“Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?”
“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Sounds simple. It actually is, but most people don’t really understand. What I am about to write may be contrary to your beliefs…….contrary to what you have been taught…but in complete accordance with Biblical teachings.

Let’s go back to what John called “the beginning”, back billions of years…. maybe 50 billion….maybe 100 billion…..back before there was time. Before there was a universe. There were two Eternal Spirits who were alive. Theos and Logos, in the Greek language. One was God and the Other was his Spokesman. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.” The Word was with God….a separate being. He was also God. God is a family consisting of, at this point in time, TWO spiritual beings. This is even more apparent when we read in Genesis, “Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness…….” God doesn't talk to Himself.
Now, jumping back to John, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us….” He became human flesh, and He was to experience all of the trouble and temptations of man, including suffering and death. Jesus called Himself the Son of God, because He actually was God’s Son by birth. He also called Himself the Son of Man because He was the firstborn from the dead.

God, Logos, who became Jesus, was the God of the Old Testament. But the One called Jesus is not the Supreme Being. “My Father is greater than I.” (still in John) “For I have not spoken on My own authority, but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak.”
Yes, the One who became Jesus created everything under God’s direction, and He still directs the affairs of His creation. “All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.”

John had a greater understanding of spiritual thing than the other disciples. He was closer to Jesus and Jesus apparently shared more information with him. John was approximately the same age as Jesus and they probably grew up together as they were cousins. No, I am not confusing John with John the Baptist.

Together God, Theos, and God, Logos, designed a plan. A plan to make human beings have the character and substance of God. They are going to recreate themselves. The previous creation had failed with the angelic rebellion. Man, at least those who qualify, will soon become members of the God family and will finish the creation of the universe, which is now in a state of decay.

I think we all know the story of Jesus and his time on Earth…. how He defeated Satan...how He became the supreme sacrifice to pay for our sins….redeeming man. He also came to deliver a message, to declare the Father and to set an example for us. He was the first and only man, to date, to go to Heaven. (see my thread on Elijah and Enoch)

This is who Jesus was, is, and shall be. When He returns, He will set up His government right here on Earth. If man does not submit to His laws, he will be toast. All of this according to the Holy Bible.

Oh, boy, this one is going to be interesting!!

Dan

Agreed on the Holy Trinity. Well done.;)

Yes, agreed. I have always beleived this.

Thanks for your statements. They were very helpful and interesting to me.

I am not so sure I believe that Jesus is the same God of the old testament.
The God of the old testament is much quicker to punish man and seems to put much less value on human life than Christ.
I do believe that there are two supreme beings. It it obvious when Jesus prays to his father that they are separate and distinct Gods.
I have no scriptural proof for this.

Jim Baker, as you know, God, in the Old Testament, was both seen and heard by many. The first account being in the garden of Eden. Probably the best known account being His giving Moses the commandments. There are many others too numerous to list.......yet Jesus said,

John 5
37"And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form",

Now, Who could that have been interacting with man? There are many other passages which support the fact that Jesus was the God of the Old Testament, I am mentioning only this one because of limited time on my part.

Thanks for your interest.

Jim Baker, as you know, God, in the Old Testament, was both seen and heard by many. The first account being in the garden of Eden. Probably the best known account being His giving Moses the commandments. There are many others too numerous to list.......yet Jesus said,

John 5
37"And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form",

Now, Who could that have been interacting with man? There are many other passages which support the fact that Jesus was the God of the Old Testament, I am mentioning only this one because of limited time on my part.

Thanks for your interest.
Good point,gotta think on this.

loader 3009,
What do you do with "God" in Gen.1 and "Lord God" Gen.2.

Well, it looks like I have some reading to do.

Jim Baker, as you know, God, in the Old Testament, was both seen and heard by many. The first account being in the garden of Eden. Probably the best known account being His giving Moses the commandments. There are many others too numerous to list.......yet Jesus said,

John 5
37"And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form",

Now, Who could that have been interacting with man? There are many other passages which support the fact that Jesus was the God of the Old Testament, I am mentioning only this one because of limited time on my part.

