# Jesus never claimed to be Son of God.



## marketgunner (Aug 12, 2015)

Jesus referred to himself as Son of Man, other's called Him Son of God.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 12, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> Jesus referred to himself as Son of Man, other's called Him Son of God.


The book of Enoch had 100's of references to Matthew's content therefore scholars used to think it was written after Matthew. But when the dead sea scrolls were found, we realize it was the other way around. As it should have been. Those 100's of references were Matthew referring to the book of Enoch. Meaning this book was popular in Jesus day. If you read this book, the first 60+ chapters considered to be pure, We have description of this son of man. Jesus was claiming to be this son of man. The lack of this son of man being deity has caused the church not to acknowledge this book. But Matthew sure did.


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 13, 2015)

It is good reading. Book of Enock. 

http://www.reluctant-messenger.com/1enoch01-60.htm

So this book was "popular" during the time of Jesus?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 13, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> It is good reading. Book of Enock.
> 
> http://www.reluctant-messenger.com/1enoch01-60.htm
> 
> ...


I would think so... if Matthew referenced it so much. I would never reference a book that I did not consider my audience familiar with


----------



## East River Guide (Aug 13, 2015)

What exactly does "son of man" mean?


----------



## Jeffriesw (Aug 13, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> Jesus referred to himself as Son of Man, other's called Him Son of God.


Peter Confesses Jesus as the Christ


I think he does so in many indirect ways throughout scripture. You can also see that he also does so very directly in Matthew 16 that when Peter correctly identifies Jesus as the son of God, He admits that, that is exactly who he is and charges them to tell no one what he has communicated to them.


Matthew 16
13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.


----------



## Jeffriesw (Aug 13, 2015)

East River Guide said:


> What exactly does "son of man" mean?



Here is some info on it.

http://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/son-man-1495/


Son of Man

“I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him” (Dan. 7:13).

- Daniel 7:9–14
As we have noted over the past few days, the titles “Christ” and “Lord” are the most frequently used titles for Jesus by the New Testament authors. However, the title that we find most often on the lips of Jesus to refer to Himself is neither one of these. Instead, He most frequently uses the title “Son of Man.”

Determining the way in which Jesus used this name is vital if we want to know what Jesus thought about Himself. Does the title simply teach that Jesus was a true human being? Or, does it have some relation to the prophet Ezekiel who was called “son of man” on many occasions (for example, Ezek. 2:1).

It is beyond doubt that Jesus was fully human. It is also clear that Jesus was a prophet. While these ideas may be incorporated into Jesus’ use of the title “Son of Man,” they are not the title’s primary meanings. When Jesus uses this title He has something far greater in mind.

Today’s passage is the background for Jesus’ use of the title “Son of Man.” In Daniel 7, the prophet Daniel records several of the visions he was given while living in Babylon. In verses 9–14, Daniel describes the vision he had of God Almighty. In this vision, God (the “Ancient of Days,” [v. 9]) sits in judgment over the beasts that had been ruling the earth. He executes judgment and takes their dominion away from them (vv. 11–12).

The dominion of the earth is taken from the beasts and given to “one like a son of man” (v. 13). This one becomes Lord of all and is given to reign over all “peoples, nations, and languages” in a kingdom that will never end (v. 14).

This son of man, above all else, is a heavenly figure. It emphasizes the origin, majesty, and dignity of this ruler who will rule over all things forevermore. When Jesus calls Himself the “Son of Man,” He is identifying Himself with this heavenly figure from the book of Daniel. We know this to be the case from passages like Mark 13:26 in which Jesus speaks of His coming on the clouds just as the Daniel 7 passage refers to the “son of man.”

When Jesus calls Himself the “Son of Man,” He emphasizes His heavenly origin. Moreover, when Jesus calls Himself the “Son of Man” we know that He is the King who will reign forevermore.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 13, 2015)

He wasn't the son of God before he became son of man.  He was GOD.

Heb 1:5
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

When He calls  Himself Son of Man He shows He is one of us, mankind.  

He is God.   Who also became the son of man.

The title is not to establish Himself greater but m He lowered himself

Phl 2:6
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
 Phl 2:7
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
 Phl 2:8
And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 13, 2015)

East River Guide said:


> What exactly does "son of man" mean?


This from enoch chp 46




Chapter 46

1There I beheld the Ancient of days, whose head was like white wool, and with him another, whose countenance resembled that of man. His countenance was full of grace, like that of one of the holy angels. Then I inquired of one of the angels, who went with me, and who showed me every secret thing, concerning this Son of man; who he was; whence he was and why he accompanied the Ancient of days.

2He answered and said to me, This is the Son of man, to whom righteousness belongs; with whom righteousness has dwelt; and who will reveal all the treasures of that which is concealed: for the Lord of spirits has chosen him; and his portion has surpassed all before the Lord of spirits in everlasting uprightness.

3This Son of man, whom you behold, shall raise up kings and the mighty from their dwelling places, and the powerful from their thrones; shall loosen the bridles of the powerful, and break in pieces the teeth of sinners.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 13, 2015)

Chp 48. It is interesting to see that our NT which followed this book, considered inspired, was built on the foundation of Enoch. Jesus was claiming to be that one... written about in Enoch


Chapter 48

1In that place I beheld a fountain of righteousness, which never failed, encircled by many springs of wisdom. Of these all the thirsty drank, and were filled with wisdom, having their habitation with the righteous, the elect, and the holy.

2In that hour was this Son of man invoked before the Lord of spirits, and his name in the presence of the Ancient of days.

3Before the sun and the signs were created, before the stars of heaven were formed, his name was invoked in the presence of the Lord of spirits. A support shall he be for the righteous and the holy to lean upon, without falling; and he shall be the light of nations.

4He shall be the hope of those whose hearts are troubled. All, who dwell on earth, shall fall down and worship before him; shall bless and glorify him, and sing praises to the name of the Lord of spirits.

5Therefore the Elect and the Concealed One existed in his presence, before the world was created, and for ever.

6In his presence he existed, and has revealed to the saints and to the righteous the wisdom of the Lord of spirits; for he has preserved the lot of the righteous, because they have hated and rejected this world of iniquity, and have detested all its works and ways, in the name of the Lord of spirits.

7For in his name shall they be preserved; and his will shall be their life. In those days shall the kings of the earth and the mighty men, who have gained the world by their achievements, become humble in countenance.

8For in the day of their anxiety and trouble their souls shall not be saved; and they shall be in subjection to those whom I have chosen.

9I will cast them like hay into the fire, and like lead into the water. Thus shall they burn in the presence of the righteous, and sink in the presence of the holy; nor shall a tenth part of them be found.

10But in the day of their trouble, the world shall obtain tranquillity.

11In his presence shall they fall, and not be raised up again; nor shall there be any one to take them out of his hands, and to lift them up: for they have denied the Lord of spirits, and his Messiah. The name of the Lord of spirits shall be blessed.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 13, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> He wasn't the son of God before he became son of man.  He was GOD.
> 
> Heb 1:5
> For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
> ...



