Jesus' deity was divinely limited

[hobbs27]

Originally Posted by Artfuldodger

The Man Christ didn't resurrect with the God Christ?

Human flesh can't withstand the glory of heaven IMO, scripture does tell us this flesh can't look God in the face.

Originally Posted by Artfuldodger

Although I don't look at it that way, I can understand your viewpoint. What I can't grasp is when the man Christ ascended back to Heaven did the God Christ leave his body to re-enter the God God?

No, Christ God sits beside Father God...You ever had a spiritual out of body experience?

Originally Posted by Artfuldodger

The Oneness concept is that since God isn't three Gods in one and the fact that you can't see God, not even in Heaven, that you can only see Jesus in Heaven.

Moses saw Gods backside, as He walked away from him..Since you insist on literal interpretation how do you suppose, Adam and Eve heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden? Gen. 3:8

Originally Posted by Artfuldodger

I also heard that Jesus parked his body in Heaven only to re-enter it for his next trip to Earth.

I never read anywhere that Jesus planned on coming back to Earth...except for those fictional "left behind" series of books. Scripture tells us He's coming back, and we're called up .. to meet him in the sky.

[hummerpoo]

The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die!...
and the Cherubim is still on station.

[gordon 2]

I wonder if for our scripture we do not make for our Lord a tomb?

[Ronnie T]

Originally Posted by gordon 2

I wonder if for our scripture we do not make for our Lord a tomb?

You know what, you make a very good point for us all.

.

[Artfuldodger]

The Judgement seat of Christ-Jesus is the judge.
The Great White Throne Judgement-God is the judge.

This shows a seperation of God & Jesus in Heaven. It also shows some kind of diety of Jesus as a mere man would not have the ability to judge all the Christians.

[1gr8bldr]

Originally Posted by gtparts

This is simply incorrect. Both Mary and Joseph trace their lineages through David, back to Abraham. Both were of the tribe of Judah. You really need to do some research. Here's a start:

http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/geneal.htm

If he is not Joseph's blood son then he is not Son of David. If, Mary is of David's lineage, and that is an if, it does not matter. No where in the bible does the woman's lineage count for anything

[Israel]

Originally Posted by gordon 2

I wonder if for our scripture we do not make for our Lord a tomb?

Yes.
Is Jesus liberated in us by our study and endeavors or have we placed even more constraints upon his manifestation by our lawyerly requirements?

[gtparts]

Originally Posted by 1gr8bldr

If he is not Joseph's blood son then he is not Son of David. If, Mary is of David's lineage, and that is an if, it does not matter. No where in the bible does the woman's lineage count for anything

You obviously either did not read the linked article or you did and completely disregarded it or didn't understand it.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste; a closed mind is just a terrible thing.

[1gr8bldr]

Originally Posted by gtparts

You obviously either did not read the linked article or you did and completely disregarded it or didn't understand it.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste; a closed mind is just a terrible thing.

It did not come up when I tried it but I will try again.

[Ronnie T]

A scripture text to ponder.

John 6:“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. 54 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”

[gtparts]

Originally Posted by Artfuldodger

The Judgement seat of Christ-Jesus is the judge.
The Great White Throne Judgement-God is the judge.

This shows a seperation of God & Jesus in Heaven. It also shows some kind of diety of Jesus as a mere man would not have the ability to judge all the Christians.

Your second paragraph is just a highly implausible conclusion that disregards that Jesus stated that "the Father and I are one". It ignores the unity that is attested to in many Scriptures. The fact that you or anyone else cannot reason through the spiritual truth of Jesus and God being one spiritual entity only serves to show that your conclusion is built on human logic rather than spiritual reality and faith.

It should be obvious that if Jesus and the Father are not one, as you seem to think, then Jesus would be a liar and completely unsuitable as a sacrifice for the redemption of the world. Why would you think it impossible for God to be 100% in heaven, as the Father, and be 100% in the flesh, as Jesus, concurrently? Is that too difficult for God?

[Israel]

Originally Posted by Ronnie T

A scripture text to ponder.

John 6:“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. 54 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”

That Jesus spoke of complete dependence upon his Father while "in the days of his flesh" is spoken clearly in many places. Of his power> "Of myself, I can do nothing"...of his own virtue and righteousness>"why callest thou me good?"...of omniscience>"...the Father will show me greater things..." and "of that day an hour no man knoweth...not even the son..."...of being a man under authority> "I only do what I see the Father doing".
But we just as surely see the testimony of the Lord's eternal estate ..."...glorify thou me with the glory I had with thee..."..."in the beginning was the word..." ..."All authority in heaven and earth"...and every word we see spoken by him in the book of Revelation.
The incarnation is a work totally for our sakes. Jesus regained nothing needed for "himself" in his obedience and humility...he might also have forgone the cross if he cared to "know ye not that even now I could ask the Father for 12 legions of angels..." The point being, he didn't care to.

There was something he was regaining for his Father...as he spoke and worked ONLY what the Father gave him, and that was a restoration of a people once lost. We are now given to see such humility and grace, such obedience and its profit.

