All About Jesus Christ

[gordon 2]

The shepherds also belong to the ignorant class and were deceived by the angels, if some human doctrines are right, for they said, "The Lord hath made known to us" about the baby Jesus. Jesus was a new-born child and was not big enough to make anything known to the shepherds; so if "the Lord" had made known something to them, then there must be a "Lord" outside of Jesus, who did this Mt. 2:12; Lk 2:8-38.

Mary and Joseph acted in utmost ignorance that all of God was in the baby Jesus when they brought Him to the temple "to present him to the Lord" Lk. 2:23. Who was this "Lord" or "Jehovah God," they presented Him to? How could they present the only Lord to Himself?

The Lord was innocent. The Lord was without sin. And God the Father was the God of Israel.

The baby was innocent. The baby was without sin. And the baby conceived of the Spirit, was Jesus Messiah, Immanuel, king of the Jews. ((Iesus Nazarenus, Rex Iudaeorum).

I'm sure that Mary knew that if the angel of the Lord said that her baby's name would be called Immanuel, she did not doubt that this name was given with every knowledge of what Immanuel and Jesus meant in the context of their Jewish faith whereby the Messiah of prophecy which was long awaited had now come. The fact that Mary was full of grace meant that she knew that the Messiah was not a political king, but rather God.

Like us Mary knew some scripture : " I will give them a heart to know Me, that I am the LORD. They will be My people, and I will be their God, for they will return to Me with all their heart."

I can only imagine Mary praying on this and it being in the background when the angel came to her with its news-- and along with she being full of grace she was most able to say in response " God's will be done."

 

[Spotlite]

The fleshly known parameters we place on a God that’s omnipresent, omniscient, the beginning, the end, the everlasting…….. that can limit our knowledge…..yet we determined what He can / can’t do because of what we know.

 

[gordon 2]

If I reason out even in part that the world is in fact captured as in possession, that it is a world possessed, that when man was cast out of Eden he was handed to this possession as Paul sends a member of the body out from the assembly:

" hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord"

then yes the "fleshy" parameters of the world to those who are dying and so in possession and so with sin are still limited on how to manage their love.

Our knowledge of love is limited as you say. To love the world as sinners and to love the world as God does, by reason alone where does it get us? It might get us to very different interpretations of how things are spiritually and so our differing assessments and interpretations.

The intensities of our devotions are perhaps from two worlds one from the life in which we are possessed and so buffeted by sin and the life where our sins are forgiven, forgotten and:

"Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me."

When we fear no evil I think we have a much better understanding of our God which we all love. When we get to the place where the flesh needs no destruction to know God then perhaps like Elijah and "perhaps?" Mary then we will see Him as he truly is or without limit. Perhaps.

When have we stopped loving God? Never. When have we stopped being worried of our flesh? On our wedding days and nights and even then?

Maybe we are of those yet baptized that cannot fully repent? And so God remains a mystery for us. We believe yet can't get our heads around " The promise is for you...."

"Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”"

 

[BanjoPicker]

In Luke 2:40-52 we have some senseless expressions if there is only one person in the Godhead. Jesus whom some say is the only God and Father Himself, says, "I must be about MY FATHER'S business." Luke said "The grace of God was upon him. . . . Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man." What Luke really meant, according to some, was that the grace of Himself was upon Himself and that Jesus only God and His own Father increased in wisdom and in favor with Himself and with man. Common intelligence rebels against such foolishness. It is any wonder that the subject of God is hard to understand if we prefer such nonsense to good sense.

Even demons knew that Jesus was not the Father, for they called Him "the Son of God" thus demonstrating sense enough to know there must be a separate person from the Son if there was a Father who had a Son. They also called Him Christ, thus proving they had sense enough to know there had to be someone else to anoint Him and make Him the Christ, or the anointed of God Lk. 4:34-41.

 

[BanjoPicker]

John the Baptist knew the Father, but he did not know the Son in the wilderness, for "the word of God," or of the person called God, came to him in the wilderness while Jesus was still in Nazareth and told him how he would know the Son Lk. 3:2; Jn. 1:31-34. Shall we believe that the inner man of Jesus was at Nazareth dead? (Death is the separation of the inner man from the body Jas. 2:26. Shall we also believe that the Father God and all of God was in the womb of Mary and yet filled John the Baptist at the same time? If John was filled with the Holy Ghost all these years as is clear from Lk. 1:15, if he did not know Jesus, and if he was not filled with Jesus, then Jesus could not be the Holy Ghost. If John knew the Father and not the Son, knew God and not Jesus, then Jesus could not be the Father and the God that John knew. There must have been one person called God that John knew and there must have been another person called Jesus, who was also Deity, that John did not know, thus proving two persons. If he was filled with the Holy Ghost, and knew God as a separate person from the Holy Ghost and did not know Jesus who was still another separate person, then there must be three persons in the Godhead called "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." as plainly stated in 1 John 5:7, 8; Matt. 28:19; Eph. 4:4-8; 2 Cor. 13:14; 1 Cor. 8; Rev. 1:4-6.