You see us as children of God coming from Heaven to Earth yet you see his only real Son coming to earth as the Father incarnate. 
If we were spirits in Heaven before our trip to earth, why wasn't Christ in his own spirit form in heaven separate from his Father? 
If Jesus was 100% man, why wouldn't he have his own spirit? If so then like the rest of us humans, he would have pre-existed in Heaven with the rest of us.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 13, 2015)

Because He was God,  The only reason to separate is to deal with the sinners.

He preexisted with us as God, remember He was in Heaven while at the same time on earth.

Not Father incarnate, God incarnate, the Father is our invention to show God separate as compared to the Son. Remember, He didn't become the Father (to the Son) until the Son became human,


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 13, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> Because He was God,  The only reason to separate is to deal with the sinners.
> 
> He preexisted with us as God, remember He was in Heaven while at the same time on earth.
> 
> Not Father incarnate, God incarnate, the Father is our invention to show God separate as compared to the Son. Remember, He didn't become the Father (to the Son) until the Son became human,



If we came from heaven as children of God wouldn't God be Father? First I should ask, when did God become "our" Father?


----------



## RBM (Aug 13, 2015)

Swamp Runner said:


> Peter Confesses Jesus as the Christ
> 
> 
> I think he does so in many indirect ways throughout scripture. You can also see that he also does so very directly in Matthew 16 that when Peter correctly identifies Jesus as the son of God, He admits that, that is exactly who he is and charges them to tell no one what he has communicated to them.
> ...



Yes and John 10:30 is also worth note.

"I and my Father are one."


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 13, 2015)

RBM said:


> Yes and John 10:30 is also worth note.
> 
> "I and my Father are one."



I believe you just proved the OP's case of Oneness. He is stating that there was no Son of God before there was a Son of Man. That the Son of God didn't pre-exist as a separate but equal entity of the Trinity before God came to the earth as man. Before then there was only God. 
That God himself came to earth and at that moment the Son of God first appeared. 

Heb 1:5
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?


----------



## RBM (Aug 13, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I believe you just proved the OP's case of Oneness. He is stating that there was no Son of God before there was a Son of Man. That the Son of God didn't pre-exist as a separate but equal entity of the Trinity before God came to the earth as man. Before then there was only God.
> That God himself came to earth and at that moment the Son of God first appeared.
> 
> Heb 1:5
> For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?



There is the three in one or Triune God. The Father, Son, and Spirit. They are not separate but extensions of the Father. The Son was only separate once when he took on the sins of mankind on the cross as the Father cannot look on sin. Now Christ has always been even before he was Jesus. Pre-incarnate Christ. Numerous accounts in the Old Testament of Christ. At the beginning in Genesis when God first said "us" clearly shows the Triune God. One day or one time in the future God will return to "all in all" ,as Paul puts it, as mankind will no longer need the help of the extensions.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 13, 2015)

RBM said:


> There is the three in one or Triune God. The Father, Son, and Spirit. They are not separate but extensions of the Father. The Son was only separate once when he took on the sins of mankind on the cross as the Father cannot look on sin. Now Christ has always been even before he was Jesus. Pre-incarnate Christ. Numerous accounts in the Old Testament of Christ. At the beginning in Genesis when God first said "us" clearly shows the Triune God. One day or one time in the future God will return to "all in all" ,as Paul puts it, as mankind will no longer need the help of the extensions.



Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are merely extensions of God?
Just curious as to what Church type you belong? Most traditional Trinitarians beleive the three entities of God are separate but equal persons of the Godhead. that they have always existed in those separate yet equal modes of the Godhead.

If the Trinity has always existed, will it always exist or will their be a time when these extensions or modes of the Godhead no longer exist as separate modes or persons? 
I'm not sure how Trinitarians answer this question.


----------



## RBM (Aug 13, 2015)

Equal extensions might have been a better word but not separate. If he said, "I and my Father are one", how can he be separate? Equal extension. I am Baptist by denomination. Christian by faith.

For God returning to all in all, see 1st Corinthians 15:28.

And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 14, 2015)

The Trinity is separable. We see Jesus must leave so the Holy Spirit can come.
We see Jesus with the sin debt on the cross asking "Why has thou forsaken me" Only God could pay the price and only through flesh and blood do we share in the death.


----------



## hawglips (Aug 19, 2015)

Jesus claimed that God was his Father, and the Father testified that Jesus was his only begotten Son.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 19, 2015)

hawglips said:


> Jesus claimed that God was his Father, and the Father testified that Jesus was his only begotten Son.



yes, He was the son of God as a Human, but not in Heaven.

He was God.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 19, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> yes, He was the son of God as a Human, but not in Heaven.
> 
> He was God.



Genesis 3:22 states, “And the LORD God said, 'The man has now become like one of us."

Genesis 1:26
Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness,

Who was "us?"

In Genesis 1:26 God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...." Who is being referred to by the use of the plural pronoun our? Does this imply that God is more than one? Does it indicate that Jesus pre-existed the incarnation as the second person of the Trinity? Considering the strict monotheism of the Old Testament this does not seem likely.

http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/usandour.htm


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 19, 2015)

Either  the Trinity or the"Heavenly Hosts"

I studied this with a Hebrew scholar? some time ago and the word is actually "elohyim" which may not include God as plural but would be plural as the rest of heavenly residents, who would know good and evil.

But I think you are reading me wrong . I thoroughly believe God who became the Son was there as part of and separable  from the Godhead, He just did not have a lessor position.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 19, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> Either  the Trinity or the"Heavenly Hosts"
> 
> I studied this with a Hebrew scholar? some time ago and the word is actually "elohyim" which may not include God as plural but would be plural as the rest of heavenly residents, who would know good and evil.
> 
> But I think you are reading me wrong . I thoroughly believe God who became the Son was there as part of and separable  from the Godhead, He just did not have a lessor position.



I might not be the only one reading you wrong. I never implied that you thought Christ held a lessor position than his Father.
You keep saying that God didn't become God the Son until God incarnated as the Son of Man. That before this incarnation as man, God only existed in Heaven as God.
Like I said earlier all of our beliefs about the Trinity overlap somewhat. Your belief by most Christians would be called Oneness or some form of Oneness in the fact that Jesus hasn't always been with his Father in the equal position as Son.
The average Trinitarian, whatever that would be, believes the Son of God has always been the Son of God. He was with God the Father in that position for all of eternity, not just when he came to the Earth. The Holy Spirit has always existed in that position as the Holy Spirit. That the Holy Spirit only came to the earth after Jesus returned to Heaven. Like a relay race he was waiting for Jesus to hand off the baton for his turn.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 20, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> Either  the Trinity or the"Heavenly Hosts"
> 
> I studied this with a Hebrew scholar? some time ago and the word is actually "elohyim" which may not include God as plural but would be plural as the rest of heavenly residents, who would know good and evil.
> 
> But I think you are reading me wrong . I thoroughly believe God who became the Son was there as part of and separable  from the Godhead, He just did not have a lessor position.



If God didn't become the Son of God until he became the Son of Man, what is the Son of God/Son of Man now that he has ascended back to his Father?
Has he stopped being the Son of God now that his role as Son of Man is over? Did he have to do this so that God could become the Holy Spirit and return to the Earth?


