# Good example



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 25, 2019)

The fight over Jesus as God was exactly as we see the current battle over Democrats and Republicans back in the 300's. The fight became about winning, with little regard to truth. Each side bashing the other, character attacks, means of association attacks, mistruths, etc. Pushed by the main players, not so much supported by the people. And as with any division, the party with the least substance always  resorts to those attacks mentioned.

Constantine saw that this extreme divide would hinder society, so he ruled in favor of the Jesus as God crowd. Imagine how history will paint Trump. Some books will speak of him as corrupt, some as the greatest President ever. Will anyone be able to discern the truth decades from now? Let's take it a step further... What if the Democrats win out by means of majority and then control the narrative of history concerning Trump? How would they do this? Likely they would not be able, however, the fight of Jesus as God was effected exactly this way. this is what happened. All writings having anything to do with the opposition to Jesus as God, were destroyed. The council made a ruling that it was a capital offense to possess any writings for the opposing division. Writings about, explaining, confronting, debating, defending... etc, all writing, to or by anyone known to oppose, were banned, burned in the streets. They even went as far as to create a system of "approved" writings.

I  thought I might post this to ponder over. All that you see going on today, is exactly as it was then.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 25, 2019)

The game for power, money and control has always been the same.
Just the players change.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 25, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> The game for power, money and control has always been the same.
> Just the players change.



Power and money are just means to control.  Control is the central principle and indeed dates back to "The Beginning", and is an individual decision.  Who is in control, Me or God? Adam and Eve failed the test, as I often have and sadly still do.   It's a constant struggle not to wrest back control.  Even by ignoring the question, it is answered none-the-less.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 13, 2019)

Today"s news reminds me once again of the days of the fight for Jesus as God. The winning side decided which books would testify as truth and refused the other sources if they did not say what they wanted them to say. Such as the book of Enoch. It was validated in the NT twice by NT writers yet was not allowed as truth??? It did not say what they wanted it to say. It spoke of Jesus as a man, not as God. [Nov 13th, 2019, impeachment hearings where Dems/Shift denied all of Republicans potential witness]


----------



## Israel (Nov 16, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> The fight over Jesus as God was exactly as we see the current battle over Democrats and Republicans back in the 300's. The fight became about winning, with little regard to truth. Each side bashing the other, character attacks, means of association attacks, mistruths, etc. Pushed by the main players, not so much supported by the people. And as with any division, the party with the least substance always  resorts to those attacks mentioned.
> 
> Constantine saw that this extreme divide would hinder society, so he ruled in favor of the Jesus as God crowd. Imagine how history will paint Trump. Some books will speak of him as corrupt, some as the greatest President ever. Will anyone be able to discern the truth decades from now? Let's take it a step further... What if the Democrats win out by means of majority and then control the narrative of history concerning Trump? How would they do this? Likely they would not be able, however, the fight of Jesus as God was effected exactly this way. this is what happened. All writings having anything to do with the opposition to Jesus as God, were destroyed. The council made a ruling that it was a capital offense to possess any writings for the opposing division. Writings about, explaining, confronting, debating, defending... etc, all writing, to or by anyone known to oppose, were banned, burned in the streets. They even went as far as to create a system of "approved" writings.
> 
> I  thought I might post this to ponder over. All that you see going on today, is exactly as it was then.






> All writings having anything to do with the opposition to Jesus as God, were destroyed.



And yet it remains in so many ways lending itself to dispute. There is "enough" left for a man to question (wonder over, seek after understanding of) the nature of the One who has saved him. To whom such questions are posed, where, and in what manner even such seeming debate takes place makes all the difference. The "where" of contention and contending may take place in such a place that no other man may even see it. It could be hidden to all other eyes.

How simple it would have been to strike "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabacthani" from the record, no? Such seems to bear testimony of both a particular _level_ of relationship and its abruption, no?

