Jesus is God.

[daqq]

Not listening to the video but reading the commentary on the page: it really does not matter whether the reading for the only begotten in John 1:18 is "Son" or whether the only begotten is "God", (Theos). That is because the man Yeshua does not claim to be the Logos-Memra-Word and the rest of the Gospel of John reveals this to be true. Those passages have already been quoted and gone over many times in this and many other threads. There is a chain of clear emphatic statements which, if a person be honest and accept what Yeshua says, then none of this would even be necessary because the arguments would be over. If you would like that I go find them and post them again here, I will, just for you, seriously.

(Quote)
That is because the man Yeshua does not claim to be the Logos-Memra-Word and the rest of the Gospel of John reveals this to be true.


Jn.1:14. And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among (in)us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15John testified about Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said,

‘He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’”

John the Baptist said that.

You posted my quote but did not post the passages of which I spoke, which were then posted in the very next reply to the same person: why would you omit the passages which I spoke about in what you quoted when they were right there in the next post? Here they are again, please refute them if you think any of the statements are incorrect or wrongly understood:

First allow me to answer with some of the passages I mentioned in the previous post.

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

The Father judges no one but has committed all judgment to the Son:

John 5:22
22. For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment unto the Son:

The man Yeshua also states that he judges no one:

John 8:15
15. You judge after the flesh: I judge no one.

There is only one who judges, the Seeker and Judge:

John 8:50
50. And I seek not mine own glory: one there is, the Seeker and Judge. [Rev 2:23]

The Memra-Logos-Word which the man Yeshua speaks is not his own:

John 14:24
24. He that loves me not, keeps not my sayings: and the Logos-Word which you hear is not of me, but [it is] of the Father who sent me.

The Memra-Logos-Word is the Seeker and the Judge:

John 12:47-48
47. And if anyone hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but that the world might be delivered.
48. He that rejects me, and receives not my words, has one that judges him: the Logos-Word that I have spoken, that one shall judge him in the last day.

Revelation 19:11-16 KJV
11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Logos-Word of God.
14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

The Son of man and Son of Elohim is the Memra-Logos-Word who descended from the heavens in the spiritual somatiko-bodily form of a dove and abode-remained upon the man Yeshua throughout his ministry including Golgotha.

But as for your question concerning the birth of Yeshua; why have you not first offered up an answer to my question which came first in this subject matter pertaining to Matthew 11:11? If you say that Yeshua is born of a woman, as you apparently do, then he clearly tells you that Yohanan is greater than he is because of the clear emphatic statement written in Matthew 11:11. How do you account for that in your doctrine? Do you just ignore what Yeshua says like most or do you have an acceptable answer? My initial answer, (without explanation), has already been given:

Matthew 11:11 KJV
11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

The only way that Yeshua can be greater than Yohanan, according to this statement from the Master himself, is if Yeshua is not born of a woman: and we know that Yeshua states that he has a greater Testimony than Yohanan, and therefore he is greater, (and not born of a woman).

As for what Yohanan says in the passage you quoted:

Jn.1:14. And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among (in)us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15John testified about Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said,

‘He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’”

John the Baptist said that.

How do you know it does not say "...behind me..."?
That is simply an interpretation from someone else according to their own perception.
Study up on the anthropos-man-faced-countenance of man, (it is all in the Testimony of Yeshua).

Revelation 1:10 W/H
10 εγενομην εν πνευματι εν τη κυριακη ημερα και ηκουσα οπισω μου φωνην μεγαλην ως σαλπιγγος
10 I was in [the] Spirit in the Day Kuriake, [pertaining to the Master], and I heard behind me a great voice as of a trumpet:

John 1:15 W/H
15 ιωαννης μαρτυρει περι αυτου και κεκραγεν λεγων ουτος ην ο ειπων ο οπισω μου ερχομενος εμπροσθεν μου γεγονεν οτι πρωτος μου ην
15 Yohanan testifies concerning him, and has cried, saying, This was of whom I said: The one coming behind me, in front of me has become; for before me he was!

("He must increase, but I must decrease").

Understand? The natural man will not because he knows not from where or what Spirit he speaks.

 

[freelight]

Hair splitting wonders.......

Hair splitting wonders.......

