"God died on the cross."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

It says, "You are gods, but you will die like men". Jesus knew the rest of the verse, as did his audience. Lee didn't, or ignored it, hoping his audience was ignorant. Evangelical tries to cover it & says that God takes away the authority of these 'gods' and they die like men. What kinds of gods are those?

And the same will happen if you managed to become deified.

Personality, and I don't know if it's universally true, of course, but I think deification is all in the head. It's a person that has a god complex ... like Lee.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I hate to break this to you Evan but there' s a very simple reason people can't accept the "teaching about man becoming god." Gods are immortal. Men aren't.

If you look at the long list of guys who taught that men were becoming gods including Athanasius, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Jonathan Edwards and Witness Lee, you might notice that none of them are around. That's because they all died.

That's pretty powerful evidence that deification is bunkum. No matter how much you like the idea that "men become gods" the evidence against the idea is incontrovertible.

I hate to butt in, but if gods can't die wouldn't that mean that Jesus wasn't God? Just wondering.

[least]

Originally Posted by awareness

I hate to butt in, but if gods can't die wouldn't that mean that Jesus wasn't God? Just wondering.

awareness, according to you, 'g'ods can't died, ... Jesus wasn't 'G'od?

You already made the distinction that Jesus 'G'od is not the same as 'g'ods.
WL/LSM make similar distinction. (Ow.... English language ... G, g. Hope someone can explain whether there is 'G' and 'g' difference in original script.)

-
Jesus is God, the creator.
gods are created beings ... (angels also are created beings, also call sons of God)

gods cannot died, but God can say to them 'you will died like men' ... and they will. God can also allocate where gods go ... hell, or eternal darkness, or bottomless pit ....

Jesus God can incarnate, lived on earth in flesh and blood, can die on the cross, water and blood flowed out of him, the flesh and bone body died, and buried for three days and three nights, and resurrected to a glorious body, (He raised himself up, also said the Father raised Him up, - I cannot understand. But it was so)

Just a little thought. I also have wonderings ... we know in part ...
-

[awareness]

Originally Posted by least

awareness, according to you, 'g'ods can't died, ... Jesus wasn't 'G'od?

You already made the distinction that Jesus 'G'od is not the same as 'g'ods.
WL/LSM make similar distinction. (Ow.... English language ... G, g. Hope someone can explain whether there is 'G' and 'g' difference in original script.)

-
Jesus is God, the creator.
gods are created beings ... (angels also are created beings, also call sons of God)

gods cannot died, but God can say to them 'you will died like men' ... and they will. God can also allocate where gods go ... hell, or eternal darkness, or bottomless pit ....

Jesus God can incarnate, lived on earth in flesh and blood, can die on the cross, water and blood flowed out of him, the flesh and bone body died, and buried for three days and three nights, and resurrected to a glorious body, (He raised himself up, also said the Father raised Him up, - I cannot understand. But it was so)

Just a little thought. I also have wonderings ... we know in part ...
-

Good one *least*. You got me wondering about the big "G" and little "g" in the Greek manuscripts. Does the "original" Greek make such a distinction?

Well first off, the NT Koine Greek doesn't use the word God/god(s) at all. The Greek word for God is Theos. And there is no use of a big "T" and little a "t" to make a distinction between god or gods. In fact, given the original Greek text is just run-on words and sentences, with no spaces or punctuation whatsoever, you'd have to be trained in Koine Greek to even find the word theos in the jumbled run-on text.

Originally Posted by least

awareness, according to you, 'g'ods can't died, ... Jesus wasn't 'G'od?

No, the premise is that god(s) can't die. That would mean that Jesus wasn't God, because he died.

But the premise is wrong. 2000 years ago the promised land was populated with more than 90% pagans. And pagan gods could die. So deicide, or dying gods, were therefore commonly known by most everyone in those days.

Therefore gods were commonly known to die ... and by-the-way, even some of them, before Jesus, resurrected, or came back to life.

So Evangelical gets this one. It is possible to be deified and still die.

Still, my premise is that, deification is not possible, for us mere mortals. Biblically, in all history there's been only one human in the flesh that's been deified : Jesus.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by JJ

I can’t hang with this discussion.

When you discard faith and scripture along with LSM, all kinds of crazy things can happen.

[least]

Originally Posted by awareness

in all history there's been only one human in the flesh that's been deified : Jesus.

Jesus deified?

He was born God in the flesh. Need he be deified?

I won't go on this wondering.
-

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

When you discard faith and scripture along with LSM, all kinds of crazy things can happen.

As if any of that stops crazy things.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by least

Jesus deified?

He was born God in the flesh. Need he be deified?

I won't go on this wondering.
-

But you get my point, right *least*?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

As if any of that stops crazy things.

Holding faith, scripture, and a good conscience stops all kinds of crazy things.

Living here in crazy town I would know such things!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

... in all history there's been only one human in the flesh that's been deified : Jesus.

Originally Posted by least

Jesus deified? He was born God in the flesh. Need he be deified?

I for one disagree with the heresy that Jesus was not born of the virgin Mary and that He was deified at His baptism.

[UntoHim]

Your point is off topic Harold. I'm sure everyone is grateful to you for letting us know that the many of the Greek manuscripts did not have spaces or punctuations. How have we ever gone on with our lives without knowing this? And anyone who knows just a little about history knows that all sorts of people have claimed to be divine, a god or the son of god, etc, and that some of their followers claimed that they were resurrected. But the problem is is that they were NOT the incarnate Son of the living God and they were NOT resurrected. Jesus Christ WAS the incarnate Son of the living God and he WAS resurrected. These facts are not up for negotiation on the main forum board.

Back on topic please.
-

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

The Gospel of John addresses the issue explicitly. There Jesus explains that no one had the power to take his life; but, he had the power both to lay his life down and to take it up again.

So, whereas you characterized immortality negatively as the inability to die, the Gospel of John construes it positively in the case of Jesus Christ as power over both life and death.

Thanks for your reply zeek.

Well then we all can be gods. Cuz according to Paul we die but resurrect ; the resurrection of Jesus being the first fruits.

So again, it goes to Evangelical : divination - deification - is possible ... depending on your diet.

Question : Is being Blended, as in Blended Brothers, a sign of deification, or is it just Leeification?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by zeek

I hate to break this to you Evan but there' s a very simple reason people can't accept the "teaching about man becoming god." Gods are immortal. Men aren't.

If you look at the long list of guys who taught that men were becoming gods including Athanasius, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Jonathan Edwards and Witness Lee, you might notice that none of them are around. That's because they all died.

That's pretty powerful evidence that deification is bunkum. No matter how much you like the idea that "men become gods" the evidence against the idea is incontrovertible.

Then they dont know the bible :

1 Cor 15
For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.

[Evangelical]

Gods can die. Proof:Jesus Christ. God died on the cross. This is so simple, yet not many get it.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Thanks for your reply zeek.

Well then we all can be gods. Cuz according to Paul we die but resurrect ; the resurrection of Jesus being the first fruits.

So again, it goes to Evangelical : divination - deification - is possible ... depending on your diet.

Question : Is being Blended, as in Blended Brothers, a sign of deification, or is it just Leeification?

Yes and no. Or rather, no and yes. "No" because in ourselves, as humans, it is empirically evident that we do not have the power to "take up" life again once we lose it. To be human is to be mortal.

But "Yes" according to, the Gospel of John which claims that Jesus has resurrection power [John 10:18] and that Jesus said “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live." [John 11:25] So, according to John, we have resurrection only in Jesus Christ by faith.

If gods are immortal and resurrection is a kind of immortality, then, in ourselves we are not gods because we do not have the power to resurrect ourselves. However, by faith in Christ we have resurrection power according to John. So, according to John we can be considered gods in this sense only in Christ by faith.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Gods can die. Proof:Jesus Christ. God died on the cross. This is so simple, yet not many get it.

And I had you winning this argument. Then you go and bring up something Untohim doesn't allow discussion of on the open 'evangelical' forum.

I'll just quote : "God died on the cross."

So, like the good boy that I am ... off to Alternative Views ... to start THAT new thread.

[awareness]

On the thread "Re: God in life and nature... oh really?" on the evangelical side of this forum, brother Evangelical stated : "God died on the cross."

That's quite a statement. Does the Bible really say that? Is that even possible?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

On the thread "Re: God in life and nature... oh really?" on the evangelical side of this forum, brother Evangelical stated : "God died on the cross."

That's quite a statement. Does the Bible really say that? Is that even possible?

I don't think the scripture says specifically, "God died on the cross." In the early part of Acts, the Apostles' message was "this man, Jesus the Nazarene, the Holy and Righteous One, His servant Jesus, the Author of Life, whom you killed, whom God raised up." (2.23, 3.13-15, 5.30, 7.52) In other places, "Christ died for our sins, acc. to the scripture."

To say this we must infer from verses like Phil 2.5-11, Acts 20.28, etc.

Once we actually say "God died" then we have opened the door to unnecessary controversy. That discussion is similar to saying "Jesus is God, hence Mary must be the mother of God."

This is why some Christians have used the expression, "God has passed thru death in Jesus," based on the Lord's own words, "I have the power to lay down my life, and to take it up again." (Acts 10)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Gods can die. Proof:Jesus Christ. God died on the cross. This is so simple, yet not many get it.

Where is that verse, "God died?"

Not many "get it" because Bible don't say it.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

On the thread "Re: God in life and nature... oh really?" on the evangelical side of this forum, brother Evangelical stated : "God died on the cross."

That's quite a statement. Does the Bible really say that? Is that even possible?

“With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” Matthew 19:26

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Gods can die. Proof:Jesus Christ. God died on the cross. This is so simple, yet not many get it.

I thought death refers to something mortal, temporal. Whereas God by definition is eternal, immortal.

Since Jesus had both statuses prior to his resurrection and ascension He did die. Since Jesus is one with the triune God we can now say that God has the experience of death. But that doesn't mean that the immortal God dies, but rather that mortal man became part of the Triune God in the Lord's ascension.

The verse reference that you are referring to is that experience of Jesus on the cross when God "forsook Him".

Witness Lee, as was his practice, loved to take individual verses to their logical extreme in order to differentiate himself from the more cautious theologians. He took Acts 20:28 where Paul says that "God purchased the church with His own blood" and concluded that the immortal, eternal God who is Spirit has human blood and therefore on the cross God died.

I guess it never occurred to him there was a much more reasonable conclusion, which is that the Blood of Jesus is now the Blood of God.

Jesus Christ's death on the cross was a peace offering to God. That means that He gave His body and blood to God on the cross as an offering. So obviously, that blood is now God's. If the blood had been God's prior to the offering then what kind of offering would that have been?

Worthy art thou to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and didst purchase unto God with thy blood men of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation, (Rev 5:9)

Compare the verse in Acts with this verse. If you purchase something "unto God" then you are acting on behalf of God to buy something. Jesus redeemed us with His blood but He did this on behalf of God. Hence it is "the church of God". Again, this is because when Jesus offered the blood to God on the cross it became God's, and He used it to buy the church.

In conclusion there is no scriptural basis to say that God died on the cross.

[Evangelical]

This is Christianity 101. If we believe that God became a man then surely whatever happens to God in the flesh is happening to God. Unless you believe that Jesus is not fully God?
Jesus is God.God experienced separation of the soul and body which is death. So God died. God knows what it is like to live and die.

Gotquestions agrees:
https://www.gotquestions.org/did-God-die.html

The Trinity and hypostatic union complicates things unnecessarily. It is correct to say God died on the cross just as we might say God became a man or God came down to us.

Anyway, the old hymn by Charles Wesley 'and can it be that I should gain' says God died. Chris Tomlins version replaces God with King.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

And I had you winning this argument. Then you go and bring up something Untohim doesn't allow discussion of on the open 'evangelical' forum. I'll just quote : "God died on the cross."

It really reveals who really believes Jesus is fully God and who doesn't. If Jesus is fully and truly God then whatever happened to God in the flesh..Emmaneul...happened to God.

This is what Christians believe. I personally don't take issue with the idea because I believe Jesus is God.

Just look at all the people disagreeing with me. It indicates they think Jesus is somehow lesser than God. Heirarchy in the Trinity is a heresy.

As long as we steer clear of heresy which says divinity died then we are fine.

And when we say God became a man this does not mean divinity became human.

[Evangelical]

Luther said:



UNLESS GOD is on the balance and throws his weight as a counterbalance, we shall sink to the bottom of the scale. If it is not true that God died for us, but only a man died, we are lost. But if God's death and God lie dead in the opposite scale, then his side goes down and we go upward like a light or empty pan. But he could not have sat in the pan unless he became a man like us, so that it could be said: God dead, God's passion, God's blood, God's death.
Martin Luther, quoted in the Formula of Concord


Awareness you sent Luther to alt. Views
. LOL.

[Evangelical]

Here is a quote by Luther...

UNLESS GOD is on the balance and throws his weight as a counterbalance, we shall sink to the bottom of the scale. If it is not true that God died for us, but only a man died, we are lost. But if God's death and God lie dead in the opposite scale, then his side goes down and we go upward like a light or empty pan. But he could not have sat in the pan unless he became a man like us, so that it could be said: God dead, God's passion, God's blood, God's death.
Martin Luther, quoted in the Formula of Concord

Fyi formula of concord is an authoritative Lutheran work and Awareness sends it to alternative views. LOL.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

This is Christianity 101. If we believe that God became a man then surely whatever happens to God in the flesh is happening to God. Unless you believe that Jesus is not fully God?

You are ducking and dodging the question. Ohio asked you for a verse reference, instead you give us this logical explanation, which is exactly what I said WL does, reductio ad absurdem.

Was the blood of Jesus that was poured out on the cross the blood of God?

If all you are saying is that since Jesus is God, and He experienced death, then it is fair to say God experienced death. I have already said this much is true.

That is not the question. The question is did "God" die on the cross based on the interpretation that it was "God's" blood?

Because if you say yes then how do you explain Jesus asking "My God why have you forsaken me?"

How could God judge Jesus flesh with all of man's sins if it was in fact His flesh?

How could Jesus death be a peace offering to God for man's sins if in fact it was God's body and blood that was being offered?

You have simplified "the word became flesh" to "God became man". The process of God becoming man was not completed at the incarnation but at the ascension. Jesus was the forerunner, the first man to enter into the Godhead so that there would be a place for us as well. All of this took place at the ascension, after His crucifixion.

Just as we "partake of the divine nature" God partook of our human nature so that through death He could render powerless the devil. (Heb 2:14). That proves that God is not able to die.

Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, Heb 2:14

Bible 101 -- God is the great I am. I am that I am.

But according to Evangelical and WL God died and wasn't.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I don't think the scripture says specifically, "God died on the cross." In the early part of Acts, the Apostles' message was "this man, Jesus the Nazarene, the Holy and Righteous One, His servant Jesus, the Author of Life, whom you killed, whom God raised up." (2.23, 3.13-15, 5.30, 7.52) In other places, "Christ died for our sins, acc. to the scripture."

To say this we must infer from verses like Phil 2.5-11, Acts 20.28, etc.

Once we actually say "God died" then we have opened the door to unnecessary controversy. That discussion is similar to saying "Jesus is God, hence Mary must be the mother of God."

This is why some Christians have used the expression, "God has passed thru death in Jesus," based on the Lord's own words, "I have the power to lay down my life, and to take it up again." (Acts 10)

Good response bro Ohio.

Plus, if God died on the cross, who was Jesus praying to at Gethsemane? Who was he asking to, "let this cup pass from me?"

Surely he wasn't praying to himself.

[Evangelical]

I am technically correct because natures don't die on crosses but Persons. Saying Gods human nature died on the cross is incorrect. This is why Luther said God died. Saying only a man or a half-god died on the cross is unacceptable.

Giving a bible verse does not help because the problem is your interpretation.

Somehow Luther and Wesley and others were able to discern this truth from the bible. What did they have that you don't?

I don't believe divinity can cease to exist but consider the quote I gave from Luther. It's common sense really.
If God did not die for us then only a man died and we are lost. Now we don't have to understand how God did it for it to be true but it was God on that cross and not just a man.

God came down from heaven to die for us on the cross. Because He was God, death was powerless over Him.

That's Christianity 101. Anything less is really unbelief that Jesus was fully God.

The correct answer to 'who died on the cross' is God.

This website explains why. It is Catholic but I think explains well.

http://www.thecatholictreasurechest.com/who.htm

As Charles Wesley wrote in his famous hymn "how can it be"
"The Immortal dies".

Immortality died for mortality. That's Christianity at its most basic. Simple but no less truthful.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Luther said:



UNLESS GOD is on the balance and throws his weight as a counterbalance, we shall sink to the bottom of the scale. If it is not true that God died for us, but only a man died, we are lost. But if God's death and God lie dead in the opposite scale, then his side goes down and we go upward like a light or empty pan. But he could not have sat in the pan unless he became a man like us, so that it could be said: God dead, God's passion, God's blood, God's death.
Martin Luther, quoted in the Formula of Concord


Awareness you sent Luther to alt. Views
. LOL.

Oh no!!! Luther must be rolling over in his grave. I understand where Luther is coming from, but his premise is wrong. God sent his son to die for the sins of the world. And the father Jesus prayed to was not the father that went to the cross ; "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

But I do understand that, without divine intervention -- incarnation for example - we humans don't have any hope. I just don't think it required the death of God the Father.

Good quote from Luther tho. Luther wrote a lot of things. He would even write home to mother about his turds.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Good response bro Ohio.

Plus, if God died on the cross, who was Jesus praying to at Gethsemane? Who was he asking to, "let this cup pass from me?"

Surely he wasn't praying to himself.