Or

"Tell my brothers I ascend to my God and their God, my Father and their Father"

Or

"For _there is_ one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; "

There are others no doubt, that may hold a _*seeming inferiority*_ of position attributable to Jesus Christ "but of the day and hour no man knows, not even the Son..." or the assigning of seating when a mother appealed for her sons.

These could have easily been excised. Are they providentially preserved?

No doubt there are also verses where there is no rebuke of those who worship Jesus, and Thomas' own exclamation at His resurrection:

And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

One would have no slight difficulty (if maintaining these verses are not spurious), and if that Jesus the Christ appeared solely as a "good" Torah embracing preacher and practicing Jew to allow such as would (in any other case) appear as idolatry by allowing himself so elevated.

Obviously if one wants to make the case these were added or are presently not understood rightly, then surely the counter would then be as above..."then why leave so many references/verses that seem to undercut any assumed simplistic explanation? Is Jesus Christ _mere_ man? Is He "God"? Is it possible I don't know either in fullness...what it means to be man...and _who_ is God?

For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: That all _men_ should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

There is a relationship revealed when one receives this as true, and spoken truly by Jesus Christ. There is not one iota of any form of usurpation in Him, He is not about seeking to replace or supplant. And this alone is precisely why and how this relationship is both true and He alone is fit conveyor (giver) of such to man. He has faithfully discharged all trust in himself to manifest the fullness of the revelation of God the Father.

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of _things_ in heaven, and _things_ in earth, and _things_ under the earth; And _that_ every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ _is_ Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

A very _devout Jew_ was chosen to write the above. Indeed he became so devout as to even count his own devotion as of little to no consequence in the sight of who had given Himself for him.

If I speak from presumption God knows and will not be silent, but I am heartily convinced he himself (Paul) never heard a single rebuke from the spirit as such might be..."Don't go about making so much of Jesus Christ...you are in danger of the Father's displeasure"

Neither have I...ever.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 16, 2019)

Israel said:


> Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of _things_ in heaven, and _things_ in earth, and _things_ under the earth; And _that_ every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ _is_ Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
> 
> .


Have you ever really, I mean really looked at this to see if it fits or works for the modern interpretation?  How is it that God highly exalted God? How is it that God need be highly exalted?  Only after god exalts himself  should every knee bow? Did he not already bear a name above all names? Summed up Jesus Christ is Lord... to the glory of God? What a mess? Can we not all see this? Why is it that people read over everything as if words and context mean nothing. Is it not problematic? modern readers only see one line of thought here. Jesus who is God humbled himself therefore God was pleased. How does God please himself as if God might have taken a different choice.  Here is the proper translation with paraphrase added for understanding. Let this mind be in us, as an example, which Jesus displayed, Who, Jesus, being made in the image of God, as we all are, did not consider equality with God as something to aspire to, as did Mary, the mother of the curse, whom is the unspoken parallel here, whom did not want to worship God as she was created to do but rather wanted to rival God, to be like him, but not Jesus, he humbled himself, taking the form of a servant, not a rival, realizing he was just a man, made to worship God, not rival God, he was obedient, even so much as death, death on a cross, Therefore.. God was pleased, and highly exalted him, and gave him a name above all names, son, so now every knee shall bow, in heaven and earth and every tounge confess that he is Lord, to the glory of God. This makes contextual sense. And is biblical context of the greater bible context, dove tailing with all the others kings called to serve whom actually had the people serve themselves. But not Jesus,he did not use his position to aquire wives, money, fame, etc. No he went to the cross as the ultimate servant. Therefore... God was pleased.

Why is it that he was given a name? Was he not already God? Would they not already bow? Confess that Jesus is God? Why to the glory of God the Father? Is he the glory recipient ? Where is the 3rd person of the godhead. What a mess. People, read the context


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 16, 2019)

Hebrews 3:3, "Jesus has been found worthy of greater honor than Moses". Seriously, if he is God, do we need be told this?
Heb 1:4, So he became superior to the angels? 
John 1:8, if John is telling us that Jesus is God... then why does he need tell us that John the B is not God?


----------

