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.