 

[BanjoPicker]

God "gave His only begotten Son," But He Himself remained in Heaven; so there must be two separate persons referred to in Jn. 3:16-18; Mt. 5:45-48; 18:19. If it is true, as some argue, that God the Father is the inner man of Jesus and the Son was the body of Jesus, that God the Father gave Himself and died Himself, and that the Father inside of Jesus could say of Himself, "I created the body you see. I am the Father and this is body is my Son," Then the phrase "Son of God" should be understood as body of God; "son's of God" should be bodies of God; "my Son" should be My body; "my sons" should be My bodies; "his Son" should be His body; "his sons" should be His bodies; and "thy sons" should be Thy bodies. It should make sense in every Scripture to substitute "body; for "Son" and "Son" for "body." Try "body" for "Son" in Mt. 11:27; Jn. 1:18; 3:16-18, 35, 36; 5:21, 25, 26; 10:36; Acts 3:13; 8:37; 9:20; Gal. 2:20; Rom. 1:9; 5:10; 8:29; Heb. 1:2; 11:17 and see how ridiculous such an idea is.

 

[BanjoPicker]

If the body of Jesus was the Son of Jesus, and the inner man of Jesus was the Father of Jesus, then how could the Father say to the body, "I am the Son [body] of God? If the Father inside was taking to the Son outside, then the body could not be the Son. How could the Son [body] be called "Jesus," as in Mt. 1:21; 8:29; Mk. 1:1; Acts 8:37; 1 Cor. 1:9; 1 Jn. 1:3, 7; 3:23; 5:20; 2 Jn. 3, and "Christ," as in Mt. 16:16; 22:42; 26:63; Lk. 4:4; Jn. 20:31, if these two names have been the names of the Father from all eternity, as some argue. The Son (body) had a beginning in Mary 1900 years ago. These names were not the names of God from all eternity, for they were names given to the Son when He was born about 1900years ago. Not one time are these names used of either person of the Godhead until Jesus was born and anointed by God the Father.

 

[gordon 2]

If the body of Jesus was the Son of Jesus, and the inner man of Jesus was the Father of Jesus, then how could the Father say to the body, "I am the Son [body] of God? If the Father inside was taking to the Son outside, then the body could not be the Son. How could the Son [body] be called "Jesus," as in Mt. 1:21; 8:29; Mk. 1:1; Acts 8:37; 1 Cor. 1:9; 1 Jn. 1:3, 7; 3:23; 5:20; 2 Jn. 3, and "Christ," as in Mt. 16:16; 22:42; 26:63; Lk. 4:4; Jn. 20:31, if these two names have been the names of the Father from all eternity, as some argue. The Son (body) had a beginning in Mary 1900 years ago. These names were not the names of God from all eternity, for they were names given to the Son when He was born about 1900years ago. Not one time are these names used of either person of the Godhead until Jesus was born and anointed by God the Father.

"I do not accept glory from men, 42but I know you, that you do not have the love of God within you. 43I have come in My Father’s name, and you have not received Me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will receive him.…"

 

[BanjoPicker]

The word "Jesus" was the human name given to the Son of Mary eight days after He was born Mt. 1:16, 21; Lk. 1:31-35; 2:21. It was and is still a common name like John, James, and other names, Josephus mentions thirteen men who are called Jesus. Several are mentioned in the New Testament Acts 7:45; 13:6; Col. 4:11; Heb. 4:8; Mt. 1:21. Several in the Old Testament are called "Joshua, and "Jeshua" and hundreds of people throughout history have been called Jesus and Joshua. If the New Testament had been written in Hebrew instead of Greek Jesus would have been called Joshua> The word "Jesus" is not an heavenly or divine name. It is an earthly human name given to the second person of the Godhead when he became a man. Therefore, it is His name as a man and not His name God.

 

[BanjoPicker]

The Bible never speaks of the Father dying, but it does say that the Son died Rom. 5:10; Heb. 6:6; Jn. 3:16-18. The Son died in the same sense that other men die--the inner man left the outer man Jas. 2:26. This proves that the Father and Son were two separate persons.

