B
BradtheImpaler
Guest
John.3:38...
"For I have come down from heaven NOT TO DO MY OWN WILL but the will of Him who sent me"
"For I have come down from heaven NOT TO DO MY OWN WILL but the will of Him who sent me"
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
-
I
Imagican
Guest
That will be an interesting explanation I'm sure. Either that, or you won't get any responses. I am eagerly awaiting replies myself.
T
thessalonian
Guest
BradtheImpaler said:
His earthly life was not for himself. He could have engaged in non-sinful pleasures and by a human will (which he had) it would not have been sinful for him to go to the cross. His human will allowed him to experience fear in the garden. This fear caused him to say "if it be your will let this cup pass from he". But he was submissive to the will of the father which his divine will was united with. It's not problematic at all.
I think you should cap the part "I have come down from heaven". For you who do not believe in his divinity it seems that this phrase is more problematic for you.
T
thessalonian
Guest
Imagican said:
Ya right. :-?
G
Guest
Guest
thessalonian said:
Doesn't it seem highly improbable that a diety would loose that much of what that diety is .. . . and be influenced by a very HUMAN physiological response such as "fear"?? :-?
This verse clearly shows two distinct individuals. There is no way around it.
B
BradtheImpaler
Guest
Who is the "I" in "I have come down from heaven"? It would have to be the divine nature of Jesus according to you? Then how could that which "came down from heaven" say "not to do my will but the will of He that sent me", if He is GOD (which would also make Him the one who sent Himself, but enough problems for now) But if it is the human nature of Jesus saying it, how did that human self say "I came down from heaven"?
S
sehad
Guest
Orion said:
Why would you consider that losing what it meant to be deity? I think of it as more of an encouragement that GOD took on human traits and OVERCAME each and everyone of them. To me it is not demeaning, it is a comfort.
T
thessalonian
Guest
Orion said:
Jesus is distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit as a person. AMEN! I agree. It is not that he lost that much of what a diety is. He allowed himself to be limited in his humanity. The scriptures tell us he was like us in all things but sin. Therefore I would assume he experienced fear. He definitely experience hunger and temptation in the desert. Once again in the context of trinitarian thought, your objections mean nothing.
I
Imagican
Guest
thessalonian said:
Thess,
What you have offered may as well 'not be a response'. I don't believe anyone has denied that Christ existed in heaven WITH God previous to 'taking on flesh'. What has been aksed is that; IF Christ IS God, then why would He PLAINLY state that what He offered was NOT of His OWN, but 'GIVEN' Him BY the Father? Your explaination did NOTHING to explain THIS.
IF Christ WAS God, then WHY would He state PLAINLY that what He had to offer US was NOT His OWN but GIVEN Him BY the Father? That IS the question. It makes NO sense that Christ, BEING God, would make such a statement. If ANYTHING, He is Plainly stating that He is NOT God, but the Son of God, GIVEN EVERYTHING that He possessed.
T
thessalonian
Guest
I believe you are wrong. Brad does not see things your way.
I
Imagican
Guest
thessalonian said:
God limiting HIMSELF. Rediculous. Christ exhibited the POWER to raise the DEAD, Walk on water, turn water into wine, deny temptation, etc.........Where IS the limitations of the power He exhibited? And HOW could God both PREPARE the Sacrifice and BE the sacrifice? 'Trinity' makes EVERYTHING that MUST be stated to 'prove' this doctrine sound 'crazy'.
The Word is NOT some cryptic 'thing' in which the words are SO coded that it takes 'men' to 'create' different meanings behind what it actually states. The Bible PLAINLY STATES that Christ IS the SON OF GOD. It NEVER states that Christ IS God. To try and 'make' it so, is utter falsity.
This IS My Son in whom I, get it, I am well pleased. how much clearer does it NEED be stated? If my father is a king, then I am an heir to that kingdom. I am a 'part' of my father and therefore have the power GIVEN to me by MY FATHER to do His will. As this power IS GIVEN, it CAN be 'taken away'. Now, How could God take His own power away from Himself?
I
Imagican
Guest
I believe you short change Brad. The Word Plainly states that Christ existed BEFORE man. God said 'let US............. another pure indication that Christ existed previous to the 'creation of man'. But, Thess, the indication that Christ was God's Son EVEN THEN. Not God, some 'three headed entity' God and His Son were in existence 'separate yet with a purpose of ONE'. A creation of God and therefore KNOWN AS the Son. Even Satan KNEW of and recognized Christ as the Son of God.
I am not completely sure of Brad's stand on the EXACT nature of Christ and the timeline of His Creation, but he certainly seems to have a clear enough grasp on the 'fact' that Christ IS the Son of God and NOT God Himself.
jesus, on the other hand could quite possibly NEVER existed until His birth in the flesh. Therefore Jesus of Nazareth became Jesus THE CHRIST, hence Jesus Christ.
I'll let Brad speak for himself but I beieve that most if not all of those that have debated this issued of Christ AS God, those that accept it and those that don't, certainly realize that Christ existed WITH God previous to the 'creation' of man. If not, that still doesn't change the position of Christ AS the Son of God, rather than Christ; God Himself.