It is here we are to abide, not counting insults as personal to us, not counting contradiction as our own precious "victimization".

"The reproaches of those who reproached thee, fell upon me".

As Jesus came in his Father's name to do and speak only for the purpose of upholding that name, so we are now given a name to uphold. And by that abiding we discover, also, that the Father's name is upheld through Christ in us.

And so an order is restored "1Co_11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."

Ultimately all is restored and in order "in God". There is no separation, and our lives are "hidden with Christ in God". We can "come out of hiding", if you will, when we testify of ourselves, instead of the one in whose name we have been sent. And I have often done this to my own shame.
But grace remains for repentance.

Just as Jesus' humility is demonstrated in his obedience...but also in these words "any word spoken against the son of man will be forgiven..." We learn there is also one, given in the name of Jesus, whose refusal and contradiction will not be forgiven if blasphemed, because he has further humbled himself to serve the humble one.."for he shall not speak of himself..."
The complete and utter humility of God himself is demonstrated through Jesus, and testified of the Holy Ghost. God has gone as "far under man" as possible to lift him up...putting all aside that pleased his own soul to reach us.

Jesus became sin.
Do we see this?
When someone has truly turned themselves "inside out" in love for another, they can do no more.

[hummerpoo]

Originally Posted by Israel

That Jesus spoke of complete dependence upon his Father while "in the days of his flesh" is spoken clearly in many places. Of his power> "Of myself, I can do nothing"...of his own virtue and righteousness>"why callest thou me good?"...of omniscience>"...the Father will show me greater things..." and "of that day an hour no man knoweth...not even the son..."...of being a man under authority> "I only do what I see the Father doing".
But we just as surely see the testimony of the Lord's eternal estate ..."...glorify thou me with the glory I had with thee..."..."in the beginning was the word..." ..."All authority in heaven and earth"...and every word we see spoken by him in the book of Revelation.
The incarnation is a work totally for our sakes. Jesus regained nothing needed for "himself" in his obedience and humility...he might also have forgone the cross if he cared to "know ye not that even now I could ask the Father for 12 legions of angels..." The point being, he didn't care to.

There was something he was regaining for his Father...as he spoke and worked ONLY what the Father gave him, and that was a restoration of a people once lost. We are now given to see such humility and grace, such obedience and its profit.

It is here we are to abide, not counting insults as personal to us, not counting contradiction as our own precious "victimization".

"The reproaches of those who reproached thee, fell upon me".

As Jesus came in his Father's name to do and speak only for the purpose of upholding that name, so we are now given a name to uphold. And by that abiding we discover, also, that the Father's name is upheld through Christ in us.

And so an order is restored "1Co_11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."

Ultimately all is restored and in order "in God". There is no separation, and our lives are "hidden with Christ in God". We can "come out of hiding", if you will, when we testify of ourselves, instead of the one in whose name we have been sent. And I have often done this to my own shame.
But grace remains for repentance.

Just as Jesus' humility is demonstrated in his obedience...but also in these words "any word spoken against the son of man will be forgiven..." We learn there is also one, given in the name of Jesus, whose refusal and contradiction will not be forgiven if blasphemed, because he has further humbled himself to serve the humble one.."for he shall not speak of himself..."
The complete and utter humility of God himself is demonstrated through Jesus, and testified of the Holy Ghost. God has gone as "far under man" as possible to lift him up...putting all aside that pleased his own soul to reach us.

Jesus became sin.
Do we see this?
When someone has truly turned themselves "inside out" in love for another, they can do no more.

I often cringe at the use of the word “doctrine”, but am thinking that it should be applied to your statement.

[hobbs27]

John 8:56
Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.


John 8:58

Jesus said unto them,Verily,verily, I say unto you,Before Abraham was, I am.

Jesus was Jesus even before Abraham. No doubt Jesus is God in my heart and mind.

[Artfuldodger]

[quote=gtparts;6904358
Why would you think it impossible for God to be 100% in heaven, as the Father, and be 100% in the flesh, as Jesus, concurrently? Is that too difficult for God?[/QUOTE]

I don't think that would be impossible for God to do. I just don't think that is what God did. I'm basing my beliefs on who Jesus said he was in the Bible. I've already posted enough verses that prove Jesus isn't God.

[1gr8bldr]

Originally Posted by hobbs27

John 8:56
Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.


John 8:58

Jesus said unto them,Verily,verily, I say unto you,Before Abraham was, I am.

Jesus was Jesus even before Abraham. No doubt Jesus is God in my heart and mind.

