Jesus Christ is God incarnate, the Second Person of the Trinity, our Creator, the resurrected Savior and Redeemer, and the only means of salvation for sinners.
Continue reading...
Continue reading...
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
Jesus
- Thread starter AIG.com
- Start date
I have never read in scripture where Jesus said he was God. I do understand that there are imperfect human beings who interpret certain scriptures to make it seem the scriptures are saying Jesus is God in the flesh, but I don't follow imperfect human beings personal interpretations of scripture. That's because no one is going to convince me that God is so ignorant that it's impossible for him to inspire men to write down his thoughts accurately. So when a scripture says, "I and the Father are one" and imperfect humans interpret this scripture to mean that Jesus and God are the same person, I'm going to disagree. I can read no matter how many people say I can't read, and I can see for myself that people are taking this particular scripture out of context to prove there belief. I'm not going to agree when people taking scripture out of context to try to prove what they believe. Now I do understand that people have the right to believe their personal interpretations of scripture, or someone else's personal interpretations, they even have the right to take a scripture out of context but that doesn't mean I have to agree with them.
In scripture some Jews accused Jesus of making himself equal to God, Jesus replied: "Is it not written in your law, 'I said: "you are God's"'? If he called 'gods' those against whom the word God came, and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified, do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, 'You blaspheme,' because I said, I am God's Son?"(John 10:34-36) Here in this scripture Jesus wasn't saying he was equal to God or that he was God, simply because he said he was God's Son.
The scriptures show us that as a son, Jesus ascribed superior authority, knowledge and greatness to his Father. He stated: "This sitting down at my right hand and at my left hand is not mine to give, but it belongs to those for whom it has been prepared by my Father"(Matthew 20:23) "concerning that day or that hour nobody knows, neither that angels in heaven nor the Son, but the Father."(Mark 13:32) "The Father is greater than I am."(John 14:28) Jesus acknowledged his Father as his God. Just before his death Jesus cried out: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"(Matthew 27:46) Then after Jesus resurrection, he told Mary Magdalene: "I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God."(John 20:17)
Finally, in a revelation to the apostle John, Jesus Christ identified himself as the first of God's creations, saying: "These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God."(Revelation 3:14; John 1:14; Colossians 1:15.)
So the testimony of Jesus Christ respecting himself while on earth reveals that he was not just some wise man nor was he God in the flesh, but he was the perfect human Son of God. The record concerning Jesus words and deeds served to establish this truth. Wrote the apostle John: "Jesus performed many other signs also before the disciples, which are not written down in this scroll. But these have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that, because of believing, you may have life by means of his name."(John 20:30,31)
The Jehovah’s Witnesses, or Mormons and other what is called “Non-Trinitarians”, so the Trinity was made at the Nicene Creed meeting thing, and so any Group that has read the Bible and gone with what Jesus says, they say the 3 are Distinct, that the Trinity is only 1 as a matter of basically which God it is under, or to say all of it is like belonging to God. And to say Jesus is God is something that has been argued for a long Time, but that they have decided many Times at several important Meetings about Christianity.
The link is good in many parts, but I’d work on its wording somewhat.
For example, for my part I shy away from saying that Jesus is God incarnate, since the term ‘God’ carries a range of meanings. And to factor in trinitarianism, I’d rather say that Jesus was/is God-the-son-incarnate, and speak of his deificity. Moreover I’d differentiate from the noncarnate son (God the son) and the incarnate son (God the son as a human being = Jesus) - his permanent temporal mode. To misquote Arius, there was a time when Jesus was not. Jesus was/is not co-creator, but the noncarnate son is, in the sense of the father creating through him by the spirit. That scriptures could use shorthand, a Jesus-link, tracing the ray to the sun, does not affirm them to be systematically correct. Prose corrects poetry; poetry enhances prose.
To say that Jesus is “the only means of salvation” (however ‘salvation’ is defined) overlooks the ‘means’ of faith-welcome, and the spirit, and the very father who gave his son and the spirit. Deific salvation is trinitarian, not merely by Jesus. Limiting salvation to Jesus alone, is the way to Sabellian.
