10 Jan 12
1 edit
Paul preached as the Gospel what ?
He preached a rich, all-inclusive, and extensive Christ. This was a Christ in both simple terms and deeper terms. This was a Christ of elemetary matters from which we never graduate and a Christ of profound cosmic significance going beyond mere personal piety.
Paul preached as the Gospel "the unsearchable riches of Christ"
"To me, less than the least of all saints, was this grace given to announce to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ as the gospel." (Eph. 3:8)
Unsearchable riches folks.
Deep, profound, hard to search out, unexhaustible worth, value and priceless RICHES of who Jesus Christ is.
Isn't there a time to speak of the "unsearchable riches of Christ" as the God-man dispensing the divine life into His redeemed people ?
10 Jan 12
Originally posted by jaywillWould you say that someone living today is better-off with in-depth knowledge such as yours, compared to someone from Greece in the time of Paul, who only heard the gospel preached like this for example .. in Acts 13: 14-41. This is the most detailed record of Paul preaching the things concerning Christ, and it contains nothing about the doctrines which you say are so important.
Paul preached as the Gospel what ?
He preached a rich, all-inclusive, and extensive Christ. This was a Christ in both simple terms and deeper terms. This was a Christ of elemetary matters from which we never graduate and a Christ of profound cosmic significance going beyond mere personal piety.
Paul preached as the Gospel [b]"the unsearchable riches ...[text shortened]... ches of Christ" as the God-man dispensing the divine life into His redeemed people ?[/b]
10 Jan 12
Originally posted by jaywillPeter is talking about a specific event which is the things foretold to happen at the return of Christ. Some of those things were difficult for them to believe.
I don't regard that TODAY is somehow far LESS important than in that day. The great commission is still being carried out.
Now you are welcomed to have the criticism of me. But I have for the most part quoted our brother Paul. I have quoted [b]"He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit" from Paul's letter.
You will have to blame Paul if this ...[text shortened]... The elder apostle did not discourage the disciples from listening to him for that reason.[/b]
10 Jan 12
Originally posted by galveston75Soooooo no comments? To complicated?
Why is the holy spirit not being discussed here? It always seems to be in the background which is strange to me if it is truly one of the three in this Godhead?
It's the one humans are not supposed to sin against as there is no forgiveness of sins with this part of this Godhead and to me that would make it the most important of the three reguarding our ...[text shortened]... s God if it did speak out loud? Did anyone actually ever hear it's voice or even see a face?
11 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywilland who is the head of jesus christ? if you can answer that question, you will know why the trinity is an absurd doctrine.but if you bothered to read down a few more verses...
"At that day ye shall know that I [am] in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. " (John 14:20)
I did not fail to notice versee 20. I am limited.
Now "that day" is the day of the resurrection of Christ when He dispenses Himself into His disciples. This is ions and partners.
In other words, He SHARES an experience with them but as the HEAD.
So John 14:20 is simply another preview into this full and complete salvation of God's incarnation, dispensing, and the saves participation in the enlargement of Christ for the building of the dwelling place of God, the Father's house.
From our individual standpoint we Christians may place various dates when we received Christ and entered into Him. From the divine viewpoint all the partners and companions of Christ were regenerated on the day Christ rose from the day - "that day"...
you don't have to preach the purpose of christ, we already know that purpose and we're not here to argue those points.
Here Peter confirms that - " Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has regenerated us unto a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead."
It was on "THAT DAY" that the Son of God, God, became the Firstborn Son of God in resurrection. And the believers, from the divine viewpoint, were all born again in His resurrection from the dead.
Of course regeneration means that He is in the believers and the believers are in Him.
"Yet a little while and the world beholds Me no longer, but you behold Me; because I live You also shall live.
In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you." (v.19,20)
Yes, in God's full salvation, we become God but not in His Godhead. We become God through becoming partakers of the divine nature as the many sons of God to enlarge Christ into a corporate Christ.
" ... He has granted to us precious and exxceedingly great promises that through these you might become partakers of the divine nature ..." (2 Peter 1:4)
the same is the relationship between christ and god. christ became a god, but not in the father's godhead. verse after verse repeats this narrative.
[quote]
everybody is in everybody, so everybody must be the almighty god!
I get the impression that you know something about church history, yet in a rather jaded and selective way.