He saw it through eyes of faith, he rejoiced that one day God would send the Messiah.--- Before Abraham was, I am [sent]. Notice previously in the same chapter that he said the same thing 2x. Most translations have "the one I claim to be" in brackets. If they took this liberty there, why not here also. Same greek grammar. This was part of their lingo. The blind man in the next chapter said the exact same thing. Your translation probably does not show it this way but when you look at the greek it is exact, I am. John's gospel uses the word sent about 40 times. More than the remainder of the NT combined if I recall correctly. That is John's context. Before Abraham was born, I am [sent]. This would be a better than "the one I claim to be" but either way it should have been applied. Also, Jesus was declaring that he was more important than their Abraham who they elevated much farther than he should have been. John said "he was before me", this Jesus said he was before Abraham. They understood this. Think about how Issac was called Abraham's firstborn son yet we know that it was Ishmael. Why, because God promised Issac before Ishmael was born. God's promises were considered as if they already were by men of faith. Jesus was "before" Abraham and John. Also, No Jew ever considered the use of "I am" to mean anything. That is a modern invention. The Early Church Fathers writing volumes trying to defend and tear down the diety of Jesus, never used this argument. Also, The "I am" is actually the result of a "blended translation" Our OT is full of double accounts. I can give lots of examples. What happened is that the writing we have actually came from two writings that were combined. We will say "tradition A and tradition B". Tradition A records that God said that his name was YHWH. Tradition B comes from those who would never say the word YHWH out of reverence. These two traditions were copied to make "Tradition C" which we now have. The original, which would have to be "A" should be the correct words of God. Therefore, there was never an "I am who I am" from God. The proof of this is all over with lots of examples of proof. You can eaisly see it in this case but it jumps out in other examples

[hobbs27]

Originally Posted by 1gr8bldr

He saw it through eyes of faith, he rejoiced that one day God would send the Messiah.--- Before Abraham was, I am [sent]. Notice previously in the same chapter that he said the same thing 2x. Most translations have "the one I claim to be" in brackets. If they took this liberty there, why not here also. Same greek grammar. This was part of their lingo. The blind man in the next chapter said the exact same thing. Your translation probably does not show it this way but when you look at the greek it is exact, I am. John's gospel uses the word sent about 40 times. More than the remainder of the NT combined if I recall correctly. That is John's context. Before Abraham was born, I am [sent]. This would be a better than "the one I claim to be" but either way it should have been applied. Also, Jesus was declaring that he was more important than their Abraham who they elevated much farther than he should have been. John said "he was before me", this Jesus said he was before Abraham. They understood this. Think about how Issac was called Abraham's firstborn son yet we know that it was Ishmael. Why, because God promised Issac before Ishmael was born. God's promises were considered as if they already were by men of faith. Jesus was "before" Abraham and John. Also, No Jew ever considered the use of "I am" to mean anything. That is a modern invention. The Early Church Fathers writing volumes trying to defend and tear down the diety of Jesus, never used this argument. Also, The "I am" is actually the result of a "blended translation" Our OT is full of double accounts. I can give lots of examples. What happened is that the writing we have actually came from two writings that were combined. We will say "tradition A and tradition B". Tradition A records that God said that his name was YHWH. Tradition B comes from those who would never say the word YHWH out of reverence. These two traditions were copied to make "Tradition C" which we now have. The original, which would have to be "A" should be the correct words of God. Therefore, there was never an "I am who I am" from God. The proof of this is all over with lots of examples of proof. You can eaisly see it in this case but it jumps out in other examples

Oh no...a doubting Thomas. You can tear apart the language and try to say that he didn't mean to say this or that...but the Jews he was speaking to knew what he was saying.

I like this from Matthew Henry, on verse 58
Our Saviour gives an effectual answer to this cavil, by a solemn assertion of his own seniority even to Abraham himself, "Verily,verily I say unto you; I say it to your faces, take it how you will; Before Abraham was, I am, Before Abraham was made born, I am" The change of the word is observable, and bespeaks Abraham a creature, and himself the Creator. Before Abraham he was, as God. I am, is the name of God.He does not say I was, but I am, for he is the first and the last. .

The word God (Jesus) used here was so convicting that all they could do was pick up stones to stone him. It was blasphemy for a man to claim to be God, and although in those days blasphemy was to be determined by trial, they went straightforth to stone him...to no avail.

[1gr8bldr]

Originally Posted by hobbs27

Oh no...a doubting Thomas. You can tear apart the language and try to say that he didn't mean to say this or that...but the Jews he was speaking to knew what he was saying.

I like this from Matthew Henry, on verse 58
Our Saviour gives an effectual answer to this cavil, by a solemn assertion of his own seniority even to Abraham himself, "Verily,verily I say unto you; I say it to your faces, take it how you will; Before Abraham was, I am, Before Abraham was made born, I am" The change of the word is observable, and bespeaks Abraham a creature, and himself the Creator. Before Abraham he was, as God. I am, is the name of God.He does not say I was, but I am, for he is the first and the last. .

The word God (Jesus) used here was so convicting that all they could do was pick up stones to stone him. It was blasphemy for a man to claim to be God, and although in those days blasphemy was to be determined by trial, they went straightforth to stone him...to no avail.

Luke 4:29 had them trying to kill Jesus with no claim of diety. They stoned people at the drop of a hat. Paul, Steven and many more. We should seriously start a new thread about his trial, what he was accused of.

[1gr8bldr]

Originally Posted by hobbs27

Oh no...a doubting Thomas. You can tear apart the language and try to say that he didn't mean to say this or that...but the Jews he was speaking to knew what he was saying.