Thanks for your interest.
Is Jesus refering to mankink having nerer seen his form or the people hearing him have never seen his form.I checked the Greek tense and still uncertain.

It is pretty clear to me that "God the Father" whom Jesus refers to is the God of Abraham.

----------------------------
1 Corinthians 8:4
4 ¶ As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol [is] nothing in the world, and that [there is] none other God but one.

1 Corinthians 8:5
5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

1 Corinthians 8:6
6 But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.

----------------------------
May God add his blessings to these words.

Amen

Mesquite and Jim, I apologize for not answering your posts. I was not aware that they were made.

Mesquite, I refer you back to John's writings of the Word...."by Him all things were made"...... The God referred to is the Word...the One who would become the Son of God...Jesus.

Jim Baker, as you see in Cor. 8:6
1 Corinthians 8:6
6 But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.
There is ONE God the Father AND ONE Lord Jesus Christ. One and One make Two. See, you answered your own question. BTW, I find reading Paul a bit tedious. I guess that's the Roman coming out of him.:-)

How's the reading coming, Jim?

So then we agree: One God the Father (the God of Abraham) and one Son (Jesus Christ)
---------------------
2 Peter 1:17
17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

-------------------------
Acts 3:13
13 The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let [him] go.

-------------------------

The reading is going slow. However, I am copying an old 8 track new testament onto cassette, and am listening as I go.


Jim

Jim, I still hold that the Word, (who became Jesus) was the God of the Old Testament.

Re: Acts 3:13 All popular translations of this passage convey this same thought, Now, Luke may or may not have quoted Peter correctly. If he quoted Peter correctly, Peter’s statement was in direct opposition to what Jesus taught. This is not a condemnation of Peter, but we must take into consideration that Peter sometimes exhibited a total lack of understanding. A most glaring example of this is found in Matthew 16. In view of this, I must go with the word of God since His word is infallible.

The Word created everything “….by Him all things were made”, Now, the Word was not only the Higher God’s workman, but also his “PR Man”, or “Mouthpiece”…. in the vernacular. As the Word, he delivered the rules and regulations to Adam and Moses……. spoke to Noah and Jonah…… and ministered to man, his creation, until he was sent, as Jesus, to deliver a message (the Gospel), provide an example, clarify the Law, declare the Father and provide Himself as a sacrifice to pay for the sins of man.

Re: II Peter 1:17 I assume that you chose this verse to counter Jesus’ statement that “no man had heard the words of the Father……”. Here we will have to follow the time-line. Jesus had not yet qualified at the time of this statement. He was as yet un-crucified and un-resurrected. God the Father had never spoken to man until this event, recorded in II Peter 1:17. This was a momentous occasion. As a matter of fact, it was the greatest event ever and will remain so until the return of the Messiah. God the Father was mighty proud of His Son. This was the greatest “Hoo-ray” ever witnessed by man….and only a select few heard it. God the Father has been silent since.

Loader 3009

Thank goodness the time of burning heretics is past...otherwise you might have become toast.

"There were two Eternal Spirits who were alive. Theos and Logos, in the Greek language. One was God and the Other was his Spokesman. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.” The Word was with God….a separate being. He was also God. God is a family consisting of, at this point in time, TWO spiritual beings."

Everyone is entitled to their fancy, I suppose. What you suggest is by any traditional or basic Christian Theology...heresy, plain and simple. True, you are entitled to believe what you will. But you stretch Christian credulity by claiming your interpretation can be even remotely called "Christian" theology. Two Eternal Beings who are God? I think not, my friend. You stretch the meaning of words in John's Gospel. The passages you quote from Genesis about God saying "Let us make man in OUR image" are in the text, but the meaning is no wheres near what you assume. The commentaries I am familiar with all talk about a heavenly court which is addressed, but NOWHERE is there a suggestion that these beings, creatures...whatever are co-equal with God or part of some split-personality. Your interpretation is fanciful, to say the least. Do you know of any of the texts, commentaries, early Christian Fathers, whomever that would support your belief?? I don't...enlighten me, please. What you propose is closer to Zoroastrianism...the two gods of Light and Darkness as coequals.

