20 May 16
Originally posted by sonshipYou are turning the everlasting into something that was formed. I'd say that is reducing.
You've reduced the Spirit of God down to a cake mix by your reasoning.
I am doing the opposite. I am explaining how RICH a Person the Spirit of Christ is.
I am explaining why Paul describes this One with the phrase [b]"the bountiful supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ"
But why should you only hear from me.
Let's hear a li ...[text shortened]... ing oil.
We are exalting Spirit of Christ in the types rather as you accuse, reducing Him.[/b]
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
20 May 16
Originally posted by KellyJayIncarnation is taking the Eternal and joining with the created.
You are turning the everlasting into something that was formed. I'd say that is reducing.
"And the Word became flesh" (John 1:14) is the everlasting God clothing Himself and joining Himself with His own creation.
What I am pointing out is that when God became a man, He further prepared a living throughout the 30.5 years of His life on earth. This living is now the ingredients of the Spirit of God.
The typology of the compounding of the [i]four[/b] (creation) finest spices with the one [unique] hin of olive oil marvelously typifies this.
Why should we not explore and plumb the depths of such a symbol to exalt Christ ?
Your fears are not necessary IMO.
These matters are extraordinarily useful in many daily lives of lovers of Jesus.
The meal offering speaks of Christ.
The trespass offering speaks of Christ.
The consecration offering speaks of Christ.
The sin offering speaks of Christ.
Why do you object to Christians mining the depths of the symbolism in these offerings and items associated with the tabernacle if they help us to appreciate the profundity of our Lord Jesus ?
Why do you object that this "reduces" Jesus or "reduces" the Spirit of Christ ?
Besides seeing Christ as small enough to get into us is very useful. Something eaten has to be in some sense small. We eat Jesus. So in some sense we have to view Jesus as small enough to eat.
" As the living Father has sent Me and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also shall live because of Me." (John 6:57)
This saying is in a chapter where Jesus has repeatedly shown that the bread which came down from heaven to feed the Hebrews was a symbol of Himself - "the bread of life".
20 May 16
Originally posted by sonshipChrist became one of us, the Holy Spirit comes into us. The Holy Spirit led the Lord while
Incarnation is taking the Eternal and joining with the created.
[b]"And the Word became flesh" (John 1:14) is the everlasting God clothing Himself and joining Himself with His own creation.
What I am pointing out is that when God became a man, He further prepared a living throughout the 30.5 years of His life on earth. This living is now the in ...[text shortened]... came down from heaven to feed the Hebrews was a symbol of Himself - "the bread of life".[/b]
He walked the planet and Jesus said that too was something that was to be done with us.
The symbols about what Jesus did and the Holy Spirit does are quite plain there doesn't
need to be this extraordinary reaching into scripture to make things up.
The Word became flesh Jesus became a man is clearly spelled out, the barrier between
God and man in the temple was rent from top to bottom when Jesus completed what He
was here to do as a man.
Matthew 27:51
And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
You tossing in some valid Symbols that speak to Christ and the Holy Spirit doesn't mean
that your (baking of the Holy Spirit through a variety of ingredients) is still valid. I think I'd
have to be very cautious of anything you say if you insist upon being so deep that you are
willing to go back and just pluck things together to make them mean something that can
only be seen if you revealed it then you explain it. The word ingredients is poorly chosen it
brings about the making of something as a cake that wouldn't be here unless someone
took the time through its making to put it together correctly. That is not true with the Spirit
of God, neither is it true that Jesus had to get small to be seen as small enough to eat.
You really do have some strange views to me, "...Christ as small enough to get into us...".
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
20 May 16
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayChrist became one of us, the Holy Spirit comes into us. The Holy Spirit led the Lord while He walked the planet and Jesus said that too was something that was to be done with us.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, Jesus was led by the Spirit. But He was conceived by the Holy Spirit. He was the first human being to be conceived with a holy nature.
Now He was not the first person to be born who was "set aside" to be in a holy position - consecrated to God. But that is not intrinsically holy in nature. That is holy because of being set apart to a holy standing, a holy position dedicated to God.
I do not say that Jesus was the first man to be set apart in a holy dedication for God's service. The holy prophets were set apart consecrated for service to God.
But Jesus as the "holy thing"[b] begotten in the womb of Mary was the first human being who was holy in nature, not just in position, but in nature. This is why we first read of the usage of the title [b]Holy Spirit in the conception of Christ.
Life Study of Exodus by Witness Lee, Msg. 161
My bolding -
IN INCARNATION—THE HOLY SPIRIT
WITH THE ELEMENT OF THE HOLY DIVINE NATURE
Before the incarnation, the title the Holy Spirit was not used. However, the King James Version does not make this fact clear in its translation of Psalm 51:11 and Isaiah 63:10-11. “Thy Holy Spirit” in Psalm 51:11 should be “the Spirit of Thy holiness,” and “his Holy Spirit” in Isaiah 63:10 and 11 should be “the Spirit of His holiness.” The title “the Holy Spirit” was first used with respect to Christ’s incarnation, to the time when the Spirit came to Mary to conceive the Lord Jesus.
According to Luke 1:35, the angel said to Mary, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; wherefore also the holy thing which is born will be called, Son of God.” The Greek words rendered “holy thing” may also be rendered “holy one.” Both are correct.
[my spacing]
Before the incarnation of Christ, no one had been holy in nature. Rather, everyone from the time of Adam onward was common, ordinary. In the Old Testament the Holy Spirit did not make anyone holy with the holy nature of God. Of course, certain persons and things were holy in the sense that they were separated unto God. For example, Aaron was separated unto the Lord to serve as high priest, but he did not become holy with the holy nature of God.