Vis-à-vis miracles, it’s good to note that he operated as a human being alongside the spirit, as had prophets before him and Christians subsequently: miracles were not based on his deificity. On miracles the article is good so far as it goes, IMO, in that his wonders testified to his words (Jhn.3:2).
The trilemma of CSL was whittled down a bit before the book form, but Lewis never to my knowledge considered whether Jesus forgave such sins not as deity, but as messiah. If his opponents jumped on a false premise, we need not follow suit. As messiah, was he introducing a replacement of the forgiveness which the priesthood offered under Sinai, foreshadowing the cross?
Unlike the NKJV, Jhn.3:18 is neither sexist, nor speaks of Jesus as begotten.
Hello Vinny, I'm having trouble understanding some of what you said, so I'm hoping that you'll be able to help clarify things for me
For instance, when you say that the term "God" carries a range of meanings, what do you mean (specifically)/what are some of those meanings 
You said that you prefer saying that the Lord Jesus is "God-the-Son incarnate" rather than "God incarnate". That seems (to me, at least) to be a distinction w/o much of a perceivable difference, so please explain further.
There's nothing wrong about making a distinction between the preincarnate Son and the incarnate Son, but to what end are you doing so in this case? Also, what do you mean by "permanent/temporal" (how can something be both at the same time)
How is that a "misquote" of Arius? (or do you mean in this context?)
It's true that the Godhead works together in the sense of a Team to bring about salvation, but first and foremost (and especially from the limited POV of an unsaved person), the Lord Jesus is the One who we turn to as our Savior, the One in whom we place our faith/trust and believe, yes? As the Bible indicates,
John 14
6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.
Acts 4
12 There is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.
Please elaborate a bit on this. I ask because of verses/passages like the following, and others,
Luke 6
19 All the people were trying to touch Him, for power was coming from Him and healing them all.
Luke 8
43 A woman who had a hemorrhage for twelve years, and could not be healed by anyone,
44 came up behind Him and touched the fringe of His cloak, and immediately her hemorrhage stopped.
45 And Jesus said, “Who is the one who touched Me?” And while they were all denying it, Peter said, “Master, the people are crowding and pressing in on You.”
46 But Jesus said, “Someone did touch Me, for I was aware that power had gone out of Me.”
47 When the woman saw that she had not escaped notice, she came trembling and fell down before Him, and declared in the presence of all the people the reason why she had touched Him, and how she had been immediately healed.
48 And He said to her, “Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace.”
I'm sorry, but I'm not following this either. Is not one of the Messiah's Names (from the Book of Isaiah), "Emmanuel", which means, "God with us" .. e.g. Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23? I guess I'm not clear about what you mean when you say that, Jesus forgave sins NOT as Deity, but as Messiah. What am I missing
Thanks for your help with all of this
God bless you!!
--David
Last edited:
Hi Angelical, thanks for posting the above song (Crown of Thorns) for us Danielle's voice, the music and the lyrics combine to make a very beautiful & haunting sound, which is perfect for this song (considering what it's about).
Question, the song told the story of part of the Lord's Passion, as experienced by (from the POV of) His crown of thorns personified, but you also mentioned Mary Magdalene. Which part of the song is about her (I did see that His mom mentioned toward the end of the song)
Thanks!
God bless you!!
--David
p.s. - I found the lyrics online, so I'll include them here.
Crown of Thorns
Danielle's voice, the music and the lyrics combine to make a very beautiful & haunting sound, which is perfect for this song (considering what it's about).Question, the song told the story of part of the Lord's Passion, as experienced by (from the POV of) His crown of thorns personified, but you also mentioned Mary Magdalene. Which part of the song is about her
(I did see that His mom mentioned toward the end of the song)Thanks!
God bless you!!
--David
p.s. - I found the lyrics online, so I'll include them here.
Crown of Thorns
by Danielle Rose
My seed was born
One bright spring morn
In gardens grown by God.
Out of the earth
My stem gave birth
To petals red as blood.
The gentile rain
My growth sustained,
And like each seed God sows,
I dreamed one day
That I'd be named
A king's most precious rose.
