@moonbus
Not so much in that section. Except that the aposltes were a fragrance of Christ to God. The apostles bore the aroma of Chrisrt.
Put in the vancular - the smelled of Christ, wreaked of Christ, saturated with the sense that Christ was among the people. They were soaked with Christ and had not evern been glorified in their bodies yet.
They were steeped in Christ as tea in hot water "teaifies" the water with the flavor of the tea bag.
But I say more so the process of deification when he speaks of the surpassing glory - superior to any glory of God that Moses (of all people) bore. They are not at that time in the climax, But they are well along the way in the process.
Cont. below.
Selected sections bolded:
7 Moreover if the ministry of death, engraved in stone in letters, came about in glory, so that the sons of Israel were not able to gaze at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, a glory which was being done away with,
8 How shall the ministry of the Spirit not be more in glory?
9 For if there is glory with the ministry of condemnation, much more the ministry of righteousness abounds with glory.
10 For also that which has been glorified in this respect has not been glorified on account of the surpassing glory.
11 For if that which was being done away with was through glory, much more that which remains is in glory.
12 Therefore since we have such hope, we use much boldness,
13 And are not like Moses, who put a veil on his face so that the sons of Israel would not gaze at the end of that which was being done away with.
14 But their thoughts were hardened; for until the present day the same veil remains at the reading of the old covenant, it not being unveiled to them that the veil is being done away with in Christ.
15 Indeed unto this day, whenever Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart;
16 But whenever their heart turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.
17 And the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.
18 But we all with unveiled face, beholding and reflecting like a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, even as from the Lord Spirit.
Discussed below.
Moses enjoyed and displayed a radiant glory from His face.
The children of Israel were amazed to see the glory of God shinning from his face.
Yet this glory faded. God saw to it that it faded and went away.
Why? It faded because the glory of the New Testament age would be the glory of the Spirit of divine life INWARDLY dispensed into man as his possession in life.
Who has also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant, ministers not of the letter but of the Spirit; fore the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." (v.6)
The letter of the law of Moses was filled with Thou Shalts, and Thou shalt nots. But the element of God was not dispensed into the hearts of His people - "the Spirit gives [divine] life"
Now Christ the Son in resurrection "became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45) which conveys the life of God in Christ into the receivers. This life giving Spirit, this "Spirit that gives life" puts God's life into man. Man is now not only redeemed by the blood of redemption. Man in Christ is a receiver of the transforming Third Person of the Triune God taking us from degree to degree to degree into the same image as Christ. He is the live Christ.
Put another way this is Christ growing in them. This is Christ compounded into their life and saturating them from WITHIN with the life of God bring with that life the glory of God.
This is the surpassiong glory not just slapped on the surface of the skin from without by spending time with God. This is the glory growing from within because of the possessed Spirit of life - God Himself.
It will noty be done away. It will brings the one indwelt with the life of Christ "from glory to glory" into the same image as the One we are beholding and refecting from within - He who lives in us who received Him.
Cont. below
The glory of God shinned visibly on the surface of the faceof Moses.
But it faded.
The surpassing glory of the new covenant is the glory that shines into our hearts and works its way out in climax of unfadinglory.
" . . . the god of this world [Satan] has blinded the thoughts of the unbelievers that the illumination of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine on them.. . . . Because the God who said, Out of darkness light shall shine, is the One who SHINED IN OUR HEARTS to the illumination of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." ( See 2 Cor. 4:4-6)
This is not glory as a borrowed item. This is the glory of the life of the Triune God dispensed into man to be compounded with his life and bring him to be brother of Christ the Firstborn Son who was begotten in resurrection (Acts 13:33)
@sonship
You and your mentors are reading stuff into it that isn't there. The Apostles were inspired by Jesus's life and teachings. They glorified him and his teachings, which means that they acknowledged and honoured his life and teachings as divinely inspired. That's what it says and that's what it means. They were not well on the way to being deified themselves.
You and your mentors are reading stuff into it that isn't there. The Apostles were inspired by Jesus's life and teachings. They glorified him and his teachings, which means that they acknowledged and honoured his life and teachings as divinely inspired. That's what it says and that's what it means. They were not well on the way to being deified themselves.
