|
| |
HOW COULD JESUS BE A DESCENDANT OF DAVID |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Jesus, the Messiah, Deliverer, Son of God and King of Kings, was concieved by the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin. The fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily in Jesus while he was in every way a human being. Jesus was not fathered by any man, since no man had been with Mary (Luke 1:34). And Joseph, Mary's betrothed husband, at first struggled to accept this fact but later accepted it (Matthew 1:19-25). But Jesus had to be 'brought up' or 'brought forth' from the line of David; he Himself had to find his earthly beginnings and achieve his earthly ministry while being of the Kingly heritage of David. God's promise to David is ultimately fulfilled by Jesus as David's 'descendant' of whom it was promised in 2 Samuel 7:16, and in the line of Judah in Genesis 49:10: both fulfilled by the Lord Jesus Christ! And Luke 3:23-38 shows the 'direct line' genealogy from Mary, the vessel in which God used to deliver His only Son into this world, all the way down to David, and it even goes from David to Adam! And if you look in Matthew 1:1-17, you can see how Joseph, who was the step-father of Jesus, was also in the Kingly heritage, being a descendant of King David. So Jesus was in fact a descendant of David as well as being part of the royal heritage as promised by God. Now you ask: "What do you think about the Christ, whose son is He?" (Matthew 22:41-46) They said to Him, "The son of David." Jesus said to them, "Then how does David in the Spirit call him 'Lord', saying, "THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, 'SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I PUT YOUR ENEMIES BENEATH YOUR FEET' '? If David then calls him 'Lord', how is He his son?" Very good question! Here is the answer: Jesus was a descendant of David while he dwelt upon this earth, but He has always been and has always existed as God. He was never created by God but has always existed as part of the Godhead with His Father and the Holy Spirit. In this passage (Matthew 22:41-46), David called upon the Lord during his life, even the Lord Jesus! Now he says, 'THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD'.. This is God the Father in heaven saying to God the Son, "SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND UNTIL I PUT YOUR ENEMIES BENEATH YOUR FEET." So God the Son ascended into heaven to assume His Lordship at God the Father's right hand until the time when Jesus will return to earth in the Second Coming of Christ. So this is how the Lord Jesus is David's Lord (whom David called upon) and also David's son, or descendant, at the same time. I hope that this explanation helps. I use the New American Standard Bible ('95), which is my very favorite translation! |
| |
HOW COULD JESUS BE A DESCENDANT OF DAVID |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Jesus was the one who created the heavens and the earth,A.K.A Jehovah the Lord.when He became flesh, He was born of the virgin Mary who is a decendant of David.Hence; The Lord said unto my Lord sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool. If david called Him Lord then how is He his son? |
| |
Why did Jesus have to beborn of a virgin |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Why did Jesus have to be born of a virgin? |
| |
Why did Jesus have to beborn of a virgin |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
First, is so that the prophecy would be fulfilled that claimed He would be born of a virgin --- see Matt. 1:22-23. Second, it is generally understood that this was a way that God chose to bypass the assumption of the sinful nature that is passed down from Adam --- "...for through one man sin entered into the world..." Rom. 5:12. Hope this helps. timothy |
| |
Why did Jesus have to beborn of a virgin |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
This is an excellent though-provoking question. I would advocate that God's plan as to how the baby would be born came prior to the prophecy -- not the other way around. Of course, the Son of God would need to have God as a parent in order to be God (maintain his God-hood as a person) genetically. However, I don't see that a faithful and consistent wife or a widow would contribute any more "sinful" of a nature than a virgin. (In fact, this concept in an extreme form could lead to wives witholding relations in a way that could hinder the marriage relationship.) There is a connection of virginity with ceremonial purity, however, that could be significant. In addition, female virginity is typically verifiable by physical means for the majority of women. In this way, Mary's virginity right up to the point of birth would most likely have been verifiable by Joseph, a midwife or anyone else who was allowed to investigate fully; her virginity would act as a testimony, therefore, that the "male seed" was placed there by the Holy Spirit rather than through sexual intercourse. With a non-virgin, there would always be more room for question and accusation. |
| |
Why did Jesus have to beborn of a virgin |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
I'd like to add that the blood of the mother never enters the blood stream of the fetus, but is imparted through the sperm of the father. Since "the life of the flesh is in the blood," as in Leviticus 17:11, the sinlessness of Christ was maintained by no human man having a part in the conception. The true Father was God through the Holy Spirit. Thus there was a sinless nature passed on to the Christ. The virgin birth was necessary to this fact. |
| |
Why did Jesus have to beborn of a virgin |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
I would like to add a comment here as well. There are many fullfilments of scripture that are, may I say minor fulfillments of the law, they fulfill the law but not fully. One of these is the firstborn being wholly set apart to the Lord. In the KJV EXO 13:2 Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine. This is fulfilled in part, because the firstborn in sanctified, but in Jesus it is completely fulfilled, because since His mother was a virgin, he literally opened the womb. No other first-born really opens the womb, Jesus did. The word for openeth here is derived from the root which means to burst forth. |
| |
What would be considered the age? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
So far as I know, there is no explicit age given at which all children have developed the ability (and, therefore, must be held fully responsible) to choose between right and wrong. However, Isaiah's prophecy about the virgin birth contains a reference to a time "before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good" -- which indicates there is some point at which the person reaches this "knowledge". The age of 20 years old chosen by God is surely higher than this for most if not all people, and (as pointed out by JVH0212) there is Jewish tradition that treats the age of 13 as a special kind of ascent into responsibility under the law. Neither of these has the authority of a Scriptural command or universal precedent at setting that age.