I like this from Matthew Henry, on verse 58
Our Saviour gives an effectual answer to this cavil, by a solemn assertion of his own seniority even to Abraham himself, "Verily,verily I say unto you; I say it to your faces, take it how you will; Before Abraham was, I am, Before Abraham was made born, I am" The change of the word is observable, and bespeaks Abraham a creature, and himself the Creator. Before Abraham he was, as God. I am, is the name of God.He does not say I was, but I am, for he is the first and the last. .

The word God (Jesus) used here was so convicting that all they could do was pick up stones to stone him. It was blasphemy for a man to claim to be God, and although in those days blasphemy was to be determined by trial, they went straightforth to stone him...to no avail.

Search Jewish history. There is no expectation of God as "I Am". They are the ones who hold tightly to their expectations and are not effected by change of time or tradition. Yet, then and now, they, the Jews do not consider the use of "I Am" as meaning God. This is an English invention of reverse engineering only after it was converted from Hebrew to English

[1gr8bldr]

He implied he was greater than Abraham. At this, and many other things recorded, they wanted to kill him

[hobbs27]

Originally Posted by 1gr8bldr

Search Jewish history. There is no expectation of God as "I Am".

Ex.3:13-14
And Moses said unto God,Behold,when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? What shall I say unto them?
14 And God said unto Moses,I AM THAT I AM; and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel,I AM hath sent me unto you.

Originally Posted by 1gr8bldr

They are the ones who hold tightly to their expectations and are not effected by change of time or tradition.

Really? What ever happened to blood sacrifices?

Originally Posted by 1gr8bldr

Yet, then and now, they, the Jews do not consider the use of "I Am" as meaning God. This is an English invention of reverse engineering only after it was converted from Hebrew to English

Look you have a very strong spirit of doubt and untrust on you. I will pray for you, but you really need to regain your faith, and only you can do this. God the Father is waiting on you at home where you left, I know the swines feed has to be getting old by now, there's a feast awaiting for you when you get back home.

[hobbs27]

Originally Posted by 1gr8bldr

Luke 4:29 had them trying to kill Jesus with no claim of diety. They stoned people at the drop of a hat. Paul, Steven and many more. We should seriously start a new thread about his trial, what he was accused of.

Luke 4:17
Jesus reads from the book of Isaiah ...a prophecy of the coming Lord,v18,and v19.
Then in v21 he explainsThis day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.
So again, he claims to be the son of God....or God depending on your view...This again is why they grew angry at him...He was claiming to be God.

[1gr8bldr]

Originally Posted by hobbs27

Luke 4:17
Jesus reads from the book of Isaiah ...a prophecy of the coming Lord,v18,and v19.
Then in v21 he explainsThis day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.
So again, he claims to be the son of God....or God depending on your view...This again is why they grew angry at him...He was claiming to be God.

Nope, reading the book of Isiah, he was claiming "being annointed". And as far as them getting mad, this was over them thinking that only Jews were worth anything to God. See vs 28 "all the people were furious when they heard this [vs 27].

[hobbs27]

Originally Posted by 1gr8bldr

as far as them getting mad, this was over them thinking that only Jews were worth anything to God. See vs 28 "all the people were furious when they heard this [vs 27].

Yes, I can see that too. The Jew being a very bigoted race of people. This is evident in the book of Jonah.

[gtparts]

Originally Posted by 1gr8bldr

He saw it through eyes of faith, he rejoiced that one day God would send the Messiah.--- Before Abraham was, I am [sent]. Notice previously in the same chapter that he said the same thing 2x. Most translations have "the one I claim to be" in brackets. If they took this liberty there, why not here also. Same greek grammar. This was part of their lingo. The blind man in the next chapter said the exact same thing. Your translation probably does not show it this way but when you look at the greek it is exact, I am. John's gospel uses the word sent about 40 times. More than the remainder of the NT combined if I recall correctly. That is John's context. Before Abraham was born, I am [sent]. This would be a better than "the one I claim to be" but either way it should have been applied. Also, Jesus was declaring that he was more important than their Abraham who they elevated much farther than he should have been. John said "he was before me", this Jesus said he was before Abraham. They understood this. Think about how Issac was called Abraham's firstborn son yet we know that it was Ishmael. Why, because God promised Issac before Ishmael was born. God's promises were considered as if they already were by men of faith. Jesus was "before" Abraham and John. Also, No Jew ever considered the use of "I am" to mean anything. That is a modern invention. The Early Church Fathers writing volumes trying to defend and tear down the diety of Jesus, never used this argument. Also, The "I am" is actually the result of a "blended translation" Our OT is full of double accounts. I can give lots of examples. What happened is that the writing we have actually came from two writings that were combined. We will say "tradition A and tradition B". Tradition A records that God said that his name was YHWH. Tradition B comes from those who would never say the word YHWH out of reverence. These two traditions were copied to make "Tradition C" which we now have. The original, which would have to be "A" should be the correct words of God. Therefore, there was never an "I am who I am" from God. The proof of this is all over with lots of examples of proof. You can eaisly see it in this case but it jumps out in other examples

Your point might be well taken.....

if Jesus had been speaking ancient Greek. He most assuredly was speaking Aramaic. It was recorded in Greek. The two are vastly different, making an adequate or precise rendering in the Greek very difficult, particularly where the word used by Jesus was derived directly from 'elohim', the only acceptable reference to God without speaking His name. The people within hearing knew exactly what Jesus was saying.