You should review the teachings of the Greek Orthodox side of Christiandom. Theosis is that part of salvation into which the saved become God through His total salvific operation. I call this deification.[/quote]
i have reviewed many positions of the christian church and have a greater deal of familiarity of the variety than most christians. my own background is from the armenian apostoloic church, which is fairly close to the coptic/syrian variants.
strange that you should be familiar with this concept yet attribute similar deification of christ as a trinity.
11 Jan 12
Originally posted by Rajk999
Peter is talking about a specific event which is the things foretold to happen at the return of Christ. Some of those things were difficult for them to believe.
Peter is talking about a specific event which is the things foretold to happen at the return of Christ. Some of those things were difficult for them to believe.
First, what is more important to me. Do you have a view on trichotomy ?
Do you see anything about the THREE parts of man ?
This is important to the furtherance of our fellowship IMO.
When we speak of the Christian oneness with God, in God, union and mingling with God we speak of what has STARTED in the innermost being of man, his human spirit. The union then gradually moves from the center to the circumference.
From the innermost this mingling with God is migrating into the soul and finally into the body. Thus Paul writes of the final "redemption of the body".
"He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit" (6:17) We should take to mean that our regenerated human spirit has become God in view of being joined "one spirit" to the Lord, the Holy Spirit.
In the SAME way, in this joining, Jesus - God Himself, (get ready) has become the Christian in a very true and real sense.
Part of the Christian's being has become God.
God has also become the Christian.
That's good for now.
========================================
Now, concerning 2 Peter 3:14-15 - we are not told SPECIFICALLY what matters Paul had written about which were not easy for everyone. I see no reason to limit it to eschatology. It could have included matters on the "long-suffering" (v.15) of the Lord - soveriegnty / free will. It could have been matters of being "without spot and without blemish" (v.14) things which are not always easy to grasp seeing that we are prone to many errors.
Paul's difficult words could have been any number of things which we elsewhere see him expound upon. Colossians, Ephesians, and certianly Second Corinthians all possess matters of considerable spiritual depth and maturity along with initial more elementary matters.
Peter says "as also in all [his] letters, speaking in them concerning these things" (v.16) . The phrase "these things" mean an assortment of things. And in his letters were "some things are hard to understand".
Theologians of all kinds would admit that down through the Christian centuries there were "some things" in the Pauline epistles which were not always easy to understand - "SOME ... things". Okay ?
11 Jan 12
2 edits
and who is the head of jesus christ? if you can answer that question, you will know why the trinity is an absurd doctrine.
The Head of Jesus Christ is God - (1 Cor. 11:3)
But both the revelation and the experience of the Three-one God is not absurd. Is probably a filter to filter out the pride of man.
It is a paradox and a mystery which allows no man to boast in his pride of being able to solve all mysteries or reconcile all contradictions or draw from different evidences one common law. Man prides himself very much in this ability. This is the essence of "science".
The three-oneness of God leaves man nothing to brag about. The believer in Christ must humbly bear the shame before the world that he has believed Someone that science cannot touch with her priniciples of logic.
Some people react to this discomfort by denyingt that such a matter is stated in the Bible. Others of us take another route. We choose to affirm the presence of such a teaching yet sink deeper and deeper into the enjoyment of the Triune God.
Such is the spirit of the following passage;
"But you are not in the flesh but in the spirit, if the Spirit of God dwells in you. Yet if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not of Him. But if Christ is in you ... the spirit is life because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life ... through His Spirit who indwells you." (See Romans 8:9-11)
This is not a creedal statement or doctrinal formula. This is an indication of experience and belief.
You say "There is NO TRINITY in the Bible". But here we have in a "matter of fact" way of speaking shop talk. The apostle assumes that the congregation knows full well what he is talking about.
"You have the Spirit of God. And if you don't have that Spirit of Christ, well you are not His. But since Christ IS in you, well, your own human spirit IS the divine ZOE life of God. marvelous. And furthermore if the Spirit of the One who raised Jesus is in you He will give life to your mortal bodies too." [paraphrased]
In a matter of fact and conversational way, not in a way of pronouncing doctrinal precepts, but in candid Christian "shop talk" to which we are privy, the apostle converses with those under his care.
Don't tell me that to him and them, the indwelling God is not Him Who raised Jesus from the dead, His Spirit, and His Christ.
I stop here.
11 Jan 12
3 edits
Originally posted by VoidSpirit
and who is the head of jesus christ? if you can answer that question, you will know why the trinity is an absurd doctrine.