----------



## welderguy (Aug 20, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> If God didn't become the Son of God until he became the Son of Man, what is the Son of God/Son of Man now that he has ascended back to his Father?
> Has he stopped being the Son of God now that his role as Son of Man is over? Did he have to do this so that God could become the Holy Spirit and return to the Earth?



"He (Jesus) ever liveth to make intercession for us..."

He continueth ever with an unchangeable priesthood.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 20, 2015)

Can we create a new "Biblical Christianity" sub-forum?  I think I'd like to participate in that one.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 20, 2015)

Huntinfool said:


> Can we create a new "Biblical Christianity" sub-forum?  I think I'd like to participate in that one.



Hammering out what qualifies would be a hoot.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 20, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Hammering out what qualifies would be a hoot.



Easy....just put me in charge.  I'll kick anything out that I don't agree with!


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 20, 2015)

welderguy said:


> "He (Jesus) ever liveth to make intercession for us..."
> 
> He continueth ever with an unchangeable priesthood.



Then you agree that Jesus is in Heaven today with his Father? He didn't go back to being just God once he ascended to Heaven?
I would assume you believe he has always been with his Father from Creation as the Son of God. He "ever liveth" is the way most Trinitarians believe the Son personage has existed.

This is completely different from Oneness where God didn't become the Son of God until he became the Son of Man.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 20, 2015)

Huntinfool said:


> Easy....just put me in charge.  I'll kick anything out that I don't agree with!


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 20, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Then you agree that Jesus is in Heaven today with his Father? He didn't go back to being just God once he ascended to Heaven?
> I would assume you believe he has always been with his Father from Creation as the Son of God. He "ever liveth" is the way most Trinitarians believe the Son personage has existed.
> 
> This is completely different from Oneness where God didn't become the Son of God until he became the Son of Man.



There is only one Throne, The Lamb and God sat upon it.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 20, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Then you agree that Jesus is in Heaven today with his Father? He didn't go back to being just God once he ascended to Heaven?



?? "just God" ??(bad choice of words)

Jesus is God,always has been and always will be. Right now,as we speak,He is sitting on the right hand of the Father making intercession for His people.We also know of one instance where He even stood up.At Steven's death.

Acts7:54-56
" When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.
 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God."


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 21, 2015)

Huntinfool said:


> Can we create a new "Biblical Christianity" sub-forum?  I think I'd like to participate in that one.



Me too!


----------



## Jeffriesw (Aug 21, 2015)

Huntinfool said:


> Can we create a new "Biblical Christianity" sub-forum?  I think I'd like to participate in that one.



Yes 



JB0704 said:


> Hammering out what qualifies would be a hoot.



Suscription to the Westminster Confession of Faith ought to work 



Huntinfool said:


> Easy....just put me in charge.  I'll kick anything out that I don't agree with!



How can you be in charge? when I am the obvious choice...


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 21, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Hammering out what qualifies would be a hoot.



Whatever website Artfuldodger is currently linking to should be the standard.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 21, 2015)

Swamp Runner said:


> Suscription to the Westminster Confession of Faith ought to work



But isn't that just another attempt by man to determine what is Biblical?



OH DARN!!
I bet I'm out already.




Actually, the WCF stands tall among men's works.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 21, 2015)

Why don't we make a new creed? [not serious] In the past our founding fathers had different beliefs and every so often they determined to draw a circle, define the one true belief as they viewed it and anyone believing different was outside the circle. Orthodox or heretic, in or out. What is interesting is the creeds we do have.... especially to see it evolve.  You can see the beliefs morphing. You can also deduce what that present day is arguing over. Very interesting;https://carm.org/creeds-and-confessions


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 21, 2015)

Notice the first creed, the apostles creed. The Father, not Jesus was the creator. Also notice that this creed reads different from CARMS version. So does the next one. I may paste it. I have pointed this out to CARM and brought discussion over it... but tradition wins over facts when it comes to religion

Apostles' Creed

1. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:

2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:

3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:

4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored:

5. The third day he rose again from the dead:

6. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty:

7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:

8. I believe in the Holy Ghost:

9. I believe in the holy catholic church: the communion of saints:

10. The forgiveness of sins:

1l. The resurrection of the body:

12. And the life everlasting. Amen.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 21, 2015)

What CARM has listed as the Nicene creed is incorrect. That is the revision made in 381. Notice some differences;
325 Nicene Creed. And in one Lord Jesus Christ , the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance ( homoousion)with the Father; by whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth]; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

381 Constantinopolitan Creed. And in one Lord Jesus Christ , the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; from thence he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 21, 2015)

More. Why does traditional beliefs try to force their belief back into antiquity?
325 Nicene Creed. And in the Holy Ghost.

381 Constantinopolitan Creed. And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets. In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

325 Nicene Creed. [But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'â€”they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.]"

381 Constantinopolitan Creed. We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ , the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; from thence he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets. In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 21, 2015)

I will link in the source, http://www.theopedia.com/nicene-creed edit in , but it is everywhere. This is not debated, it is fact. 
Nicene Creed
The Nicene Creed is a Christian statement of faith accepted by the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and most Protestant churches. It gets its name from the First Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.), where it was initially adopted, and from the First Council of Constantinople (381 A.D.), where a revised version was accepted. Thus it may be referred to specifically as the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed to distinguish it from the original 325 A.D. version.

The original Nicene Creed adopted in 325 ended just after the words, "We believe in the Holy Spirit..." Content was added at the First Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D.; hence the name "Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed", which refers to the modified or updated creed. The Third Ecumenical Council in Ephesus (431 A.D.) reaffirmed the creed in this form and explicitly forbade making additional revisions to it.

There have been other subsequent creeds formulated to guard against perceived heresy, but this one, as revised in 381 A.D., was the last time both the Western (Catholic) and Eastern (Orthodox) churches were in united agreement on a Credo. This creed is not to be confused with the later Athanasian Creed.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 21, 2015)

Then in 500, notice the trinity. Notice the HS  becoming a coequal third person. This was not on the table for debate at the nicene council. As a matter of fact, it did come up but was brought up as an insult to Arius because while trying to discredit Arius, Marcus, or someone starting with a M tried to discredit Arius by saying he was friends with Valentinious... and then he explains the trinity exactly as it is described today, saying that Arius was friends with this heretic whom teaches "this belief". Funny thing is that when trins look back in history for the first mentions of the belief, they ignore that a man known to be a knostic was the first. They don't want to be associated with him. Yet he was first, and this belief used as an insult at the nicene council. I can produce all that I am saying if anyone likes to see things for themselves. 
Athanasian Creed (A.D. 500)
Later part;The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals, but one Eternal.

As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one Uncreated, and one Incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Spirit Almighty. And yet they are not three almighties, but one Almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet they are not three gods, but one God.

So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord. And yet not three lords, but one Lord.

For as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge each Person by Himself to be both God and Lord, so we are also forbidden by the catholic religion to say that there are three gods or three lords.

The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

So there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.