Apparently you never heard of the Trinity. According to a trinitarian conception, God the Son was praying to God the Father via God the Spirit. Jesus talks about his relationship to Father and the Spirit quite a bit in the Gospel of John. Maybe those JWs who visit you have wormed you with anti-trinitarian amnesia.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If God did not die for us then only a man died and we are lost. Now we don't have to understand how God did it for it to be true but it was God on that cross and not just a man.

God came down from heaven to die for us on the cross. Because He was God, death was powerless over Him.

There's two issues here in Christianity 101. You have confused them.

As a sinless Man, Jesus shed His blood for our sins. His sacrifice was perfectly acceptable to God, delivering us from the curse of the law.

In resurrection, He became eternal life to all those who believe, and the hope of our own resurrection unto life.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Giving a bible verse does not help because the problem is your interpretation.

So you have concluded that God died based on nothing. No Bible verse. Using this process you can conclude anything. What a waste of time.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So you have concluded that God died based on nothing. No Bible verse. Using this process you can conclude anything. What a waste of time.

Yeah but ... ZNP ... BruLee said so.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Oh no!!! Luther must be rolling over in his grave. I understand where Luther is coming from, but his premise is wrong. God sent his son to die for the sins of the world. And the father Jesus prayed to was not the father that went to the cross ; "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

But I do understand that, without divine intervention -- incarnation for example - we humans don't have any hope. I just don't think it required the death of God the Father.

Good quote from Luther tho. Luther wrote a lot of things. He would even write home to mother about his turds.

Who said anything about the Father going to the cross except you?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yeah but ... ZNP ... BruLee said so.

The basic rule is that "no scripture is of its own interpretation". We can provide 10 verses supporting the fact that Jesus' death was an offering to God, hence His blood is God's blood.

We can also provide 10 verses supporting the fact that Jesus Christ bringing humanity into the Godhead was a process that involved ascension.

But this is typical of WL and his ilk, they make up doctrines based on wild inferences from a single verse. They do this when they say "God died", they do this with "the ground of the church" they do this in saying WN and WL were the MOTA.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Who said anything about the Father going to the cross except you?

Oh yeah, that's right. God the Father didn't die on the cross, and God the Holy Spirit didn't die on the cross, but God the son died on the cross.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

Who said anything about the Father going to the cross except you?

zeek has hit the nail on the head. This discussion (on both sides of the forum) has resorted to using "God" in a generic sense, and by it has turned the difficult issue of the trinity into a kind of "God stew" in which God is simply God and that is all there is to it.

In that view, either only the human (the man) Jesus died, or God (the whole thing — Father, Son, and Spirit) died. But within the Trinitarian view, God is thee and one in a way that neither separates totally, nor is simply a singular (my poor attempt at restating Athanasius). It still doesn't "define" it clearly, rather establishes something that we cannot fully understand. Something that remains a mystery. But it does provide a way for Jesus Christ to die without stating that God (the One) died. Or that the Father or Spirit died.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I am technically correct because natures don't die on crosses but Persons. Saying Gods human nature died on the cross is incorrect. This is why Luther said God died. Saying only a man or a half-god died on the cross is unacceptable.

What's with this Luther presentation? Is Luther an authority of some kind? Do you, for example, think of him as the first Minister of the Age, of his time, so therefore authoritative?

Originally Posted by Evan

Giving a bible verse does not help because the problem is your interpretation.

That's a good one ... a keeper in fact. So who's interpretation is authoritative?

Originally Posted by Evan

I don't believe divinity can cease to exist but consider the quote I gave from Luther. It's common sense really.
If God did not die for us then only a man died and we are lost. Now we don't have to understand how God did it for it to be true but it was God on that cross and not just a man.

As I've stated, Biblically God the Father did not die on the cross : God the Spirit did not die on the cross ; But God the Son did.

God came down from heaven to die for us on the cross. Because He was God, death was powerless over Him.[

Yes as Jesus stated, he had the power the lay his life down, and the power to raise it up. That was not God the Father, or God the Spirit. That was God the Son.

Originally Posted by Evan

The correct answer to 'who died on the cross' is God.

Again, the correct answer is, God the Son died on the cross.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Somehow Luther and Wesley and others were able to discern this truth from the bible. What did they have that you don't?

"9 But we behold him who hath been made a little lower than the angels, even Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God he should taste of death for every man."

I guess they had their opinion which they put on par with the Bible, I don't put my opinion on par with the Bible, so I don't have that. When I read this verse in Hebrews it tells me that Jesus was made a little lower than the angels so that He could suffer death. I cannot find a verse anywhere that says "God died" or even implies that God died. On the contrary I find many verses that say Jesus had to become a mortal man so that He could die.

The only verse I have found that WL used to peddle this teaching was that God bought the church with "His blood". This in turn led to the erroneous conclusion that it was God's blood when it was shed. I think the Bible has a phenomenal amount of verse references supporting the idea that this death was an offering to God and that after Jesus offered Himself the blood was then God's.

As for Luther, Wesley, and WL they all agree that Jesus death on the cross was a peace offering. Which is where we can all agree.

[zeek]

So, what are you saying? That Jesus was not God when he died? That he became God when he ascended? Based on this post plus several of your previous posts it seems like it. Although you use the term "incarnation", it isn't clear what you mean by it if Jesus didn't become God until he ascended.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Who said anything about the Father going to the cross except you?

I'm glad you guys picked up on my point. I've become a broken record, repeating over and over again, that, if Jesus was God he was God the son. So God the son died on the cross, not God the ultimate God - The Father - that Jesus claimed to be following and speaking FOR. The record has him saying, 'if you've seen me, you've seen the father.' But, in spite of Witness Lee's crazy audacious claim, Jesus was NOT The Father.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

So, what are you saying? That Jesus was not God when he died? That he became God when he ascended? Based on this post plus several of your previous posts it seems like it. Although you use the term "incarnation", it isn't clear what you mean by it if Jesus didn't become God until he ascended.

No, I am agreeing that Jesus incarnation, human living, crucifixion, resurrection and ascension brought humanity into divinity.

You might remember the references to the "all inclusive processed triune God".

I can find lots of credible scriptural references to support each of these processes, both in the NT and the OT typology. Whereas the only reference in the NT I can find that the Son of God was crucified and shed His blood is from demons. In addition every time this doctrine was proposed in the NT Jesus corrected it saying He was "the Son of Man".

Therefore I am cognizant of the fact that the Triune God is a mystery. Since I begin with he assumption that I do not understand this mystery I refuse to step outside of what the Bible actually says. I guess this is where I and WL differ.

If you agree with WL that "God died" then who is to say that God was really God in the first place? If you argue that He didn't really die, it was in fact a kind of pretend death then you make the crucifixion a pretend death. You have no scriptural basis for making the first claim and therefore no defense against those who make either of these two claims. Likewise the argument that "The Son of God" died but not the Father or Spirit is simply another version of 3 Gods. You cannot make this claim and still worship "one God".

According to the NT when Rachel's kids died "they were no more". According to the NT not one jot or tittle of the word will pass away until all things be completed. If the word passed away who was holding the universe together? You turn the entire Bible into a lie, a pretense, a falsehood.

2 hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds; 3 who being the effulgence of his glory, and the very image of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had made purification of sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; 4 having become by so much better than the angels, as he hath inherited a more excellent name than they.

The word "made purification of sins" just like a priest offering up a sacrifice. Jesus body was inhabited by this word which was spirit, the body though was the sacrifice, including the blood. This body was not worthy to be part of the Godhead until after the ascension.

9 But we behold him who hath been made a little lower than the angels, even Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God he should taste of death for every man.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'm glad you guys picked up on my point. I've become a broken record, repeating over and over again, that, if Jesus was God he was God the son. So God the son died on the cross, not God the ultimate God - The Father - that Jesus claimed to be following and speaking FOR. The record has him saying, 'if you've seen me, you've seen the father.' But, in spite of Witness Lee's crazy audacious claim, Jesus was NOT The Father.

You are not the only one making this claim, all the demons did as well.

[zeek]

I agree that we are discussing a great mystery which is past understanding. Consequently, at times we seem to come down on one side and at other times on another. With that in mind it makes sense not to castigate others because they seem to disagree with our opinion at the moment. They are perhaps just looking at a different facet of this mysterious gem.

Based on what you said about WL in previous posts I never would have guessed that you were agreeing with him concerning his "processed God" teaching. Since Evangelical appreciates WL teaching as well, he might be pleasantly surprised to learn that you agree with Lee on these points. There are apparent contradictions to that teaching as well which I won't bother you with at the moment.

I prefer to discuss this topic in Alternative Views where we don't have to worry as much about censure. We're have a related discussion on that forum.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'm glad you guys picked up on my point. I've become a broken record, repeating over and over again, that, if Jesus was God he was God the son. So God the son died on the cross, not God the ultimate God - The Father - that Jesus claimed to be following and speaking FOR. The record has him saying, 'if you've seen me, you've seen the father.' But, in spite of Witness Lee's crazy audacious claim, Jesus was NOT The Father.

Ah. So, apparently you're thinking of WL's claim that Jesus was the Father based on Isaiah 9:6:

6 For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

This gets into the problem of titles. The Oxford scholar E.P. Sanders discusses this issue in his book The Historical Figure of Jesus

We know substantially what Jesus thought of himself. We shall now ask whether or not he gave himself a title. The authors of the New Testament were interested in titles, and modern Christians have followed their lead. Few topics of research have generated as much scholarly publication. We all think that if we know the right word for something we understand it better, but in this particular case such a view is probably incorrect. The quest for the right title – the word that encapsulates Jesus’ view of himself, as well as the first disciples’ view – supposes that titles had fixed definitions and that we need only discover the definition of each. If title a meant x, and if Jesus used a of himself, we know that he thought of himself as being x. I think that the basic assumption, that titles had standard definitions, is in error. [pgs 239-240]

He goes on to show how it is an error with regard to the titles "messiah" or "Christ" and "Son of God". If it's a mistake for those titles, how much more for "Everlasting Father" which is never explicitly applied to Jesus in the New Testament.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Based on what you said about WL in previous posts I never would have guessed that you were agreeing with him concerning his "processed God" teaching. Since Evangelical appreciates WL teaching as well, he might be pleasantly surprised to learn that you agree with Lee on these points. There are apparent contradictions to that teaching as well which I won't bother you with at the moment.

This view is a simplistic view based on my saying that WL is a "false prophet". I view the term "false prophet" differently from "phony prophet" or "flim flam man" which is how I think many view it.

Judas and Balaam were the examples of a false prophet. Both were genuine prophets of God that spoke the word of God clearly and accurately. However, both were motivated by money -- that is what made them false.

As a result they added leaven to the fine flour. WL's leaven was the concept of the Ground of the Church and MOTA -- both intended to give him a monopoly on the saints money. This particular topic about "God died" is irrelevant to this, however, I think he saw it as an opportunity to take a swipe at most theologians and put his teaching in contrast to theirs.

So unlike others who feel that there is a need to discredit every teaching of WL I don't.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'm glad you guys picked up on my point. I've become a broken record, repeating over and over again, that, if Jesus was God he was God the son. So God the son died on the cross, not God the ultimate God - The Father - that Jesus claimed to be following and speaking FOR. The record has him saying, 'if you've seen me, you've seen the father.' But, in spite of Witness Lee's crazy audacious claim, Jesus was NOT The Father.

I think it is more accurate to say that both of WL's claims cannot be true.

If Jesus was the Father then God did not die on the cross. If "the Son of God" died on the cross then Jesus was not the Father.

Personally I think WL was wrong on both counts. However, this point only proves he was wrong on one count.

[zeek]

But, wait, Evangelical has shown other prominent theologians who taught that God died. So where's the swipe? Who is in the group of "most theologians" you refer to and what do they teach?

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

I agree that we are discussing a great mystery which is past understanding. Consequently, at times we seem to come down on one side and at other times on another. With that in mind it makes sense not to castigate others because they seem to disagree with our opinion at the moment. They are perhaps just looking at a different facet of this mysterious gem.

Thanks for this one zeek. If only we all practiced what you are preaching the world would be a better place. But since none of us have the qualifications or power to moderate the world (and that God for that!) we'll have to settle for making this forum board as good as it can be. With that in mind, I have moved over a number of posts from the main forum page to Alt Views. I would especially encourage my friends ZNP and awareness to take advantage of the extra latitude provided for yu'all here on this forum board. Make the discussions as broad or narrow as you like. No need to worry about wondering off the reservation because there is no reservation here....it's the theological/philosophical wild, wild west! I have appointed a sheriff (Mr. Harold) but pay him no attention....he's pretty much like Barney Fife, except he doesn't even carry a bullet in his pocket.


Shoot em up cowboys!

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

But, wait, Evangelical has shown other prominent theologians who taught that God died. So where's the swipe? Who is in the group of "most theologians" you refer to and what do they teach?

http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/blood_of_god.htm

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/blood_of_god.htm

I don't see how your link disagrees with Evangelical's position that God died.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't see how your link disagrees with Evangelical's position that God died.

Evangelical said that on the cross it was God's blood because "God died".

I said that Jesus humanity became part of God's after His ascension, hence His blood is God's blood, but that does not mean that God died.

That is the general theme of this article. It shows that many teachers referred to "God's blood" based on this verse but very few of them taught that "God died". It also points out all the problems that arise from that doctrine, primarily that there is no scriptural support for it other than this interpretation of these two words.

This is why I said that the "more cautious" Biblical scholars -- i.e. those that require numerous verses before coming up with an interpretation.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

Oh no!!! Luther must be rolling over in his grave. I understand where Luther is coming from, but his premise is wrong. God sent his son to die for the sins of the world. And the father Jesus prayed to was not the father that went to the cross ; "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

But I do understand that, without divine intervention -- incarnation for example - we humans don't have any hope. I just don't think it required the death of God the Father.

Good quote from Luther tho. Luther wrote a lot of things. He would even write home to mother about his turds.

The formula of concord is an authoritative Lutheran statement of faith.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

What's with this Luther presentation? Is Luther an authority of some kind? Do you, for example, think of him as the first Minister of the Age, of his time, so therefore authoritative?


That's a good one ... a keeper in fact. So who's interpretation is authoritative?


As I've stated, Biblically God the Father did not die on the cross : God the Spirit did not die on the cross ; But God the Son did.


Yes as Jesus stated, he had the power the lay his life down, and the power to raise it up. That was not God the Father, or God the Spirit. That was God the Son.


Again, the correct answer is, God the Son died on the cross.

We believe Luther was a minister of the age I think everyone knows that by now.

Yes he is a kind of authority because without him we'd all be saying hail Mary's by now.

The formula of concord is not just Luthers opinion. He obviously had insight that some of you here don't.

[Evangelical]

It might help if I post the full quote of Luther below, found here:

http://bookofconcord.org/sd-person.php.

The part I highlighted in bold should satisfy both those who say God did not die and those who say He did. I should add here that Lee had a way to put it that should be more conciliatory and that was to say the "God-man died".

The problem with saying "God dies" is that it implies that God's divine nature ceased. This is resolved by a caveat to say that in His nature, God cannot die.

However it is nonetheless correct to say "God died", according to Luther:


44] Dr. Luther says also in his book Of the Councils and the Church: We Christians must know that if God is not also in the balance, and gives the weight, we sink to the bottom with our scale. By this I mean: If it were not to be said [if these things were not true], God has died for us, but only a man, we would be lost. But if "God's death" and "God died" lie in the scale of the balance, then He sinks down, and we rise up as a light, empty scale. But indeed He can also rise again or leap out of the scale; yet He could not sit in the scale unless He became a man like us, so that it could be said: "God died," "God's passion," "God's blood," "God's death." For in His nature God cannot die; but now that God and man are united in one person, it is correctly called God's death, when the man dies who is one thing or one person with God. Thus far Luther.

I note that in discussions of God becoming man, many took issue with the idea of man becoming God, but few if any took issue with the first part of the quote "God became man". As such, few should take issue with saying "God died", as it is no worse than saying "God became man" (to a Jewish or Muslim mind, at least).

"God died" - a fundamental truth of the Reformation, lost since in the modern evangelical times, even spoken against in their ignorance, yet recovered by Lee and Nee.

If things continue the way they have, then Christians will eventually believe that Jesus was just a man on the cross and not God at all.


I now present "The World’s Toughest Catholic Quiz"
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/pr...pop-quiz-redux

The correct answer is c)

c. Correct, because the Person who died on the cross was a divine Person, commonly called the Son of God. Since that Person is God, it is proper to say that God died on the cross, even though that sounds odd and may make some unthinking people conclude that it means that God ceased to exist, which, of course, was not the case. (If you were sure this answer could not be right, don’t fret—you’re in good company. Most people miss this question because the correct answer "just doesn’t sound right.")

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It might help if I post the full quote of Luther below, found here:

http://bookofconcord.org/sd-person.php.

The part I highlighted in bold should satisfy both those who say God did not die and those who say He did. I should add here that Lee had a way to put it that should be more conciliatory and that was to say the "God-man died".

The problem with saying "God dies" is that it implies that God's divine nature ceased. This is resolved by a caveat to say that in His nature, God cannot die.

However it is nonetheless correct to say "God died", according to Luther:


44] Dr. Luther says also in his book Of the Councils and the Church: We Christians must know that if God is not also in the balance, and gives the weight, we sink to the bottom with our scale. By this I mean: If it were not to be said [if these things were not true], God has died for us, but only a man, we would be lost. But if "God's death" and "God died" lie in the scale of the balance, then He sinks down, and we rise up as a light, empty scale. But indeed He can also rise again or leap out of the scale; yet He could not sit in the scale unless He became a man like us, so that it could be said: "God died," "God's passion," "God's blood," "God's death." For in His nature God cannot die; but now that God and man are united in one person, it is correctly called God's death, when the man dies who is one thing or one person with God. Thus far Luther.

