No, not "yes." Your belief is that he is not 100% like us, so your answer should be, "no, not 100%. Just His flesh."
Do you agree we are Spirit and Flesh?
So was Christ. except His Spirit was of God the Son. So in a manner of speaking He was not exactly like us as we are not God. Outside of His "Spirit" being the Son of God we are the same.
"The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us"
There is no mention of any spirit or soul, so is one to conclude, using just that passage, that Jesus' body was absent of both?
No, for we are told Christ was the son of God. the essences of God the Son indwelt the body of Jesus.
Not mentioning that He doesn't have a human spirit is not a good enough reason to assume that He didn't.
You know, what would be reason enough to assume that Christ did not have a human spirit or soul?? The bible never tells us that he had one, and in place of a soul we are told that "the Word" of God indwelt that body. John 1:14
I think it's open for debate, and not as open-and-shut as you'd like to imply that it is.
It is only open for debate if one completely ignores what the bible has to say.
My worry is this: accepting messages from those who speak of the mind, or the ego, or of the flesh, rather than relaying True gospel revealed to them by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Are you projecting your fears about your own message on to me? If you really have this concern then simply back up you claims with scripture as I have, then all you would have to do next is find a biblical precedent to explain the contradictions between what you have referenced and what i have already posted from the bible.
"Nope?" Who is EQUAL to God besides the Holy Spirit? So it's the Father, the Word, the Holy Spirit, and some other spirit? If you say "nope", then you add one more to the Trinity. Who is this fourth spirit you speak of?
Non-sequetor. I never implied a fourth personage of God.
You ask Is He referring to the holy Spirit? My response was nope, meaning He was not referring to the holy Spirit. There still is one incarnation of God your "question" did not identify.
I don't agree. For the reasons mentioned, I don't believe it's as simple as that.
You do not "believe it is as simple" as what? reading the bible and taking it for it's word? That there is some how a hidden meaning that only you have found 2000 years after the fact? Please reread paragraph 5.
You're bringing semantics into this when it's clear that we not only both obviously meant just flesh, but we're having a debate about it whether or not He has a human spirit, as well.
Just clarifying you position, as it seems to shift to fit your current argument. So what say you? Was Jesus Christ the Son of God as He Claimed?
I meant the Word, not the Holy Spirit. My mistake. So now, tell me:
If the Word dwells within me, then I would also "know" the Father. If It's become a "part" of me, the same way my soul is, and I can't separate myself from it, does that make me God? It's not the indwelling of God that makes someone God, and it's not being sinless that makes you God.
You mis quote the bible in an attempt to rewrite what was written to fit your doctrine, and now you are back peddling. Have you no shame for you sin? Do you know what the unforgivable sin is? Blaspheme of the holy Spirit. Do you know who wrote or inspired the scriptures? The holy Spirit. Do you know what Blaspheme means? To speak Ill or fraudulently against God (in this case the Holy Spirit. What is changing the words of the Holy Spirit to suit your own agenda if not a form of Blaspheme? This may not be the "big sin" but know the road to the "Big Sin" is paved in this type of work.
The fact of the matter is your rework still does not fit any known (to me) translation of the bible and you in an effort to save face have still reworked scripture to your own ends.
I'm not arguing with what the bible writes, but rather with YOUR interpretation of what the bible writes. Let that be clear.
Then please take Mt 4 line by line and address the discrepancies in your theology, against "YOUR interpretation of what the bible writes."
Dude, read! Please. I never, not once, said that God tempted anyone. I never even implied it. Not only that, but I actually AGREE that He doesn't tempt anyone. Where are you getting that I said that He tested anyone?
What I am saying is that is the purpose of that verse was not intended to be used in the way you chose to use it. Post number 3, 4th paragraph from the bottom, gives the full explanation.
What you fail to realize over and over again is that there are TWO parts to that verse. Two. ONE implying that He does NOT tempt by evil (which we both agree with), and the OTHER (that you continue to overlook) implying that He cannot be TEMPTED by evil. Two different words are used and you say they BOTH mean the same thing?