And PLEASE...this is not a PERSONAL attack on you. It is though a real questioning of your interpretation and assumptions...that is, your THINKING on the matter. Argumentation deals with reasoning and examining assumptions. Lotsa folks claim "CHRISTIANITY," Marcionism did, gnosticism did...but it was condemned by the Christian Church and was never widely held as legitimate within the Church. The Christian Faith didn't just spring from fancy. It has a history. Help me to see where your thinking stands in that Christian tradition, that warrants it being legitimized by being called "Christian." Otherwise, anyone claiming to be "Christian" can say what they will, believe what they want and claim that's legit??

How does what you propose stack up against this statement, from the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD accepted by almost every group called "Christian?"

The Definition of the
Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D)
Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.

I am glad to see differing opinions,this saves us from us,very nessary.However it will not be answered,both views will stand.Heard them all my life.I'm only 50 years old.There are assumptions in both views.When I get home and not to tired I will try to show several other ways to read the passages that are quoted.Just one example-only Theos and Logos ?The statement is not specific.It dosnt say just the two.Dont misunderstand I am not saying there was others I make the same assumption.We read with assumptions.

Not quite awake and not asleep.Remodel job at night so excuse me for being a little dull.Anytime you compare Johns gospel with the other three your going to have problems.The focus of John is on Christs divinity while the other three focus on Christ's humanity (son of man),what he accomplished in as a man.Jesus is presented in two very differnt lights but the same Jesus.This has always caused debate.Please excuse this term buy I'm lost for another ,Differnt facet.

Yes, John's Gospel is very different from the other three, and much later in terms of the time of it's writing. The audience is different...an educated group of gentiles; Matthew is written to the Jewish-Christians; Mark is the first, written to give both an account of Jesus' last days as well as to proclaim him, the Christ, the opening verses state that objective. Luke has an interest in the healing ministry. Both Matthew and Luke depend on Mark, or a pre-cursor text to Mark, often called ur-mark,having similarities as well as including differences. In the first three, Jesus does not proclaim himself, Son of God, others do, he is called son of man. In John's Gospel; Jesus says directly who he is...Son of God. John's Gospel is heavily infuenced by the writer's familairity with Greek philosophy, particularly in the first two chapters. Matthew and Luke only have the birth stories, though John's Gospel talks about a pre-existence of the Christ as Word. Plus many, many more. But my differences with what was said, and which I attempted to address, is the claim of two Eternal Beings, or the idea of a "developing" Godhead. That is an entirely different matter going beyond the mere difference in the Gospels. It speaks to the doctrines and beliefs, some of which are drawn either as conclusions from the text, or as assertions to support a theological belief that is attempted to be substantiated by a kind of "cut and paste" of texts, often taken out of their Gospel context. It is one thing to be lead somewhere by the text, it is quite another to use the text to substantiate a belief held before you come to the text.

Also, please, don't think I am claiming that you need to be a seminary graduate or have an advanced degree in philosophy or theology to wrestle with the text of Scripture. I do believe the Holy Spirit can lead a person to saving Grace who is without a formal education. That is quite different from believing that every claim to "truth" regarding the text is a direct intervention of the Holy Spirit. The things necessary for salvation, yes, the Holy Spirit does lead in that conviction. But just "reading the text" alone doesn't mean that you can somehow be "lead to" knowledge about history, text exegesis, etc. Like an old Bible Professor used to say, "the number of letters you can add after your name is like the curls in a pigs tail. It doesn't change the taste of the bacon none." Having grown up in a steel town and the first to attend college, seminary, or grad school, I can appreciate common sense. But having taught philosophy of religion and logic in college, I can also appreciate the knowledge that education enhances. Neither is a substitute for the other. Like all of you, I am another humble seeker, attempting to continue to discover God's truth in the text and witness to His saving Grace.

geesh...and did you notice...a bit wordy at times as well? Sorry, 'bout that!

geesh...and did you notice...a bit wordy at times as well? Sorry, 'bout that!
I like words.