Don't know where you got that stuff you tried to pass off, but you really have missed a lot of truth, while trying to explain why the Jewish officials got so hot that they wanted to kill Him. You seem to seek out the least credible, most unusual, and downright bizarre sources for your theological positions. You may be a top-ranked contrarian, but the stuff you're peddling doesn't have a market with my house.

[1gr8bldr]

Originally Posted by gtparts

Your point might be well taken.....

if Jesus had been speaking ancient Greek. He most assuredly was speaking Aramaic. It was recorded in Greek. The two are vastly different, making an adequate or precise rendering in the Greek very difficult, particularly where the word used by Jesus was derived directly from 'elohim', the only acceptable reference to God without speaking His name. The people within hearing knew exactly what Jesus was saying.

Don't know where you got that stuff you tried to pass off, but you really have missed a lot of truth, while trying to explain why the Jewish officials got so hot that they wanted to kill Him. You seem to seek out the least credible, most unusual, and downright bizarre sources for your theological positions. You may be a top-ranked contrarian, but the stuff you're peddling doesn't have a market with my house.

Traditional assumptions are powerful

[gtparts]

Originally Posted by 1gr8bldr

Traditional assumptions are powerful

And more often a better explanation than the off-the-wall suggestions or way-out, radical speculations. After all, 1900 years after the NT was written (give or take a few) it is only reasonable that much of the traditional understanding today is the result of valid research and scholarly examination in many specialties.

[Israel]

Originally Posted by hobbs27

Luke 4:17
Jesus reads from the book of Isaiah ...a prophecy of the coming Lord,v18,and v19.
Then in v21 he explainsThis day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.
So again, he claims to be the son of God....or God depending on your view...This again is why they grew angry at him...He was claiming to be God.

A wiser man than myself once said there are only two reasons for anyone doing anything...the one they give you, and the real reason. Cynical you may say. But I wouldn't.

Heresy has always been the accusation of last resort (or maybe, actually the first) of religious people whose unrighteousness is exposed by the presence of God.

That does not mean there are not "real" heretics, or that heresy is to be indulged. The difference always comes in the matter of handling them.

Gamiliel showed a wisdom born of something other than the flesh when confronted with something he did not yet understand...and with what he may well have disagreed.

But the natural man will rarely admit to the murder in his heart, and he dare not even consider it may well be the spirit exposing it...no...the "fault" is always in the other.
It would have been actually commendable had the Pharisees motives been a true zeal for the name of God, even though they may have mistaken Jesus' words as blasphemy.

But no, the chicken came well before the egg in this case...every reason they gave was manufactured, every display of "righteous outrage" a sham, every word uttered as witness against Jesus...a lie. Not because they were zealous for their God...but simply because well...they didn't like him. They hated him. They despised him. His words, work, and mere presence among them (in Jesus) exposed them daily to shame in the spirit.

But being completely devoid of spiritual understanding, all they could sense was a loathing, and since they could never accept what they were sensing was actually the true God's esteem of religious hypocrisy...and their own hatred of God being manifest...the "fault" must have been in Jesus, cause he was the cause of it. Or so they thought.

Simply get rid of Jesus...and once again...all would be right in their world...they could go on telling themselves they loved God, and enjoy the position and power and parade of their own righteousness before others.

The devil never wants us to look at ourselves, cause that's where he's most easily at home.

Another Pharisee was intent on stamping out the name of Jesus...so inflamed (can you see a dragon?) the scripture testifies of him this way:
Act_9:1 And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest, And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.

He also wonderfully...failed.

He later testified to something he discovered, the carnal man is absolutely at enmity with God.
But when need be...he can sure find many religious reasons to supply in his attempts to dethrone Him.

[Ronnie T]

Originally Posted by gtparts

And more often a better explanation than the off-the-wall suggestions or way-out, radical speculations. After all, 1900 years after the NT was written (give or take a few) it is only reasonable that much of the traditional understanding today is the result of valid research and scholarly examination in many specialties.

Maybe.

But I'm inclined to be assured of earlier beliefs than I am some of the 'new-age' thinking in Christianity.
I'll take the 90 year old church over the 20th century church. Scholarly examination today often involves the over-educated.
Modern research too often involves modern thinking.

[1gr8bldr]

Originally Posted by gtparts

And more often a better explanation than the off-the-wall suggestions or way-out, radical speculations. After all, 1900 years after the NT was written (give or take a few) it is only reasonable that much of the traditional understanding today is the result of valid research and scholarly examination in many specialties.

Orthodoxy was not the result of understanding. It was through power, power of Constantine

[Artfuldodger]

The Jews wanted to stone Jesus because he said he was the Son of God.
Luke 22:70
They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?" He replied, "You are right in saying I am."