And in the Trinity none is before or after another; none is greater or less than another, but all three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

He therefore that will be saved must think thus of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man; God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of the substance of his mother, born in the world; perfect God and perfect man, of a rational soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching His godhead; and inferior to the Father, as touching His manhood; who, although He is God and man, yet he is not two, but one Christ; one, not by conversion of the godhead into flesh but by taking of the manhood into God; one altogether; not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For as the rational soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ; who suffered for our salvation, descended into CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, He sits at the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence He will come to judge the quick and the dead. At His coming all men will rise again with their bodies and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 21, 2015)

This from wiki; briefly stating a portion of what Marcus said about Arius in an attempt to discredit him for being associated with Valentius.... and describes why being linked with him is so bad... the description of the trinity.
Trinity[edit]
In the fourth-century, Marcellus of Ancyra declared that the idea of the Godhead existing as three hypostases (hidden spiritual realities) came from Plato through the teachings of Valentinus,[9] who is quoted as teaching that God is three hypostases and three prosopa (persons) called the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit:

"Now with the heresy of the Ariomaniacs, which has corrupted the Church of God... These then teach three hypostases, just as Valentinus the heresiarch first invented in the book entitled by him 'On the Three Natures'. For he was the first to invent three hypostases and three persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and he is discovered to have filched this from Hermes and Plato." [10]


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 21, 2015)

So.... I say all this because "biblical Christianity" changes with time. It basically means those who out number the other claims to be "biblical"


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 21, 2015)

1gr8bldr said:


> So.... I say all this because "biblical Christianity" changes with time. It basically means those who out number the other claims to be "biblical"



Amen! Why did man feel the need for the creed? Why was it so important for "man" to form some agreement among themselves as to what God was, is, and what he said?
What was their motive?

I can imagine someone coming into salvation by choice or election and happy that they found Jesus or he found them. 
Then they are handed one of these creeds. It sounds like it could scare and confuse. They might say, I just signed up for the salvation part of Christianity, not Catholic seminary.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 21, 2015)

The new "Biblical Christianity" sub forum should only contain scriptures from the Bible;

“There is one God, and one mediator between God and men,
the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5).

“Do we not all have one Father? Has not one God created
us?” (Mal. 2:10).

“Before Me there was no God formed, and there will be none
after Me” (Isa. 43:10).

John 5:44
How can you believe since you accept glory from one another but do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?

Ephesians 1:3
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ.

Revelation 3:12
The one who is victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will they leave it. I will write on them the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on them my new name.

Deuteronomy 18:18
I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him.

John 17:3
And this is the way to have eternal life--to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, the one you sent to earth.

Biblical Christianity right out of the Bible itself.


----------



## hawglips (Aug 22, 2015)

1gr8bldr said:


> So.... I say all this because "biblical Christianity" changes with time. It basically means those who out number the other claims to be "biblical"



Exactly.


----------



## hawglips (Aug 22, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Amen! Why did man feel the need for the creed? Why was it so important for "man" to form some agreement among themselves as to what God was, is, and what he said?
> What was their motive?



To unite the various groups of Christians under one umbrella - decided on by virtue of what boils down to IMO, "might makes right."  In other words, ever since the mixture of religion with politics in 325, the dominating notion of Christianity is the result of gospel interpretation made by those who were strong enough to suppress differing opinions.

Emperor Constantine called selected men to the council - of 4000, only 250 came.  Only 4 from western Europe were there.  Constantine was the one who had final say.  He turned the Nicene Creed into law, and used it to establish unity by force.  The Christians who had been the oppressed, then turned into the oppressors, paired up with the Roman Empire.  

By the time my 32 gr. grandfather (Charlemagne) came along, the political empire and the "church" were the same thing.  And for centuries, the interpretations of the gospel that prevailed were those linked with the strongest political power.  Brutal suppression and persecution was the mode used to persecute and kill those that didn't believe in what was established as law.  

And even after the Reformation, this oppressive attitude didn't change at the root.  Identifying and searching for "heretics" was what still went down.  The persecution and killing continued and was brought to the New World.

"Christianity" has a long history of intolerance toward those holding different opinions.   The irony of such unchristianity is thick.  All this led Roger Williams to say, "The church of Christ is not on the Earth until Christ sends forth new apostles to plant churches anew."  (Chase, "Christianity Through the Centuries, 202-3)


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 22, 2015)

hawglips said:


> To unite the various groups of Christians under one umbrella - decided on by virtue of what boils down to IMO, "might makes right."  In other words, ever since the mixture of religion with politics in 325, the dominating notion of Christianity is the result of gospel interpretation made by those who were strong enough to suppress differing opinions.
> 
> Emperor Constantine called selected men to the council - of 4000, only 250 came.  Only 4 from western Europe were there.  Constantine was the one who had final say.  He turned the Nicene Creed into law, and used it to establish unity by force.  The Christians who had been the oppressed, then turned into the oppressors, paired up with the Roman Empire.
> 
> ...




"All this led Roger Williams to say, "The church of Christ is not on the Earth until Christ sends forth new apostles to plant churches anew." "


This could be said for all times in Christianity. It could definitely be said for the twentieth century religious political influence ( largely from biblical Christianity) in America and it's influence t/o the world and even the politics present and how it can be viewed as intolerant, oppressive and therefore hypocritical .

 Human nature can always make a jaundiced case that Europeans and the European invaders to the New World were spiritual forked tongue spawn of the cherub of the morning commissioned by Kings (States) under the guise of authentic Christianity. And that the oppressed want a go at kicking the oppression can for themselves-- it's my ball and I'm taking it away and going away to my game and my rules... because....


It is my view that despite this view, right and wrong, there is authentic Ecclesia and always has been for people of faith, which lists what it believes, as it sends out missions throughout the world. This Ecclesia does the best it can according to the times. The fact that individuals would use these beliefs for their worldly ways of life, ( often said, "Our way of life blessed by God in competition with the world.", knowingly and unknowingly is a fact of our past, our present, and hopefully less and less to our future.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 22, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> Whatever website Artfuldodger is currently linking to should be the standard.



I've been reading about something Marketgunner  brought up in this OP. 
Which is "was the Son of God in Heaven or did God exist in that capacity before he became the Son of Man."

I've also been reading about if we existed as spirits in Heaven before coming down to earth? If God knew us before we were born, in what capacity did we exist?
If only in his Word then it's possible this is how he knew his Son. 
We pick one way to explain the preexistence of Jesus but we pick another to explain our preexistence.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 22, 2015)

Jesus prays to God. (John 17:1-3)
• Jesus has faith in God. (Hebrews 2:17,18, Hebrews 3:2)
• Jesus is a servant of God. (Acts 3:13)
• Jesus does not know things God knows. (Mark 13:32, Revelation 1:1)
• Jesus worships God. (John 4:22)
• Jesus has one who is God to him. (Revelation 3:12)
• Jesus is in subjection to God. (1 Corinthians 15:28)
• Jesus' head is God. (1 Corinthians 11:3)
• Jesus has reverent submission, fear, of God. (Hebrews 5:7)
• Jesus is given lordship by God. (Acts 2:36)
• Jesus is exalted by God.(Acts 5:31)
• Jesus is made high priest by God. (Hebrews 5:10)
• Jesus is given authority by God. (Philippians 2:9)
• Jesus is given kingship by God. (Luke 1:32,33)
• Jesus is given judgment by God. (Acts 10:42)
• "God raised [Jesus] from the dead". (Acts 2:24, Romans 10:9, 1 Corinthians 15:15)
• Jesus is at the right hand of God. (Mark 16:19, Luke 22:69, Acts 2:33, Romans 8:34)
• Jesus is the one human mediator between the one God and man. (1 Timothy 2:5)
• God put everything, except Himself, under Jesus. (1 Corinthians 15:24-28)
• Jesus did not think being "equal with God" was graspable. (Philippians 2:6)
• "Around the ninth hour, Jesus shouted in a loud voice, saying "Eli Eli lama sabachthani?" which is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"" (Matthew 27:46)


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 22, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I've been reading about something Marketgunner  brought up in this OP.
> Which is "was the Son of God in Heaven or did God exist in that capacity before he became the Son of Man."
> 
> I've also been reading about if we existed as spirits in Heaven before coming down to earth? If God knew us before we were born, in what capacity did we exist?
> ...