You posted my quote but did not post the passages of which I spoke, which were then posted in the very next reply to the same person: why would you omit the passages which I spoke about in what you quoted when they were right there in the next post? Here they are again, please refute them if you think any of the statements are incorrect or wrongly understood:




As for what Yohanan says in the passage you quoted:



How do you know it does not say "...behind me..."?
That is simply an interpretation from someone else according to their own perception.
Study up on the anthropos-man-faced-countenance of man, (it is all in the Testimony of Yeshua).

Revelation 1:10 W/H
10 εγενομην εν πνευματι εν τη κυριακη ημερα και ηκουσα οπισω μου φωνην μεγαλην ως σαλπιγγος
10 I was in [the] Spirit in the Day Kuriake, [pertaining to the Master], and I heard behind me a great voice as of a trumpet:

John 1:15 W/H
15 ιωαννης μαρτυρει περι αυτου και κεκραγεν λεγων ουτος ην ο ειπων ο οπισω μου ερχομενος εμπροσθεν μου γεγονεν οτι πρωτος μου ην
15 Yohanan testifies concerning him, and has cried, saying, This was of whom I said: The one coming behind me, in front of me has become; for before me he was!

("He must increase, but I must decrease").

Understand? The natural man will not because he knows not from where or what Spirit he speaks.

Hi daqq,

We've shared some commonalities in 'Christology', even though my liberal view includes all probable and possible points of view In any case,...in your view of Jesus NOT being "born of a woman", some have problems with that apparently, although Paul tells us Christ was "born of a woman", so some clarity there is appreciated, although you may feel you've clarified - there is also the complication of Jesus assumed 'human' and 'divine' natures,...so just probing your 'Christology' a bit more, if you care to expand.

On a broad note, do you differentiate then between the MAN Jesus and perhaps an added element or divine 'Christ' coming upon the Man Jesus or joining with him somehow to become one personality? You see how some things can be confusing. - this puts more layers into the 'mix' within a more allegorical interpretation of things - thru all this there is that wonderful mystery of the 'Incarnation' that some of us love to indulge.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Amen, Yerushalaim of above is our mother, (covenant), but they do not truly believe Paul as they profess or they would understand his doctrine and incorporate his teachings into their own. And none of the opposers on the previous page have understood anything posted thus far because most all of what they said was already answered. Coming back after a few pages and ignoring what has just been posted, then demanding the same answers all over again as if they were not just answered, is lying and deceitful.

Your answers all contain this infantile manner of --

"I (Dagg) am right and you are wrong because you are a liar and deceitful"

When you get that sort of speaking out of your thinking and out of your heart then you can have a decent conversation.

LA

 

[Zeke]

Huh? All of your Gal 4 referal has to to do births and unto what they accomplished, nothing more that changes anything already accepted as the traditional account of things.

So you didn't see the part about Father Abraham and the reference to the free woman being the heavenly mother, represented by Sarah visited by God and then she had Isaac, She is the mother off us all who have been kissed within by her Galatians 4:6, When you read it as an outward kingdom history that is observed instead of inward metaphoric teaching the way of Christ in us, one gets caught in the traditional mire of trying to have an observable kingdom of God that Jesus told you isn't, but you still want to find its history in the observable past and future that Luke 17:20-21 rebukes.

Clearly Galatians is speaking of two natures in us, and is using allegorical stories Galatians 4:24 to explain the process of becoming a child like Isaac Galatians 4:28, John 3:3 and the effects/states we go through.

 

[daqq]

Hi daqq,

We've shared some commonalities in 'Christology', even though my liberal view includes all probable and possible points of view In any case,...in your view of Jesus NOT being "born of a woman", some have problems with that apparently, although Paul tells us Christ was "born of a woman", so some clarity there is appreciated, although you may feel you've clarified - there is also the complication of Jesus assumed 'human' and 'divine' natures,...so just probing your 'Christology' a bit more, if you care to expand.

On a broad note, do you differentiate then between the MAN Jesus and perhaps an added element or divine 'Christ' coming upon the Man Jesus or joining with him somehow to become one personality? You see how some things can be confusing. - this puts more layers into the 'mix' within a more allegorical interpretation of things - thru all this there is that wonderful mystery of the 'Incarnation' that some of us love to indulge.