I am not completely sure of Brad's stand on the EXACT nature of Christ and the timeline of His Creation, but he certainly seems to have a clear enough grasp on the 'fact' that Christ IS the Son of God and NOT God Himself.
jesus, on the other hand could quite possibly NEVER existed until His birth in the flesh. Therefore Jesus of Nazareth became Jesus THE CHRIST, hence Jesus Christ.
I'll let Brad speak for himself but I beieve that most if not all of those that have debated this issued of Christ AS God, those that accept it and those that don't, certainly realize that Christ existed WITH God previous to the 'creation' of man. If not, that still doesn't change the position of Christ AS the Son of God, rather than Christ; God Himself.
K
Klee shay
Guest
As Jesus taught his disciples; "Let your yea be yea and your nay be nay." If Jesus is not saying he is separate to the father; to make the distinction that God's will comes first...then his yea and his nay are confused.
But we all know that Jesus knew the word better than any of us, and it's more likely the confusion comes from man's interpretation than the Lord's delivery. That is not to say any of us will truly understand as he did either; and that can be a sobering thought.
It is enough that God is the Father, Jesus is the Son and the Holy Spirit the baptism by which we are adopted. To say they are all one is correct - as Jesus taught this as well. To say they ARE God however, does not respect the divinity that declares there can only be one God.
You honour the one God Almighty by honouring the Son who offered his life as mankind's salvation; and accepting the Holy Spirit (given after the resurrection) that adopts us into the fold. They are OF God but they are not God; because even he created THEM by righteousness born of the power of God.
But we all know that Jesus knew the word better than any of us, and it's more likely the confusion comes from man's interpretation than the Lord's delivery. That is not to say any of us will truly understand as he did either; and that can be a sobering thought.
It is enough that God is the Father, Jesus is the Son and the Holy Spirit the baptism by which we are adopted. To say they are all one is correct - as Jesus taught this as well. To say they ARE God however, does not respect the divinity that declares there can only be one God.
You honour the one God Almighty by honouring the Son who offered his life as mankind's salvation; and accepting the Holy Spirit (given after the resurrection) that adopts us into the fold. They are OF God but they are not God; because even he created THEM by righteousness born of the power of God.
S
Sothenes
Guest
thessalonian said:
Will work for food.
S
Sothenes
Guest
thessalonian said:
Fear? Where do you get "fear" from?
"I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting. For the Lord GOD will help me; therefore shall I not be confounded: therefore have I set my face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be ashamed."-Isaiah 50:6-7
It doesn't sound like someone who was fearful. Jesus' testimony before Pilate doesn't sound like Jesus is afraid.
Hebrews 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of [our] faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
It is more likely that Jesus despised the shame though he did not hide his face from shame and spitting as the verses point out. Jesus had joy (Hebrews 12:2) and not fear.
Ã
ÃÂoppleganger
Guest
From "The Traditions Of Glastonbury by E Raymond Capt"
The Basic Druidic belief was one of a Trinity not polytheism. The Godhead was called 'Duw' - the one w/o darkness who pervaded the universe. The emblem of druidic belief was 3 golden rays of light, representing 3 aspects emanating from the Godhead. Known as Beli the Creator of the Past, Taran the controlling providence of the present, and Yesu the coming Savior. Romans both before and more viciously after Christ tried to exterminate them for there beliefs, Celtic Christian beliefs.
The Basic Druidic belief was one of a Trinity not polytheism. The Godhead was called 'Duw' - the one w/o darkness who pervaded the universe. The emblem of druidic belief was 3 golden rays of light, representing 3 aspects emanating from the Godhead. Known as Beli the Creator of the Past, Taran the controlling providence of the present, and Yesu the coming Savior. Romans both before and more viciously after Christ tried to exterminate them for there beliefs, Celtic Christian beliefs.
thessalonian said:
What is problematic Thess is the way that people read things into scripture that are just not there. I don't know about others but I have absolutely no problem with Jesus 'coming down from heaven' and not being God.
But as regards fear. When the son of God knows that he is fulfilling the will of his Father there is no fear. So when confronted by Pilate, Jesus said, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above."
Even though he is abandoned at the cross and cries out "My God my God why have you forsaken me?" There is no fear.
Why? Because it was for this reason he came.
And remember what Jesus himself said. "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell."
No Thess - Jesus NEVER knew fear.
T
thessalonian
Guest
vic said:
Heb 5
7: In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard for his godly fear.
8: Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered;
I have no problem with the word agony. But evidently there is a "godly fear". It is the expectation of physical pain that none of us really want to experience yet I have been through operations and beforehand, though I know I will come out okay there is a certain amount of this expection of pay that you just don't look forward to. Nor would God expect you to. So I am fine with the word fear as well. No he was not afraid of those who did him harm. It was just the expectation of unpleasant pain that he was about to experience, undergoing a suffering greater than any man has experienced. I stand by what I have said.