One day a soldier
Bent me over,
Tore me from my bed.
All beaten, battered,
My stem tattered,
Wanted not but dead
In cruel hands ripped,
My beauty stripped,
'Twas not the dream I chose,
And filled with shame,
I wept in pain,
No more a precious rose.
Then I did see
The soldiers lead
A man through palace doors.
Was this my king?
Why did they bring him in,
This man so poor?
A purple garment
Hid the torment
None but I could see.
They mocked and laughed,
Gave him a staff,
And bowed on bended knee.
They bent me round
And wove a crown
And placed me on his head.
My petals found
Crushed on the ground,
Like tears of God turned red.
With each small sin
I was pressed in.
I pierced with self-disdain.
In thought and deed
I made him bleed,
My selfishness, his pain.
"Behold!" they'd sing,
"Behold your King!
Hail, King of the Jews!"
With each reed's blow,
Our pain did grow,
As one we were abused.
Despite the crown
He did not frown;
He smiled with love instead,
And carried me
For all to see
Upon his tender head.
Once placed with awe
In manger straw,
Annointed by John's hands,
Transfigured on
A mountain dawn,
Now wore a mangled branch.
Once gently kissed
By Mary's lips,
And blessed with magi's myrrh,
Baptized by
A parting sky,
Now streamed with blood so pure.
An innocent brow
Calls to us now
To follow this example:
To let our thorns
And all that scorns
Be healed within His temple.
Though dreams may fade,
Each one was made
In seed that Jesus sows.
And now I see
I'm called to be
The King's most precious rose.
.
Whoops, the above in bold doesn't make much sense. Sorry about that. Here's what I meant to write instead:Question, the song told the story of part of the Lord's Passion, as experienced by (from the POV of) His crown of thorns personified, but you also mentioned Mary Magdalene. Which part of the song is about her
.
(I did see that His mom, Mary, is mentioned toward the end of the song)
.
Possibly this will further mystify, but here goes. If you wish to PM me, I could offer a link to a free book or so which offer a longer but easier journey.Hello Vinny, I'm having trouble understanding some of what you said, so I'm hoping that you'll be able to help clarify things for me
You said that you prefer saying that the Lord Jesus is "God-the-Son incarnate" rather than "God incarnate". That seems (to me, at least) to be a distinction w/o much of a perceivable difference, so please explain further.
There's nothing wrong about making a distinction between the preincarnate Son and the incarnate Son, but to what end are you doing so in this case? Also, what do you mean by "permanent/temporal" (how can something be both at the same time)
How is that a "misquote" of Arius? (or do you mean in this context?)
It's true that the Godhead works together in the sense of a Team to bring about salvation, but first and foremost (and especially from the limited POV of an unsaved person), the Lord Jesus is the One who we turn to as our Savior, the One in whom we place our faith/trust and believe, yes? As the Bible indicates,
John 146 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. Acts 412 There is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.
Please elaborate a bit on this. I ask because of verses/passages like the following, and others,
Luke 619 All the people were trying to touch Him, for power was coming from Him and healing them all. Luke 843 A woman who had a hemorrhage for twelve years, and could not be healed by anyone, 44 came up behind Him and touched the fringe of His cloak, and immediately her hemorrhage stopped. 45 And Jesus said, “Who is the one who touched Me?” And while they were all denying it, Peter said, “Master, the people are crowding and pressing in on You.” 46 But Jesus said, “Someone did touch Me, for I was aware that power had gone out of Me.” 47 When the woman saw that she had not escaped notice, she came trembling and fell down before Him, and declared in the presence of all the people the reason why she had touched Him, and how she had been immediately healed. 48 And He said to her, “Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace.”
I'm sorry, but I'm not following this either. Is not one of the Messiah's Names (from the Book of Isaiah), "Emmanuel", which means, "God with us" .. e.g. Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23? I guess I'm not clear about what you mean when you say that, Jesus forgave sins NOT as Deity, but as Messiah. What am I missing
Thanks for your help with all of this
God bless you!!