Hi Freelight, a previous response might shed more light but it is of course just the tip of an iceberg:

When you ask a person that question from Matthew 11:11, and they believe in a literal physical virgin birth, they cannot answer it because the answer burns down their entire paradigm to the ground. For if Yeshua was literally physically born of a woman, (Mariam), then he clearly says that Yohanan is greater than himself in that passage. What is the Master telling us? He is not physically born of a physical woman, (that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit). Who then is Mariam? Yerushalaim of above is our mother, (covenant), after the typology of Sarah, Rachel, and so on and so on until Mariam. It is therefore yet another allegory which carnal man has forced into a literal fleshly and physical dogma. Paul even gives a veiled warning about such things in his words to Timothy and in those same words we find one of only three usages of somatikos, which is also used in Luke 3:22 concerning the Holy One who descended from the heavens, in somatiko-corporeal-bodily form as a dove, at the immersion of Yeshua:

1 Timothy 4:6-8 KJV
6 If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.
7 But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness.
8 For bodily [somatikos] exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.

On the surface the reader generally gets the impression that he or she has found a rare glimpse into a private mundane conversation between a teacher and his student talking about the lack of the importance of physical exercise and the need to avoid, (the literal physical interpretation of), tales and fables, (muthos-myths), but nothing could be further from the truth; this is pure doctrine, (Paul is crafty by his own admission). The word rendered "profane" in the above is from belos, which literally means "a threshold", and thus implies elementary entry level tales and fables. He essentially tells the reader here that the virgin birth and infancy narratives are allegories, that is, "Jewish fables" or "old wives' tales", not that they are not true in a supernal and spiritual sense, and not that they are not important, but rather that they must be understood for what they are: the milk of the word for babes in Messiah. The real meat, (the Dove), is at the immersion of Yeshua; when a child becomes a Son.

The infancy narratives are allegorical teachings which the natural man has forced into a strictly natural and physical understanding. So by starting off on the completely wrong footing of course they cannot explain their own private dogmatic mystery doctrine. You might like what follows herein also, enjoy.

:sheep:

 

[Zeke]

Hi daqq,

We've shared some commonalities in 'Christology', even though my liberal view includes all probable and possible points of view In any case,...in your view of Jesus NOT being "born of a woman", some have problems with that apparently, although Paul tells us Christ was "born of a woman", so some clarity there is appreciated, although you may feel you've clarified - there is also the complication of Jesus assumed 'human' and 'divine' natures,...so just probing your 'Christology' a bit more, if you care to expand.

On a broad note, do you differentiate then between the MAN Jesus and perhaps an added element or divine 'Christ' coming upon the Man Jesus or joining with him somehow to become one personality? You see how some things can be confusing. - this puts more layers into the 'mix' within a more allegorical interpretation of things - thru all this there is that wonderful mystery of the 'Incarnation' that some of us love to indulge.

Technically that is true but you would have to include everyone born, a spark of eternity resides in every heart John 1:9 even if their living in ignorance of that, and like the red sea birth of the nation of IS RA EL story you had a small remnant of freeborn that came through the birth of the sons of Hagar under bondage.

 

[daqq]

Your answers all contain this infantile manner of --

"I (Dagg) am right and you are wrong because you are a liar and deceitful"

When you get that sort of speaking out of your thinking and out of your heart then you can have a decent conversation.

LA

It is the Testimony of Yeshua which is right and you who are against what he clearly says.

 

[daqq]

Hi daqq,

We've shared some commonalities in 'Christology', even though my liberal view includes all probable and possible points of view In any case,...in your view of Jesus NOT being "born of a woman", some have problems with that apparently, although Paul tells us Christ was "born of a woman", so some clarity there is appreciated, although you may feel you've clarified - there is also the complication of Jesus assumed 'human' and 'divine' natures,...so just probing your 'Christology' a bit more, if you care to expand.

On a broad note, do you differentiate then between the MAN Jesus and perhaps an added element or divine 'Christ' coming upon the Man Jesus or joining with him somehow to become one personality? You see how some things can be confusing. - this puts more layers into the 'mix' within a more allegorical interpretation of things - thru all this there is that wonderful mystery of the 'Incarnation' that some of us love to indulge.

Hi Freelight, a previous response might shed more light but it is of course just the tip of an iceberg:

The infancy narratives are allegorical teachings which the natural man has forced into a strictly natural and physical understanding. So by starting off on the completely wrong footing of course they cannot explain their own private dogmatic mystery doctrine. You might like what follows herein also, enjoy.