[my spacing]
Not until the Lord Jesus was born was there One who was holy in nature. This was possible because He was conceived of the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit has the element of the divine nature, which is holy. Therefore, Matthew 1:18 says that Mary “was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit.” Also, the angel of the Lord said to Joseph, “Fear not to take Mary your wife, for that which is begotten in her is of the Holy Spirit” (v. 20).
I go along with Andrew Murray and Witness Lee who teach that the proper title Holy Spirit was first used in the Bible in connection with God mingling Himself with man in the conception of the God-man Jesus.
You can have another opinion if you wish.
The topic is that The Spirit was not yet. and how we should best understand that.
It is noted that you think we're just making stuff up.
20 May 16
Originally posted by sonshipYea the more you explain the less I like your position. I think it isn't worth it to continue this
[b] Christ became one of us, the Holy Spirit comes into us. The Holy Spirit led the Lord while He walked the planet and Jesus said that too was something that was to be done with us.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, Jesus was led by the Spirit. But He was conceived by the Ho ...[text shortened]... and how we should best understand that.
It is noted that you think we're just making stuff up.[/b]
discussion with you now. It seems to me that not only have you lowered the Holy Spirit
into something other than who He is, you are now doing it with Jesus.
20 May 16
Originally posted by SuzianneFeel free to address the point I'm making as soon as you have built up the fortitude.
Unclear on the concept, are you? I think not, even though you try to take the stupid side of the argument with this comment. Some things you've said in this forum seem to testify that you are not at all far from believing in a Triune God yourself. It's just that you call all three parts of the Triune God by one name: Jesus. If you believe that Jesus emb ...[text shortened]... this is how I see it. I could be wrong, but I'm just going on things you've said in this forum.
20 May 16
Originally posted by KellyJayHe's cocking the snook at us.
I'm willing to discuss why the Holy Ghost and Holy Spirit are the same, does that mean I'm
willing to have an enlarged capacity? I've noticed you have not responded directly to me.
"to any who are willing to have an enlarged capacity"
20 May 16
Originally posted by sonshipMore completely unsubstantiated waffle.
What is important to know is that all that Jesus Christ passed through are now the ingredients of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit of Christ today includes the "extract" of the things He passed through as a man.
This is like drinking tea water is taking the extract of the tea plant. The plant's substance is extracted in out into a form in which we can drink t ...[text shortened]... of the Spirit of Christ.
[b]"the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45) .[/b]
"I am the Lord, and I change not"
Malachi 3:6
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
21 May 16
11 edits
Originally posted by divegeesterYou're waffling in error if you intend to use Malachi 3:6 to prove that the Word did not become flesh (John 1:14) or that the last Adam did not become a life giving Spirit (1 Cor. 15:45) . Malachi 3:6 cannot be used to deny these truths.
More completely unsubstantiated waffle.
"I am the Lord, and I change not"
Malachi 3:6
The Lord surely doesn't change morally. Malachi 3:6 in context, is to be about the Lord not changing concerning His attitude about adultery, sorcery, swearing falsely, and oppressors of widows and the hired servant, the inhospitable to strangers, and those who do not fear God.
Concerning these sins, God does not change even though the priests are backslidden and tolerant of these sins.
"And I will draw near to you for judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers and against the adulterers and against those who swear falsely and against those who oppress the hired worker for his hire, and the widow and the orphan, and those who turn the stranger aside, and who do not fear Me, says Jehovah of hosts.
For I, Jehovah, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed." (Malachi 3:5,6)
There is absolutely nothing in the passage contradicting the Trinity or contradicting that the Word became flesh or denying that the last Adam became a life giving Spirit..
You (jaywill/sonship) present yourself in this forum as a teacher and yet it is my contention that apart from the JWs, you are the Christian who posts the most error; some of which is the most astonishing fruit-loopery I've ever heard come out of the mouth of a believer in Christ. You are even called out over your beliefs by those less contentious here, such as KellyJay in this thread.
I have nothing against you personally, although I'm sure you think I do have, it just find that whenever you post your lengthy pontifications are laced with fundamental errors. Here is another one: the Holy Spirit changed due to being added to by the ingredients of Christ's experiences. Sonship this is gross error about the nature of God. The Trinity is error. Eternal suffering is error. People living on other planets and observing the eternal suffering is error.
This is why I negatively engage with you. I'm not attacking the gospel as some here seem to think, I just refuse to swallow your error because it is wrapped up in your pseudo-sermons.
21 May 16
Originally posted by KellyJayDon't you?
"...you believe in a Trinity, a Triune God."
You believe Trinity and Triune are the same thing?
What does "Triune" mean? The etymology of this word, "tri-", meaning three, and "une", meaning one, suggests that the adjective "triune" means "three in one", and most dictionaries explain that the concept is the same as the concept of the "Holy Trinity".
I'm not quite understanding what your beef with me is, on this point.
21 May 16
Originally posted by divegeesterNo, I won't. Not yet. You wouldn't listen anyways, and I'm not sure it would be helpful.
Feel free to address the point I'm making as soon as you have built up the fortitude.
How about you addressing the points I made in my post?
Come on, man, I reached out to you, the least you could do is answer me.
21 May 16
Originally posted by SuzianneI'm interacting with sonship and have made a scripturally notated point (several times) which he and you are ignoring.
No, I won't. Not yet. You wouldn't listen anyways, and I'm not sure it would be helpful.
How about you addressing the points I made in my post?
Come on, man, I reached out to you, the least you could do is answer me.