I note that in discussions of God becoming man, many took issue with the idea of man becoming God, but few if any took issue with the first part of the quote "God became man". As such, few should take issue with saying "God died", as it is no worse than saying "God became man" (to a Jewish or Muslim mind, at least).

"God died" - a fundamental truth of the Reformation, lost since in the modern evangelical times, even spoken against in their ignorance, yet recovered by Lee and Nee.

If things continue the way they have, then Christians will eventually believe that Jesus was just a man on the cross and not God at all.

There is not anyone who took issue with saying that God died because God and Man are united. These two were united after the ascension of Jesus Christ.

That is, after the crucifixion. Hence God did not die on the cross according to your previous logical reductio ad absurdem.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

There is not anyone who took issue with saying that God died because God and Man are united. These two were united after the ascension of Jesus Christ.

That is, after the crucifixion. Hence God did not die on the cross according to your previous logical reductio ad absurdem.

The Father and the Son were never separated by the cross, not in any real sense anyway.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The Father and the Son were never separated by the cross, not in any real sense anyway.

The basic concept of God is that God is immortal, eternal, ever existing.

The basic concept of death is that it first entered in due to sin.

Therefore a doctrine that "God died" requires a great deal of explanation as it is contrary to everything we were taught since Genesis 2. To base this on "God's blood" is truly a doctrine built on sand.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The basic concept of God is that God is immortal, eternal, ever existing.

The basic concept of death is that it first entered in due to sin.

Therefore a doctrine that "God died" requires a great deal of explanation as it is contrary to everything we were taught since Genesis 2. To base this on "God's blood" is truly a doctrine built on sand.

For centuries in Christianity it was believed that Jesus's blood was not human, but only divine, coming directly from God the Father and not Mary the mother.

Why is the blood of Christ precious? Because it is divine. His blood is eternal and infallible. If Christ's blood was temporal, then we could not "plead the blood" today.


You said "This in turn led to the erroneous conclusion that it was God's blood when it was shed. "

It was God's blood before, during and after the crucifixion - Jesus never had a human-blood transfusion.

Death can be seen as the separation of the soul from the body.

Death can also be seen as the spilling of blood. Hence when God's blood is spilled, it is God's death. "The life is in the blood" - God's life left Christ. When the human life leaves the body, that is called "human death". When God's life left Christ's body, that is "God's death".

I believe Luther was correct when he wrote ""God died," "God's passion," "God's blood," "God's death." "

Dennis Ngien (Professor of Systematic Theology at Tyndale University College and Seminary in Toronto and Research Scholar in Theology at Blackfriars Hall, Oxford University. ) in a book "A Faith Worth Believing, Living, and Commending" writes

"Here is no surrogate. God Himself died a real death".

"The greatest marvel of the gospel is that the divinity was present in the Cross".

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

For centuries in Christianity it was believed that Jesus's blood was not human, but only divine, coming directly from God the Father and not Mary the mother.

Why is the blood of Christ precious? Because it is divine. His blood is eternal and infallible. If Christ's blood was temporal, then we could not "plead the blood" today.


You said "This in turn led to the erroneous conclusion that it was God's blood when it was shed. "

It was God's blood before, during and after the crucifixion - Jesus never had a human-blood transfusion.

Death can be seen as the separation of the soul from the body.

Death can also be seen as the spilling of blood. Hence when God's blood is spilled, it is God's death. "The life is in the blood" - God's life left Christ. When the human life leaves the body, that is called "human death". When God's life left Christ's body, that is "God's death".

I believe Luther was correct when he wrote ""God died," "God's passion," "God's blood," "God's death." "

Dennis Ngien (Professor of Systematic Theology at Tyndale University College and Seminary in Toronto and Research Scholar in Theology at Blackfriars Hall, Oxford University. ) in a book "A Faith Worth Believing, Living, and Commending" writes

"Here is no surrogate. God Himself died a real death".

"The greatest marvel of the gospel is that the divinity was present in the Cross".

This is such superstitious drivel.

I have no interest in your ravings. Share the verse with me that you are talking about.

The word became flesh -- yes we all agree.

Jesus was born of a virgin -- yes we all agree.

God gave his son as a lamb -- He was in the likeness of sin yet without sin -- we all agree.

None of that is the question. The question is at what time did the human blood of Jesus become "God's blood"? That happened at the ascension. I have provided numerous verses to this effect. When you are asked to do the same you wiggle and squirm out of it.

How could Jesus blood be "God's blood" before the ascension? Jesus death was a peace offering to God.

I have leather shoes, they are mine, that does not imply that they were made from my skin.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This is such superstitious drivel.

I have no interest in your ravings. Share the verse with me that you are talking about.

The word became flesh -- yes we all agree.

Jesus was born of a virgin -- yes we all agree.

God gave his son as a lamb -- He was in the likeness of sin yet without sin -- we all agree.

None of that is the question. The question is at what time did the human blood of Jesus become "God's blood"? That happened at the ascension. I have provided numerous verses to this effect. When you are asked to do the same you wiggle and squirm out of it.

How could Jesus blood be "God's blood" before the ascension? Jesus death was a peace offering to God.

I have leather shoes, they are mine, that does not imply that they were made from my skin.

You can't consistently believe in the "superstition" of the Virgin birth and at the same time deny the "superstition" that Jesus's blood was divine. Since Jesus did not have a "sin nature", how could Jesus have sinful blood? My understanding is that any fallen human blood from the mother was sanctified or washed away by divinity, thus the blood was divine blood.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Evangelical said that on the cross it was God's blood because "God died".

I said that Jesus humanity became part of God's after His ascension, hence His blood is God's blood, but that does not mean that God died.

That is the general theme of this article. It shows that many teachers referred to "God's blood" based on this verse but very few of them taught that "God died". It also points out all the problems that arise from that doctrine, primarily that there is no scriptural support for it other than this interpretation of these two words.

This is why I said that the "more cautious" Biblical scholars -- i.e. those that require numerous verses before coming up with an interpretation.

Again, you seem to be conflicted between an exaltation christology whereby Jesus becomes God in ascension and an incarnation christology whereby Jesus is God at birth. You seem to lean toward the former but when questioned you assent to the former. In a way you seem to hold two opinions simultaneous or perhaps you're going back and forth between them.

Witness Lee is quoted to say:

The crucifixion of Christ was also God's crucifixion because God is one with Christ all the time (John 8:29; 16:32). God never left Christ alone. When Christ was incarnated, God was incarnated. They coinhered. When Christ was living on this earth, God was living. When Christ was crucified, God was crucified. This is because They coinhere, that is, They mutually indwell each other. In the Gospels Christ told us repeatedly that the Father was in Him and He was in the Father (John 10:38; 14:10-11, 20; 17:21). Thus, we may say that god died in Christ, so Christ's crucifixion became God's crucifixion. god died in man. god died not in His own death but in another One's death. god died in the Son's death. (The Move of God in Man, Chapter 4, Section 4)

WL and/or LSM is hedging a bit by putting god in the lower case whatever that means.

At the moment it seems to me that no matter how "cautious" the interpreter , is in talking about this stuff, it is unlikely that anyone knows what they're talking about. From a human standpoint it's clear that it was the early church that produced the New Testament and the church that deified Jesus of Nazareth. What happened in heaven, the divine realm, ultimate reality, the metaphysical sphere or whatever you prefer to call it, is anybody's guess.

Feel free to argue on about it. Perhaps there is something to be learned in the process, But, be kind to each other in the process. Kindness seems to be a value the man Jesus actually stood for.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You can't consistently believe in the "superstition" of the Virgin birth and at the same time deny the "superstition" that Jesus's blood was divine. Since Jesus did not have a "sin nature", how could Jesus have sinful blood? My understanding is that any fallen human blood from the mother was sanctified or washed away by divinity, thus the blood was divine blood.

I believe in the Bible.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Again, you seem to be conflicted between an exaltation theology whereby Jesus becomes God in ascension and an incarnation theology whereby Jesus is God at birth. You seem to lean toward the former but when questioned you assent to the former. In a way you seem to hold two opinions simultaneous or perhaps you're going back and forth between them.

Witness Lee is quoted to say:


WL and/or LSM is hedging a bit by putting god in the lower case whatever that means.

At the moment it seems to me that no matter how "cautious" the interpreter , is in talking about this stuff, it is unlikely that anyone knows what they're talking about. From a human standpoint it's clear that it was the early church that produced the New Testament and the church that deified Jesus of Nazareth. What happened in heaven, the divine realm, ultimate reality, the metaphysical sphere or whatever you prefer to call it, is anybody's guess.

Feel free to argue on about it. Perhaps there is something to be learned in the process, But, be kind to each other in the process. Kindness seems to be a value the man Jesus actually stood for.

Incarnation is a mystery. The humanity of Christ becoming divine is a mystery. I have not hedged the slightest bit on accepting the Bible as the final arbiter of truth. What is extremely disappointing is Evangelical perpetuating his doctrine without the slightest scriptural support.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Incarnation is a mystery. The humanity of Christ becoming divine is a mystery. I have not hedged the slightest bit on accepting the Bible as the final arbiter of truth. What is extremely disappointing is Evangelical perpetuating his doctrine without the slightest scriptural support.

I think there is scriptural support in as much as the Gospel of John portrays Jesus as God who's life could not be taken from him. He is the I am who lays down his life and has the power to take it back. Only God has that power. Therefore , Jesus is God . When he died , God died. What else do you need?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

I think there is scriptural support in as much as the Gospel of John portrays Jesus as God who's life could not be taken from him. He is the I am who lays down his life and has the power to take it back. Only God has that power. Therefore , Jesus is God . When he died , God died. What else do you need?

God is not "lower than the angels". I provided the verse reference that Jesus became "lower than the angels" so that He could suffer death.

Look at the verses I have provided. I think they are very persuasive and very clear and it says plainly, repeatedly, Jesus suffered death for man, not for God.

The only arguments I have seen for "God died" are logical arguments based on an inferential understanding. That is extremely unsatisfying to me when you want to propose a doctrine that is so wildly contradictory to everything we thought we knew based on the OT.

God is love. After the ascension man, in the form of Jesus Christ, "was worthy" and entered into the Godhead. Why? The cross demonstrated that this man also "was love". Man died on the cross, just like Jesus said "I am the Son of Man".

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

God is not "lower than the angels". I provided the verse reference that Jesus became "lower than the angels" so that He could suffer death.

OK. So the Gospel of John gets it wrong. Got it.

Look at the verses I have provided. I think they are very persuasive and very clear and it says plainly, repeatedly, Jesus suffered death for man, not for God.

The issue is what he was not who he died for.

The only arguments I have seen for "God died" are logical arguments based on an inferential understanding. That is extremely unsatisfying to me when you want to propose a doctrine that is so wildly contradictory to everything we thought we knew based on the OT.

[zeek]

God is love. After the ascension man, in the form of Jesus Christ, "was worthy" and entered into the Godhead. Why? The cross demonstrated that this man also "was love". Man died on the cross, just like Jesus said "I am the Son of Man".

OK so Jesus was not God until he ascended. Got it. Scratch the incarnation. Throw out the Gospel of John. Got it.

[awareness]

Copied from LCD on the thread with same name:

Originally Posted by awareness

Some of those early church fathers you are falling back on got fired. Including your favorite boy Athanasius.

The early church fathers were just men, living in the iron age. Why should we listen to any of them, or consider them authoritative?

They invented the RCC.

Untohim has made it clear that, this couldn't be discussed on the Evangelical section of LCD. I paste it here for discussion. I will chime in after it marinates on here for awhile.

Thanks for posting it Evangelical.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

Copied from LCD on the thread with same name:


Untohim has made it clear that, this couldn't be discussed on the Evangelical section of LCD. I paste it here for discussion. I will chime in after it marinates on here for awhile.

Thanks for posting it Evangelical.

I am an evangelical and I'm quoting other evangelicals..eg..Geisler and Luther. I dont see the problem but if thats the case lets discuss here.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

OK so Jesus was not God until he ascended. Got it. Scratch the incarnation. Throw out the Gospel of John. Got it.

Not what I said. Incarnation brought God into man. Ascension brought Man into God.

How can you not understand? If I buy a smart phone, the phone has all the chips and equipment necessary to access the internet, cellular service, bluetooth, wifi, etc. All of that was put into the phone. That is similar to the incarnation.

However, that phone is a glorified calculator until it is hooked up to a plan. AT&T, Verizon, etc. Once the phone is activated with a plan, that is ascension.

God did not have blood and flesh as part of the Godhead at the time of the crucifixion. It was not God that died on that cross. On the other hand that body hanging on the cross was an offering to God, so it is fair to say it belonged to God in the same way my leather shoes belong to me.

Therefore Paul was correct in saying that it was "God's blood" and Witness Lee was incorrect in saying that God died.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Copied from LCD on the thread with same name:


Untohim has made it clear that, this couldn't be discussed on the Evangelical section of LCD. I paste it here for discussion. I will chime in after it marinates on here for awhile.

Thanks for posting it Evangelical.

Evangelical -- "No one reading the apostolic and other early Fathers can’t help but be stuck by their extensive and authoritative use of Scripture."

What I am struck by is that WL lambasted and ridiculed these guys without end, but now the only way to support his unscriptural doctrine is by claiming that these guys used the scripture authoritatively.

Using the scripture "authoritatively", is this one of the items of the MOTA teaching? Maybe if you quote scripture and you are not a MOTA then it is not "authoritative" but if you are a MOTA then it is "authoritative".

I hope Evangelical can explain this. The same person who said we shouldn't use scripture to support the "God died" doctrine because of the potential for differing interpretations yet says the reason we should trust these guys is because of their authoritative use of scripture (presumably with other doctrines since he still hasn't given us this authoritative scripture to support his outlandish claims).

Since when is not providing a single scripture reference to support the "God died" thesis considered "extensive" use of scripture? Once again Evangelical continues to astound and amaze with his bizarre use of the english language.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Not what I said. Incarnation brought God into man. Ascension brought Man into God.

So, God was in Jesus when he was born, but he wasn't God until he ascended into God. It's all about spacial metaphors. Jesus is a non-God container for God. God is up so Jesus has to ascend upward to get to God.

How can you not understand? If I buy a smart phone, the phone has all the chips and equipment necessary to access the internet, cellular service, bluetooth, wifi, etc. All of that was put into the phone. That is similar to the incarnation.

However, that phone is a glorified calculator until it is hooked up to a plan. AT&T, Verizon, etc. Once the phone is activated with a plan, that is ascension.

So Jesus was like a phone without a wireless plan. How can I not understand?

God did not have blood and flesh as part of the Godhead at the time of the crucifixion. It was not God that died on that cross. On the other hand that body hanging on the cross was an offering to God, so it is fair to say it belonged to God in the same way my leather shoes belong to me.

Christologies are different ways of imagining the Christ narrative. This is what works for you. Other people's narratives can look pretty ridiculous. God only knows which one's are right if any.

Therefore Paul was correct in saying that it was "God's blood" and Witness Lee was incorrect in saying that God died.

Lee and a bunch of other orthodox church theologians across two millennia.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Evangelical -- "No one reading the apostolic and other early Fathers can’t help but be stuck by their extensive and authoritative use of Scripture."

What I am struck by is that WL lambasted and ridiculed these guys without end, but now the only way to support his unscriptural doctrine is by claiming that these guys used the scripture authoritatively.

Using the scripture "authoritatively", is this one of the items of the MOTA teaching? Maybe if you quote scripture and you are not a MOTA then it is not "authoritative" but if you are a MOTA then it is "authoritative".

I hope Evangelical can explain this. The same person who said we shouldn't use scripture to support the "God died" doctrine because of the potential for differing interpretations yet says the reason we should trust these guys is because of their authoritative use of scripture (presumably with other doctrines since he still hasn't given us this authoritative scripture to support his outlandish claims).

Since when is not providing a single scripture reference to support the "God died" thesis considered "extensive" use of scripture? Once again Evangelical continues to astound and amaze with his bizarre use of the english language.

We're all different bro ZNP. All raised differently, with different fathers, and so different father figures in our heads.

Some of us need authority figures more than others. I'm not sayin', but, maybe our brother Evangelical is one of them.

If I read him out here correctly I'd draw that conclusion. He seems to have a fixation on Authoritative-ness. I can't blame him, I've been there. I think prolly, given our relations with the LC, we all have been there, at one time or other.

I do find it telling that he seems to be scrambling for any "authoritative" voice to support his position that, God died on the cross (com'on, that has to hit everybody's funny bone).

He not only reaches back to the "authoritative" church fathers -- who read the scriptures with authority (scriptures, NT, that weren't fully developed by that point - so no absolute authority there yet), he offers Norman Geisler as authoritative. I guess he uses Geisler because he pulls no punches and outright states that, God died on the cross.

But regardless, even with all the disagreements down thru the ages (that started early on) this is the Christianity that has come down to us : Jesus was God, therefore God died on the cross.

Like bro zeek pointed out, speaking perchance from an apologist perspective, it's a mystery.

And like Paul said of "a guy that he knew," that "was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.* it may be unlawful to even speak of this matter.

God died on the cross? As Paul said, it's unspeakable.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Evangelical -- "No one reading the apostolic and other early Fathers can’t help but be stuck by their extensive and authoritative use of Scripture."

What I am struck by is that WL lambasted and ridiculed these guys without end, but now the only way to support his unscriptural doctrine is by claiming that these guys used the scripture authoritatively.

Using the scripture "authoritatively", is this one of the items of the MOTA teaching? Maybe if you quote scripture and you are not a MOTA then it is not "authoritative" but if you are a MOTA then it is "authoritative".