--David
1# The term adam can carry the idea of the husband of Eve (Gen.4:1), and also the idea of he and Eve together (Gen.5:2). Many terms carry a range of meaning. The Greek θεος/theos can relate to the incarnate son (where I’d suggest we translate by ‘deity’ of ‘deific’), but can also focus on the father (1 Cor.8:6). Jhn.1:1 has it used in different ways: the λογος was with θεος (as person), and was θεος (in ‘substance/quality’).
2/3# The difference highlights that he is not God the father (or spirit) incarnate. It factors in trinity. And of course Jesus neither is nor was omnipresent or omniscient, etc, yet God/deity is both. Some therefore deny Jesus’ deificity. It helps to see that Jesus is the permanent temporal mode of the uncreated eternal second person of deity. The mode of God the son was/is not omnipresent, but God the son is omnipresent. As regards time—the temporal dimension—some argue that the son had pre-incarnate modes (or at least appearances), eg Dan.3:25. Whether or not such argument is valid, it is good to note that the incarnation mode is in time (temporal) and permanent (not temporary), since the son has committed himself to permanent fellowship with redeemed humanity.
4# I alluded to the Arian quote that “there was a time when the son did not exist”. Arius ridiculed the idea of co-eternality, saying that such would make God’s son God’s brother (twin conception). I side with Athanasius (the noncarnate son is co-eternal): there was never a time when God the son was not. However, I happily misquote Arius when it comes to the incarnation, the beginning of the man christ Jesus: there was a time when God the son as-a-human-being, was not.
5# Your salvation refs are what I call Level 3 salvation, ie salvation into the messianic community (church). On this definition, I assume we agree my point, namely, don’t limit to Jesus what is a trinity operation. Careless talk costs good theology. Many speak of a Sabellian Slide which the West is on. Think of Hillsong’s, “You alone are God, Jesus!” (Reuben Morgan), for a typical example of a Jesusism which forsakes the father, the spirt, and ironically the noncarnate son. In line with the Athanasian Creed, let’s drop these reductive ‘alones’ (I hate even the Five Solas for reductionism).
Again, individual biblical texts can be facets, not absolutes, which would have been safe enough in their teaching context (ie, the readers had face to face, as well as pen to paper, teaching, helping to clarify to them what we now must reconstruct). Thus we read that Jesus Christ is our saviour (1 Pt.1:11): imagine we had only Peter’s letter. Thus we read that God—as distinct from the lord—is our saviour (1 Tm.1:1): imagine we had only Paul’s letter. Collecting data gives the bigger picture, which is an important gain not to be lost. Incidentally from the POV on non-Christians, I think it better apologetic/evangelism to focus on the father-through-the-son: the son came to reveal his father.
6# I attend an FIEC church, where the focus is more on Moses (escaping Egypt) than on Joshua (enjoying Canaan). Evangelicalism tends to attribute Jesus’ miracles to his deity (and close down miracles). Pentecostals tend to attribute Jesus’ miracles to his humanity (and open up miracles). My money is on the latter (eg Mt.12:28). I merely raised the point that his miracles were as a pattern of humanity working with deity. Lk.6 is no more about deity seeping out, than Paul’s ‘deity’ seeped out from him (Ac.19). God’s power can come through us, from us. If on Lk.8 we picture Jesus-as-deity somehow depleted (“discharging from me”: MSG!), are we saying that omnipotence can be depleted? And if so, are we saying that omniscience (who touched me?) is limited in knowledge?
7# Getting back to Is.7, we can see an initial and lower level of God being ‘with’ his people. There a mere human child was born, but his role as a time-clock was prophecy to King Ahab of there and then events: before the child reached a certain age, certain events would transpire. That child spoke of God the mighty one, the everlasting father, etc, being with them, but was not himself such—no prior incarnation. Prophecies can carry levels of fulfilment. Centuries later, what Isaiah had spoken in one situation, became more relevant in another. Another child was born, not merely human, and deeply reflected God the father with his people.