John 19:7
The Jews insisted, "We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God."

John 10:36
do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?"

Why would Jesus say "I and my Father are one", "The Father is greater than I", "I am the Mediator between man & God".
When the Jews ask him if he was God, why didn't he say "Yes I am God. You can pick up all the stones you want and I won't go hide."

[1gr8bldr]

Originally Posted by Artfuldodger

The Jews wanted to stone Jesus because he said he was the Son of God.
Luke 22:70
They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?" He replied, "You are right in saying I am."

John 19:7
The Jews insisted, "We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God."

John 10:36
do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?"

Why would Jesus say "I and my Father are one", "The Father is greater than I", "I am the Mediator between man & God".
When the Jews ask him if he was God, why didn't he say "Yes I am God. You can pick up all the stones you want and I won't go hide."

Correct. They were looking for anything to twist in order that they might accuse him. Yet at his trial, they had to search out false witnesses to find anything against him. Since they could find nothing, they handed him over to Pilate as one starting a rebellion against Rome. Long after every chance for his socalled God claims with no accusations of such, only at the point that Pilate might release him, someone in a last minute grasp for something, made a claim "We have a law......." Why was this not mentioned until now. His sign written above his head was proof of what he was claiming. And it was not God.

[1gr8bldr]

They wanted to stone him because he insulted their religious intergrity. They thought that they had mastered being religious. They were proud, puffed up. Jesus insulted them. This they despised

[Israel]

Originally Posted by 1gr8bldr

They wanted to stone him because he insulted their religious intergrity. They thought that they had mastered being religious. They were proud, puffed up. Jesus insulted them. This they despised

Yep.
How dare he! Who did he think he is, anyway?

[gtparts]

Originally Posted by 1gr8bldr

Orthodoxy was not the result of understanding. It was through power, power of Constantine

I'm not sure you understand my position. I do not champion orthodoxy for orthodoxy's sake. Far from it. And, the mention of Constantine is a red herring, at best.

What I do count as meaningful is the research/scholarship used in reaching 21st century Christian theology that supports orthodoxy. When the preponderance of new evidence (say, from the last 200 years) under-girds the understandings that have been around much longer, well, it makes no sense to throw rocks at orthodoxy.

Orthodoxy can be spot on or it can be beyond-the-pale wrong.
Orthodoxal thinking is never right because it is orthodoxal. It is right because it is right... or it is wrong because it is wrong.
Likewise, anti-orthodoxal thinking is right if it is right and wrong if it is wrong.

Mainstream Christian theology is mainstream in large part because it has been repeatedly tested against the assaults of radical 'new' ideas, such as you and Artfuldodger have brought to the table.

Authentic Swiss cheese is processed with gas-producing bacteria, forming the many voids that, when sliced, appear to be holes.

You may be quite sincere in your theology, but slicing through it with the Word and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, I find no bacteria.. but lots of holes.

[thedeacon]

The only time Jesus has ever been limited is when we as weak believers limit him because of our lack of faith.

Just because something didn't happen because it was the plan of God doesn't mean there was a limit line drawn.

To many times we refuse to cross a line that was never drawn in the first place.

[Ronnie T]

Originally Posted by thedeacon

The only time Jesus has ever been limited is when we as weak believers limit him because of our lack of faith.

Just because something didn't happen because it was the plan of God doesn't mean there was a limit line drawn.

To many times we refuse to cross a line that was never drawn in the first place.

Funny how we sometimes set rules. What can and cannot; will and will not happen. God's diety is never limited. There are no limits to God's reach except that which He decides to limit Himself at a particular time.

The thief is one. Ananias is another.

[Artfuldodger]

Originally Posted by Ronnie T

Funny how we sometimes set rules. What can and cannot; will and will not happen. God's diety is never limited. There are no limits to God's reach except that which He decides to limit Himself at a particular time.

The thief is one. Ananias is another.

The O.P. was whether Jesus' deity was limited so that he could experience things the way man could. Examples: pain, suffering, hunger, thirst, need for prayer, need for sleep, & most importantly the ability to die.
How could he have done all this if he didn't limit his deity?
God the Father in Heaven has no limits.

[Artfuldodger]

Originally Posted by Ronnie T

John 10:18
No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.”

I realize you responded with this verse but I kinda wanted a few more responses on Jesus limiting his deity. (and not just from you). I know we got off topic a little and that's ok too.

[Israel]

Men simply don't like to be seen as obeying other men. Somehow it seems to demean them, to be under the authority of something they believe no better than themselves.
Men proudly proclaim "I don't listen to men, I listen only to God!"
Men know it is a shame to have anything over them but God. But God has ordained a man, Christ Jesus, to be over all things to us...because of his (not our imaginary ability) obedience to the one true God.
The man who strives to know the naked truth of God will also learn along the way the peculiar presence of something that wants to submit to the creature (as did Adam) that had submitted to the lie of the serpent...a very beggarly creature over which that man was to have dominion.
The way of deliverance out of that man (Adam) that derivatively submitted to that weak and clever being is through obedience to another man.
There's simply no way around a man to God. But through one.
Not receiving God's order simply shows we are yet abiding in a rebellious man, simply telling ourselves "I'll do it my way"

1Co_11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

A man once fell for not heeding his head, but for acquiescing to the one whose head he had been made.