Now therefore where exactly does Paul tell us that Elohim sent forth His Son, born or made of a woman? Is that not the same context where he tells the Galatians that Yerushalaim of above is the mother, (covenant), of us all? Yes, indeed, that is the only place I know of, that is, Galatians 4:4 through Galatians 4:26. So then, within the context of the passage as a whole, my understanding appears to be in conformity with what Paul teaches therein.

 

[Notaclue]

You posted my quote but did not post the passages of which I spoke, which were then posted in the very next reply to the same person: why would you omit the passages which I spoke about in what you quoted when they were right there in the next post? Here they are again, please refute them if you think any of the statements are incorrect or wrongly understood:




As for what Yohanan says in the passage you quoted:



How do you know it does not say "...behind me..."?
That is simply an interpretation from someone else according to their own perception.
Study up on the anthropos-man-faced-countenance of man, (it is all in the Testimony of Yeshua).

Revelation 1:10 W/H
10 εγενομην εν πνευματι εν τη κυριακη ημερα και ηκουσα οπισω μου φωνην μεγαλην ως σαλπιγγος
10 I was in [the] Spirit in the Day Kuriake, [pertaining to the Master], and I heard behind me a great voice as of a trumpet:

John 1:15 W/H
15 ιωαννης μαρτυρει περι αυτου και κεκραγεν λεγων ουτος ην ο ειπων ο οπισω μου ερχομενος εμπροσθεν μου γεγονεν οτι πρωτος μου ην
15 Yohanan testifies concerning him, and has cried, saying, This was of whom I said: The one coming behind me, in front of me has become; for before me he was!

("He must increase, but I must decrease").

Understand? The natural man will not because he knows not from where or what Spirit he speaks.

daqq,


Matthew 11:11 KJV
11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.


he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.


Jn.3:13. and no one hath gone up to the heaven, except he who out of the heaven came down -- the Son of Man who is in the heaven.


The Son of Man was already in heaven, making him greater than John the Baptist.


I will get to the other questions tomorrow.


Peace.

 

[freelight]

fish bites and tadpoles.......

fish bites and tadpoles.......

Hi Freelight, a previous response might shed more light but it is of course just the tip of an iceberg:



The infancy narratives are allegorical teachings which the natural man has forced into a strictly natural and physical understanding. So by starting off on the completely wrong footing of course they cannot explain their own private dogmatic mystery doctrine. You might like what follows herein also, enjoy.

:sheep:

My joy is over-abounding

You know the 'Annunciation' is part of the infancy narratives, and the big VB (virgin birth) theme which further supports the 'divinity' of Christ belief, leaving aside the big debate on a particular word translated as 'young maiden' or 'virgin'
We might also fancy the non-canonical infancy gospels that have some peculiar tidbits. I would directly inquire however how you appropriate or describe any divinity to the man Jesus, or is the 'Christ' a divine spirit, angel or eon that came down 'upon' and/or 'into' Jesus so that a differentiation of 'humanity' and 'deity' albeit compounded or synergized (or whatever) is to be recognized and 'subsumed' into the unique personality-complex (begun at 'marriage' of the two) of Jesus.... at any point in time (whether you see this convergence or 'adoption' at his birth or baptism).

I'm getting to the crux of the age-old Unitarian/Trinitarian debate on the constitution of Jesus, however you describe or compound his humanity and divinity (pick your ratio). Do you differentiate between the MAN Jesus and some essence or anointing of divinity that is either inherent in this unique personality (somehow) or was 'anointed' in some fashion upon him (via the 'dove' at his baptism)? Since you provide some questioning upon an actual literal/physical birth of Jesus (thru a virgin or otherwise), this would seem to throw a wrench into the gears, jamming things up a bit - I believe some embellishments made their way into the narratives,...by human nature.

Is Jesus 'God'? Is Jesus divine? How are the logos/word and Jesus related? Is there a human Jesus and a divine logos/word or 'Christ-spirit' that had a pre-existence before the man Jesus was born? Didn't the MAN Jesus have a beginning in time? Do you follow where I'm probing here? It may be asking from so many levels, lighting up stars in the matrix,...but some minds would like some guideposts along the path, to keep oil in their lamps, unless they are already burned out Now that we have some more worms out of the bowl,...we'll see if any wiggles get a bite

 

[daqq]

daqq,

Matthew 11:11 KJV
11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.


he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.


