Posts by JosephMalik

35

on the trinity

by drew sagan in

i was just wondering what the opinions those on this board regarding this topic.

i know some have moved towards more orthodox theology, others have not.

curious as to what the opinions are of this.

Sad Elmo said: My application of the kenosis theory is that Christ retained his divine attributes but, as the Son, in obedience to the Father, laid them aside, rather than 'losing' them. He could have used them - why would Satan have tempted him otherwise? He could have called the angels to save him at his trial. He could even have come down from the cross ....

Sad Elmo,

You may have a point if Jesus appeared as a fully grown human as non-humans did in times past but this is not what happened is it? No, this Jesus was born of a woman by normal birth and became fully human like Adam. There was no turning back and you cannot provide evidence or proof from scripture that this was possible can you? He became the only human Son begotten by the Father personally in fact as John said since the Logos actually created us in the beginning as John also stated in his Gospel. Satan tempted Eve, to gain control and authority over her. This is reason enough for him to do so as it would have induced sin once again into the only means of salvation available to us all. And with such sin came punishment did it not? Could such a sinful human call on the angels to save him? How do you know that he could have come down from the cross as you stated? Because sinful humans asked this of him? Why did such a Christ even need Angels if he was already divine, capable of all creation, and our Supreme Being?

Ro 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. Ro 5:17 For if by one man‘s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

Jesus Christ was a human. He had the Fathers support as did many other humans in times past. It was no until after his death and resurrection that this Jesus Christ could take on the dual nature you suggest. This was not used when he appeared to Paul, and such appearance in non-human form did not qualify as his second coming. However he will use this flesh in our behalf once again when he returns to raise the dead and rule upon the earth in his Kingdom.

Joseph

35

on the trinity

by drew sagan in

i was just wondering what the opinions those on this board regarding this topic.

i know some have moved towards more orthodox theology, others have not.

curious as to what the opinions are of this.

JosephMalik

You keep getting God the Supreme Being mixed up with God (someone else with authority over us). You keep using God as identity not function and purpose. The word may be the same in the text but its use and application is not. Yet we know that God is used of others in the texts. And we know that God means this: 1) a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities
2a) God the Father
2b) Christ
3) spoken of the only and true God
3a) refers to the things of God
3b) his counsels, interests, things due to him
4) whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way
4a) God’s representative or viceregent
4a1) of magistrates and judges And your definition of Hypostasis union proves what? Nothing. Sure there is a Trinitarian definition for this word, but there is also a generic definition for this word and this is the way I use it. Instead of running scripture strings, quote them and explain them in detail. Only then will you be able to see how you are twisting them to fit your preconceived views. Joseph

35

on the trinity

by drew sagan in

i was just wondering what the opinions those on this board regarding this topic.

i know some have moved towards more orthodox theology, others have not.

curious as to what the opinions are of this.

JosephMalik

For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.” (1 Co 15:53,54)

MDB,

And this is our hope. This is the only way to enter the Kingdom and be with Christ. So?

MDB said: Jesus was raised in the flesh, but His mortal body has put on immortality.

Jesus was not raised in the flesh but in the spirit by God. He raised His flesh all by himself just as He prophesied regarding His temple. It was only after this death and resurrection that our Lord took on both natures you speak of here.

MDB said: Jesus, even while on this earth, was still fully God who added to His nature a mortal body.

On the contrary, he emptied himself and took up the nature of man. He was no longer a divine being. Immortal human nature, something our Lord gained for us in time does not mean a divine being.

MDB said: There isn't a "human Jesus" and a "divine Jesus". There is one Christ and Lord, Jesus - who has returned to the glory He once had with the Father.

And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was. (Jn 17:5)

There you see there is a human Jesus who prayed for the divinity he once had and it would be given to him. So there would be a human Jesus and a divine Jesus when this prayer was fulfilled, a hypostasis nature that will last at least through the 1000 years promised.

Joseph

35

on the trinity

by drew sagan in

i was just wondering what the opinions those on this board regarding this topic.

i know some have moved towards more orthodox theology, others have not.

curious as to what the opinions are of this.

JosephMalik

MDB,

While you are pondering all these texts, keep in mind that it is the HUMAN Jesus being discussed in them. It is the Human Jesus to whom Thomas made his confession of faith. It is the human Jesus that will return once again to rule on this earth as stated: 11 Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

Joseph

35

on the trinity

by drew sagan in

i was just wondering what the opinions those on this board regarding this topic.

i know some have moved towards more orthodox theology, others have not.

curious as to what the opinions are of this.

JosephMalik

35

on the trinity

by drew sagan in

i was just wondering what the opinions those on this board regarding this topic.

i know some have moved towards more orthodox theology, others have not.

curious as to what the opinions are of this.

JosephMalik

It is said by some that 'Logos' known by many as 'the Word' can actually be translated as meaning Gods wisdom and purpose. It is also said that the 'him' translated in this scripture (strongs #846. autos (ow-tos') can also be translated a number of differant ways including 'it'. With this concept in mind the scripture could actually read:

In the beginning was the purpose, and the purpose was with God, and the purpose was divine. It was with God in the beginning. Through it all things were made; without it nothing was made that has been made. In it was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood[a] it.