Apropos forgiving sin, the OT had Aaronic priests forgiving sin (as agents of God, not as deity) and restoring Sinai relationship. The NT had Jesus, as anointed (deity is not anointed, but anoints), proclaiming proleptically (ie before the cross of atonement) that true/deeper forgiveness of sins (the removal of the barrier precluding access to God) was in fact messianic. We too can proclaim forgiveness of sins, though as agents of God, not as deity. In short, proclaiming forgiveness can be an agency work which in itself does not prove (nor does deny) deificity. In the text, the Q was raised: who…except God? But the point was not pushed to a formal blasphemy charge, perhaps because they saw that a special agent of God—who could also heal (Jhn.3:2)—might have extraordinary authority to forgive as Aaron had. I used to cite CSL on this trilemma; I no longer do. “It’s a weak argument. Lewis offered a considerably longer discussion of this point in the original broadcast talks, which he pruned down drastically as he revised it for publication” (Alister McGrath’s C. S. Lewis: A Life (2013:227)).
If you hear the Soldier ripped her from her Bed and bent her over it’s not just about Roses. Then she is piercing him with Self-disdain, sure it’s a Rose, but it’s talking about a Rape Victim, she’s taking out her own feelings from what happened to her, and taking it out on Jesus. And that’s the whole Song, it’s about his Crown of Thorns, or a Female, the whole Time.Hi Angelical, thanks for posting the above song (Crown of Thorns) for us
Question, the song told the story of part of the Lord's Passion, as experienced by (from the POV of) His crown of thorns personified, but you also mentioned Mary Magdalene. Which part of the song is about her
Thanks!
God bless you!!
--David
p.s. - I found the lyrics online, so I'll include them here.
Crown of Thornsby Danielle Rose
My seed was bornOne bright spring mornIn gardens grown by God.Out of the earthMy stem gave birthTo petals red as blood.The gentile rainMy growth sustained,And like each seed God sows,I dreamed one dayThat I'd be namedA king's most precious rose.One day a soldierBent me over,Tore me from my bed.All beaten, battered,My stem tattered,Wanted not but deadIn cruel hands ripped,My beauty stripped,'Twas not the dream I chose,And filled with shame,I wept in pain,No more a precious rose.Then I did seeThe soldiers leadA man through palace doors.Was this my king?Why did they bring him in,This man so poor?A purple garmentHid the tormentNone but I could see.They mocked and laughed,Gave him a staff,And bowed on bended knee.They bent me roundAnd wove a crownAnd placed me on his head.My petals foundCrushed on the ground,Like tears of God turned red.With each small sinI was pressed in.I pierced with self-disdain.In thought and deedI made him bleed,My selfishness, his pain."Behold!" they'd sing,"Behold your King!Hail, King of the Jews!"With each reed's blow,Our pain did grow,As one we were abused.Despite the crownHe did not frown;He smiled with love instead,And carried meFor all to seeUpon his tender head.Once placed with aweIn manger straw,Annointed by John's hands,Transfigured onA mountain dawn,Now wore a mangled branch.Once gently kissedBy Mary's lips,And blessed with magi's myrrh,Baptized byA parting sky,Now streamed with blood so pure.An innocent browCalls to us nowTo follow this example:To let our thornsAnd all that scornsBe healed within His temple.Though dreams may fade,Each one was madeIn seed that Jesus sows.And now I seeI'm called to beThe King's most precious rose..
Hello again Angelical, one of the Popes started a rumor that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute, but because there is neither Biblical or historical evidence to back it up, the rumor is now defunct.
Also, there is no evidence whatsoever that she was ever raped. Could she have been? Sure, but we have no reason to believe that she was, and to say that she was is nothing more than sterile conjecture.
The Bible tells us that the Lord cast demons out of her, but that's it. All of the rest of it is made up. I've always felt a bit sorry for her actually, once I realized that a made-up rumor had falsely turned her into a prostitute in the eyes of so many for so many years.