 

[Artfuldodger]

The word "Jesus" was the human name given to the Son of Mary eight days after He was born Mt. 1:16, 21; Lk. 1:31-35; 2:21. It was and is still a common name like John, James, and other names, Josephus mentions thirteen men who are called Jesus. Several are mentioned in the New Testament Acts 7:45; 13:6; Col. 4:11; Heb. 4:8; Mt. 1:21. Several in the Old Testament are called "Joshua, and "Jeshua" and hundreds of people throughout history have been called Jesus and Joshua. If the New Testament had been written in Hebrew instead of Greek Jesus would have been called Joshua> The word "Jesus" is not an heavenly or divine name. It is an earthly human name given to the second person of the Godhead when he became a man. Therefore, it is His name as a man and not His name God.

What was his name before he came to the earth as a man?

 

[BanjoPicker]

What was his name before he came to the earth as a man?

Your answer is in Gen. 3:22

 

[Artfuldodger]

Your answer is in Gen. 3:22

I didn't see it in that verse, perhaps he didn't have a name. Why would he even need one at that point other than Son. God didn't have a name either. I don't think any of the beings in Heaven had names.

 

[BanjoPicker]

I didn't see it in that verse, perhaps he didn't have a name. Why would he even need one at that point other than Son. God didn't have a name either. I don't think any of the beings in Heaven had names.

Gen. 3:5: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened and, ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
it says ye shall be as gods meaning more than one. so how many are they no man knows but we know three, which make the Godhead.

 

[BanjoPicker]

The word "Christ" literally means "anointed" and is applied to Jesus when He became the anointed of Good. It is like the word "Jesus" a name of his humanity, and of His anointing as a man and not His name as God. It is the same as the Hebrew word translated "Messiah" Dan. 9:24-27; Jn. 1:41; 4:25. Jesus became the anointed of God or Christ thirty years after He was called Jesus. It was predicted in prophecy that God would make Him the "Anointed" Ps. 2:1-12; 143:12-18; Isa. 11:1, 2; 42:1-5; 61:1, 2. History records that the time He became the "Anointed" of God was at His baptism Mt. 3:16, 17; 12:15-20; Lk. 3:21, 22; Acts 10:38. Jesus confirmed the time He became God's "Anointed" Lk. 4:16-21. Jesus was anointed with the Holy Ghost and not with oil. He was anointed because He was the Son of the Father and it proves two persons--the one who anointed Him and the one who was anointed. Passages such as Lk. 2:26; Gal. 3:17; 1 Pet. 1:11 should be understood in the same sense as we would say that President George Washington was a surveyor. He was not this when he was president, but since he became president we could speak of any event of his life before he became president as what President Washington did. So it is with Christ. Since He became God's Christ we can now speak of Christ doing certain things even before He was anointed.

 

[BanjoPicker]

Jesus was "the only begotten of the Father" and "his only begotten Son" and He had to be a separate person from the Father in order to be begotten by the Father, and the Father had to be a separate person from Jesus in order to beget Him Jn. 1:14, 18; 3:16-18, 31-36; 1 Jn. 5:1. No person can beget himself, or be begotten by himself, and no person can be his own father or son. Neither can any person beget part of himself, or be begotten by part of himself.

 

[Artfuldodger]

Jesus was "the only begotten of the Father" and "his only begotten Son" and He had to be a separate person from the Father in order to be begotten by the Father, and the Father had to be a separate person from Jesus in order to beget Him Jn. 1:14, 18; 3:16-18, 31-36; 1 Jn. 5:1. No person can beget himself, or be begotten by himself, and no person can be his own father or son. Neither can any person beget part of himself, or be begotten by part of himself.

An it was the Father who gave and the Father who sent him. Do you think Christ was submissive since it was the Father who gave and sent him? Jesus always said he was doing the will of his Father.
The end will come when Jesus hands over the kingdom to God. The authority that God gave to Jesus will be returned to God. And Jesus will give up that authority and once again be subject to God's authority as far as the kingdom is concerned.

 

[Spotlite]

So God is restricted to what His creation can or cannot do, or even comprehend? Interesting.

 

[BanjoPicker]

Many statements in the gospel of John prove that Jesus did not claim to be the Father, but He did say that God was His Father and His God Jn. 5:8-45; 10:18-36; 14:28; 29:17; Rev. 3:12; that God worked only through Him, and that He COULD DO NOTHING OF HIMSELF Jn. 5:19, 30; that He did not only COULD NOT, but that He DID NOT DO ANYTHING OF HIMSELF Jn. 5:30; 6:38; 8:28; 12:49, 50; that He did only the Fathers will and lived BY THE FATHER, as men are to do His will and live BY HIM Jn. 6:57; and that the work of God was to believe on the one whom the Father had sent Jn. 6:29; 3:2; 5:18; 8:54; 14:1.

 

[Ruger#3]

that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.