I hope Evangelical can explain this. The same person who said we shouldn't use scripture to support the "God died" doctrine because of the potential for differing interpretations yet says the reason we should trust these guys is because of their authoritative use of scripture (presumably with other doctrines since he still hasn't given us this authoritative scripture to support his outlandish claims).

Since when is not providing a single scripture reference to support the "God died" thesis considered "extensive" use of scripture? Once again Evangelical continues to astound and amaze with his bizarre use of the english language.

I can quote Luther, Wesley, Geisler and even professors of systematic theology to support my view. Who are you citing but yourself? Such arrogance.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

We're all different bro ZNP. All raised differently, with different fathers, and so different father figures in our heads.

Some of us need authority figures more than others. I'm not sayin', but, maybe our brother Evangelical is one of them.

If I read him out here correctly I'd draw that conclusion. He seems to have a fixation on Authoritative-ness. I can't blame him, I've been there. I think prolly, given our relations with the LC, we all have been there, at one time or other.

I do find it telling that he seems to be scrambling for any "authoritative" voice to support his position that, God died on the cross (com'on, that has to hit everybody's funny bone).

He not only reaches back to the "authoritative" church fathers -- who read the scriptures with authority (scriptures, NT, that weren't fully developed by that point - so no absolute authority there yet), he offers Norman Geisler as authoritative. I guess he uses Geisler because he pulls no punches and outright states that, God died on the cross.

But regardless, even with all the disagreements down thru the ages (that started early on) this is the Christianity that has come down to us : Jesus was God, therefore God died on the cross.

Like bro zeek pointed out, speaking perchance from an apologist perspective, it's a mystery.

And like Paul said of "a guy that he knew," that "was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.* it may be unlawful to even speak of this matter.

God died on the cross? As Paul said, it's unspeakable.

I quote evangelicals like Luther,Geisler and others to show Witness Lee is not alone. I can quote Catholics too which means my view is a broad one.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I can quote Luther, Wesley, Geisler and even professors of systematic theology to support my view. Who are you citing but yourself? Such arrogance.

I have cited Paul, John, and Hebrews. You do not cite the scriptures, but men, that is arrogance. I am not the one teaching that "God died". I am merely the one saying that the Bible does not say this.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I have cited Paul, John, and Hebrews. You do not cite the scriptures, but men, that is arrogance.

Yes you have given scriptures and also your interpretation which is that of one man. My view is validated by the "two or three witnesses" principle - Luther and modern day theologians. You are welcome to cite your own witnesses to support the view that God did not die on the cross.

You think that your own interpretation and scripture alone is more weighty than my quotation of Luther et al. That's arrogance. Even Reformers like Calvin et al, cited early church fathers to support their view.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

We're all different bro ZNP. All raised differently, with different fathers, and so different father figures in our heads.

Some of us need authority figures more than others. I'm not sayin', but, maybe our brother Evangelical is one of them.

If I read him out here correctly I'd draw that conclusion. He seems to have a fixation on Authoritative-ness. I can't blame him, I've been there. I think prolly, given our relations with the LC, we all have been there, at one time or other.

I do find it telling that he seems to be scrambling for any "authoritative" voice to support his position that, God died on the cross (com'on, that has to hit everybody's funny bone).

He not only reaches back to the "authoritative" church fathers -- who read the scriptures with authority (scriptures, NT, that weren't fully developed by that point - so no absolute authority there yet), he offers Norman Geisler as authoritative. I guess he uses Geisler because he pulls no punches and outright states that, God died on the cross.

But regardless, even with all the disagreements down thru the ages (that started early on) this is the Christianity that has come down to us : Jesus was God, therefore God died on the cross.

Like bro zeek pointed out, speaking perchance from an apologist perspective, it's a mystery.

And like Paul said of "a guy that he knew," that "was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.* it may be unlawful to even speak of this matter.

God died on the cross? As Paul said, it's unspeakable.

You're clearly out of your depth. Here is a quote by John Calvin that supports the use of the early church fathers:

If the contest were to be determined by patristic authority, the tide of victory — to put it very modestly —would turn to our side. Now, these fathers have written many wise and excellent things. . . . [Yet] the good things that these fathers have written they [the Roman Catholics] either do not notice, or misrepresent or pervert. . . . But we do not despise them [the church fathers]; in fact, if it were to our present purpose, I could with no trouble at all prove that the greater part of what we are saying today meets their approval.

Source: John Calvin, “Prefatory Address to King Francis I of France,� The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Section 4.

You are despising the early church fathers. Calvin, Luther et al did not do that, but used the "wise and excellent things" that they wrote.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Yes you have given scriptures and also your interpretation which is that of one man. My view is validated by the "two or three witnesses" principle - Luther and modern day theologians. You are welcome to cite your own witnesses to support the view that God did not die on the cross.

You think that your own interpretation and scripture alone is more weighty than my quotation of Luther et al. That's arrogance. Even Reformers like Calvin et al, cited early church fathers to support their view.

You have not read my posts. I have already provided an extensive discussion from a variety of witnesses on this topic.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/blood_of_god.htm

God is not a respecter of man's person, but apparently you are.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You have not read my posts. I have already provided an extensive discussion from a variety of witnesses on this topic.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/blood_of_god.htm

God is not a respecter of man's person, but apparently you are.

I count one witness - Sam Shamoun. Who else?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I count one witness - Sam Shamoun. Who else?

He references the following:

C. F. DeVine — shows that the Greek has two possible readings.

Robert M. Bowman Jr.

Bruce M. Metzger

Murray J Harris

‘NRSV and REB translation is one that many scholars and commentators prefer in recent decades’

[ZNPaaneah]

Let us summarize. WL taught that "God died" based on one verse in Acts which refers to the church being purchased with "God's blood".

In this hymn Wesley goes on to say, “Tis mystery all! The Immortal dies!” Here Wesley declares that God died for us. When I was translating this hymn into Chinese years ago, I was troubled by this. I was not sure whether to be so bold as to translate it literally to indicate that God died for us. Do you have the boldness to say that God died for you? Charles Wesley saw the vision concerning this and declared in his hymn that God died for us. (Life-Study of Acts, Chapter 54, Section 1)

According to Greek scholars there are two ways to understand this term "God's blood".

1. The blood belongs to God. There is no dispute about this at all since everyone recognizes the crucifixion of Jesus as a peace offering to God.

2. The blood that was shed on the cross was God's blood, it was God who was bleeding. The second understanding also has two possible interpretations.

a. Jesus is God, therefore we can say it was God's blood. This idea can include the understanding that Jesus humanity did not become part of the Godhead until the ascension. This understanding is also fine with everyone.

b. God died on the cross.

So although there is nothing in this verse that would require or even strongly suggest this interpretation it is the one that WL went with. The other two understandings are strongly supported by numerous verses. This understanding is not supported by any other verses.

What is undeniable from reading this verse is the following:

1. God possesses blood.
2. God purchased the church
3. Jesus is God.

So why would WL talk about "God died" which is extremely controversial, perhaps the most controversial verse in the Bible, and has no Biblical support whatsoever? This is who he was, his modus operandi. He liked to say shocking things that those listening had not heard to make it seem like he had some special revelation that no one else had. Then, when you aren't looking he steps back from this and gives a standard understanding:

“God died in man. God died not in His own death but in another One's death.” (The Move of God in Man, Chapter 4, Section 4)

So Evangelical is taking a very different stand from LSM and WL, to join with Zeek and proclaim that it was God who died. Some of his quotes claim that Jesus was "no surrogate". But if Jesus were no surrogate then why does the OT typology of Jesus death use the blood of bulls and goats as surrogates to atone for man's sin? Why is so much effort expended on this in the OT if it is not relevant to the NT?

Still I find it interesting that Evangelical, portrayed as someone who mindlessly follows LSM doctrine, would be so bold as to clearly and unequivocally reject it on this point. So I applaud his boldness in finding his own voice, but reject his conclusions.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You're clearly out of your depth. Here is a quote by John Calvin that supports the use of the early church fathers:

If the contest were to be determined by patristic authority, the tide of victory — to put it very modestly —would turn to our side. Now, these fathers have written many wise and excellent things. . . . [Yet] the good things that these fathers have written they [the Roman Catholics] either do not notice, or misrepresent or pervert. . . . But we do not despise them [the church fathers]; in fact, if it were to our present purpose, I could with no trouble at all prove that the greater part of what we are saying today meets their approval.

Source: John Calvin, “Prefatory Address to King Francis I of France,� The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Section 4.

Oh no! You are not standing on that murderer John Calvin. Surely not. Calvin was protestant in name only. He not only embraced Roman Catholic ideologies, and the book they canonized, like them he also burned heretics at the stake, like Michael Servetus.

Out of my depth? Who are you kidding? I can swim in the deep end of orthodoxy, like you, but prefer cleaner waters. Those guys still believed in a flat earth, and that they were the center of the universe. They were all ignorant.

Originally Posted by Evan

You are despising the early church fathers. Calvin, Luther et al did not do that, but used the "wise and excellent things" that they wrote.

Despising the early church fathers? I never thought of it that way. But perhaps you are right. I do say that they were human. And that's the worse thing you can say about anybody.

I do appreciate all your efforts tho, to prove your point. Please keep on trying. But you'll never get past the laughter ... busting out ... when you say, "God died on the cross."

I got an idea. Use Nietzsche to support your claim. He's better than Calvin.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Let us summarize. WL taught that "God died" based on one verse in Acts which refers to the church being purchased with "God's blood".

In this hymn Wesley goes on to say, “Tis mystery all! The Immortal dies!” Here Wesley declares that God died for us. When I was translating this hymn into Chinese years ago, I was troubled by this. I was not sure whether to be so bold as to translate it literally to indicate that God died for us. Do you have the boldness to say that God died for you? Charles Wesley saw the vision concerning this and declared in his hymn that God died for us. (Life-Study of Acts, Chapter 54, Section 1)

According to Greek scholars there are two ways to understand this term "God's blood".

1. The blood belongs to God. There is no dispute about this at all since everyone recognizes the crucifixion of Jesus as a peace offering to God.

2. The blood that was shed on the cross was God's blood, it was God who was bleeding. The second understanding also has two possible interpretations.

a. Jesus is God, therefore we can say it was God's blood. This idea can include the understanding that Jesus humanity did not become part of the Godhead until the ascension. This understanding is also fine with everyone.

b. God died on the cross.

So although there is nothing in this verse that would require or even strongly suggest this interpretation it is the one that WL went with. The other two understandings are strongly supported by numerous verses. This understanding is not supported by any other verses.

What is undeniable from reading this verse is the following:

1. God possesses blood.
2. God purchased the church
3. Jesus is God.

So why would WL talk about "God died" which is extremely controversial, perhaps the most controversial verse in the Bible, and has no Biblical support whatsoever? This is who he was, his modus operandi. He liked to say shocking things that those listening had not heard to make it seem like he had some special revelation that no one else had. Then, when you aren't looking he steps back from this and gives a standard understanding:

“God died in man. God died not in His own death but in another One's death.” (The Move of God in Man, Chapter 4, Section 4)

So Evangelical is taking a very different stand from LSM and WL, to join with Zeek and proclaim that it was God who died. Some of his quotes claim that Jesus was "no surrogate". But if Jesus were no surrogate then why does the OT typology of Jesus death use the blood of bulls and goats as surrogates to atone for man's sin? Why is so much effort expended on this in the OT if it is not relevant to the NT?

Still I find it interesting that Evangelical, portrayed as someone who mindlessly follows LSM doctrine, would be so bold as to clearly and unequivocally reject it on this point. So I applaud his boldness in finding his own voice, but reject his conclusions.

You seem to be trying to avoid the obvious by complicating it.

Jesus is God
Jesus died on the cross
____________________
Therefore, God died.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

You seem to be trying to avoid the obvious by complicating it.

Jesus is God
Jesus died on the cross
____________________
Therefore, God died.

I have already agreed to that based on Jesus Humanity becoming one with God in the ascension.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

Oh no! You are not standing on that murderer John Calvin. Surely not. Calvin was protestant in name only. He not only embraced Roman Catholic ideologies, and the book they canonized, like them he also burned heretics at the stake, like Michael Servetus.

Out of my depth? Who are you kidding? I can swim in the deep end of orthodoxy, like you, but prefer cleaner waters. Those guys still believed in a flat earth, and that they were the center of the universe. They were all ignorant.


Despising the early church fathers? I never thought of it that way. But perhaps you are right. I do say that they were human. And that's the worse thing you can say about anybody.

I do appreciate all your efforts tho, to prove your point. Please keep on trying. But you'll never get past the laughter ... busting out ... when you say, "God died on the cross."

I got an idea. Use Nietzsche to support your claim. He's better than Calvin.

They were devoted to scripture much more so than many today. Thats why they believed in a flat earth

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I have already agreed to that based on Jesus Humanity becoming one with God in the ascension.

If you agree that
Jesus is God
Jesus died on the cross
____________________
Therefore, God died.

then what are you arguing about?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

If you agree that
Jesus is God
Jesus died on the cross
____________________
Therefore, God died.

then what are you arguing about?

When Jesus humanity became part of the Godhead at the ascension, then at that point God had the experience of death.

I disagree that there is a Biblical basis to say that when Jesus was on the cross dying that "God died".

The Bible does say it was God's blood.

Based on that we can infer the blood belongs to God (Jesus death was a Peace offering to God). We can also read it that this is God's blood because Jesus as the Son of Man became part of the Godhead at His ascension. It is also conclusive proof that the Bible says Jesus is God.

So I agree that God has the experience of death in Jesus, what I don't agree with is that "God died" on the cross.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

They were devoted to scripture much more so than many today. Thats why they believed in a flat earth

Wow, I guess this is another example of you going off swimming in the deep end?!

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Wow, I guess this is another example of you going off swimming in the deep end?!

I should have said, they were devoted to a very literal reading of scripture which suggests a flat earth (I remember this has been discussed on here before). I am not saying they were correct. But their devotion to scripture is unquestionable.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

When Jesus humanity became part of the Godhead at the ascension, then at that point God had the experience of death.

I disagree that there is a Biblical basis to say that when Jesus was on the cross dying that "God died".

The Bible does say it was God's blood.

Based on that we can infer the blood belongs to God (Jesus death was a Peace offering to God). We can also read it that this is God's blood because Jesus as the Son of Man became part of the Godhead at His ascension. It is also conclusive proof that the Bible says Jesus is God.

So I agree that God has the experience of death in Jesus, what I don't agree with is that "God died" on the cross.

I don't have the time to look into this now, but I thought Jesus becoming part of the Godhead at His ascension is not a traditional viewpoint. I lean towards Jesus being part of the Godhead since the Incarnation and even prior to that (as Christ). It stems from the unchangeable nature of Christ. I will look into more detail the evidence you have provided about the blood.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I don't have the time to look into this now, but I thought Jesus becoming part of the Godhead at His ascension is not a traditional viewpoint. I lean towards Jesus being part of the Godhead since the Incarnation and even prior to that (as Christ). It stems from the unchangeable nature of Christ. I will look into more detail the evidence you have provided about the blood.

The theory is that the Triune God is eternal, and has always had the Father, Son and Spirit. Man was created in the image of the invisible God and Jesus is the image of the invisible God.

However, the Son was not incarnated until Jesus birth, and this process of bringing humanity into divinity was completed at the time of Jesus ascension.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

When Jesus humanity became part of the Godhead at the ascension, then at that point God had the experience of death.

I disagree that there is a Biblical basis to say that when Jesus was on the cross dying that "God died".

The Bible does say it was God's blood.

Based on that we can infer the blood belongs to God (Jesus death was a Peace offering to God). We can also read it that this is God's blood because Jesus as the Son of Man became part of the Godhead at His ascension. It is also conclusive proof that the Bible says Jesus is God.

So I agree that God has the experience of death in Jesus, what I don't agree with is that "God died" on the cross.

So to you Jesus was not God when he died.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

So to you Jesus was not God when he died.

No, to me when Jesus was incarnated in man there was no man on the throne in heaven. Jesus was the Son of God, all the demons knew that, but His goal was to bring man into God and that is what He accomplished after His resurrection from the dead.

So I believe the word became flesh at Jesus incarnation and that He tabernacled among us. I also believe that a man entered heaven at His ascension and was deemed worthy to sit on the throne of God. God became man at the incarnation, but the blood of Jesus did not become God until the ascension.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So why would WL talk about "God died" which is extremely controversial, perhaps the most controversial verse in the Bible, and has no Biblical support whatsoever? This is who he was, his modus operandi. He liked to say shocking things that those listening had not heard to make it seem like he had some special revelation that no one else had. Then, when you aren't looking he steps back from this and gives a standard understanding:

“God died in man. God died not in His own death but in another One's death.” (The Move of God in Man, Chapter 4, Section 4)

So Evangelical is taking a very different stand from LSM and WL, to join with Zeek and proclaim that it was God who died. Some of his quotes claim that Jesus was "no surrogate". But if Jesus were no surrogate then why does the OT typology of Jesus death use the blood of bulls and goats as surrogates to atone for man's sin? Why is so much effort expended on this in the OT if it is not relevant to the NT?

Still I find it interesting that Evangelical, portrayed as someone who mindlessly follows LSM doctrine, would be so bold as to clearly and unequivocally reject it on this point. So I applaud his boldness in finding his own voice, but reject his conclusions.

I understood my quote "no surrogate" to mean "no surrogate for God Himself". I agree that Jesus was a surrogate for humanity but this was not the context I believe of the quote.

I don't disagree with Lee on the point you raised, so I am not sure what it this "own voice" you speak of. I understand Lee's quote to mean that divinity did not die. God the divine did not die, but "God in the flesh" died.