I never said they deified THEMSELVES.
Putting aside any matter of the believer's deification for the moment.
When you say "the Apostles were inspired by Jesus's life and teaching" and honoured Him do you mean by that that:
A.) Jesus did not rise from the dead
B.) Jesus is not really Son of God
C.) They were inspired by Jesus as any past dead person may inspire.
D.) God does not exist
E.) ANY or all of the above
@sonship
They themselves, meaning they TOO, would be deified, if they did God's work. The meaning was plain.
What I believe is some or all of the above. What any Christian of sound faith believes is just what I posted, that the Apostles were inspired by the life and teachings of Jesus and that they were not themselves (ALSO) deified (NOT that they deified THEMSELVES). What you apparently believe is not Christianity and not what Jesus taught; what you present here is some modern derivative of 5th c. Pelagianism.
Jesus was not deified in resurrection; he was glorified in resurrection--the words mean what they say, not what you and your mentors want them to mean. No one else is going to be deified (who isn't already).
@moonbus
I am looking for a answer to the question that I asked with its choices.
They themselves, meaning they TOO, would be deified, if they did God's work. The meaning was plain.
I did ask to put aside the matter of deification just long enough for me to understand what you believe about Jesus.
What I believe is some or all of the above.
I would say then that you under appreciate God in His existence, power, love, and
salvation. Then you under appreciate Christ's Person in unbelief.
And then you under estimate Christ's work as well.
You are dumbing down the Scripture to something YOU can understand in your
unbelief of what is written. That's not the way.
moonbus,
What any Christian of sound faith believes is just what I posted, that the Apostles were inspired by the life and teachings of Jesus . . .
No, no. A Christian of sound faith would first of all have no doubt in God's existence and Christ being the Son of God. You are more speaking of someone with wavering doubt and/or outright disbelief in the most basic message of the New Testament.
Are you saying sound Christian faith doubt God's existence and His plan of salvation? That is not very sound Christian belief. Remember, this is all aside from the more difficult matter of discussing deification of the redeemed.
I am understanding you to believe in a DEAD Jesus of Nazareth.
You left it a little ambiguous but not at all positive.
and that they were not themselves (ALSO) deified (NOT that they deified THEMSELVES). What you apparently believe is not Christianity and not what Jesus taught; what you present here is some modern derivative of 5th c. Pelagianism.
By ambiguous strong hints that you do not believe in God's Person, existence, power, Son, raising that Son from the dead, and establishing Him Lord of all you are MORE upholding Christianity's core beliefs?
Once again, let's put deification aside for now.
How in the world can you infer that YOU are standing firmly for the central
tenets of the Gospel of Jesus Christ?
Jesus was not deified in resurrection; he was glorified in resurrection--the words mean what they say, not what you and your mentors want them to mean. No one else is going to be deified (who isn't already).
My main "mentor" is the New Testament itself. No ministry message can replace the pure word of the Bible. No creed and no theologivcal formula can replace the pure words of the Bible. They may be helpful but they cannot supersede the words of the Bible.
For the third of fourth time - let's put deification ASIDE.
Maybe, I'll return to that.
It appears that you want to leave somewhat in the shadows that to you the whole Bible concerning God's existence is, to say the least, in serious question.
There was nothing to be vidicated or glorified in your real view then, if you don't believe in a Son of God living on earth. It sounds like that life ended at Calvary for you.
Are you saying the apostles honoured a fool, a self deceived man, or a terrible charlatan and deceiver of the world ?
@sonship saidOne does not have to believe Scripture to understand what it says. Moreover, what I believe about Scripture does not impair my understanding of how you torture Scripture to arrive at a heretical interpretation of it. Every Christian here has repudiated your interpretation of it, as well as atheists and agnostics.
@moonbus
I am looking for a answer to the question that I asked with its choices.
They themselves, meaning they TOO, would be deified, if they did God's work. The meaning was plain.
I did ask to put aside the matter of deification just long enough for me to understand what you believe about Jesus.
[quote]
What I believe is some or all of th ...[text shortened]... pture to something YOU can understand in your
unbelief of what is written. That's not the way.