Again no. As I pointed out in Post 3 James is not referring to Jesus and his situation in Mt 4. He is speaking directly to those who believe that GOD IS TEMPTING THEM. What you fail you understand that these two principles can not be separated. That is why it was all included with in the confines of ONE Verse. to separate them and make an new doctrine around it is not the proper exegesis of scripture.
From blueletterbible:
Tempt:
1) to test, try, prove, tempt, assay, put to the proof or test
a) (Piel)
1) to test, try
2) to attempt, assay, try
3) to test, try, prove, tempt
Tempted:
1) to make a trial of, to attempt
a) taught by trial, experienced
2) to test, to make trial of one, put him to proof
a) his mind, sentiments, temper
b) in particular, to attempt to induce one to commit some (esp. carnal) crime
c) tempted to sin
Simply put: God does not "test" and cannot be "induced into committing sin."
To INDUCE ("succeed in persuading or influencing") One to commit sin is not the same as TESTING someone (which, again, God does NOT do).
It's
this part of the verse that I would like to direct your attention to:
"For God cannot be tempted by evil,",
not the second part of the SAME verse: "Nor does He tempt anyone."
Nice try, but even you, in this paragraph acknowledged that this is one concept and not two. therefore it speaks to confines of James topic of conversation in chapter 1:13. Not the temptation of the Son of God in Mt 4.
try again or except the truth.
Okay, so God cannot be tempted, and thus the devil "attacks the human side of Christ." You implied (I've quoted it in order below) that GOD was being tempted.
- You: "Or Satan was allowed to approach Him with an opportunity to sin."
- Me: "If Jesus is God, how then is there an "opportunity" for Him to sin? God cannot sin. What part of Jesus was susceptible to sinning?"
- You: Take your argument up with Matthew because in chapter 4 he records
...He records that Christ the Son of God or God was indeed being tempted.. That means when you take 1/2 of one verse and ignore it's context to apply it to a precept that the verse never was intended to be used in.. Especially when there is an entire chapter of the bible to contradict your 1/2 verse findings, and your personal theology is Completely WRONG. So reset and try again.
What is your point? Yes, --I-- know how easy it is for someone to slip pass me at a crowded event, and --I-- know that they can get way away without me ever realizing who they were, but how can you apply that same logic to an all-knowing God?
If this woman thought out how to take from Christ she also knew how to leave. The fact of the matter and the reason she surrendered herself was that she was CAUGHT IN THE ACT. What other action was recorded that suggested that anyone knew of what she did? (Who's been eating cookies?) She was caught with her hand in the cookie jar! and Christ rebuked her act but commended her faith.
You don't LOOK at someone and ask "WHO", man, c'mon! If you're going to make sense of this, you need to do a better job. I am open, trust me.
You may not, but apparently Christ did. He is in the role of authority. Those in authority did not accuse anyone of anything without 2 wittinesses. So by rabbinical law He was bound to ask Who.. So that it could be established, and He had legitimate recourse if she did not confess.
If Christ asked her that question, why would ALL of His disciples "deny" it? It's more logical to conclude that Jesus caught THEIR gaze and thus why they said what they said.
Not familiar with Jewish tradition? When reading the words and actions of Christ one must put them in the context of a OT Rabbi and not someone wandering a modern ball game.
1.) Jesus wasn't trying to be cute. You say things like that to children, not adults.
lol
Have you even read what the bible says about how he viewed us???
This falls DIRECTLY in Line with His thoughts on us!!!
2.) Really? That's what you're going to compare "the crowds almost crushed him" to? A one-on-one encounter at the good ol' cookie jar?
When speaking to someone with "limited" understandings it is often times best to speak to them in a way they can easily identify with. Perhaps that is why Jesus often times used parables to explain complex principles.
The same question can apply to you, as well.
Everyday, Every post, Every line, Every word..
I see you forgot to answer one:
I see you left out quite a bit of content, any particular reason?