To deny the manhood of Christ is to simply show you are still in love, and found in, the man who fell. And submitted to his weak and beggarly choices.

[gordon 2]

Originally Posted by Artfuldodger

The O.P. was whether Jesus' deity was limited so that he could experience things the way man could. Examples: pain, suffering, hunger, thirst, need for prayer, need for sleep, & most importantly the ability to die.
How could he have done all this if he didn't limit his deity?
God the Father in Heaven has no limits.

Now really! This is a blanket statement, I believe. God the Father has limits. If you remember in the creation story His creation(creating) is not limited. It goes from one item to the next. Also, there was a limit to what "tree" boys and girls were permitted to cleave to.

In the Old Testament God claims that He is a jealous (pain) God. He also hears the prayers and cries of little people, the poor and the folk treated unjustly.( Read prophets.) The consequences for accepting injustice as ordinary part of life are very severe to even His chosen people! They return to slavery to where they had been made free! They like Adam and Eve before get bumped out of the zone. etc...

I think that God the Father does have limits. He states He is long suffering. He has made known the limits in how people use or are in relationship to Him. ( See Job.) He also has limits on what is moral and just.( See Good Samaritan.) From anger to grace there is plenty of evidence that God has limits (emotional limits) to what man does as His creation and in His Creation.

From pointing out what was clean and unclean and what is rightiousness throught out time, for what is in the heart of men, for me my Father has always had limits--and the word states His emotions concerning them...

[Artfuldodger]

God the Father has put limits on us. If that is what you are getting at, i'll agree. God the Father put limits on his Son Jesus or either Jesus put limits on himself.

[Israel]

I am not sure what you mean by limits. We are as free as all the love there is. Love is not only real, it is what is real. Everything else...even the limits we may see imposed are a result of our imperfect sight, not the truth.
Something there is that loves a wall...

When all the desire to maintain our own "intactness" dissolves in the revelation of the one torn open for us, refusing to abide alone and we finally see the fullness of he who abode within Him...we will also discover

Something there is that doesn't love a wall...

[hobbs27]

After a little more study on this subject, I'm even more concrete in knowing that Jesus is God.Here's my case from the word of God.

Isaiah43:10 Ye are my witnesses,saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Now, Paul says that
1Corinthians 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father

God the Father speaking of the Son in Hebrews 1:8
But unto the Son he saith, Thy Throne, O God, is for ever and ever:

In Acts 5:3-4 Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit, Peter points out that he had not lied to men but to God.

Finally John 17:1-26 shows the Father and the Son love one another, and speak to one another,
and together they send the Holy Spirit John 15:26,

and Jesus proclaims that He and the Father are two distinct witnesses, and two distinct Judges , John 8:14-18
If you read the scriptures and pray about it I hope you will understand what Im saying, Jesus, The Father, and The Holy Spirit are one, with distinct functions, so basically, Our God is one
(What) with three (Who's).

[1gr8bldr]

Originally Posted by hobbs27

After a little more study on this subject, I'm even more concrete in knowing that Jesus is God.Here's my case from the word of God.

Isaiah43:10 Ye are my witnesses,saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Now, Paul says that
1Corinthians 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father

God the Father speaking of the Son in Hebrews 1:8
But unto the Son he saith, Thy Throne, O God, is for ever and ever:

In Acts 5:3-4 Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit, Peter points out that he had not lied to men but to God.

Finally John 17:1-26 shows the Father and the Son love one another, and speak to one another,
and together they send the Holy Spirit John 15:26,

and Jesus proclaims that He and the Father are two distinct witnesses, and two distinct Judges , John 8:14-18
If you read the scriptures and pray about it I hope you will understand what Im saying, Jesus, The Father, and The Holy Spirit are one, with distinct functions, so basically, Our God is one
(What) with three (Who's).

What does this say? It says the Father is the only God.

[1gr8bldr]

Originally Posted by hobbs27

After a little more study on this subject, I'm even more concrete in knowing that Jesus is God.Here's my case from the word of God.

Isaiah43:10 Ye are my witnesses,saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Now, Paul says that
1Corinthians 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father

God the Father speaking of the Son in Hebrews 1:8
But unto the Son he saith, Thy Throne, O God, is for ever and ever:

In Acts 5:3-4 Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit, Peter points out that he had not lied to men but to God.

Finally John 17:1-26 shows the Father and the Son love one another, and speak to one another,
and together they send the Holy Spirit John 15:26,

and Jesus proclaims that He and the Father are two distinct witnesses, and two distinct Judges , John 8:14-18
If you read the scriptures and pray about it I hope you will understand what Im saying, Jesus, The Father, and The Holy Spirit are one, with distinct functions, so basically, Our God is one
(What) with three (Who's).