Finally, she continues to be falsely accused of many things today, from being the mother of the Lord Jesus' children in Dan Brown's fiction called, The Da Vinci Code, to being the rape victim of a Roman Soldier in the ongoing series called, The Chosen. I LOVE The Da Vinci Code, BTW, it is a true page-turner, and The Chosen is a great TV series with much to like about it as well, but that doesn't mean that the stories that they both made up (to embellish the life of Mary Magdalene and to give her a more compelling backstory) makes either of them true.
Finally, and for what it's worth, the "Rose" has long been associated with Mary, but with the Virgin Mary, never with Mary Magdalene.
--David
p.s. - I agree that the lyrics that speak of a rose being bent over and ripped out of its rose bed violently could be an allusion to rape. Only the lyricist, Danielle, would know for sure (I wonder if the lyrics, if they are indeed about Mary Magdalen being raped, are based upon the scene in The Chosen that shows her being raped by a Roman Soldier?). If I find out, I'll let you know.
Also, there is no evidence whatsoever that she was ever raped. Could she have been? Sure, but we have no reason to believe that she was, and to say that she was is nothing more than sterile conjecture.
The Bible tells us that the Lord cast demons out of her, but that's it. All of the rest of it is made up. I've always felt a bit sorry for her actually, once I realized that a made-up rumor had falsely turned her into a prostitute in the eyes of so many for so many years.
Finally, she continues to be falsely accused of many things today, from being the mother of the Lord Jesus' children in Dan Brown's fiction called, The Da Vinci Code, to being the rape victim of a Roman Soldier in the ongoing series called, The Chosen. I LOVE The Da Vinci Code, BTW, it is a true page-turner, and The Chosen is a great TV series with much to like about it as well, but that doesn't mean that the stories that they both made up (to embellish the life of Mary Magdalene and to give her a more compelling backstory) makes either of them true.
Finally, and for what it's worth, the "Rose" has long been associated with Mary, but with the Virgin Mary, never with Mary Magdalene.
--David
p.s. - I agree that the lyrics that speak of a rose being bent over and ripped out of its rose bed violently could be an allusion to rape. Only the lyricist, Danielle, would know for sure (I wonder if the lyrics, if they are indeed about Mary Magdalen being raped, are based upon the scene in The Chosen that shows her being raped by a Roman Soldier?). If I find out, I'll let you know.
Last edited:
I think this gets to the kind of Feminine Nature of Jesus, he is not LGBTQ+, but he is Flesh and Spirit as we all are, but he was maybe all of both we could say, or half of both. And he is Feminine and Masculine, he is God and Man, he is from the Sky and the Earth, he is like a Wolf to a Dog maybe you could say Genetically, so like Animal and Man in that he may be through the Royal Bloodlines going back to David, and through Neolithic Temple Culture we can maybe put Jesus closer to God and Nature than the average person.
And then Jesus had to be a Man, so as to have his Words accepted how they are, and not to say that the LGBTQ+ crowd is like doing anything right. But I think they are a sign, along with kind of Equal Pay and things, these are showing that we are about in the same place. And I think we can say that Jesus was kind of speaking up for Prostitutes, or at least the Poor and things, he was a Man and he has been heard and remembered and that’s why he had to be a Man, but the Female side is passed down with his Words.
Agreed. Most do.
Only "relate to", and not be "used of"
(please elaborate)."Translate by deity" of deific'" .. not sure what you mean by that
(please explain). Thanks (is "deific" a word that you made up?)When you speak of the Logos as God in "substance/quality", what are you saying exactly
Perhaps I should also ask (for clarity's sake), would the exact same thing be true of God the Father, meaning that nothing, more or less, is true of the Father in this regard than it is of the Logos?We know (from passages like Philippians 2) that the Lord Jesus set-aside/partially emptied Himself of certain attributes of Deity (for our sakes) when He became incarnate and lived among us a one of us. Is it also your belief (since He remains incarnate today) that He has not/never will be filled with these attributes again, that He set them aside permanently, IOW? If so, why do you believe that this is true
The humanity of the Second Member of the Godhead is not omnipresent (obviously), though even that (which seems so obvious) is argued against by large portions of the church whenever the Eucharist is celebrated. That said, is there any reason to believe that the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ is somehow confined/restricted (in anyway) by His humanity since His Resurrection and Ascension back into Glory
As a bit of an aside, what continually AMAZES me is what we know from the following verse about the Lord Jesus as God (because it includes the 33 years that He spent on Earth as a man/walking among us).