God in the flesh is who Christ was because of the Incarnation. We cannot separate His atoms and say that only the human atoms in Christ died, the God atoms did not. This is a mystery and hard to explain. It only makes sense to say that God died, or God in the flesh died, to be more precise. Christ also had the Holy Spirit, yet the divinity, the Spirit did not die, only left Him, and returned 3 days later for the purpose of resurrection.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I understood my quote "no surrogate" to mean "no surrogate for God Himself". I agree that Jesus was a surrogate for humanity but this was not the context I believe of the quote.

I don't disagree with Lee on the point you raised, so I am not sure what it this "own voice" you speak of. I understand Lee's quote to mean that divinity did not die. God the divine did not die, but "God in the flesh" died.

What does this mean? Earlier you said it was "logical" that God died. Now you are parsing that? We now have "God the divine" and "God in the Flesh" as two separate entities? Keep digging

Originally Posted by Evangelical

God in the flesh is who Christ was because of the Incarnation. We cannot separate His atoms and say that only the human atoms in Christ died, the God atoms did not. This is a mystery and hard to explain. It only makes sense to say that God died, or God in the flesh died, to be more precise. Christ also had the Holy Spirit, yet the divinity, the Spirit did not die, only left Him, and returned 3 days later for the purpose of resurrection.

This is absurd. So the God atoms and human atoms were all one after the incarnation? How was it that Jesus asked "My God, My God why have you forsaken me?" Didn't He know you can't separate the God atoms from the human atoms? The Spirit of God left Him but the God atoms didn't?

So I am assuming that this doctrine is also something that we don't need verses for since there are "too many interpretations"? Quite amazing that those who believe in the Bible by necessity believe in a flat earth (according to you) and also "God atoms"!

You do realize of course that during a lunar eclipse they could see that the shadow of the Earth was round?

This is what happens when you leave the word of God to try and explain mysteries. The word of God became flesh and tabernacled among us. He traveled around in a human form like someone who was camping in a tent. This tent was "ripped" at the crucifixion opening the way to the Holy of Holies where God was. God is not typified by the tent, He is typified by the ark of covenant.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

They were devoted to scripture much more so than many today. Thats why they believed in a flat earth

Good point. But what about this verse :

Isa 40:22 It is he who sits above the circle of the earth

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

When Jesus humanity became part of the Godhead at the ascension, then at that point God had the experience of death.

I disagree that there is a Biblical basis to say that when Jesus was on the cross dying that "God died".

The Bible does say it was God's blood.

Based on that we can infer the blood belongs to God (Jesus death was a Peace offering to God). We can also read it that this is God's blood because Jesus as the Son of Man became part of the Godhead at His ascension. It is also conclusive proof that the Bible says Jesus is God.

So I agree that God has the experience of death in Jesus, what I don't agree with is that "God died" on the cross.

Oh don't hold back.

God died on the cross. God bleed on the cross. God sits on a throne. God is male. Therefore, God is human (He died). God bleeds like a human. God has an ass, for sitting. He's male so He has a penis.

So God eats, poops, pees, and dies, like a human.

Don't hold back bro ZNP, go all the way into anthropomorphism.

"You unlock this door with the key of imagination. Beyond it is another dimension - a dimension of sound, a dimension of sight, a dimension of mind. You're moving into a land of both shadow and substance, of things and ideas. You've just crossed over into the Twilight Zone."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Oh don't hold back.

God died on the cross. God bleed on the cross. God sits on a throne. God is male. Therefore, God is human (He died). God bleeds like a human. God has an ass, for sitting. He's male so He has a penis.

So God eats, poops, pees, and dies, like a human.

Don't hold back bro ZNP, go all the way into anthropomorphism.

"You unlock this door with the key of imagination. Beyond it is another dimension - a dimension of sound, a dimension of sight, a dimension of mind. You're moving into a land of both shadow and substance, of things and ideas. You've just crossed over into the Twilight Zone."

You have it backwards.

Man is male because he is made in the image of God. However, "male and female created He them and called their name Adam.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You have it backwards.

Man is male because he is made in the image of God. However, "male and female created He them and called their name Adam.

Amen. I don't how backwards I have it, we certainly seem to want to anthropomorphize God, even more than the Bible does, that's already too much.

Good take on the image of God.

I guess Frank Wedekind got it right : "God made man in his own image, and man returned the favour."

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

Good point. But what about this verse :

Isa 40:22 It is he who sits above the circle of the earth

A circle is a two dimensional thing, it is flat. The earth is not a circle, it's a sphere (a close enough approximation). Hebrew has a word for "ball" or "sphere" it could have used if it meant ball or sphere, but it used the word for circle.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What does this mean? Earlier you said it was "logical" that God died. Now you are parsing that? We now have "God the divine" and "God in the Flesh" as two separate entities? Keep digging

It's logical to say "God died" if Jesus is "God in the flesh".

It is not logical to say "Jesus is God in the flesh" and then say "only man died, not God". On this point I was able to answer the "world's toughest Catholic quiz" accurately before even looking at the answer. Don't complain I used a Catholic quiz - Catholic means universal .

Hypostatic union - God-man.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This is absurd. So the God atoms and human atoms were all one after the incarnation? How was it that Jesus asked "My God, My God why have you forsaken me?" Didn't He know you can't separate the God atoms from the human atoms? The Spirit of God left Him but the God atoms didn't?

So I am assuming that this doctrine is also something that we don't need verses for since there are "too many interpretations"? Quite amazing that those who believe in the Bible by necessity believe in a flat earth (according to you) and also "God atoms"!

You do realize of course that during a lunar eclipse they could see that the shadow of the Earth was round?

This is what happens when you leave the word of God to try and explain mysteries. The word of God became flesh and tabernacled among us. He traveled around in a human form like someone who was camping in a tent. This tent was "ripped" at the crucifixion opening the way to the Holy of Holies where God was. God is not typified by the tent, He is typified by the ark of covenant.

On the main forum I have addressed the question of did God forsake Jesus or not. I believe it is a rhetorical question, Jesus was quoting Psalm 22 verse 2. His audience must be known he was quoting that. I am sure they were not saying to themselves "oh look the Father left Jesus". Those who knew the full Psalm would have known that Jesus does not actually get forsaken completely - a foretaste of the resurrection.

Ancients knew the Earth was a circle. They didn't know it was a sphere. There is no such thing as a three-dimensional shadow and you cannot determine three dimensions from a shadow. A two dimensional shadow would confirm to them that the Earth is a circle.

I believe Jesus's body to be comprised of God and human atoms, joined, somehow, but not creating a third substance of "God-human atoms". I believe the God and human atoms to be inseparable. "God in the flesh" means Christ in his body had God-atoms.

Jesus's flesh was not just a human tent for God to live in. Jesus's flesh itself contained God as Jesus was Incarnated. He is of two natures "indivisibly, inseparably.", that is, he is not two people, a God person and then a man person. That's the Incarnation.

I do not think "God in the flesh" means Jesus's body was just an empty shell or tent for God.

Proof:

John 1:14, God was made flesh.

It's a mystery however, and I doubt I am correct.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

A circle is a two dimensional thing, it is flat. The earth is not a circle, it's a sphere (a close enough approximation). Hebrew has a word for "ball" or "sphere" it could have used if it meant ball or sphere, but it used the word for circle.

I can't one past you. Yes, to them back then the earth was a flat circle resting on water ; a three layered cake, with Hades below, and heaven just beyond the dome above. No wonder they wrote that Jesus ascended to heaven. It wasn't that far away.

That's why I say they were ignorant. They couldn't help it. They didn't have telescopes, and the age of science was far off.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It's logical to say "God died" if Jesus is "God in the flesh".

But it's not logical to say that God almighty died.

Originally Posted by EvanG

I do not think "God in the flesh" means Jesus's body was just an empty shell or tent for God.

Hey, we're already standing on the RCC, so Mary is the mother of God, and the holy foreskin of Jesus is God skin.

Originally Posted by EvanG

It's a mystery however, and I doubt I am correct.

There's that wonderful humility. Amen.

[zeek]

Both Evan's and ZNP'S opinions on this show the influence of Witness Lee. ZNP's position is basically Lee's "processed God" theory. What difference does it make if either opinion is true or if they're both false?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It's logical to say "God died" if Jesus is "God in the flesh".

Is it scriptural? I don't care if it is logical according to your poor reach of mind. As Awareness says, if the flesh that died on the cross was "God" then the "Holy foreskin" is also God as is the blood stains on the face cloth of Jesus which is kept to this day and has very good documentation all the way back to the crucifixion.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It is not logical to say "Jesus is God in the flesh" and then say "only man died, not God"...


I do not think "God in the flesh" means Jesus's body was just an empty shell or tent for God.

Proof:

John 1:14, God was made flesh.

It's a mystery however, and I doubt I am correct.

Where is the verse that says the flesh became God? Because that is what you are claiming.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by zeek

Both Evan's and ZNP'S opinions on this show the influence of Witness Lee. ZNP's position is basically Lee's "processed God" theory. What difference does it make if either opinion is true or if they're both false?

My position is the processed God view. ZNPs is divergent.

See here

http://www.triunegod.org/processed/processed.html

Lee emphasised that the complete God shed His blood on the cross and Christ was the Triune God in the flesh.

Both divinity and humanity was on the cross. Without divinity the cross would not be eternal.

Christ was the embodiment of God not just a tent.

The cross did not alter Christs divinity..nor were the human and divine separated "essentially"

The Son essentially continued to exist as Deity, possessing complete divinity. Thus we can say that the Son of God, indeed, the entire Triune God Himself, shed His blood on the cross (Acts 20:28).

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

My position is the processed God view. ZNPs is divergent.

My view is that this is a mystery and I accept anything the apostles revealed about this matter. This is where I diverge from Evangelical.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Is it scriptural? I don't care if it is logical according to your poor reach of mind. As Awareness says, if the flesh that died on the cross was "God" then the "Holy foreskin" is also God as is the blood stains on the face cloth of Jesus which is kept to this day and has very good documentation all the way back to the crucifixion.

If my logic is the same as Luther's I'm in good company.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

My position is the processed God view. ZNPs is divergent.

See here

http://www.triunegod.org/processed/processed.html

Lee emphasised that the complete God shed His blood on the cross and Christ was the Triune God in the flesh.

Both divinity and humanity was on the cross. Without divinity the cross would not be eternal.

Christ was the embodiment of God not just a tent.

The cross did not alter Christs divinity..nor were the human and divine separated "essentially"

The Son essentially continued to exist as Deity, possessing complete divinity. Thus we can say that the Son of God, indeed, the entire Triune God Himself, shed His blood on the cross (Acts 20:28).

Can you spell out exactly where you think ZNP deviates from Lee's doctrine? I have my guesses but I have been unable to pin him down on it. He seems to think that Jesus had to be processed to become fully God; whereas, Lee seemed to teach that God had to be processed in order to fully redeem humanity.

When I was in the local church, Lee would not allow discussion of his teaching. He seemed to believe that discussion and rational consideration were unprofitable. Consequentially, discussion like we're having here was forbidden. Lee's prescription was pray-reading and affirmation through testimony. The testimony that got amens was the one that affirmed the positive results that his ministry was having in people's lives. Everything else was greeted with groans or silence. Some very serious problems that the saints were having were totally suppressed.

If you had a question you were supposed to pray about it. Lee did not answer questions. Some saints like yourself seemed to think they knew what Lee was talking about and would say so loudly.

Now there's a possibility, that if you have a good command of Lee's nomenclature you might be able to verbalize his teaching fluently. That would get you a healthy barrage of amens back in my day. But, honestly, you could be merely verbally fluent and not know what you're talking about.

Processed God?; complete God?; Triune God?; the flesh?; the eternal cross?; the embodiment of God?; the Son of God? Do we really know what any of this means? and if so, how?

My sense about the difference that you and ZNP is that you don't have a problem with affirming the absurdities [read paradoxes] of the Christian faith as interpreted by Witness Lee whereas he is trying to make his understanding into some kind of scientific theory.

We are dealing with matters here that millions of people consider sacred. One effect of discussing them like this is a sense of defilement. Awareness seems to exploit that sense as a polemic against religion. But, the sense is not limited to Awareness' posts. It can come from anyone including oneself or in the interface of the disagreement between parties.

From the standpoint of modern thinking which has influenced us all one way or another, Christian theology entails metaphysics which is unknowable. The folly of disputing such things is that neither side of the argument can be verified or falsified. To some that leads to rejection of religion altogether.

But, to others there remains a sense of the sacred that cannot be denied. So we look for a way forward that entails a minimum of metaphysical baggage.

Consequently I view Jesus of Nazareth through a historical lens. Whatever happened in the divine realm if anything remains a mystery.

The church deified Jesus. He was to them the expression of the true God. In that sense he was God's Son. Through his life and teaching he summoned us to "follow him" into a life that reflects the God of Compassion like his did.

God did not die on the cross, a man did. But, that man had the character of a true son of the God of love. His impact was so great on the lives of his followers that they came to see by faith how God brought it all about and how God brought him back to life to be the Lord of their lives. That enduring story is the foundation of the Christian Church. The significance of Jesus is primarily that he calls us to a life of compassion that he exemplified and taught.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Can you spell out exactly where you think ZNP deviates from Lee's doctrine? I have my guesses but I have been unable to pin him down on it. He seems to think that Jesus had to be processed to become fully God; whereas, Lee seemed to teach that God had to be processed in order to fully redeem humanity.

My position is very simple. I do not presume to understand this, it is a mystery. I will affirm anything that is stated in the NT. The word became flesh at Jesus incarnation -- I agree. Jesus incarnation is likened to God "tabernacling among us" -- I agree. Jesus became a little lower than the angels so He could suffer death -- I understand this to mean that His flesh was not God. At the ascension they said He "was worthy" to open the scrolls and sit on the throne. I understand that to mean that this is when Jesus humanity became part of divinity. etc.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Nietzsche, er ah, Evangelical

My position is the processed God view. ZNPs is divergent.

See here

http://www.triunegod.org/processed/processed.html

I don't trust articles whose author doesn't identify himself.

Originally Posted by Nietzsche, er ah, Evangelical

Lee [Lee? He's the author? How do you know?] emphasised that the complete God shed His blood on the cross and Christ was the Triune God in the flesh.

Both divinity and humanity was on the cross. Without divinity the cross would not be eternal.

Christ was the embodiment of God not just a tent.

The cross did not alter Christs divinity..nor were the human and divine separated "essentially"

The Son essentially continued to exist as Deity, possessing complete divinity. Thus we can say that the Son of God, indeed, the entire Triune God Himself, shed His blood on the cross (Acts 20:28).

Well no wonder the Catholic church paraded the holy foreskin of Jesus on the streets of Italy (as recent as 1982) to be venerated. No wonder it was believed to be the skin of God. And then there's the infamous "Mother of God." (God pulled a Roy Moore on teenage Mary).

And also why Dan Brown says the Holy Grail was a chalice that caught the blood from Jesus' wounds.

Lots if people have made claims about the death and blood of Jesus. Let's just add Witness Lee to that pile.

And Peter too. According to 1 Peter 3:19, Jesus didn't die. "He went and preached unto the spirits in prison." But maybe he was the living dead, or a Zombie.

See how crazy this idea that God died can get.

Let's just say, only God knows. And we're like fleas arguing over who owns the dog.

[Evangelical]

Zeek said:
"Can you spell out exactly where you think ZNP deviates from Lee's doctrine? I have my guesses but I have been unable to pin him down on it. He seems to think that Jesus had to be processed to become fully God; whereas, Lee seemed to teach that God had to be processed in order to fully redeem humanity."

I will try to answer this, not just for Zeek but also for myself as the similar terms like "processed God" are used on this forum but may mean something different from what Lee seemed to teach.

Here is some points where I believe ZNP's view diverges from Lee's:

1. "Jesus as the Son of Man became part of the Godhead at His ascension" ~ ZNP

I Googled "became part of the Godhead" and nothing from Witness Lee came up.

Some Mormon links came up however so I'm wondering if "becoming part of the Godhead" is a mormon teaching.


The closest thing I can think of that Lee taught was that the resurrection (not ascension) brought humanity into divinity. To my knowledge this is in reference to man being able to become god because of Christ's redemption.

ZNP might have misapplied this teaching or a variant of it, to the person of Christ Himself.

Lee goes into the Incarnation in detail in the book "How to Enjoy God and How to Practice the Enjoyment of God".

Some paraphrases/quotes:

"God was fully mingled with man when Jesus came to the Earth."
"Every part within him was God"
"Everything of God was mingled with this man in a full an undiminished way"

Lee taught that Christ was always part of the God-head, as does most of Christianity.

If there was any addition to the Godhead in the resurrection or ascension it would be in the experiences that Christ had on the cross such that God is able to sympathize and comfort humanity. I believe the addition of Christ's humanity to the Godhead took place at the Incarnation for a few reasons

a) So the Godhead could experience the full human life from the divine conception and birth all the way through to death.
b) Jesus's humanity was perfect - there is no legal reason why Jesus's humanity could not be added before the cross.



2. "He traveled around in a human form like someone who was camping in a tent." ~ ZNP.

I am not aware of Lee using a camping tent analogy which to me separates the humanity and the divinity too much. Lee taught the tea-water mingling or fine flour and oil and spices compounding which emphasizes the oneness.


3. The meaning of processed.

Lee did not teach that Christ had to be processed to become fully God if that is what ZNP is saying - Christ was fully God from the beginning and I think this is the general view in Christianity.

The divinity being processed means that the experiences of humanity were added to divinity but without changing that divinity (God does not change). The analogy of spices flavoring or infusing olive oil is the one that Lee used. The infusion of spices to an oil does not change the oil itself. Another way to say this is that God "passed through human living", but God Himself never changed. Any processing that God went through was for our sake not for His sake.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

I don't trust articles whose author doesn't identify himself.