Jn.3:13. and no one hath gone up to the heaven, except he who out of the heaven came down -- the Son of Man who is in the heaven.


The Son of Man was already in heaven, making him greater than John the Baptist.


I will get to the other questions tomorrow.


Peace.

Yes! The Son of Man is he that has descended and ascended the heavens; at least we agree on that:

The Father judges no one but has committed all judgment to the Son:

John 5:22
22. For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment unto the Son:

The man Yeshua also states that he judges no one:

John 8:15
15. You judge after the flesh: I judge no one.

There is only one who judges, the Seeker and Judge:

John 8:50
50. And I seek not mine own glory: one there is, the Seeker and Judge. [Rev 2:23]

The Memra-Logos-Word which the man Yeshua speaks is not his own:

John 14:24
24. He that loves me not, keeps not my sayings: and the Logos-Word which you hear is not of me, but [it is] of the Father who sent me.

The Memra-Logos-Word is the Seeker and the Judge:

John 12:47-48
47. And if anyone hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but that the world might be delivered.
48. He that rejects me, and receives not my words, has one that judges him: the Logos-Word that I have spoken, that one shall judge him in the last day.

Revelation 19:11-16 KJV
11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Logos-Word of God.
14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

The Son of man and Son of Elohim is the Memra-Logos-Word who descended from the heavens in the spiritual somatiko-bodily form of a dove and abode-remained upon the man Yeshua throughout his ministry including Golgotha.

If he claimed to be God, as Trinitarians say he does, then he is not God because he says so:

John 5:31 KJV
31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.

John 5:31 YLT
31 'If I testify concerning myself, my testimony is not true;

And in the above context he is speaking of the Son of God, (John 5:22-26) and of the Son of Man, (John 5:27). Thus any argument that Yeshua "claims to be God" is nullified by the Testimony of Yeshua himself.

Paul even gives a veiled warning about such things in his words to Timothy and in those same words we find one of only three usages of somatikos, which is also used in Luke 3:22 concerning the Holy One who descended from the heavens, in somatiko-corporeal-bodily form as a dove, at the immersion of Yeshua:

1 Timothy 4:6-8 KJV
6 If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.
7 But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness.
8 For bodily [somatikos] exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.

As far as physical ontology Yeshua says this:

Matthew 11:11 KJV
11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

And this:

John 3:6 KJV
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

If therefore you say that Yeshua was only a 100% physical man, having been born of Mariam, then how is it that he says Yohanan is greater than himself? (for in that view they were both born of women). But by the same reckoning the Trinitarian view has the same problem, even a gaping hole in their theory, for they say that Yeshua is both 100% man and 100% God. Thus one could say to them also, (and I do), how is it that Yeshua says Yohanan is greater than his own "100% man half", (if that makes any sense), which was supposedly born of Mariam? No matter what else they say, if they say that Yeshua was/is 100% man then he clearly says that Yohanan was greater; for that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. And who is the least in the kingdom of the heavens? The Son of Man was made a little lower or lesser than the messengers and-or angels.

But now show me where Yeshua ever says that he himself is the Son of Man: does he not always refer to the Son of Man in the third person? And how many times have we already had this same argument throughout these fora? Maybe not you and I but certainly myself and the same old crowd, over and over, again and again. What generally happens next is that someone will come along and post Matthew 16:13 KJV, (KJV of course), to supposedly "disprove" the truth with the erroneous Textus Receptus rendering of the KJV or YLT rendering; and then I will refute it with the truth once again; and then the same will go on as if nothing happened, continuing with what they want to believe, despite the truth having been placed right in front of their eyes once again.

 

[daqq]

My joy is over-abounding

You know the 'Annunciation' is part of the infancy narratives, and the big VB (virgin birth) theme which further supports the 'divinity' of Christ belief, leaving aside the big debate on a particular word translated as 'young maiden' or 'virgin'
We might also fancy the non-canonical infancy gospels that have some peculiar tidbits. I would directly inquire however how you appropriate or describe any divinity to the man Jesus, or is the 'Christ' a divine spirit, angel or eon that came down 'upon' and/or 'into' Jesus so that a differentiation of 'humanity' and 'deity' albeit compounded or synergized (or whatever) is to be recognized and 'subsumed' into the unique personality-complex (begun at 'marriage' of the two) of Jesus.... at any point in time (whether you see this convergence or 'adoption' at his birth or baptism).