This is not God calling Jesus God. It is merely the Hebrew writer calling our attention to an OT passage. The first portion is about God for context and so that we can see from where it came. "therefore God [God Almighty] your God {jesus's God] has set you above...annointing you...'. Why would the writer of Hebrews tell us in the same breath that Jesus is superior to the angels or "let all God's angel's worship him". If he is God, then that would be a given would it not?

[1gr8bldr]

Originally Posted by hobbs27

After a little more study on this subject, I'm even more concrete in knowing that Jesus is God.Here's my case from the word of God.

Isaiah43:10 Ye are my witnesses,saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Now, Paul says that
1Corinthians 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father

God the Father speaking of the Son in Hebrews 1:8
But unto the Son he saith, Thy Throne, O God, is for ever and ever:

In Acts 5:3-4 Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit, Peter points out that he had not lied to men but to God.

Finally John 17:1-26 shows the Father and the Son love one another, and speak to one another,
and together they send the Holy Spirit John 15:26,

and Jesus proclaims that He and the Father are two distinct witnesses, and two distinct Judges , John 8:14-18
If you read the scriptures and pray about it I hope you will understand what Im saying, Jesus, The Father, and The Holy Spirit are one, with distinct functions, so basically, Our God is one
(What) with three (Who's).

Annias lied to God. The HS is God. God is Spirit and God is Holy. The HS is not a coequal 3rd person of the trinity. When the Spirit or the Shekeniah Glory entered the temple, was it the Spirit of God? or his coequal 3rd person, God the Holy Spirit?

[1gr8bldr]

Originally Posted by hobbs27

After a little more study on this subject, I'm even more concrete in knowing that Jesus is God.Here's my case from the word of God.

Isaiah43:10 Ye are my witnesses,saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Now, Paul says that
1Corinthians 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father

God the Father speaking of the Son in Hebrews 1:8
But unto the Son he saith, Thy Throne, O God, is for ever and ever:

In Acts 5:3-4 Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit, Peter points out that he had not lied to men but to God.

Finally John 17:1-26 shows the Father and the Son love one another, and speak to one another,
and together they send the Holy Spirit John 15:26,

and Jesus proclaims that He and the Father are two distinct witnesses, and two distinct Judges , John 8:14-18
If you read the scriptures and pray about it I hope you will understand what Im saying, Jesus, The Father, and The Holy Spirit are one, with distinct functions, so basically, Our God is one
(What) with three (Who's).

Love one another, speak to one another means nothing in regards to the trinity. Together they don't send the HS. When Solomons's temple was completed, the Spirit of God came to dwell. The completion made way for God's Spirit. Jesus upon finishing his work, "tear down this temple and be raised a new not made by human hands" has completed the temple for God to dwell. So he did not send the HS, as if it was up to him to give, it was already planned to come once his work was completed

[1gr8bldr]

Originally Posted by hobbs27

After a little more study on this subject, I'm even more concrete in knowing that Jesus is God.Here's my case from the word of God.

Isaiah43:10 Ye are my witnesses,saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Now, Paul says that
1Corinthians 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father

God the Father speaking of the Son in Hebrews 1:8
But unto the Son he saith, Thy Throne, O God, is for ever and ever:

In Acts 5:3-4 Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit, Peter points out that he had not lied to men but to God.

Finally John 17:1-26 shows the Father and the Son love one another, and speak to one another,
and together they send the Holy Spirit John 15:26,

and Jesus proclaims that He and the Father are two distinct witnesses, and two distinct Judges , John 8:14-18
If you read the scriptures and pray about it I hope you will understand what Im saying, Jesus, The Father, and The Holy Spirit are one, with distinct functions, so basically, Our God is one
(What) with three (Who's).

Jesus has received the Spirit of his Father. That made them one. Not the Father, Son and HS are one

[hobbs27]

Originally Posted by 1gr8bldr

What does this say? It says the Father is the only God.

Yep, thats what it says, and it's right. Jesus is the only God , The Holy Spirit is the only God and , The Father is the only God.

Originally Posted by 1gr8bldr

This is not God calling Jesus God. It is merely the Hebrew writer calling our attention to an OT passage.

It is God the Father calling the Son God, and the NT is translated from Greek.

Originally Posted by 1gr8bldr

The first portion is about God for context and so that we can see from where it came. "therefore God [God Almighty] your God {jesus's God] has set you above...annointing you...'. Why would the writer of Hebrews tell us in the same breath that Jesus is superior to the angels or "let all God's angel's worship him". If he is God, then that would be a given would it not?

A better question for you is, Would God the Father suggest we or Angels worship a seperate being other than himself? We are to worship only one God, and that God is, God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.

Originally Posted by 1gr8bldr

Annias lied to God. The HS is God. God is Spirit and God is Holy. The HS is not a coequal 3rd person of the trinity. When the Spirit or the Shekeniah Glory entered the temple, was it the Spirit of God? or his coequal 3rd person, God the Holy Spirit?

Man...come on , you're 2 for 3, now add the Son and you will have a complete God, you know , The Father, The Son, The Holy Spirit God,

Originally Posted by 1gr8bldr

Jesus has received the Spirit of his Father. That made them one. Not the Father, Son and HS are one

We simply disagree.