@moonbus saidAnd indeed accused him of blasphemy.
One does not have to believe Scripture to understand what it says. Moreover, what I believe about Scripture does not impair my understanding of how you torture Scripture to arrive at a heretical interpretation of it. Every other Christian here has repudiated your interpretation of it as well.
@sonship saidFor the third of [sic] fourth time - let's put deification ASIDE. Maybe, I'll return to that.
moonbus,
What any Christian of sound faith believes is just what I posted, that the Apostles were inspired by the life and teachings of Jesus . . .
No, no. A Christian of sound faith would first of all have no doubt in God's existence and Christ being the Son of God. You are more speaking of someone with wavering doubt and/or outright disbeli ...[text shortened]... e apostles honoured a fool, a self deceived man, or a terrible charlatan and deceiver of the world ?
No, let's not leave deification aside. If I know the conclusion you are heading for is "therefore, the Earth is flat", I can very well challenge the so-called evidence you present to try to establish that conclusion. You keep coming back to that, so I'm still going to hammer it.
My main "mentor" is the New Testament itself. No ministry message can replace the pure word of the Bible. No creed and no theologivcal [sic] formula can replace the pure words of the Bible. They may be helpful but they cannot supersede the words of the Bible.
You put the cart before the horse. Christianity is not based on the NT. It's the other way around: the NT is based on Christianity. How do you think the religion was built up and survived three centuries, before the canon was established at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD? By following the verbal teachings of the Apostles, which had been given to the bishops of the churches they founded at Rome, Alexandria, Carthage, and other places, that's how.
Are you saying the apostles honoured a fool, a self-deceived man, or a terrible charlatan and deceiver of the world ?
No.
Every Christian here has repudiated your interpretation of it, as well as atheists and agnostics.
I still have not seen totl repudiation from Christians here.
I see some cautious evaluating.
And I see some "Let's wait and see the argument" attitude which I think is proper.
So every Christian repudiating your unbelief in Christ also weighs in for your philosophy as not true.
You have a biased self serving criteria for assessing the truth.
It only applies to the other guy.
No, let's not leave deification aside.
IF you don't accept that there is God in the first place anything else stemming from that is going to be rejected. Any kind of plan, desire, operation, work, words, salvation of God are dismissed.
Creation is out.
Incarnation is out too.
Redemption is nowhere.
Resurrection is of course non-existent.
Regeneration, Sanctification, Transformation, Transfiguration, Conformation, Glorification (ALL quite biblcal words) are non-existent.
Of course if you see no God you see no impartation of God into His redeemed people. There would be for you NO Son of God and no sons [plural] of God.
Any biblical term relating to God would be rejected by you.
It is no spefcial thing then that a arguably relevant deification would be as well.
If I know the conclusion you are heading for is "therefore, the Earth is flat", I can very well challenge the so-called evidence you present to try to establish that conclusion. You keep coming back to that, so I'm still going to hammer it.
God or not God is what you apparently don't want to head on face.
I think what you don't wish to face head on you avoid by diversion to other
issues.
So all the ----tions of vatrious kinds I DO set aside to fond out if
ANYTHING in the Bible about God you can believe.
Me:
My main "mentor" is the New Testament itself. No ministry message can replace the pure word of the Bible. No creed and no theological [edit] formula can replace the pure words of the Bible. They may be helpful but they cannot supersede the words of the Bible.
You:
You put the cart before the horse. Christianity is not based on the NT.
Yes it is.
Find out how many Christians here would to along with you that Christianity is not based on the new covenant which is outlined in the New Testament.
Apply your ad populum argument to that and see if the consensus validates your concept.
Besides, I only use the - "anity" in discussions about Christ when I have to because of communication. "Christianity" as an "-ANITY" can mean a lot of different things to different people.
IE. If by the KKK burning crosses someone thinks "Ah, this is Christianity" yes agree that that is not based on the message of the New Testament.
So over the years here you will see me speak manyfold more times simply about Christ or the Gospel of Chrisdt than Christianity.
If I must I use the term for communication.
But there are plenty of things about the ANITY part which one could say historically have nothing to do with the New Testament.