Good stuff Art! Don't let the frustrated beat you down.


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 22, 2015)

Huntinfool said:


> Can we create a new "Biblical Christianity" sub-forum?  I think I'd like to participate in that one.




This idea is so "Biblically Christian". It will work. But expect a heap of sub-forums from the initial sub-forum. Some would not be unhappy to see these very things unfold.







[/QUOTE]


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 22, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Jesus prays to God. (John 17:1-3)
> • Jesus has faith in God. (Hebrews 2:17,18, Hebrews 3:2)
> • Jesus is a servant of God. (Acts 3:13)
> • Jesus does not know things God knows. (Mark 13:32, Revelation 1:1)
> ...



Hebrews 2:9
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

 I believe this answers the list above.

 This is about the Jesus that is no longer made lower than the angels, this is about the Jesus that was buried and risen, ascended and returned , this is the Jesus that completed the atonement that we may have life eternal. not lower than angels.

Revelation 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and *****mongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 22, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> If only in his Word then it's possible this is how he knew his Son.



Are you learning about God or exploring the limits of mans imagination?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 22, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> Are you learning about God or exploring the limits of mans imagination?



You see it as the latter, I see it as the former. I was indoctrinated under one of man's creeds.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 22, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> You see it as the latter, I see it as the former. I was indoctrinated under one of man's creeds.



I see no evidence that you spend 10x as much time with God's Word than you spend with mans word.  Am I wrong?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 22, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> I see no evidence that you spend 10x as much time with God's Word than you spend with mans word.  Am I wrong?



No.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 22, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> Are you learning about God or exploring the limits of mans imagination?



I have rethought my answer to your question and in all honesty I'm doing both. I like and enjoy hearing everyone's various beliefs and paths as I explore my own path in learning about God.
It appears Christians have many paths through Jesus Christ in their destiny. 
Each given according to the Spirit or their earthly father's indoctrination.

I should and plan to study scripture more and try to hear directly from the Spirit. Like I've said before, I was raised by "man." Mainly Southern Baptist men. I have also attended Holiness Churches, Oneness Apostolic Churches, Methodist Churches, Presbyterian Churches, and an occasional Catholic Mass. That's a lot of "man" for me to toss to the side.

I feel that I've been fairly successful in tossing a good bit of the Creed mentality and learning on my own. 
If I'm willing to do this and understand election and predestination, then this same willingness might lead me to Preterism or that the New Israel isn't the Church.

That being said I do understand God's ultimate plan can be summed up with Ephesian 1:5;

"he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will."

I don't understand why God used Abraham and Israel as his path to the Gentiles. When I read Romans 11 it still sounds like Gentiles were grafted in to Israel. We became Jews. Perhaps the Church is the elect in this respect and in Ephesians 1:5. 
Either way Abraham and Israel are a big part of Christianity that I must explore as to why God chose that path to grant me salvation. Why this process to ultimately reach the Gentiles? Why all of the shadows, symbols, and types to eventually reach the predestined future events? If no one will understand but the elect, why the shadows and long path through the Old Testament? If the New Testament wasn't ever New, why have the Old?

I also don't understand election into adoption. I understand election or adoption. If elected, why do I need to be adopted?

I admit that I have a lot of soul searching and direct reading of the scripture to my final destiny of understanding. The more I know, the more I don't know. Perhaps along this path my eyes will be fully opened to the truth by the Spirit. I feel like I've had a Special Revelation in regards to salvation but I don't feel like everything Biblical has been revealed to me personally.

Truth as in "God's truth" revealed and not yours or any other man.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 22, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> 17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.



This bride?

And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 22, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> ... God's ultimate plan can be summed up



In the beginning God created ... so that God may be all in all.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 22, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> In the beginning God created ... so that God may be all in all.



2 Corinthians 3:18
And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

Romans 8:17
Now if we are children, then we are heirs--heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

Romans 8:29
For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.

1 Corinthians 13:12
For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

1 John 3:2
Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.

Hey, this is related to the OP. We will see Jesus as he is. We may never know until this time comes as it has not yet been revealed. When we do we sill see exactly and we shall be like him. Amen.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 22, 2015)

Ephesians 3:6
This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.

Galatians 3:29
If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Ephesians 2:12
remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.

Romans 11:11
Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious.

Romans 11:25-26
I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in,
26and in this way all Israel will be saved. As it is written: "The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.

Romans 11:30
Once, you Gentiles were rebels against God, but when the people of Israel rebelled against him, God was merciful to you instead.

Colossians 3:11
Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.

Sorry for getting off topic but the Spirit is reaching my spirit.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 22, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> This bride?
> 
> And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.


Yes. The Holy Spirit and the Church ( citizens of the kingdom) bid those outside of the gates to come, take of the water of life that is given freely.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 22, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Yes. The Holy Spirit and the Church ( citizens of the kingdom) bid those outside of the gates to come, take of the water of life that is given freely.



Could that parable be about Jesus inviting Jews but they wouldn't come so he invited the Gentiles?
The wedding hall was filled with guests. Gentiles?


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 22, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Could that parable be about Jesus inviting Jews but they wouldn't come so he invited the Gentiles?
> The wedding hall was filled with guests. Gentiles?



Yes, that parable was a sign for what was coming to them and has come for us.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 22, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Yes, that parable was a sign for what was coming to them and has come for us.



Who was the guy that tried to come in that didn't have the wedding garment on?(Matt.22)

Could he be one that was not chosen?

14 "For many are called, but few are chosen."


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 23, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Hebrews 2:9
> But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.



Is it possible that Jesus emptied himself and then use the power & authority of his Father? In order to do this he had to be anointed.

Philippians 2:7
but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.

Matthew 28:18
Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth.

Acts 10:38
38"You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 23, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Who was the guy that tried to come in that didn't have the wedding garment on?(Matt.22)
> 
> Could he be one that was not chosen?
> 
> 14 "For many are called, but few are chosen."



Have you ever been invited to a wedding as a guest but not actually there to be the bride?


----------



## welderguy (Aug 23, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Have you ever been invited to a wedding as a guest but not actually there to be the bride?



