explains well what I mean (if you're at all interested in reading it) The main point is this:

Franciscans never believed that “blood atonement” was required for God to love us. Our teacher, John Duns Scotus (1266-1308), said Christ was Plan A from the very beginning (Colossians 1:15-20, Ephesians 1:3-14). Christ wasn’t a mere Plan B after the first humans sinned, which is the way most people seem to understand the significance of the death and resurrection of Jesus. The Great Mystery of Incarnation could not be a mere mop-up exercise, a problem solving technique, or dependent on human beings messing up.

Scotus taught that the Enfleshment of God had to proceed from God’s perfect love and God’s perfect and absolute freedom (John 1:1-18), rather than from any mistake of ours.~https://cac.org/incarnation-instead-of-atonement-2016-02-12/

Hillsage · Feb 15, 2018

Doug Melven said:
Most of that I agree with.
But, I don't believe Jesus had a sin nature, as that is what is passed on by the seed of man.
But Jesus did not have a human father. But He did the LIKENESS of sinful flesh.
But, because you do state that Jesus never sinned even once I don't see how this is a point to quibble over.

As I said in my post, I believe that he did inherit the sin nature, and that it came from the seed of man (mankind). And that seed of mankind was Mary. After all it was EVE who first sinned, not Adam. For Jesus to not have "lust of the flesh" kind of nullifies Him ever being tempted 'in the flesh' like we are IMO.

Then right at the end you state that Jesus did not need to be born-again.
Being resurrected from the dead is being born again.
We are raised from the dead just as Jesus was raised from the dead.
Romans 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

We may differ since I'm also dealing with man on a spirit, soul, body basis here.
I differ in that a rebirth/regeneration of my spirit is different than a resurrection of my dead flesh.

And I also think the Rom 6 verses you shared are dealing with the resurrected life we will have after the grave, even as Romans 6 deals with Jesus' resurrection experience. Not a 'rebirth of his spirit'.

Acts 13:33

Click to expand...

God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee

I look at this prophetic and Messianic verse as foretelling that Jesus would be begotten in spirit at birth. We become 'begotten' with the 'rebirth' or as translations say "born again", "born from above", "born anew". And the context of those terms are from when Jesus talked to Nicodemus about the spirit being regenerated....not resurrected.
Those are my thoughts anyway. May be right may, be wrong, but as you say 'don't have to quibble'. We're all just dumb sheep and brothers in Christ trying to figure things out IMO.

Hillsage · Feb 15, 2018

mkgal1 said:
I can't tell, are you having trouble with the verbiage or the actual concept that the Word is the same as the Son of God? IOW......do you believe the Word is distinct from the Son of God?

I do see them as totally distinct. And you? How do you see it? And can you support your POV with scripture, like I did? Or should I say, tried to support?

mkgal1 · Feb 15, 2018

Another verse to consider (in relation to the idea of God's love/patience running out). This one is often used for Christian greeting cards (typically graduations).....but I happen to believe there is much more to this verse:

For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will complete it until the day of Christ Jesus. .~Philippians 1:6

He began that "good work" for ALL of us on the cross.....and He will perfect (complete) that work.

mkgal1 · Feb 15, 2018

Hillsage said:
For Jesus to not have "lust of the flesh" kind of nullifies Him ever being tempted 'in the flesh' like we are IMO.

Interesting. I've never heard that perspective before. So....you believe He "undid" sin by dwelling in sinful flesh (yet not sinning).....is that correct?

For all that fear hell

Newbie

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

One 4 Him & Him 4 all

Newbie

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

Well-Known Member

One 4 Him & Him 4 all

One 4 Him & Him 4 all

Well-Known Member

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

One 4 Him & Him 4 all

One 4 Him & Him 4 all

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

Similar threads