I'm getting to the crux of the age-old Unitarian/Trinitarian debate on the constitution of Jesus, however you describe or compound his humanity and divinity (pick your ratio). Do you differentiate between the MAN Jesus and some essence or anointing of divinity that is either inherent in this unique personality (somehow) or was 'anointed' in some fashion upon him (via the 'dove' at his baptism)? Since you provide some questioning upon an actual literal/physical birth of Jesus (thru a virgin or otherwise), this would seem to throw a wrench into the gears, jamming things up a bit - I believe some embellishments made their way into the narratives,...by human nature.

Is Jesus 'God'? Is Jesus divine? How are the logos/word and Jesus related? Is there a human Jesus and a divine logos/word or 'Christ-spirit' that had a pre-existence before the man Jesus was born? Didn't the MAN Jesus have a beginning in time? Do you follow where I'm probing here? It may be asking from so many levels, lighting up stars in the matrix,...but some minds would like some guideposts along the path, to keep oil in their lamps, unless they are already burned out Now that we have some more worms out of the bowl,...we'll see if any wiggles get a bite

Follow the sheep through the door my friend, it's all there, (and here).

 

[keypurr]

Daqq is one of the smartest posters here Biblically

I agree friend, we can all learn from Daqq.

 

[Cross Reference]

So you didn't see the part about Father Abraham and the reference to the free woman being the heavenly mother, represented by Sarah visited by God and then she had Isaac, She is the mother off us all who have been kissed within by her Galatians 4:6, When you read it as an outward kingdom history that is observed instead of inward metaphoric teaching the way of Christ in us, one gets caught in the traditional mire of trying to have an observable kingdom of God that Jesus told you isn't, but you still want to find its history in the observable past and future that Luke 17:20-21 rebukes.

Clearly Galatians is speaking of two natures in us, and is using allegorical stories Galatians 4:24 to explain the process of becoming a child like Isaac Galatians 4:28, John 3:3 and the effects/states we go through.

Gal 4 is heavy with "types". I.e., Sarah was a human "type" of a heavenly picture yet to unfold. Even the "how" of why, can be depicted as a "type".

I believe the born again have one nature, . to be overcome, two spirits, to perfrom it..

 

[Cross Reference]

Follow the sheep through the door my friend, it's all there, (and here).

Hey daqq! Who is coming again in clouds of Glory? (Mk 13:26)

 

[daqq]

Hey daqq! Who is coming again in clouds of Glory? (Mk 13:26)

The Reaper . . . :chuckle:

 

[Cross Reference]

The Reaper . . . :chuckle:

Embarrassed, eh?

 

[God's Truth]

I agree friend, we can all learn from Daqq.

You say that about anyone whw denies the truth about jesus.

 

[Zeke]

Gal 4 is heavy with "types". I.e., Sarah was a human "type" of a heavenly picture yet to unfold. Even the "how" of why, can be depicted as a "type".

I believe the born again have one nature, . to be overcome, two spirits, to perfrom it..

She was portrayed as a physical woman in the allegory yes, but she wasn't flesh and blood, neither was Jesus, these states have no historic time stamp like the observational Christians wants to portray them Galatians 3:1-4, among should be in just like it should be in John 1:14, Calvary/Skull/Christ in you, all takes place in the kingdom Luke 17:20-21, the traditional programming is voided by Matt 11:11, Gen 30:32, and many other metaphoric/mystical/dark sayings through out scripture.

 

[Cross Reference]

She was portrayed as a physical woman in the allegory yes, but she wasn't flesh and blood, neither was Jesus, these states have no historic time stamp like the observational Christians wants to portray them Galatians 3:1-4, among should be in just like it should be in John 1:14, Calvary/Skull/Christ in you, all takes place in the kingdom Luke 17:20-21, the traditional programming is voided by Matt 11:11, Gen 30:32, and many other metaphoric/mystical/dark sayings through out scripture.

We have a problem; disagreement, for I have no desire to take up with you. Sorry.