[quote]
So [b]John 14:20 is simply another preview into this full and complete salvation of God's incarnation, dispensing, and the saves participation in the enlargement of Christ for the building of the dwelling place o liar with this concept yet attribute similar deification of christ as a trinity.[/b]
the same is the relationship between christ and god. christ became a god, but not in the father's godhead. verse after verse repeats this narrative
Christ was God from eternity - John 1:1. The Word, the Logos with God - was God.
Then in time the Word became flesh. God clothed Himself in something of His own creation. God became a man. The word became flesh and tabernacled among us. (John 1:14)
In resurrection that part of creation which He put on, that humanity, He took back to the throne of God. He will never put it off. He will never put it away.
He uplifted and sanctified that creative part of Him and wears it back to the eternal throne of God for ETERNITY. In this resurrection, in a sense you are correct, He brought that part in which He was incarnated back to the eternal throne of God.
He was BORN at that time of resurrection "the Firstborn Son" of God. This FIRSTborn implies many OTHERs born to follow.
So Athanasius declared boldly - God became man so that man might become God.
Though He uplifted and glorified that humanity in resurrection being BORN a Firstborn Son, Christ's being God is not incomplete in eternity past. He as the Logos was God.
The saved shall become like Him (1 John 3:1,2) .
But because the Father - Son - Holy Spirit are the eternal Head of this divine family there are these caveats at least.
1. Unlike God the believers do not become an object of worship
2. Unlike God the believers do not become Creators of universes.
3. Unlike God the believers do not become omniscient.
4. Unlike God they do not become omnipotent.
5. Unlike God they do not become omnipresent.
6. Unlike God they do not capture His unique Fatherhood.
7. Unlike God's Son they cannot shed blood to accomplish eternal redemption
These attributes of God are not communicable.
But the communicable attributes in His divine nature the saved become partakers of.
The concept should not be overly difficult with this helpful yet imperfect analogy:
In your natural family you do possess your father's life.
But the unique fatherhood of your father is not yours.
He was your source.
You can believe differently if you wish. My confession is that my God is the Man Jesus Christ.
11 Jan 12
2 edits
Originally posted by VoidSpirit
and who is the head of jesus christ? if you can answer that question, you will know why the trinity is an absurd doctrine.
[quote]
So [b]John 14:20 is simply another preview into this full and complete salvation of God's incarnation, dispensing, and the saves participation in the enlargement of Christ for the building of the dwelling place o liar with this concept yet attribute similar deification of christ as a trinity.[/b]
i have reviewed many positions of the christian church and have a greater deal of familiarity of the variety than most christians. my own background is from the armenian apostoloic church, which is fairly close to the coptic/syrian variants.
Isn't coptic the Eastern Orthodoxy of Ethiopia ?
I consider Coptic to be the result of the spread of Eastern Orthodoxy down into Africa in early centries CE.
Interesting backround. Sorry you're sick and tired. You seem bitter.
Was Jesus ever real to you ?
11 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Rajk999
Would you say that someone living today is better-off with in-depth knowledge such as yours, compared to someone from Greece in the time of Paul, who only heard the gospel preached like this for example .. in Acts 13: 14-41. This is the most detailed record of Paul preaching the things concerning Christ, and it contains nothing about the doctrines which you say are so important.
Would you say that someone living today is better-off with in-depth knowledge such as yours, compared to someone from Greece in the time of Paul, who only heard the gospel preached like this for example .. in Acts 13: 14-41.
Oh, this morning I don't know. In each age we all have varied obstacles to overcome. We Christians may not be called to all overcome exactly the same thing. But there is always something in the age for us to overcome.
But that some of the things I share here are not elementary, I agree.
I could come here and simply write "Jesus loves me this I know. For the Bible tells me so."
But I think some, maybe not everyone, would like to hear something a bit beyond this in order to grasp the whole Bible matter.
I do try to ask the Lord to lead me in writing.
This is the most detailed record of Paul preaching the things concerning Christ, and it contains nothing about the doctrines which you say are so important.
Really ?
11 Jan 12
Originally posted by jaywillI hate to say this but nothing in that post makes sense to me.and who is the head of jesus christ? if you can answer that question, you will know why the trinity is an absurd doctrine.
The Head of Jesus Christ is God - [b](1 Cor. 11:3)
But both the revelation and the experience of the Three-one God is not absurd. Is probably a filter to filter out the pride of man.
It is a parado ...[text shortened]... Him Who raised Jesus from the dead, His Spirit, and His Christ.
I stop here.[/b]
I have read the NT probably hundreds of times in the last 40 years or so and I can say that there are just a few passages which are confusing.