In this parable,the issue is not about being the bride,but a guest.
But there is a distinction made with this certain guest apart from the other guests.So much so that he was thrown into outer darkness where there was weeping and gnashing of teeth.

My question is,why this distinction between the guests?


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 23, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Who was the guy that tried to come in that didn't have the wedding garment on?(Matt.22)
> 
> Could he be one that was not chosen?
> 
> 14 "For many are called, but few are chosen."



IMO, the guest that was there after the city had been destroyed, represents the surviving Jews, and being bound up and cast into outer darkness is representative of that Jew being kicked out of covenant.

The judgment upon Jerusalem, ended the old covenant system , temple, prophets, priests, law, imputed sin, and death.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 23, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> IMO, the guest that was there after the city had been destroyed, represents the surviving Jews, and being bound up and cast into outer darkness is representative of that Jew being kicked out of covenant.
> 
> The judgment upon Jerusalem, ended the old covenant system , temple, prophets, priests, law, imputed sin, and death.



So,are you saying God makes a covenant and then breaks it?


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 23, 2015)

welderguy said:


> So,are you saying God makes a covenant and then breaks it?



God didn't break the old covenant. The Jews broke it by playing the harlot with Rome. When they said we have no king but ceasar!

God divorced Israel through death, then married her again as the Church.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 23, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> God didn't break the old covenant. The Jews broke it by playing the harlot with Rome. When they said we have no king but ceasar!
> 
> God divorced Israel through death, then married her again as the Church.



God doesn't divorce, He cleans house.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 23, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> God doesn't divorce, He cleans house.



Jeremiah 3:8


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 23, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Jeremiah 3:8




14 ‘Return, O faithless sons,’ declares the Lord;
‘For I am a master [husband] to you,
And I will take you one from a city and two from a family,
And I will bring you to Zion.’

15 “Then I will give you shepherds after My own heart, who will feed you on knowledge and understanding.

Looks like a house cleaning to me.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 23, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> 14 ‘Return, O faithless sons,’ declares the Lord;
> ‘For I am a master [husband] to you,
> And I will take you one from a city and two from a family,
> And I will bring you to Zion.’
> ...



Ken Gentry always does an excellent job with Revelation. Im sure he's preterist at heart , but he claims to be a  post-millennial  futurist. Either way, I see things like he does.

http://postmillennialismtoday.com/2013/12/27/revelations-scroll-gods-divorce-decree/


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 23, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Ken Gentry always does an excellent job with Revelation. Im sure he's preterist at heart , but he claims to be a  post-millennial  futurist. Either way, I see things like he does.
> 
> http://postmillennialismtoday.com/2013/12/27/revelations-scroll-gods-divorce-decree/



How does this fit with your views and Gentry's views on the divorce and the bride from above?

Kenneth Gentry December 28, 2013 at 8:17 am

As a postmillennialist I believe Israel will also be saved. And following John Murray’s exposition, I believe it will be en masse according to Rom 11. The divorce of Israel is an image of judgment. It speaks of the rejection of geo-political Israel as central to God’s kingdom, while ethnic Israel still has the biblical expectation of salvation.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 23, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Ken Gentry always does an excellent job with Revelation. Im sure he's preterist at heart , but he claims to be a  post-millennial  futurist. Either way, I see things like he does.
> 
> http://postmillennialismtoday.com/2013/12/27/revelations-scroll-gods-divorce-decree/



My comment was meant to reflect the character, attributes, and promises of God as revealed in scripture; not Revelation or eschatology.  Interpretation of prophecy must, of coarse, be consistent with all scripture.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 23, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> How does this fit with your views and Gentry's views on the divorce and the bride from above?
> 
> Kenneth Gentry December 28, 2013 at 8:17 am
> 
> As a postmillennialist I believe Israel will also be saved. And following John Murray’s exposition, I believe it will be en masse according to Rom 11. The divorce of Israel is an image of judgment. It speaks of the rejection of geo-political Israel as central to God’s kingdom, while ethnic Israel still has the biblical expectation of salvation.



He believes the divorce was an image of Judgment. I believe it was the judgment.

Ken does an excellent job of explaining scripture for the full preterist. When he completes his exegesis, its just as full preterist believe, but then he says all the scripture that is fulfilled is just a shadow of what is to come.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 23, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> My comment was meant to reflect the character, attributes, and promises of God as revealed in scripture; not Revelation or eschatology.  Interpretation of prophecy must, of coarse, be consistent with all scripture.



Is prophesy not promises?
 Didn't God promise He would divorce Israel? Jeremiah & Hosea.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 24, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Is prophesy not promises?
> Didn't God promise He would divorce Israel? Jeremiah & Hosea.



Certainly not.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 24, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> Certainly not.



 JER 3:8 divorce of Israel 
 IS 50:1 moms bill of divorcement 
  HO 2:2 Israel not my wife 

 The covenant between God and Israel was a legal marriage contract. Jerusalem is the Harlot in Revelation, Also Babylon, { The great city} and { Where they crucified our Lord}
 Jerusalem committed adultery on God when they shouted out, " We have no king but Caesar" in reference to Jesus being king of the Jews.

 Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Hosea all foretell of this divorce. Revelation does also, and History looks back on the event recorded by Josephus as the divorce. To say there was no divorce is to say the old covenant is still valid today...we all know that is not true, unless we are the most extreme dispensationalist known as Zionist Christians.

 Just my opinion though and I laid out the scriptural support of it.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 24, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> He believes the divorce was an image of Judgment. I believe it was the judgment.
> 
> Ken does an excellent job of explaining scripture for the full preterist. When he completes his exegesis, its just as full preterist believe, but then he says all the scripture that is fulfilled is just a shadow of what is to come.



I've noticed everything is from God's  predestiny and outside of time when we need it to be and then in chronological order when we need it to be.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 24, 2015)

I wish Gentry would have continued with explaining the New Jerusalem from above.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 24, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I wish Gentry would have continued with explaining the New Jerusalem from above.


http://postmillennialism.com/new-jerusalem-and-new-creation/


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 24, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I've noticed everything is from God's  predestiny and outside of time when we need it to be and then in chronological order when we need it to be.



Maybe it's Gods plan of salvation that was predestined... Not our individual experience of salvation?


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 24, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> JER 3:8 divorce of Israel
> IS 50:1 moms bill of divorcement
> HO 2:2 Israel not my wife
> 
> ...



I hate computers. And I have hated them since November of 1967 … there, got that off my chest.



Do you know what a dispensation is?  One who breaks time into multiple dispensations is a dispensationalist.

Merriam-Webster
1a :  a general state or ordering of things; specifically :  a system of revealed commands and promises regulating human affairs 

I find only one scriptural dispensation relating to creation.  Which of us is a dispensationalist?

Israel and Judah committed adultery metaphorically.  That got our points of agreement, related to Jeremiah and as I am aware of them, out of the way.  You did mean the term adultery metaphorically, didn’t you?


On the rest of it I can only think to relate my own experience.  Scripture is God reaching out to His people so that they may know their God.  That means that the book of Jeremiah is part of God telling us about Himself.  The people are there so that we can see Him.  In reading the book (every word, with reverence), for me a picture starts to develop at about Ch. 26 or 27; by Ch. 30 it’s too exciting to let go of.  It’s not a picture of a God who divorces those with whom He is in covenant (it doesn't say that either); it’s a picture of a longsuffering God who clears out the riffraff for His purpose.  That picture is consistent throughout scripture.