Well no wonder the Catholic church paraded the holy foreskin of Jesus on the streets of Italy (as recent as 1982) to be venerated. No wonder it was believed to be the skin of God. And then there's the infamous "Mother of God." (God pulled a Roy Moore on teenage Mary).

And also why Dan Brown says the Holy Grail was a chalice that caught the blood from Jesus' wounds.

Lots if people have made claims about the death and blood of Jesus. Let's just add Witness Lee to that pile.

And Peter too. According to 1 Peter 3:19, Jesus didn't die. "He went and preached unto the spirits in prison." But maybe he was the living dead, or a Zombie.

See how crazy this idea that God died can get.

Let's just say, only God knows. And we're like fleas arguing over who owns the dog.

I learnt recently that at Mass, if a Catholic spits out the wine or it comes out of their mouth for some reason, the Priest is obligated to catch it and swallow it, saliva and all, to avoid it spilling.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Zeek said:
"Can you spell out exactly where you think ZNP deviates from Lee's doctrine? I have my guesses but I have been unable to pin him down on it. He seems to think that Jesus had to be processed to become fully God; whereas, Lee seemed to teach that God had to be processed in order to fully redeem humanity."

I will try to answer this, not just for Zeek but also for myself as the similar terms like "processed God" are used on this forum but may mean something different from what Lee seemed to teach.

Here is some points where I believe ZNP's view diverges from Lee's:

1. "Jesus as the Son of Man became part of the Godhead at His ascension" ~ ZNP

I Googled "became part of the Godhead" and nothing from Witness Lee came up.

Try searching for "inaugurated" and Hebrew's life study. Witness Lee says that the ascension was where Jesus was "inaugurated into His office". I interpret that as becoming part of the Godhead. What the NT actually says is that Jesus sits on the throne.


In His ascension Jesus was made Lord (Acts 2:36). He was made Lord of all to possess all after He brought His humanity into God in His resurrection. (The Move of God in Man, Chapter 8, Section 4)


Which is what I said.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

2. "He traveled around in a human form like someone who was camping in a tent." ~ ZNP.

I am not aware of Lee using a camping tent analogy which to me separates the humanity and the divinity too much. Lee taught the tea-water mingling or fine flour and oil and spices compounding which emphasizes the oneness.

Exodus shows us a tabernacle on the earth, and this tabernacle is of three parts. There is the outer court, which has a white linen fence enclosing the tabernacle. Then within the outer court there is the tabernacle, which is divided into two parts: the Holy Place, which is the outer part, and the Holy of Holies, which is the inner part. Within the Holy of Holies, there is the Ark. These three parts compose the Tent of Meeting, which is Christ enlarged. (Christ as the Reality, Chapter 2, Section 1)

That tabernacle with the altar was the enlargement of Noah’s and Abraham’s tents and altars. It was not only God’s dwelling place, but also a place for God’s priests to stay with God. It was not only a full type of Christ, but also a prefigure of the church as the enlargement of Christ. (Life Study of John, Chapter1, Section 3)

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

3. The meaning of processed.

Lee did not teach that Christ had to be processed to become fully God if that is what ZNP is saying - Christ was fully God from the beginning and I think this is the general view in Christianity.

The divinity being processed means that the experiences of humanity were added to divinity but without changing that divinity (God does not change). The analogy of spices flavoring or infusing olive oil is the one that Lee used. The infusion of spices to an oil does not change the oil itself. Another way to say this is that God "passed through human living", but God Himself never changed. Any processing that God went through was for our sake not for His sake.

Really? I said that? Can you direct me to the post?

God made Christ a little lower than the angels—this was the incarnation, and He was a man by the name of Jesus. After the incarnation this man was crowned with glory and honor in His ascension, including His resurrection. Christ was crowned with glory and honor because He resurrected and ascended to the heavens. Therefore, the ascension includes the resurrection. Then it says that all things were put under His feet. This is His dominion over all things. (Christ and the Church Revealed and Typified in the Psalms, Chapter 2, Section 4)

“Look, there is a man in the glory! He was incarnated, He was made a little lower than the angels; He went to the cross and suffered death; He was resurrected and ascended to the heavens; He was enthroned and made the Head, the King, the Lord over all things. (Christ and the Church Revealed and Typified in the Psalms, Chapter 2, Section 4)

What I did say was essentially what WL is saying here in Hebrews.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Really? I said that? Can you direct me to the post?

God made Christ a little lower than the angels—this was the incarnation, and He was a man by the name of Jesus. After the incarnation this man was crowned with glory and honor in His ascension, including His resurrection. Christ was crowned with glory and honor because He resurrected and ascended to the heavens. Therefore, the ascension includes the resurrection. Then it says that all things were put under His feet. This is His dominion over all things. (Christ and the Church Revealed and Typified in the Psalms, Chapter 2, Section 4)

“Look, there is a man in the glory! He was incarnated, He was made a little lower than the angels; He went to the cross and suffered death; He was resurrected and ascended to the heavens; He was enthroned and made the Head, the King, the Lord over all things. (Christ and the Church Revealed and Typified in the Psalms, Chapter 2, Section 4)

What I did say was essentially what WL is saying here in Hebrews.

As long as it is intended not to refer to the Godhead "essentially" but only economically then it matches what WL said.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Exodus shows us a tabernacle on the earth, and this tabernacle is of three parts. There is the outer court, which has a white linen fence enclosing the tabernacle. Then within the outer court there is the tabernacle, which is divided into two parts: the Holy Place, which is the outer part, and the Holy of Holies, which is the inner part. Within the Holy of Holies, there is the Ark. These three parts compose the Tent of Meeting, which is Christ enlarged. (Christ as the Reality, Chapter 2, Section 1)

That tabernacle with the altar was the enlargement of Noah’s and Abraham’s tents and altars. It was not only God’s dwelling place, but also a place for God’s priests to stay with God. It was not only a full type of Christ, but also a prefigure of the church as the enlargement of Christ. (Life Study of John, Chapter1, Section 3)

What you quoted refers to the church, read the next part:

Christ Himself is the Ark individually, and when He is enlarged, He becomes the tabernacle. This signifies the church, so it is called the Tent of Meeting.

That is not referring to Christ's person, and saying what you said:

"He traveled around in a human form like someone who was camping in a tent".

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What you quoted refers to the church, read the next part:

Christ Himself is the Ark individually, and when He is enlarged, He becomes the tabernacle. This signifies the church, so it is called the Tent of Meeting.

That is not referring to Christ's person, and saying what you said:

"He traveled around in a human form like someone who was camping in a tent".

Yes, "not only a full type of Christ". Are you seriously saying that the tabernacle was a tent as a type of the Church but not of Jesus? Do you realize the church is the Body of Christ? You never know when to stop digging.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

My position is very simple. I do not presume to understand this, it is a mystery. I will affirm anything that is stated in the NT. The word became flesh at Jesus incarnation -- I agree. Jesus incarnation is likened to God "tabernacling among us" -- I agree. Jesus became a little lower than the angels so He could suffer death -- I understand this to mean that His flesh was not God. At the ascension they said He "was worthy" to open the scrolls and sit on the throne. I understand that to mean that this is when Jesus humanity became part of divinity. etc.

It may not be as simple as you think. The word incarnation is derived from Latin, but it doesn't appear in the Latin Bible. So it's literally extra-biblical. Yet you hold to it. Why? If for God "all things or possible", than God can do anything including becoming a little lower than the angels and that's what he did if he became a man. So, where's the problem? In your assumptions? If he could do anything, he could die and come back to life. Which is essentially what Jesus said "I am the resurrection and the life." So, again, where's the problem?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes, "not only a full type of Christ". Are you seriously saying that the tabernacle was a tent as a type of the Church but not of Jesus? Do you realize the church is the Body of Christ? You never know when to stop digging.

You're using the wrong analogy. The tent/tabernacle analogy applies to Christ enlarged by the church, not a description of Christ's person. For this we use the tea-water mingling analogy.

Here it is broken down:

Christ Himself is the ark;

Christ + the church (believers) = the tabernacle. This is also termed the "enlarged Christ".

The tent/tabernacle analogy applies to Christ enlarged by the church, not His person.

There is a sense that Christ "travels around" with the church, just as the ark moved around with God's people in the old testament, however you have misapplied this analogy to Christ's own person I think.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Try searching for "inaugurated" and Hebrew's life study. Witness Lee says that the ascension was where Jesus was "inaugurated into His office". I interpret that as becoming part of the Godhead. What the NT actually says is that Jesus sits on the throne.

I found it. To me it is referring to the functioning of the Godhead, not the life or nature of the Godhead, message 69 says:

"Hence, anointing is neither a matter of life nor of nature; it is a matter of inauguration for function. "Every time you are anointed, you are inaugurated into your function.

I think you have misinterpreted it as applying to who the Godhead is, not what the Godhead does.

Lee makes a distinction between who the Godhead is (the essential Godhead) and what the Godhead does (the economical Godhead).

See "THE ESSENTIAL AND ECONOMICAL TRINITY" in The Triune God to Be Life to the Tripartite Man.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

In His ascension Jesus was made Lord (Acts 2:36). He was made Lord of all to possess all after He brought His humanity into God in His resurrection. (The Move of God in Man, Chapter 8, Section 4)


Which is what I said.

I think that is referring to Christ's function not His person. "essentially" speaking, humanity became part of the Godhead at Christ's Incarnation.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

It may not be as simple as you think. The word incarnation is derived from Latin, but it doesn't appear in the Latin Bible. So it's literally extra-biblical. Yet you hold to it. Why? If for God "all things or possible", than God can do anything including becoming a little lower than the angels and that's what he did if he became a man. So, where's the problem? In your assumptions? If he could do anything, he could die and come back to life. Which is essentially what Jesus said "I am the resurrection and the life." So, again, where's the problem?

I don't hold to the term "incarnation". I hold to the term "tabernacled among us". As long as those using the term incarnation mean that, then I have no issue with it. Once they mean what Evangelical is teaching I reject it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You're using the wrong analogy. The tent/tabernacle analogy applies to Christ enlarged by the church, not a description of Christ's person. For this we use the tea-water mingling analogy.

Here it is broken down:

Christ Himself is the ark;

Christ + the church (believers) = the tabernacle. This is also termed the "enlarged Christ".

The tent/tabernacle analogy applies to Christ enlarged by the church, not His person.

There is a sense that Christ "travels around" with the church, just as the ark moved around with God's people in the old testament, however you have misapplied this analogy to Christ's own person I think.

No, you have not heard what I am saying. I am not saying that the tent was God, I am saying that the tent represented Jesus physical body and that the expression "tabernacled among us" like living in a tent indicates that the Son of God was inside of Jesus, just as the ark was inside the tabernacle.

You have the one that has misapplied this by saying the physical flesh of Jesus was God.

Let's look at this logically -- Was Adam's flesh God? Was any man's flesh God prior to Jesus Christ? So then your claim is that the only thing required to make man's flesh God is incarnation. No need for the crucifixion or resurrection. Is that logical? You are the one that dismisses all the work that Jesus did to bring us to the Father.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I found it. To me it is referring to the functioning of the Godhead, not the life or nature of the Godhead, message 69 says:

"Hence, anointing is neither a matter of life nor of nature; it is a matter of inauguration for function. "Every time you are anointed, you are inaugurated into your function.

I think you have misinterpreted it as applying to who the Godhead is, not what the Godhead does.

Lee makes a distinction between who the Godhead is (the essential Godhead) and what the Godhead does (the economical Godhead).

See "THE ESSENTIAL AND ECONOMICAL TRINITY" in The Triune God to Be Life to the Tripartite Man.




I think that is referring to Christ's function not His person. "essentially" speaking, humanity became part of the Godhead at Christ's Incarnation.

Once again you are clueless. I have not "interpreted" anything. I am not the one pushing strange teachings about worshipping human flesh as though it were God.

What I am saying is that there are several NT verses I consider relevant to this discussion and in those verses I see no basis to accept your bizarre teaching that God died on the cross. On the contrary the NT appears to say exactly the opposite. That in order for Jesus to die He had to be made lower than the angels and that after He resurrected He ascended where at that time He sat on the throne, was inaugurated as Lord of all, and His humanity was officially part of the Godhead. Prior to this when the demons pushed the same teaching you are pushing "Son of God" he rebuked them saying He was the "Son of Man".

So then, if Jesus became Lord of all at His ascension that would mean He was not Lord of all prior to it. That would mean you are claiming that God was not Lord of all. Yet the NT clearly says that when Jesus became Lord of all that clearly did not include God since it is God who made Him Lord of all.

So in your teaching God is not above all, God is not immortal, and Jesus word rebuking the demons needs to be interpreted as though He were speaking with a forked tongue. What a warped interpretation this is. Your response to these problems is equally poor. Do you support the Catholics who worship the "Holy foreskin"? If not, why not? Jesus was speaking with winks and nods when He rebuked the demons?! Then you use ridiculous terms like "essential" and "economic". You just keep throwing more logs on the fire to warm the hearts of Awareness and others who see the absurdity in WL and those that follow his teachings.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You're using the wrong analogy. The tent/tabernacle analogy applies to Christ enlarged by the church, not a description of Christ's person. For this we use the tea-water mingling analogy.

Here it is broken down:

Christ Himself is the ark;

Christ + the church (believers) = the tabernacle. This is also termed the "enlarged Christ".

The tent/tabernacle analogy applies to Christ enlarged by the church, not His person.

There is a sense that Christ "travels around" with the church, just as the ark moved around with God's people in the old testament, however you have misapplied this analogy to Christ's own person I think.

I think you're mistaken on this, bro. Even according to Witness Lee "tabernacled" refers to the person of Jesus Christ. The Gospel of John Verse 14 in chapter 1 says:

And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us

Living Stream Ministry. Holy Bible Recovery Version (contains footnotes) (Kindle Locations 72838-72840). Living Stream Ministry. Kindle Edition.

In translating the verb εσκηνωσεν as "tabernacled" I believe Lee was following the Literal English Translation of Rev. A. Marshall D. Litt. contained in The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament [Zondervan]

Lee acknowledges that John is referring to the incarnate Word in a footnote to the verse in the Recovery Version: "The Word, by being incarnated, not only brought God into humanity but also became a tabernacle to God as God’s habitation on earth among men."

Referring to the Gospel of John, chapter 1, Lee further stated:

In 1:14 we see that Christ in the flesh was the tabernacle for God's habitation among men on earth. “And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us.” Also, Christ's body was the temple before His death and after His resurrection (2:19-22). Before His death His body in the flesh was the temple, and after His resurrection His resurrected body remained the temple of God. (Life-Study of John, Chapter 1, Section 5)

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by zeek

I think you're mistaken on this, bro. Even according to Witness Lee "tabernacled" refers to the person of Jesus Christ. The Gospel of John Verse 14 in chapter 1 says:



In translating the verb εσκηνωσεν as "tabernacled" I believe Lee was following the Literal English Translation of Rev. A. Marshall D. Litt. contained in The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament [Zondervan]

Lee acknowledges that John is referring to the incarnate Word in a footnote to the verse in the Recovery Version: "The Word, by being incarnated, not only brought God into humanity but also became a tabernacle to God as God’s habitation on earth among men."

Referring to the Gospel of John, chapter 1, Lee further stated:

The tabernacle can apply to Jesus's body I agree with that, but Lee then usually extends this to refer to the church as Christs enlarged or corporate body.

See here


http://www.ministrysamples.org/excer...-AMONG-US.HTML

And here..

http://contendingforthefaith.org/en/...hings-exposed/

According to this verse, the Lord’s body was a tabernacle in which the glory of God was manifested. Now according to Ephesians 1:22-23 the church today is His Body. There is no doubt that on the earth today, in the genuine church, God is manifesting His glory in a corporate tabernacle. Can anyone who reads the book of Acts doubt that the church there was the manifestation of God in the flesh?


This tent analogy does not replace the tea water mingling analogy. One is applied to the church, the other to Christs person. Both analogies cannot be applied to the same thing.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Once again you are clueless. I have not "interpreted" anything. I am not the one pushing strange teachings about worshipping human flesh as though it were God.

What I am saying is that there are several NT verses I consider relevant to this discussion and in those verses I see no basis to accept your bizarre teaching that God died on the cross. On the contrary the NT appears to say exactly the opposite. That in order for Jesus to die He had to be made lower than the angels and that after He resurrected He ascended where at that time He sat on the throne, was inaugurated as Lord of all, and His humanity was officially part of the Godhead. Prior to this when the demons pushed the same teaching you are pushing "Son of God" he rebuked them saying He was the "Son of Man".

So then, if Jesus became Lord of all at His ascension that would mean He was not Lord of all prior to it. That would mean you are claiming that God was not Lord of all. Yet the NT clearly says that when Jesus became Lord of all that clearly did not include God since it is God who made Him Lord of all.

So in your teaching God is not above all, God is not immortal, and Jesus word rebuking the demons needs to be interpreted as though He were speaking with a forked tongue. What a warped interpretation this is. Your response to these problems is equally poor. Do you support the Catholics who worship the "Holy foreskin"? If not, why not? Jesus was speaking with winks and nods when He rebuked the demons?! Then you use ridiculous terms like "essential" and "economic". You just keep throwing more logs on the fire to warm the hearts of Awareness and others who see the absurdity in WL and those that follow his teachings.

Are you denying the hypostatic union and that Jesus was the son of God since birth?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

No, you have not heard what I am saying. I am not saying that the tent was God, I am saying that the tent represented Jesus physical body and that the expression "tabernacled among us" like living in a tent indicates that the Son of God was inside of Jesus, just as the ark was inside the tabernacle.