You know the thing that stands out most in my search for understanding of God and life is that I am just not able to get there.But it dosnt matter,even though I would love to hold a complete knowledge of God I have learned to live by faith.I have enough knowledge to trust him to finish what he started.When we come face to face(and we will)he can explain it all.

Mesquite,
I doubt any of us will ever comprehend God. (except in the end, when we shall know as we have been known). The important thing is not that we get our minds around the concept of God, but that we be apprehended by God. The finite mind cannot comprehend the Infinite, but can only respond to being apprehended by the Infinite. I always have to remind myself that my idea of God is never, in fact, God. At best, reason can attempt to understand in a comprehensive way that apprehension by God, who is self-revealing. We can never think our assumptions, uninvestigated, are the goal. We examine our assumtions. (Philosophy is involved with the task of investigating the assumptions with which any Theology starts, but even philosophy is not ultimate knowledge.) With the traditional arguments about the existence of God, NONE are adequate to the task, yet because we are thinking-beings we are stuck with thinking, problem solving, investigating, etc...knowing it will never be sufficient...but look at it this way...everyday of our lives we are involved with and face the task of making choices with partial knowledge. Why would we think that thinking about God would/should be any different? Faith is learning to trust God to be true to His promises. (yes, I used His, but Hers isn't any better as a personal pronoun for God, who is not bound by these physical limitations.) :rolleyes:

Well, I guess we must part ways with that contention. You have not swayed me.

You certainly have encouraged me to read scripture and for that, I thank you.

God Bless

Jim

Mesquite,
I doubt any of us will ever comprehend God. (except in the end, when we shall know as we have been known). The important thing is not that we get our minds around the concept of God, but that we be apprehended by God. The finite mind cannot comprehend the Infinite, but can only respond to being apprehended by the Infinite. I always have to remind myself that my idea of God is never, in fact, God. At best, reason can attempt to understand in a comprehensive way that apprehension by God, who is self-revealing. We can never think our assumptions, uninvestigated, are the goal. We examine our assumtions. (Philosophy is involved with the task of investigating the assumptions with which any Theology starts, but even philosophy is not ultimate knowledge.) With the traditional arguments about the existence of God, NONE are adequate to the task, yet because we are thinking-beings we are stuck with thinking, problem solving, investigating, etc...knowing it will never be sufficient...but look at it this way...everyday of our lives we are involved with and face the task of making choices with partial knowledge. Why would we think that thinking about God would/should be any different? Faith is learning to trust God to be true to His promises. (yes, I used His, but Hers isn't any better as a personal pronoun for God, who is not bound by these physical limitations.) :rolleyes:
RugerCal480
This would be why he came to us.Best plan possible,works for me.

Well, I guess we must part ways with that contention. You have not swayed me.

You certainly have encouraged me to read scripture and for that, I thank you.

God Bless

Jim
Jim
I also have been going back through commentaries,Ryrie,MacArthur next is Pink.The events that took place in order for the creation to be with the creator have been rewarmed.This is good.I like the way Mac Arthur puts it.IF you have access to it ,see what you think.

Even though we may not agree on who Jesus is, we can agree on one thing. That is that God the Father and Jesus the Son are two distinct Gods.

-----------------------------

John 5:19
19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

John 5:20
20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

John 5:21
21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth [them]; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.

John 5:22
22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:


-----------------------------

One thing that comes to mind concerning Jesus and his authourity is found in the following passage.

-----------------------------------

Matthew 28:18
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

---------------------------------------

This was after his resurrection. Was Jesus the Son given total authority at that time?

Jim

Have not done any reading but it seems that he always had power.He raised the dead,the blind were healed along with the sick.He ordered unclean spirits ect.I think he was stateing a fact that had existed but he had never out right expressed it.With this work complete he says it out loud.

Just had a thought.At his baptism by Jonh the Baptist when the spirit desended like a dove.Could this be when authority was given to him.I'm going to see what I can find.

It seems to me that during his time in human form he was given certain limited powers.

-------------------------------


Hebrews 2:6
6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?

Hebrews 2:7
7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:

Hebrews 2:8
8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing [that is] not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.