We must always remember that God is all in all.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 24, 2015)

> Why did man feel the need for the creed? Why was it so important for "man" to form some agreement among themselves as to what God was, is, and what he said?
> What was their motive?



Possibly because other "mens" were running around making claims that went something like "Jesus never claimed to be the son of God" or "He wasn't the son of God before he became son of man. He was GOD." and then pretended to use Bible verses to back it up?  Perhaps they thought it might be a good idea to have a written set of beliefs that everybody in the cool crowd could agree to as a starting point for discussion?

It is proven every day in here that people who read the same book come back with VERY different impressions of it.


----------



## hawglips (Aug 24, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> yes, He was the son of God as a Human, but not in Heaven.
> 
> He was God.



He ascended to heaven to be at the right hand of God.


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 24, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> I hate computers. And I have hated them since November of 1967 … there, got that off my chest.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I try not to hate.

I wonder if " Scripture is God..." I wonder if "Scripture is God reaching..." And I wonder if " Scripture is God reaching out..." 

I wonder if His people are the people of Scripture?

There I got that off my chest also.   I'm also tired.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 24, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> I try not to hate.



I know, but I tell myself it OK if it's a computer.  Besides, it's their fault, they make me hate them.



> I wonder if " Scripture is God..." I wonder if "Scripture is God reaching..." And I wonder if " Scripture is God reaching out..."



I thought I might know where you were headed,




> I wonder if His people are the people of Scripture?



but I was wrong.  I don't see you point, but that's OK because ↓↓↓



> There I got that off my chest also.   I'm also tired.



Hey, it's hard to get any rest when it's all bottled up in there.  Good for you.


----------



## gemcgrew (Aug 25, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I've noticed everything is from God's  predestiny and outside of time when we need it to be and then in chronological order when we need it to be.


I am not exactly sure where your thoughts are on this, so I may not be of any help.

I have to be at work by 8:00. For this to occur, I have to leave the house at 7:30. For this to occur, I have to be in the shower at 7:00. For this to occur, I have to start the coffee pot at 6:30. For this to occur, I have to wake up at 6:15.

The purpose is to be working at 8:00 and this is by design(logical order). Purpose is first in design.

The order is reversed in evidence(execution). Wake up...start coffee...shower...leave house...be at work. Purpose is last in execution.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 25, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> I am not exactly sure where your thoughts are on this, so I may not be of any help.
> 
> I have to be at work by 8:00. For this to occur, I have to leave the house at 7:30. For this to occur, I have to be in the shower at 7:00. For this to occur, I have to start the coffee pot at 6:30. For this to occur, I have to wake up at 6:15.
> 
> ...



You succeeded wonderfully where I failed miserably.

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?p=9666671&highlight=result#post9666671

Next time I should just holler "Hey Gem, how do I explain ..."


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 25, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> I know, but I tell myself it OK if it's a computer.  Besides, it's their fault, they make me hate them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You were right about where I was going. I was there,  I had arrived there long ago and am still there right presently.

Sometimes I feel like a rank stranger. You see I'm going deaf...due to age and for working in noisy environments. My mind is not what it use to be, and it was never great. If ever I got to the point where I could no longer afford glasses-- reading would be a foreigner to me.  All I'd have sensible left, mostly faith and the church. I do know God in them even when all is no longer sensible for me. Scripture, the word alone, is not the Holy Spirit in me.


A gracious promise is here in Christ:


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 25, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> You were right about where I was going. I was there,  I had arrived there long ago and am still there right presently.
> 
> Sometimes I feel like a rank stranger. You see I'm going deaf...due to age and for working in noisy environments. My mind is not what it use to be, and it was never great. If ever I got to the point where I could no longer afford glasses-- reading would be a foreigner to me.  All I'd have sensible left, mostly faith and the church. I do know God in them even when all is no longer sensible for me. Scripture, the word alone, is not the Holy Spirit in me.  If one were forced to choose between them, Spirit is the only choice.
> 
> ...



We are fellow travelers on that journey of the senses, and I'm told that I am ahead of schedule.

Just for the record: The sentence you partially quoted was not stated to be, and should not be understood, as exclusive.  Scripture can be read by anyone who can read.  I'm sure you recall my past insistence that the Spirit is required for understanding of Scripture.  If one were required to choose one, the Spirit is the choice.

Love Ralph Stanley, I grew up with him on the radio.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 25, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> I am not exactly sure where your thoughts are on this, so I may not be of any help.
> 
> I have to be at work by 8:00. For this to occur, I have to leave the house at 7:30. For this to occur, I have to be in the shower at 7:00. For this to occur, I have to start the coffee pot at 6:30. For this to occur, I have to wake up at 6:15.
> 
> ...



My statement was more in regards to when we want to show our point of view. I could say God predestined the destruction of Jerusalem as to present a shadow of his final coming. I could say God was working outside of time when he foreknew me.
I showed God's predestination and working outside of time.
Then I could say that something that happened to me wasn't predestined but my choice. Then I could say Jesus being with God before creation wasn't outside of time.
I could say everything was created in six days or I could say everything is happening as it happens. 

The point I was making is we use predestiny and out of time only when it benefits our argument. Otherwise it's free will and a chronological order of events in time.


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 25, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> We are fellow travelers on that journey of the senses, and I'm told that I am ahead of schedule.
> 
> Just for the record: The sentence you partially quoted was not stated to be, and should not be understood, as exclusive.  Scripture can be read by anyone who can read.  I'm sure you recall my past insistence that the Spirit is required for understanding of Scripture.  If one were required to choose one, the Spirit is the choice.
> 
> Love Ralph Stanley, I grew up with him on the radio.



Please forgive me for being a heel. Or perhaps I am comfortable enough with you that I can be a heel and it's ok. Hope so.

I don't know if it is just coffee or if I'm sensing that some of the saints have an idea of God from their conscious apprehension of their round with scripture. From Genesis to Revelation...they might have the most perfect guess on the will of God. Not only is the medium the message, it is the messenger. My pancreas is agitated with this... and perhaps it is Maxwell House.

With affection and sincere humility... please forgive if I'm more annoying than courteous-- and that I would paint you in a bad light... it shall never be. In fellowship ( fellow travelers) ...


Gordo


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 25, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> I am comfortable enough with you that I can be a heel and it's ok.
> Gordo



That's the way it should be.  I have a word for it ▬ "real".

God Bless you for being real.


----------



## gemcgrew (Aug 26, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> The point I was making is we use predestiny and out of time only when it benefits our argument. Otherwise it's free will and a chronological order of events in time.


It is important to maintain the Creator/creature distinctive.


----------



## gemcgrew (Aug 26, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> You succeeded wonderfully where I failed miserably.
> 
> http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?p=9666671&highlight=result#post9666671
> 
> Next time I should just holler "Hey Gem, how do I explain ..."


I actually prefer your explanation.