Drew Sagan,

In doing this you are suggesting that the Logos was not a real individual being and/or entity in its own right. But this Logos that was with God was God, which identifies this Logos as a real being that also had this designated authority bestowed on it. And since John is introducing such a non-human and pre-existing entity to the human race, the God that created us in fact then John who already knew this entity as a human being gave the non-human nature now being described a name. He called this being assigned to this task by God to such humans as the Logos. And this may well be because the human that John knew used this word frequently both of Himself and of His Father in His ministry. You can say that the word Logos was a mannerism very visibly associated with Jesus and became identity like a nickname of sorts. Bibles also translate Logos as “sayings” and in other ways when quoting Jesus so we do not notice it. But John eventually came to understand that this identity be it nickname or not was the symbolic name for this non-human being and wrote: Rev. 19:13 13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

Joseph

22

Let's assume 607 correct.... How can they prove that lead to 1914?

by AK - Jeff in

i mean i understand the arguments they make - the calculations they lay out.

i did it for 40 years myself as a witness.

my question is a simple one - what 'proof' can the witnesses use to support the entire idea of converting a scripture about the 'gentile times', and a kings' insanity that lasted for 7 literal years into 2520 years?

JosephMalik

the context makes painfully clear all these expressions refer to the Roman siege and attacks on Jerusalem.

PeacefulPete,

The reason that the Gospel accounts do not seem to match while covering the same historical period makes it painfully clear that these expressions do not refer to the Roman siege and attacks on Jerusalem. Matthew and Mark interpreted our Lord's comments instead of quoting them. This kept Jews from running to Masada where they would have been slaughtered. Luke had no such consideration and could state more literally our Lords remarks. In other words these remarks had nothing to do with 70CE as our Lord did not return at that time. The texts in all three Gospel accounts apply to another time which is stated like this in all of them: 27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. This did not happen then to fulfill such texts as it is the time we are still waiting for.

Joseph

22

Let's assume 607 correct.... How can they prove that lead to 1914?

by AK - Jeff in

i mean i understand the arguments they make - the calculations they lay out.

i did it for 40 years myself as a witness.

my question is a simple one - what 'proof' can the witnesses use to support the entire idea of converting a scripture about the 'gentile times', and a kings' insanity that lasted for 7 literal years into 2520 years?

JosephMalik

PeacefulPete,

You said: The expression "times of the Gentiles" was part of a minor editorial gloss by the author of Luke writing circa 90-130 CE. (Luke 21:24) His primary sources, Mark and Matthew do not even have a parallel expression. Rather funny for such a supposed keystone doctrine.

Yes it does and saying that it is a minor gloss does not get rid of it. Luke did follow Matthew and Mark and covered the same history as they did and yet few notice. Why? Because instead of saying tribulation or great tribulation as they did Luke said Gentile times or Appointed times of the Nations instead. They are parallel historical expressions as I brought out earlier and are based upon the “seeds” that would exist through history from such days. Sin demanded an eventual conclusion to such Gentiles that caused this great tribulation this sin and that is what all three authors are describing.

Joseph

22

Let's assume 607 correct.... How can they prove that lead to 1914?

by AK - Jeff in

i mean i understand the arguments they make - the calculations they lay out.

i did it for 40 years myself as a witness.

my question is a simple one - what 'proof' can the witnesses use to support the entire idea of converting a scripture about the 'gentile times', and a kings' insanity that lasted for 7 literal years into 2520 years?

JosephMalik

so they certainly did not make a proper conversion of the Gentile times and end it correctly, did they.? History has essensially proven that by now hasn't it?

Jeff,

You are correct. All this material on history and what for? According to scripture the Gentile Times began with sin and end when our Lord returns once again to rule. No real difference between the Gentile Times and the wheat and weeds, or sheep and goats or the great tribulation. Basically they reflect what is said in the prophecy about the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. Just different words and ways to describe this prophecy. Nothing to it really and we do not have to run all over the Bible and dwell on obscure texts to prove it. But they drown you in history, clay tablets, and interpretation of such events and tablets to keep you all confused.

And then there is this invisible presence thingy they keep teaching. That is another problem area. The scriptures promise that our Lord will return once again visibly here on earth, in the flesh to rule in his Kingdom. What they do not understand yet is the Nations, the sheep that will also be in this Kingdom with Him along with his angels (holy ones) will not yet have attained justification. So the scriptures put it this way in the Psalms: 2 The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies. This is the purpose of the Kingdom and what it will accomplish when such enemies accept the truth and attain justification themselves. Why else would you need a kingdom of Priests at such a time? The sign, that time in history when this is all about to occur does not describe a presence but describes history just prior to such presence and Kingdom rule.

Joseph

22

Let's assume 607 correct.... How can they prove that lead to 1914?

by AK - Jeff in

i mean i understand the arguments they make - the calculations they lay out.

i did it for 40 years myself as a witness.

my question is a simple one - what 'proof' can the witnesses use to support the entire idea of converting a scripture about the 'gentile times', and a kings' insanity that lasted for 7 literal years into 2520 years?