Colossians 1
17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
I'm not sure what a "preincarnate MODE" is (and I must admit to being uncomfortable with that term when discussing the Godhead), but the fact that the Second Member of the Godhead made appearances during OT times is stated for us in the NT, as well .. e.g. John 12:41. In fact, it's possible (probable?) that all of the OT Theophanies could actually be referred to as Christophanies instead.
Ahh, thanks for clarifying that for me, now I understand your meaning/intent
(again however, I am uncomfortable using the term "mode", but that is, no doubt due to the heresy concerning the God known as Modalism).Gonna stop here and wait for a reply from you (if you have one, that is
), as this has already become too long of a post.God bless you!!
--David
.
Last edited:
Hello again Angelical, none of this seems to be in reply to anything that I said to you in my last post (even though you quoted it), so I won't reply to your newest post as if it did (unless I am missing something, that is .. if so, please point it out to me).
That said, here is my reply to your last post to me.
There are many who do much more than insist that we respect each other's "pronoun" choices today. Why would we ever consider doing anything less than the same for God?
BTW, there is nothing "average" about the Lord Jesus' Deity (when compared to the "average person", that is), though there is reason to believe that His humanity, between His Incarnation and Resurrection, may have (at least) seemed "average" to those who knew Him .. cf Isaiah 53:2.
God bless you!!
--David
That said, here is my reply to your last post to me.
The Lord Jesus Christ is/was/always will be God. He was born a man and continues to be a man, even today (and His "preferred" pronouns, to speak in very modern terms, were/are/always will be He/Him/His, just like they are for the other two Members of the Godhead).
There are many who do much more than insist that we respect each other's "pronoun" choices today. Why would we ever consider doing anything less than the same for God?
BTW, there is nothing "average" about the Lord Jesus' Deity (when compared to the "average person", that is), though there is reason to believe that His humanity, between His Incarnation and Resurrection, may have (at least) seemed "average" to those who knew Him .. cf Isaiah 53:2.
Jesus was born as a baby boy, He died (in His humanity, of course) as a man, and He was resurrected as a man with the same, glorified body that He has today, and so He will remain forever (as the Bible makes clear for us). His "chosen pronouns" as God and as a man, were/are/always will be, He/Him/His (according to the Bible), so He actually has no "feminine" side (unless you can show that masculinity, in general, has nothing whatsoever to do with being concerned for the well-being of others and/or with loving anyone).
God bless you!!
--David
Androgyny - Wikipedia
The Androgyny of Jesus - Virginia Ramey Mollenkott
Dr. Mollenkott presents a short list of the problems with the eight passages in the Bible commonly used to condemn LGBT people.
www.virginiamollenkott.com
Odin plays the Drums, which is a Feminine Prophetic act, Jesus is dealing with Perfume, the Prostitute breaks the Alabaster bottle at his feet, and the Disciples basically say like, “You dumb Ho”, and Jesus says “I’m about to die, she’s fine”.
And so Jesus dying was to like not “Vote No on the Equal Rights Act”, but something about Women was attacked by killing Jesus. And I would say it goes with Hathor and her Sons.
Your questions are understandable, but do raise quite a time commitment to respond to, and—as seen—a reply can lead to another Q. If you wish to PM me, I could link you to a free book (PDF format) covering some of these QQQ.
But in very-brief, without answering your QQQ as they deserve:
Deific (public domain term) is IMO useful, and higher than ‘divine’, and in some biblical settings I’d suggest this term, rather than, say, [God]. I use it along the lines of Nicea’s homoousia.
The father is source of the son and the spirit (eternal generation/spiration), and often is the biblical focus (eg 1 Cor.8:6—which does not preclude lordship from the father!). He is deific and source (a.k.a ‘God’), and the eternal society is deific (source and eternal derivation, a.k.a ‘God’). The transcendent relationship between the three persons is not symmetrical, and to them we are temporal (howbeit everlasting) and derivation.