You have the one that has misapplied this by saying the physical flesh of Jesus was God.

Let's look at this logically -- Was Adam's flesh God? Was any man's flesh God prior to Jesus Christ? So then your claim is that the only thing required to make man's flesh God is incarnation. No need for the crucifixion or resurrection. Is that logical? You are the one that dismisses all the work that Jesus did to bring us to the Father.

The purpose of the cross was not to make Christs flesh God. It was already God since birth.

If Jesus is God then His whole person is God. We cant say this part of him is god and another part is not. We cant say only part of Jesus died on the cross.

This is why Luther and others say God died.

Furthermore, according to early church fathers, not only was Christ's flesh God, but our flesh becomes God as well:


He took our flesh and our flesh became God, since it is united with God and forms a single entity with him. For the higher perfection dominated, resulting in my becoming God as fully as he became man. ~ Gregory of Nazianzus

[Evangelical]

Biblical proof that the flesh of Christ is God prior to the ascension is found in John 20:27-28.

John 20:27
Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."

John 20:28
Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

Thomas proclaimed Christ to be God after touching Christ's flesh. This is before the ascension so ZNP is wrong that Christ's flesh only became God after ascension - it was God on the cross, it was God in Mary's womb. All of Christ, flesh included, was God. All of Christ, flesh included, was also human.

If we believe that Jesus was God, then we must believe that every part of Jesus was God. We cannot say this part of Him is God and this other part of him is not, or that one part of him was God sometimes and not at other times.

Christianity traditionally has thought of Jesus's whole person as being God - flesh and all. Not part of him being God and another part of him being human, but being God and human at the same time in the one person.

This is why I can quote early church fathers and Luther about this, and ZNP cannot. ZNP's view that Christ's flesh became God after the ascension and Jesus's flesh being a tent that God walks around in, is a novel interpretation.

[Evangelical]

The Catholics and early church fathers weigh in on "is the flesh of Christ God?":

Here is what a Catholic encyclopedia says about it (emphasis in mine is bold, showing how the flesh of Jesus was divine):

Witness of Tradition
The early forms of the creed all make profession of faith, not in one Jesus Who is the Son of God and in another Jesus Who is Man and was crucified, but "in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God, Who became Man for us and was crucified". The forms vary, but the substance of each creed invariably attributes to one and the same Jesus Christ the predicates of the Godhead and of man (see Denzinger, "Enchiridion"). Franzelin (thesis xvii) calls special attention to the fact that, long before the heresy of Nestorius, according to Epiphanius (Ancorat., II, 123, in P.G., XLII, 234), it was the custom of the Oriental Church to propose to catechumens a creed that was very much more detailed than that proposed to the faithful; and in this creed the catechumens said: "We believe . . . in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of God the Father . . . that is, of the substance of the Father . . . in Him Who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made Flesh, that is, was perfectly begotten of Mary ever Virgin by the Holy Spirit; Who became Man, that is, took perfect human nature, soul and body and mind and all whatsoever is human save only sin, without the seed of man; not in another man, but unto himself did He form Flesh into one holy unity [eis mian hagian henoteta]; not as He breathed and spoke and wrought in the prophets, but He became Man perfectly; for the Word was made Flesh, not in that It underwent a change nor in that It exchanged Its Divinity for humanity, but in that It united Its Flesh unto Its one holy totality and Divinity [eis mian . . . heautou hagian teleioteta te kai theoteta].' "The one holy totality", Franzelin considers, means personality, a person being an individual and complete subject of rational acts. This creed of the catechumens gives even the Divinity of the totality, i.e. the fact that the individual Person of Jesus is a Divine and not a human Person. Of this intricate question we shall speak later on.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07706b.htm


St. Athanasius (about 350): "They err who say that it is one person who is the Son that suffered, and another person who did not suffer ...; the Flesh became God's own by nature [kata physin], not that it became consubstantial with the Divinity of the Logos as if coeternal therewith, but that it became God's own Flesh by its very nature [kata physin]." In this entire discourse ("Contra Apollinarium", I, 12, in P.G., XXVI, 1113),

It is to be remembered that, when the Word took Flesh, there was no change in the Word; all the change was in the Flesh.


My view is the traditional Catholic and Protestant (i.e. Luther) understanding of the Incarnation and the person of Christ.

ZNP's view resembles Nestorianism. According to the Nestorians, Christ essentially exists as two persons sharing one body. His divine and human natures are completely distinct and separate. This is what a "God walking around in a tent" analogy implies.

This is what those against Nestorianism said about those believing in "God in a tent":

If anyone dares to say that Christ was a God-bearing man and not rather God in truth, being by nature one Son, even as "the Word became flesh," and is made partaker of blood and flesh precisely like us, let him be anathema.

If anyone says that as man Jesus was activated by the Word of God and was clothed with the glory of the Only-begotten, as a being separate from him, let him be anathema.

If anyone does not confess that the flesh of the Lord is life-giving and belongs to the Word from God the Father, but maintains that it belongs to another besides Him, united with Him in dignity or as enjoying a mere divine indwelling, and is not rather life-giving, as we said, since it became the flesh belonging to the Word who has power to bring all things to life, let him be anathema.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Are you denying the hypostatic union and that Jesus was the son of God since birth?

How many times do I have to say the same thing. I am not denying anything that is written in the Bible. All I am doing is taking issue with anything that is not supported by scripture.

Scripture says that "the word tabernacled among us". It says this in the context of presenting the word as both eternal and the creator of all.

The way I view this verse is that Jesus Christ, the Son of God is depicted by the Ark of the covenant. The tabernacle -- by which I am referring to the tent covering the Ark signified His Body.

God told Moses he couldn't look upon Him and live. Likewise, the glory of God was covered by his body which was essentially identical to human flesh, only without sin. That does not make it God. Perhaps the virgin birth returned man to the condition prior to the fall, I would not take issue with someone making that claim since there is a slight scriptural support with very clear words in the NT to the effect that Jesus was without sin, unlike all other flesh.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The purpose of the cross was not to make Christs flesh God. It was already God since birth.

If Jesus is God then His whole person is God. We cant say this part of him is god and another part is not. We cant say only part of Jesus died on the cross.

This is why Luther and others say God died.

Furthermore, according to early church fathers, not only was Christ's flesh God, but our flesh becomes God as well:


He took our flesh and our flesh became God, since it is united with God and forms a single entity with him. For the higher perfection dominated, resulting in my becoming God as fully as he became man. ~ Gregory of Nazianzus

Hebrews says that He is the firstborn among many brothers. This is presented as a very clear goal of the cross. Gospel record also presents Jesus being resurrected and breathing into the disciples and saying "receive ye the Spirit", once again this is presented as a key goal of the crucifixion. Jesus now calls them brothers, not just friends. How can sinful man be made into brothers of the Son of God?

1. According to the NT Jesus is the "first". How could He be the first of many if his body was unique and different from ours? If that were the truth He could not be the first of many, but rather unique without any brothers.

The NT describes Jesus as "our forerunner" -- how could He be based on your teaching. If His body was "God" then He could not sympathize with us because it would not be true that He had been made in all things like us, only without sin.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Biblical proof that the flesh of Christ is God prior to the ascension is found in John 20:27-28.

John 20:27
Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."

John 20:28
Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

Thomas proclaimed Christ to be God after touching Christ's flesh. This is before the ascension so ZNP is wrong that Christ's flesh only became God after ascension - it was God on the cross, it was God in Mary's womb. All of Christ, flesh included, was God. All of Christ, flesh included, was also human.

If we believe that Jesus was God, then we must believe that every part of Jesus was God. We cannot say this part of Him is God and this other part of him is not, or that one part of him was God sometimes and not at other times.

Christianity traditionally has thought of Jesus's whole person as being God - flesh and all. Not part of him being God and another part of him being human, but being God and human at the same time in the one person.

This is why I can quote early church fathers and Luther about this, and ZNP cannot. ZNP's view that Christ's flesh became God after the ascension and Jesus's flesh being a tent that God walks around in, is a novel interpretation.

20:17 Jesus saith to her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended unto the Father: but go unto my brethren, and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.

This was said "early in the morning" whereas the verse you give where Jesus allows Thomas to touch Him was in the evening. Clearly Jesus has already ascended to the Father -- this is the secret ascension that Witness Lee refers to.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

ZNP's view resembles Nestorianism. According to the Nestorians, Christ essentially exists as two persons sharing one body. His divine and human natures are completely distinct and separate. This is what a "God walking around in a tent" analogy implies.

This is what those against Nestorianism said about those believing in "God in a tent":

If anyone dares to say that Christ was a God-bearing man and not rather God in truth, being by nature one Son, even as "the Word became flesh," and is made partaker of blood and flesh precisely like us, let him be anathema.

If anyone says that as man Jesus was activated by the Word of God and was clothed with the glory of the Only-begotten, as a being separate from him, let him be anathema.

If anyone does not confess that the flesh of the Lord is life-giving and belongs to the Word from God the Father, but maintains that it belongs to another besides Him, united with Him in dignity or as enjoying a mere divine indwelling, and is not rather life-giving, as we said, since it became the flesh belonging to the Word who has power to bring all things to life, let him be anathema.

My view professes that Jesus has come in the flesh. Evangelicals clearly and emphatically denies that He came in the flesh.

This teaching of Evangelicals may not be repudiated by the Catholic church, but it is repudiated by the Apostle John:

2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 3 and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God: and this is the spirit of the antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it cometh; and now it is in the world already.

Let us sum up.

When asked for a verse reference to support his assertion that "God died" Evangelical refused because interpretations of scripture can be so troubling.

When asked how the immortal God dies he is silent.

When asked what the NT means when it says Jesus was made lower than the angels so that He could suffer death -- he is silent.

Evangelical denied that "the word tabernacled with us" refers to Jesus but rather that it referred to the church.

When I quoted Witness Lee saying that God died not in His own death but in another's he is silent.

I quoted Witness Lee saying that Jesus was made Lord and Head at the ascension and asked Evangelical how His body could be God prior to the ascension yet not Lord and Head? According the NT God is above all, yet Evangelical's teaching denies this. Again, silence.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The tabernacle can apply to Jesus's body I agree with that

Then why did you deny that the tabernacle analogy applied to Jesus Christ Himself?

Originally Posted by Evangelical
You're using the wrong analogy. The tent/tabernacle analogy applies to Christ enlarged by the church, not a description of Christ's person. For this we use the tea-water mingling analogy.

Here it is broken down:

Christ Himself is the ark;

Christ + the church (believers) = the tabernacle. This is also termed the "enlarged Christ".

The tent/tabernacle analogy applies to Christ enlarged by the church, not His person.

There is a sense that Christ "travels around" with the church, just as the ark moved around with God's people in the old testament, however you have misapplied this analogy to Christ's own person I think.

You were saying that Jesus was the ark not the tabernacle.

Originally Posted by Evangelical This tent analogy does not replace the tea water mingling analogy. One is applied to the church, the other to Christs person. Both analogies cannot be applied to the same thing.

The word εσκηνωσεν in John 1:14 translated as "tabernacled" in the Recovery Version refers to the person of Jesus Christ means "to fix one's tabernacle, have one's tabernacle, abide (or live) in a tabernacle (or tent) , tabernacle" according to Scrivener, Frederick Henry Ambrose; Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener. Interlinear Greek New Testament Bible (Kindle Locations 82671-82672). Joshua T Dickey. Kindle Edition.

The tent/tabernacle analogy referring to Jesus Christ as the Incarnate Word is Biblical. Lee's "tea water mingling" analogy isn't as far as I know. Christians usually consider the Bible complete without it. So, really, there's no comparison in terms of authority as far as the historic Church is concerned.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

The tent/tabernacle analogy referring to Jesus Christ as the Incarnate Word is Biblical. Lee's "tea water mingling" analogy isn't as far as I know. Christians usually consider the Bible complete without it. So, really, there's no comparison in terms of authority as far as the historic Church is concerned.

The Tent analogy is a NT analogy whereas the mingling analogy is an OT analogy (spices were mingled with the oil to make the holy anointing oil). However, since these spices refer to incarnation, human living, and the crucifixion it is quite clear that the mingling analogy should only be used on the resurrected Christ, whereas the Tent analogy should only be used for the incarnated Christ.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by zeek

Then why did you deny that the tabernacle analogy applied to Jesus Christ Himself?

In the context of the discussion which is Christ's person i.e. how the divine and human natures exist in Christ's person, I denied that the analogy applies to Christ in the sense that ZNP is using it because I feel he is using it as a Nestorian would.

That is to say, Jesus's flesh was not merely a tent for God to live in, if this means that Jesus's flesh was separate from divinity. That seems to contradict the teaching of the early church as I showed by the Catholic references.

Saying "God walked around in a tent" to me sounds like saying "Christ was only a God-bearing man" and not both God and man in the one flesh.

The debate ZNP and I are having resembles the debate between Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius of Constantinople. My view is that of Cyril's and ZNP's seems to be Nestorius.

Here is what Cyril said about the flesh of Christ:

"the Lord's flesh is life-giving and the very-own flesh of the Word of God the Father".

"even when he is seen as a baby... even so as God he filled the whole creation and was enthroned with His Father".

"We do not receive this as ordinary flesh, God forbid".

"We must not consider this as if it were the flesh of any man like us, for how could the flesh of a man be life-giving from its own nature?

“We do not say that the Word of God has dwelt in him who was born of the holy virgin, as if an ordinary man, for this might imply that Christ was a God-bearing man.”

If anyone dares to say that Christ was a God-bearing man and not rather God in truth, being by nature one Son, even as "the Word became flesh," and is made partaker of blood and flesh precisely like us, let him be anathema.

ZNP should consider the implications of saying the flesh of Christ is not God's flesh. Christ's flesh was life-giving as symbolized by partaking of bread symbolizing Christ's body in the Lord's table - hence it was no ordinary, common flesh.

Originally Posted by zeek

You were saying that Jesus was the ark not the tabernacle.

All three parts of the temple are Christ. But before Christ was enlarged, the tabernacle referred to His body of flesh. The tabernacle as I understand it now refers to the corporate body of Christ, not Christ's flesh which died on the cross.

Originally Posted by zeek

The word εσκηνωσεν in John 1:14 translated as "tabernacled" in the Recovery Version refers to the person of Jesus Christ means "to fix one's tabernacle, have one's tabernacle, abide (or live) in a tabernacle (or tent) , tabernacle" according to Scrivener, Frederick Henry Ambrose; Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener. Interlinear Greek New Testament Bible (Kindle Locations 82671-82672). Joshua T Dickey. Kindle Edition.

The tent/tabernacle analogy referring to Jesus Christ as the Incarnate Word is Biblical. Lee's "tea water mingling" analogy isn't as far as I know. Christians usually consider the Bible complete without it. So, really, there's no comparison in terms of authority as far as the historic Church is concerned.

As far as I am concerned we are still discussing where ZNP deviates from Lee's doctrine re: processed God.
ZNP seems to think the processed God is God living in the tent of Jesus's flesh.
Lee went further than that, and explained in detail about how the divine and human natures are mingled. Without the mingling, the doctrine resembles the teaching of Nestorius which was declared to be heretical.

[Evangelical]

Double post.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

My view professes that Jesus has come in the flesh. Evangelicals clearly and emphatically denies that He came in the flesh.

I do proclaim that Jesus came in the flesh. I just do not say that the flesh is that of an ordinary man or that it became special and extra-ordinary only at the ascension.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

When asked for a verse reference to support his assertion that "God died" Evangelical refused because interpretations of scripture can be so troubling.

A prime example of interpretations being troubling rather than the scripture itself, is how yourself and the box person both claim to use scripture only yet both disagree.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

When asked how the immortal God dies he is silent.

It's a mystery, but I lean towards believing that God's divine nature did not die. However since "nothing is impossible for God" is true, I can't rule it out - I equally believe that God could kill his own divinity if He wanted to and bring his own divinity back to life. Being able to do the unthinkingly impossible is what the word God means.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

When asked what the NT means when it says Jesus was made lower than the angels so that He could suffer death -- he is silent.

OK I can answer that now. Economically Jesus was made lower than the angels for the purpose of suffering death. Ontologically Jesus was equal with the Father. As you are a Trinitarian you might agree that Jesus was always equal with the Father even when He was suffering death? I'm hoping.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Evangelical denied that "the word tabernacled with us" refers to Jesus but rather that it referred to the church.

The body of Christ, to be precise, which is the church.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

When I quoted Witness Lee saying that God died not in His own death but in another's he is silent.

Lee clearly taught that God died, or that both God and man died, not just one or the other.

Lee said:

You can take a person’s belongings, but you cannot take away his human nature since this is an intrinsic part of his being. Jesus is constituted with the divine essence and the human essence, and these essences could never be taken away from Him since they are an intrinsic part of His divine and human being. We should not forget that the One who died on the cross for us was both God and man—the God-man.

"God died on the cross in order to be released."

blood,” as the blood of God, proves the fact that God died on the cross. More than two centuries ago, Charles Wesley wrote a hymn that speaks of God dying for us. In this hymn Wesley says: Amazing love! How can it be That thou, my God, shouldst die for me?

Luther said:

For in His nature God cannot die; but now that God and man are united in one person, it is correctly called God's death

When Lee wrote “God died in man. God died not in His own death but in another One's death.” I understand this to mean as Luther wrote "For in His nature God cannot die;"

Witness Lee, Luther and Wesley are matching.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I quoted Witness Lee saying that Jesus was made Lord and Head at the ascension and asked Evangelical how His body could be God prior to the ascension yet not Lord and Head? According the NT God is above all, yet Evangelical's teaching denies this. Again, silence.

