"God died on the cross."

[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 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.

[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?

[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.