Php.2 has various interpretations. Biblically the term [Jesus] sometimes is shorthand: systematically the noncarnate son became the personal mode, Jesus, now glorified as a human being, the first/source of glorified humanity—as he is, we shall be. The mode is within space-time; the eternal is beyond space-time: C S Lewis suggested we picture a cube with a line (space-time) within; like us, Jesus began in space-time, howbeit by the spirit’s direct intervention. It’s a bit like a ray from the always shining sun now walks with us as one with us, truly human yet uniquely linked to the sun (sun-like; ‘deific’).
For my part I celebrate the eucharist without assuming omnipresence to the incarnate son. The son as incarnate does not hold things together, but the son as noncarnate, plays a cohesive role (whatever that means) along with the father and the spirit.
I do not take Jhn.12:41 to say that the second person put in a personal appearance—some do, as you say, deem theophanies to be christophanies, although the term [christ] is anachronistic, having begun by conception. I’d suggest huiophanies (manifestations/appearances of the son).
I reject modalism, without rejecting the term [mode]: abusus non tollit usum.
But in very-brief, without answering your QQQ as they deserve:
Deific (public domain term) is IMO useful, and higher than ‘divine’, and in some biblical settings I’d suggest this term, rather than, say, [God]. I use it along the lines of Nicea’s homoousia.
The father is source of the son and the spirit (eternal generation/spiration), and often is the biblical focus (eg 1 Cor.8:6—which does not preclude lordship from the father!). He is deific and source (a.k.a ‘God’), and the eternal society is deific (source and eternal derivation, a.k.a ‘God’). The transcendent relationship between the three persons is not symmetrical, and to them we are temporal (howbeit everlasting) and derivation.
Php.2 has various interpretations. Biblically the term [Jesus] sometimes is shorthand: systematically the noncarnate son became the personal mode, Jesus, now glorified as a human being, the first/source of glorified humanity—as he is, we shall be. The mode is within space-time; the eternal is beyond space-time: C S Lewis suggested we picture a cube with a line (space-time) within; like us, Jesus began in space-time, howbeit by the spirit’s direct intervention. It’s a bit like a ray from the always shining sun now walks with us as one with us, truly human yet uniquely linked to the sun (sun-like; ‘deific’).
For my part I celebrate the eucharist without assuming omnipresence to the incarnate son. The son as incarnate does not hold things together, but the son as noncarnate, plays a cohesive role (whatever that means) along with the father and the spirit.
I do not take Jhn.12:41 to say that the second person put in a personal appearance—some do, as you say, deem theophanies to be christophanies, although the term [christ] is anachronistic, having begun by conception. I’d suggest huiophanies (manifestations/appearances of the son).
I reject modalism, without rejecting the term [mode]: abusus non tollit usum.
Show us from scripture, please.
That's not what the song is about, at least not according to one of the official descriptions of the song, which (speaking about the video that you posited for us above in post #6) tells us that it is..........
................a visual animation to Danielle Rose’s song ‘Crown of Thorns’, in which a beautiful story unfolds throughout about our plans vs God’s plan.
This video feature provides a creative reflection on ‘the rose’ that became the crown of thorns: the crown that was forced by soldiers violently onto the head of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus. This video and the accompanying music connects the beauty of Jesus’ salvific act with a narrative from a flower that had a dream to be the “King’s most precious rose.”
So, violence yes, but not rape, nor any reference to Mary Magdalene. In case you, or anyone else is interested, here is Danielle Rose's "Crown of Thorns" LIVE, in the Cathedral at Notre Dame University, with Danielle and the Notre Dame Folk Choir.
p.s. - Danielle Rose's ministry focus (at least here of late) appears to be a musical and personal outreach to those who, like her, are suffering great loss due to the death of their child (or children .. Danielle lost two of her own). https://www.daniellerose.org/ourstory
Last edited:
She’s doesn’t have to like tell everyone what the Song is about, it’s like saying the Rose died on the Cross. She’s not like a Whistleblower or something.
I would look for Rosicrucian parents and things.