This is answered by understanding the difference between the ontological and the economical Trinity. Witness Lee did not introduce these terms, they are theological terms, eg see

https://carm.org/ontological-and-economic-trinity

I do not expect the Box person to accept this, but I thought it would be clear to a Trinitarian such as yourself.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The Tent analogy is a NT analogy whereas the mingling analogy is an OT analogy (spices were mingled with the oil to make the holy anointing oil). However, since these spices refer to incarnation, human living, and the crucifixion it is quite clear that the mingling analogy should only be used on the resurrected Christ, whereas the Tent analogy should only be used for the incarnated Christ

I'm not talking about that analogy concerning the person of Christ. The mingling or compounding of spices with oil refers to the process that divinity went through. That is, the process the Spirit went through to become the "compound Spirit". The Spirit was compounded after the resurrection of Christ.

I was referring to the tea-water mingling analogy which is applied to the Incarnation. From "The Experience and Growth in Life" by Witness Lee.


Incarnation is God entering into man to mingle Himself with man, making Himself one with man. God was incarnated in the Man Jesus Christ. He is a wonderful person, a unique person, with two natures. He has the divine nature and the human nature, yet these two natures do not stand separately; they are mingled together. He is the unique God-man.

The two natures of Christ being mingled together can be illustrated by tea and water. Tea is composed of two elements: tea and water. When we say that we are drinking tea, we actually are drinking tea and water. Therefore, we can say that we are drinking tea-water. God can be likened to tea, and man can be likened to water. As tea and water are mingled together to make tea-water, God and man were mingled together to make a God-man, the Lord Jesus.


So we have:
A compound or mingled spice and oil analogy to refer to the "processed Spirit" (post resurrection).
A tea-water mingling analogy to refer to the humanity and divinity of Christ (at the incarnation).
The tent/tabernacle analogy - usually gets applied to the corporate Christ, the body of Christ, the church, the "enlarged Christ". It does get applied to Christ's person but usually in the sense of Christ being by Himself initially, and then being enlarged with the church later.

I do not think Lee used the tent/tabernacle analogy to say that God was walking around in a tent or ever to deny the tea-water mingling as ZNP seems to be doing. At least not in a way that would ever contradict the tea-water mingle.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I do proclaim that Jesus came in the flesh. I just do not say that the flesh is that of an ordinary man or that it became special and extra-ordinary only at the ascension.

OK, you claim Jesus came in "extraordinary" flesh, divine flesh.

I claim Jesus came in "the" flesh.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

A prime example of interpretations being troubling rather than the scripture itself, is how yourself and the box person both claim to use scripture only yet both disagree.

This is an example that there are mysteries in the Bible that no one truly understands. Triune God is the perfect example of that.

Once you leave the word of God you are completely unlimited as to what you can say. Words like trinity and incarnation are derivative of many verses. They are "Bible based" but removed from the word by one level. You should never use these terms unless you can clearly refer back to the Scriptural basis. Otherwise your interpretation of what "incarnation" means can deviate from "the word tabernacled among us".

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It's a mystery, but I lean towards believing that God's divine nature did not die. However since "nothing is impossible for God" is true, I can't rule it out - I equally believe that God could kill his own divinity if He wanted to and bring his own divinity back to life. Being able to do the unthinkingly impossible is what the word God means.

Yes it is a mystery, which is why I lean towards not saying anything that the Bible does not say. The Bible says "Jesus was made lower than the angels" and that "Jesus was God come in the flesh". I say both of those. The Bible does not ever say that Jesus flesh on the cross was "God" or that "God died" on the cross, so I don't say it.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

OK I can answer that now. Economically Jesus was made lower than the angels for the purpose of suffering death. Ontologically Jesus was equal with the Father. As you are a Trinitarian you might agree that Jesus was always equal with the Father even when He was suffering death? I'm hoping.

Yes we both agree that "economically Jesus was made lower than the angels for the purpose of suffering death". Where we disagree is that I understand that this means the Son of God took on a mortal, human body identical to mine only without sin. You on the other hand do not explain what you mean that "economically he was made lower".

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Lee clearly taught that God died, or that both God and man died, not just one or the other.

Lee said:

You can take a person’s belongings, but you cannot take away his human nature since this is an intrinsic part of his being. Jesus is constituted with the divine essence and the human essence, and these essences could never be taken away from Him since they are an intrinsic part of His divine and human being. We should not forget that the One who died on the cross for us was both God and man—the God-man.

I agree with this. Jesus has both essences, and they are now both part of the Triune God.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

"God died on the cross in order to be released."

Although I feel this is very poorly worded I somewhat agree with some caveats. God, in the form of Jesus, the ark of the covenant that tabernacled with us, went to the cross and died. as a result the way to the Holy of Holies was opened. I agree that since Jesus is the Son of God He experienced death on the cross and I have said this as well. So if you look at God today He clearly experienced death on the cross, I said that as well. What I disagree with is the idea that Jesus human body was God. At most I believe the Bible would equate Jesus human body with the human body prior to the fall.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

blood,” as the blood of God, proves the fact that God died on the cross. More than two centuries ago, Charles Wesley wrote a hymn that speaks of God dying for us. In this hymn Wesley says: Amazing love! How can it be That thou, my God, shouldst die for me?

Luther said:

For in His nature God cannot die; but now that God and man are united in one person, it is correctly called God's death

When Lee wrote “God died in man. God died not in His own death but in another One's death.” I understand this to mean as Luther wrote "For in His nature God cannot die;"

Witness Lee, Luther and Wesley are matching.

This is answered by understanding the difference between the ontological and the economical Trinity. Witness Lee did not introduce these terms, they are theological terms, eg see

https://carm.org/ontological-and-economic-trinity

I do not expect the Box person to accept this, but I thought it would be clear to a Trinitarian such as yourself.

I see the economical trinity as taking on human flesh so that through incarnation, human living, death and resurrection man could become part of the Godhead in Jesus Christ. That is what "mingling" refers to in the type.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I'm not sure what you mean by "quite clear that the mingling analogy should only be used on the resurrected Christ".

If you mean it does not apply to the incarnated Christ you are wrong. It can apply to Christ from the incarnation up to and including the resurrection.
The mingling analogy applies to Christ at each stage of His human living. The four ingredients refer to the four steps in the process. There is one spice compounded with the oil at the incarnation, another at human living, another at the crucifixion, and another at the resurrection. God did not wait for the resurrection to compound all the 4 spices together. At each stage the Spirit of God was "mingled" with the humanity of Christ. By the end, you get a complete "ointment".

Why don't you go to the first use of mingling in the OT and see what WL taught on it, should make it very clear to you. Mingling was used in reference to the Holy anointing oil which WL says is a type of "The Spirit". The Spirit did not exist until after it was poured out after Jesus resurrection and ascension. The Holy Spirit is likened to the olive oil. The four spices are likened to the processes Jesus went through including the crucifixion and resurrection. These spices were mingled with the oil to make "the holy anointing oil", i.e. "the anointing" in the NT.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Why don't you go to the first use of mingling in the OT and see what WL taught on it, should make it very clear to you. Mingling was used in reference to the Holy anointing oil which WL says is a type of "The Spirit". The Spirit did not exist until after it was poured out after Jesus resurrection and ascension. The Holy Spirit is likened to the olive oil. The four spices are likened to the processes Jesus went through including the crucifixion and resurrection. These spices were mingled with the oil to make "the holy anointing oil", i.e. "the anointing" in the NT.

Yes, sorry, I was confused by the terms mingling and compounding. Lee sometimes uses both interchangeably, when that mingling means something entirely different to the "tea water mingling". See my latest edits where I fix it up (I hope). Anyway, I intended to discuss the tea-water mingling of Christ's person. Not the process that the Spirit went through.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes we both agree that "economically Jesus was made lower than the angels for the purpose of suffering death". Where we disagree is that I understand that this means the Son of God took on a mortal, human body identical to mine only without sin. You on the other hand do not explain what you mean that "economically he was made lower".

So the main point of disagreement is the nature of Christ's fleshly body, is it "identical to mine"?

Perhaps your interpretation is correct and is what Lee taught. I may lean towards what I believe is the traditional view because of my background in more traditional denominations prior to the Recovery.

I believe that once God united human nature to Himself (as it was in a full and complete way in Christ), that human nature became life-giving, since it is united with eternal life itself.

This view comes from the Scripture where Christ's flesh is life-giving, and therefore not ordinary flesh like ours:

John 6: 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And this bread, which I will give for the life of the world, is My flesh.

John 6:53 Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

To me this says Christ's flesh is special. Only Christ's flesh can impart life because only Christ's flesh is united with eternal life by the Incarnation. Even though the Spirit of God indwells us as believers, my flesh and your flesh can never impart life to others. If others "eat" our flesh, they will not receive life.

I thought Lee taught similar, such as Life-Study of Exodus: Messages 23-41

"the flesh of the Passover lamb ...signifies Christ's ..life.
"My flesh is true food"

1 John 1:1 to me suggests that the life itself had human form, and was touched and handled:

1 John 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

When a person touched the flesh of Christ, they were touching eternal life itself in human form, or "God in the flesh". So God could be physically touched in a real sense when a person touched the body of Jesus. I believe that "Jesus is God" refers to Jesus as a whole person. We cannot say the spirit or soul of Christ is God but the flesh is not.

I guess my biggest concern with your view, is that it means when a person touched Christ, they weren't actually touching God, they were touching a tent which God was always hiding within. But if we believe Christ's flesh is as much God as His spirit, then a person touching him can actually say they touched God, as Thomas did "my Lord and my God".

Romans 9:5 says, "Whose are the fathers, and out of whom, as regards what is according to flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all"


If I am not mistaken, your view sees only the Spirit inside of Christ as life-giving, the flesh as "profiting nothing", but seems to neglect what Scripture says about Christ's flesh being life giving.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

John 6:53 Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

This sounds like Jesus was teaching cannibalism and vampire-ism. How literal should we take this? Transubstantiation? Is that how we become gods?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I guess my biggest concern with your view, is that it means when a person touched Christ, they weren't actually touching God, they were touching a tent which God was always hiding within. But if we believe Christ's flesh is as much God as His spirit, then a person touching him can actually say they touched God, as Thomas did "my Lord and my God".

Romans 9:5 says, "Whose are the fathers, and out of whom, as regards what is according to flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all"


If I am not mistaken, your view sees only the Spirit inside of Christ as life-giving, the flesh as "profiting nothing", but seems to neglect what Scripture says about Christ's flesh being life giving.

Peter said "to whom can we go, you have the words of eternal life". When they touched Jesus speaking they touched God.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The Tent analogy is a NT analogy whereas the mingling analogy is an OT analogy (spices were mingled with the oil to make the holy anointing oil). However, since these spices refer to incarnation, human living, and the crucifixion it is quite clear that the mingling analogy should only be used on the resurrected Christ, whereas the Tent analogy should only be used for the incarnated Christ.

Let me see you prove that spices in the Hebrew Bible refer to Jesus of Nazareth. Your hypothesis regarding the divinity of Christ seems to be self contradictory. I think this is a result of your assumption that the New Testament contains a single christology; whereas, it actually contains multiple christologies.

For example, you're trying to integrate the exultation theologies found in the synoptic gospels with the incarnation christology found in the Gospel of John. The problem is further complicated by developments in post-New Testament christology and of course the christology of Witness Lee.

In general, even beginning in NT texts the Christian intellectuals were trying to understand Jesus through a lens of the Hebrew Bible and Greek metaphysics. They produced a large number of diverse portraits of Jesus that cannot necessarily be harmonized.

Of course, that won't stop Christian believers from trying. The results of their efforts have produced masterpieces of systematic theology. Nevertheless, the ultimate truth remains beyond the scope of human imagination.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

This sounds like Jesus was teaching cannibalism and vampire-ism. How literal should we take this? Transubstantiation? Is that how we become gods?

I would think that someone who supports every kind of human right there is would be more accepting of cannibals and vampires.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Let me see you prove that spices in the Hebrew Bible refer to Jesus of Nazareth. Your hypothesis regarding the divinity of Christ seems to be self contradictory. I think this is a result of your assumption that the New Testament contains a single christology; whereas, it actually contains multiple christologies.

For example, you're trying to integrate the exultation theologies found in the synoptic gospels with the incarnation christology found in the Gospel of John. The problem is further complicated by developments in post-New Testament christology and of course the christology of Witness Lee.

In general, even beginning in NT texts the Christian intellectuals were trying to understand Jesus through a lens of the Hebrew Bible and Greek metaphysics. They produced a large number of diverse portraits of Jesus that cannot necessarily be harmonized.

Of course, that won't stop Christian believers from trying. The results of their efforts have produced masterpieces of systematic theology. Nevertheless, the ultimate truth remains beyond the scope of human imagination.

I would agree with your conclusion.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Why don't you go to the first use of mingling in the OT and see what WL taught on it, should make it very clear to you. Mingling was used in reference to the Holy anointing oil which WL says is a type of "The Spirit". The Spirit did not exist until after it was poured out after Jesus resurrection and ascension. The Holy Spirit is likened to the olive oil. The four spices are likened to the processes Jesus went through including the crucifixion and resurrection. These spices were mingled with the oil to make "the holy anointing oil", i.e. "the anointing" in the NT.

Well let's just say that Jesus was a bucket full of oil, and full of water, at the same time.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

This sounds like Jesus was teaching cannibalism and vampire-ism. How literal should we take this? Transubstantiation? Is that how we become gods?

Cannibalism and vampirism is what people accused the early Christians of, so if you have obtained that interpretation from my posts then I know I am correct.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

In general, even beginning in NT texts the Christian intellectuals were trying to understand Jesus through a lens of the Hebrew Bible and Greek metaphysics. They produced a large number of diverse portraits of Jesus that cannot necessarily be harmonized.

Of course, that won't stop Christian believers from trying. The results of their efforts have produced masterpieces of systematic theology. Nevertheless, the ultimate truth remains beyond the scope of human imagination.

What about Hollywood masterpieces?

1. The Matrix

2. Avatar

3. Oh, God

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What about Hollywood masterpieces?

1. The Matrix

2. Avatar

3. Oh, God

This is the year of Wonder Woman. If you want to talk movies, we should start another thread. I remember being offended by "Oh, God" when I was in the LCM in the '70s.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

This is the year of Wonder Woman. If you want to talk movies, we should start another thread. I remember being offended by "Oh, God" when I was in the LCM in the '70s.

I was not offended by any movies when in the LCM because I didn't watch any.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I was not offended by any movies when in the LCM because I didn't watch any.

I didn't watch Oh God when it came out, but it was widely hyped and it was hard to miss the promos. I think I found the idea blasphemous. When I finally saw the film in the 80s, I enjoyed it.

[Boxjobox]

You are all like a group of silly young girls sitting around and telling stories that are way beyond reality. Just accept the fact- scripture does not give us a triune god! This is just a result of he said, then she said, then they said; building a case out of thin air! There is no talk about a God-man with the apostles. There is no gospel telling Jews or Gentiles that God died. If there was, there would have to be miles and miles of explaining such. The Jews would have reacted violently and the Greeks would have laughed silly.

However, there is clear statements that the true God is the one we are privileged to call Father. That God is the God of Jesus during his life on earth, during his death, during his resurrection, during his ascension, during his commission as Lord, during his priestly ministery over the church, and at his return.

Paul, in Romans, quite clearly portrayed this righteous man Jesus bearing our sins, that we, in him, could also be made righteous. It is of God, that we are in Christ Jesus. This man, endured the cross for the glory that would follow. He believed that God would not allow his body to see corruption. This man was designated the Son of God in resurrection, and sits on the right hand of God.

Today, the Lord's day, I hope we can all see this marvelous revelation, hear the gospel, believe the scripture, thank the God and Father of our Lord Jesu, the anointed one, and remember his death. What a glorious revelation, that a man is glorified in heaven. Through this man's righteous act, we have the hope of being changed like our forerunner Jesus.

[Boxjobox]

I guess this is an alternate view that does not belong on the official site. Take it as such, and go on bickering about things that have no relevance in the scriptures- it's very amusing.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I guess this is an alternate view that does not belong on the official site. Take it as such, and go on bickering about things that have no relevance in the scriptures- it's very amusing.

Indeed bro Bjb, indeed.

Now if we were living in the spiritual realm we might be able to explain it all ... maybe ... we don't know ... we're not there.

Down here, thinking we know all this God trinity stuff, we're like fleas arguing over who owns the dog.

So we imagine all sorts of things we think the Bible says but don't.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

You are all like a group of silly young girls sitting around and telling stories that are way beyond reality. Just accept the fact- scripture does not give us a triune god! This is just a result of he said, then she said, then they said; building a case out of thin air! There is no talk about a God-man with the apostles. There is no gospel telling Jews or Gentiles that God died. If there was, there would have to be miles and miles of explaining such. The Jews would have reacted violently and the Greeks would have laughed silly.

However, there is clear statements that the true God is the one we are privileged to call Father. That God is the God of Jesus during his life on earth, during his death, during his resurrection, during his ascension, during his commission as Lord, during his priestly ministery over the church, and at his return.

Paul, in Romans, quite clearly portrayed this righteous man Jesus bearing our sins, that we, in him, could also be made righteous. It is of God, that we are in Christ Jesus. This man, endured the cross for the glory that would follow. He believed that God would not allow his body to see corruption. This man was designated the Son of God in resurrection, and sits on the right hand of God.

Today, the Lord's day, I hope we can all see this marvelous revelation, hear the gospel, believe the scripture, thank the God and Father of our Lord Jesu, the anointed one, and remember his death. What a glorious revelation, that a man is glorified in heaven. Through this man's righteous act, we have the hope of being changed like our forerunner Jesus.

What do you do with this passage?

John 20:27-29New King James Version (NKJV)

27 Then He said to Thomas, “Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing.”

28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”

29 Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”