----------



## Harbuck (Aug 28, 2015)

Wow, .you guys still discovering that the trinity is a false religion/teachings


----------



## Harbuck (Aug 28, 2015)




----------



## marketgunner (Aug 28, 2015)

Harbuck said:


> Wow, .you guys still discovering that the trinity is a false religion/teachings



God has only shown us himself as three persons, We applied the word Trinity, there might be many more and still bes God, did you consider that?


----------



## Harbuck (Aug 28, 2015)

If your saying that God is omnipresent, the Great I Am. That is correct sir. But in all his Greatness and vastness he is still the only 1 true God.


----------



## Harbuck (Aug 28, 2015)

Jesus is both fully man and fully God.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 29, 2015)

Harbuck said:


> Jesus is both fully man and fully God.



Is or was?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 29, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Is or was?



I'm going to have to say "is." Even if he was  pre-existant, once he became a man, he acquired the soul of a man. This soul or entity we call Jesus is now in Heaven with his Father.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 29, 2015)

Harbuck said:


> Jesus is both fully man and fully God.



Reading through this thread, wouldn't you say Marketgunner's beliefs are more in line with Oneness than Trinitarian?

He doesn't believe the Son of God existed until God became the Son of Man.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 29, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I'm going to have to say "is." Even if he was  pre-existant, once he became a man, he acquired the soul of a man. This soul or entity we call Jesus is now in Heaven with his Father.



The soul of a man?.  What is the soul of a man?

Jesus did not need or get and does not have the soul of a man.  He only acquired the flesh of man.  Just as you were assigned the flesh of mankind to be able for one death to apply to all flesh.

Heb 2:14
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

The soul of a man is not created when the body is formed.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 29, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Reading through this thread, wouldn't you say Marketgunner's beliefs are more in line with Oneness than Trinitarian?
> 
> He doesn't believe the Son of God existed until God became the Son of Man.




I believe He existed, 
Jhn 1:1
¶
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
 Jhn 1:2
The same was in the beginning with God.

The " Word" who became flesh is not a son of God before becoming the son of man.  He was not in a secondary position in Heaven. He is God,  shown to us as a separable personality.

The Trinity is shown to be separable in purpose yet one in unity.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 29, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> The soul of a man?.  What is the soul of a man?
> 
> Jesus did not need or get and does not have the soul of a man.  He only acquired the flesh of man.  Just as you were assigned the flesh of mankind to be able for one death to apply to all flesh.
> 
> ...



What ever part of man that made Eve talk Adam into eating the fruit. What ever part of man that made Adam eat the fruit.
That is the part of man that Jesus had to have to take on man's sin. Adam died physically and spiritually. What ever made him be separated from God is what Jesus had to have when he became a man. He was 100% man and had to possess everything a man has. Even if he was 100% God.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 29, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> I believe He existed,
> Jhn 1:1
> ¶
> In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
> ...



Was he in an equal but "separate in purpose" position? If he was with God from the beginning then he would have to co-exist in some equal person of the Godhead. If not the Son, then in what third part of the Trinity did he exist?


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 29, 2015)

Art, I have a question for you on this topic.

While reading today and working on another topic I notice John 18:36 Jesus clearly refers to the Kingdom as His. If the Kingdom of God is also Christs' Kingdom then isn't Christ clearly God?  Or do you think Jesus Kingdom is different than the Kingdom of God?


----------



## Harbuck (Aug 29, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Reading through this thread, wouldn't you say Marketgunner's beliefs are more in line with Oneness than Trinitarian?
> 
> He doesn't believe the Son of God existed until God became the Son of Man.



Yes I thought he is oneness.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 29, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Art, I have a question for you on this topic.
> 
> While reading today and working on another topic I notice John 18:36 Jesus clearly refers to the Kingdom as His. If the Kingdom of God is also Christs' Kingdom then isn't Christ clearly God?  Or do you think Jesus Kingdom is different than the Kingdom of God?



Matthew 28:18
Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.


1 Corinthians 15:24
Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 29, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Matthew 28:18
> Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
> 
> 
> ...



So the Son took over the Fathers position, did the Father take over the Sons position or what?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 29, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> So the Son took over the Fathers position, did the Father take over the Sons position or what?



The Son was the image of his Father. Jesus didn't take over his Father's position. Son ship is an extension of the Father giving his son authority. It's very similar to when a  son takes over his earthly father's business or family affairs. It's like power of attorney. It was even more so in the time of Jesus' as a man on the earth. The son was an image of his Father. The first born son bear this responsibility. He was given authority by his father to operate as his father. He never became or took his father's power but used his father's power.
The father never had to become his son. The father was not made in the image of his son. The father and son share in power and authority in granting forgiveness. God the Father has granted his Son the authority to Judge. The Son was healing the sick using the power granted to him by his Father.
This power and authority was granted and given from the Father to the Son.

“The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner” (John 5:19)

“For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will” (John 5:21)

John 14:28
"You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

Acts 2:36
"Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah."

Matthew 25:31-34
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory and all his angels are with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 The people of every nation will be gathered in front of him. He will separate them as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right but the goats on his left.
34 “Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, my Father has blessed you! Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the creation of the world.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 30, 2015)

Art, there is only one God & one Kingdom of God. If Jesus is, was, or will be the King that rules/ruled/or will rule over the Kingdom of God. He must be God!


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 30, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Art, there is only one God & one Kingdom of God. If Jesus is, was, or will be the King that rules/ruled/or will rule over the Kingdom of God. He must be God!



It is true it's only one Kingdom. 

1 Corinthians 15:24 
Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 30, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Was he in an equal but "separate in purpose" position? If he was with God from the beginning then he would have to co-exist in some equal person of the Godhead. If not the Son, then in what third part of the Trinity did he exist?



God , who became the Son of Man,


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 30, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> What ever part of man that made Eve talk Adam into eating the fruit. What ever part of man that made Adam eat the fruit.
> That is the part of man that Jesus had to have to take on man's sin. Adam died physically and spiritually. What ever made him be separated from God is what Jesus had to have when he became a man. He was 100% man and had to possess everything a man has. Even if he was 100% God.



what is a man?  but a vessel for a sinful spiritual eternal being.

God who became the Son of man was already a eternal spiritual being, so no change was needed jusy "a body thou has prepared for me."


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 30, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> The Son was the image of his Father. Jesus didn't take over his Father's position. Son ship is an extension of the Father giving his son authority. It's very similar to when a  son takes over his earthly father's business or family affairs. It's like power of attorney. It was even more so in the time of Jesus' as a man on the earth. The son was an image of his Father. The first born son bear this responsibility. He was given authority by his father to operate as his father. He never became or took his father's power but used his father's power.
> The father never had to become his son. The father was not made in the image of his son. The father and son share in power and authority in granting forgiveness. God the Father has granted his Son the authority to Judge. The Son was healing the sick using the power granted to him by his Father.
> This power and authority was granted and given from the Father to the Son.
> 
> ...



but God the Son, never had lessor power than the Trinity, even while in a human body, He was still in Heaven


----------



## BAR308 (Oct 26, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> Jesus referred to himself as Son of Man, other's called Him Son of God.



The Bible refers to Jesus as Son of God... enough said.


----------