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

----------------------------------

It is clear to me that Jesus did not have supreme power until his resurrection.

Keep looking.

Jim

Like most things this does not seem answerable.I'm sure that those that were raised from the dead by Jesus must have died later on or else they would still be here.So should we see this work as the work of God the father to show who Jesus was or the power of Jesus himself.Jesus did tell the priest that if they destroyed this temple he would raise it in three days(his body)and not that God would raise it.However when I read Hebrews 2:14 it looks as though he must die to destroy the devils power over death.Does this make it a matter of the power that Jesus himself held or a matter of removing the power held be Satan.Food for thought.

It seems as though we always end up in the same place.I believe the reason for this is that what we call the new testament was compiled to show the person of Jesus and not to explain everything else,a guiding light in life not an explaination of it.We are not told when the angles were created nor any of the beings described by John in the revelation given to him that he wrote about.We dont know if Lucifer fell before or after the man to tll the ground was formed.We do have more than enough in Jesus,we dont really need any thing else.

It seems to me that certain powers were bestowed upon him by the Father which later, after the resurrection were also bestowed upon his apostles.

I am not sure that, until the resurrection, Jesus had any more power than Satan except that he could cast out demons. Satan's power remained strong as it does to this day.

-------------------

Job 1:6
6 ¶ Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.


--------------------

If you take the above passage literally, it looks to me as though Satan is also a son of God. Perhaps his powers at some point were equal to Jesus.

Jim

Satan certainly seems to have at least influence even today and it is wrinnen that we are in a battle against the powers of darkness.So does this mean that Jesus will exercise all of his power at his return but not untill then,the parable of the harvest.Not want to hurt the wheat.

Jim,
This is a heart thing not a knowledge thing.I think Jesus could have called it quits at at anytime he wanted to.But he was thinking of us and did'nt do it.He told God the father he would do this work and he was bound by his word to do it.I think he always had power but refused to use it for the sake of the work.Live life as a man by choice day by day.I dont think he was forced to live as a man but choose to.He did not fall to sin he could have returned to the father.I know I'm not being very clear,heart things seldom are.His lack of the use of his power was for us.HE did'nt need to come,did'nt need to stay,did'nt need to die except for us.He laid his life down in the same way he wouldnt defend himself before Pilate,not that he could not but that he would not.

Agreed, but it is obvious that Jesus was torn between duty to God and his human life. He was part God and part man and it showed.

---------------------------------

Matthew 26:39
39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou [wilt].

Matthew 26:42
42 He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.


Matthew 27:46
46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

------------------------------

These passages tell me that Jesus, even though he knew the plan and that it was necessary, he was doing his Father's bidding and had misgivings.

I saw the movie :Passion of the Christ" last night.
I give it a mixed review.

Jim

Can't blame him for wanting another way to accomplish the goal,I would have been a big disappointment in that spot.As for the movie,I may have to go see it for myself,as soon as the crowds go away.

Jesus is not just the divine Logus made flesh. He is simultainiously human and devine. Don't forget the early church put all four gospels in the Bible for a reason. While John emphasizes the divine nature of Christ, it neglects the Christmas story, i.e. Jesus was conceived between the Holy Spirit and a woman, and was born as a human is born. If we overemphasize the divine origin of Christ we are led into Monophysitism, an early Christian heresey still alive in parts of Egypt and the Middle East. This heresy says that Jesus Christ was a joining of the eternal Logos with the human person Jesus, which occured at incarnation. The heresey did not acknowledge the dual nature of the Christ. Most Christian heresies centered around the twin issues of the nature of the trinity and, more specifically, the nature of Jesus Christ. The official stand on these issues, developed over centuries of debate, were as follows: God is a trinity, three persons but one essence; Jesus Christ was one person, simultaneously human and divine. That these two statements are not particularly consistent was considered irrelevant. The trinity was seen as mysterious and a matter of faith, not reason. A brief descriptin of Monophysitism can be found at http://www.franciscan-sfo.org/TXC/MONOPHYS.HTM or more simply http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/society/A0833756.html