However, God has placed us under ruling authorities, such as governments (see Romans 13:1f and 1 Peter 2:12ff). Governments typically have standard ages of permission and responsibility, which are applied to their subjects; we are under their jurisdiction here.
Finally, while parents are responsible for training up children, God does not judge them for the iniquity of their children. The clearest explanation of this is in Ezekiel 18, and I suggest reading the entire chapter. If being a good parent guaranteed faithful children, then God's children would never have rebelled, rjected him and fallen in the first place. God is our perfect example as a parent; yet he has many wayward children. Furthermore, the majority part of humanity has has gone so far as to reject his fatherhood altogether. |
| |
Only 144,000 virgins in heaven? |
|
|
|
Revelation
|
| |
Dear HeirofGod, What did you mean about 'virgins?' As far as I know, some sects of the Mormons also use this number, as well as the Unification Church (the Moonies). It seems that almost all cults that 'use' the Bible for their own purposes point to this number in order to attempt to 'legitimatize' their religion. In other words, theirs is the 'true' faith, and the rest of Christians are deceived or 'faith-challenged.' I find it interesting to note that some of these cults have more than 144k members (even discounting their 'inflation' of the numbers), which causes me to wonder how they account for this to their own people. Are they trampling one another for a 'reservation?' ;-)
It seems to me that even Bible-believing Christians can interpret this number to be a 'saved-unsaved' or 'saved-more saved' competition. I do not know exactly what this number depicts, but I do know that is dangerous to focus too much attention on it. In Jesus. |
| |
Only 144,000 virgins in heaven? |
|
|
|
Revelation
|
| |
I understand what the number is and who it includes. I was just wondering why and how these false religions only include 144,000 people in heaven. There will be 144,000 men undefiled by women(this is what I meant by virgins) Rev. 14:1-4. but they are Jews. |
| |
Explanation acceptable? |
|
|
|
Revelation
|
| |
So, HeirofGod, was my (possible) explanation of how cults view the 144k acceptable? Your use of 'virgins' was number 4 in my Websters, so correct, but a bit unorthodox :-) I also understand a bit about these people, but certainly not ALL. Blessings in Christ Jesus. |
| |
Explanation acceptable? |
|
|
|
Revelation
|
| |
Yes, thank you. I only used virgins because that's what it is. There's nothing wrong with it, it's just what is meant by the scripture I used. I don't understand all things about them either. I just know what they are there to do. Thanks for discussing it with me.
In Jesus' name. |
| |
It is a general argument among believers |
|
|
|
NT general
|
| |
My understanding is that this is primarily an argument between the Roman Catholic Church and the rest of Christianity. I believe there was once a Papal decree regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary. I may be mistaken in this, but the staunchness with which the view is consistently defended leads me to think otherwise. If I'm mistaken in this, someone please correct me quickly and publicly. I don't know of any other reason whatsoever for interpreting away the existence of Jesus' brothers and sisters here or elsewhere.
(I'm just coming back to the list after leaving to consider how to be more careful not to offend unnecessarily, and I'm already setting myself up to offend any Catholic brothers and sisters on the list. However, I felt this question merited an answer.)
Since the Pope is considered incapable of error when speaking in his capacity of making doctrinal declarations, such a decree can not be reversed without compromising the doctrine of Papal infallibility. Such doctrines become foundational as a part of any future Roman Catholic systematic theology. As a result, Roman Catholics who affirm the Scriptures need to bring a different reading to anything indicating that Mary and Joseph ever had sexual relations. This creates a number of problems for them or anyone else who agrees with this view.
1) Let me give several examples of problematic issues? What about direct references to Jesus' brothers and sisters (as you pointed out)? Well, there must be an alternate explanation searched out and explained. Cousins is the only potentially defensible possiblity that fits with the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity (although it requires consistent rejection of the most obvious and natural readings of several texts); therefore, it is embraced. 2) What about the guidelines for husbands and wives not to deprive one another of sexual relations (1 Cor 7:3-5)? I have no idea what is done to make Mary exempt from this command as Joseph's wife (Matthew 1:24). 3) Doesn't Matthew 1:24-25 indicate that Joseph and Mary pursued normal marital relations after Jesus was born? Roman Catholics (and anyone else who comes to this verse assuming the perpetual virginity of Mary) must interpret this to be an odd way of introducing their sexual abstention as an ongoing (rather than a temporary) condition. I have heard Roman Catholic apologists compare the use of "until" in Matthew 1:25 to Luke 20:43 and Acts 2:45 (to the Son being at the right hand of the Father "until" the Father has made his enemies into his footstool). |
| |
Can angels have human babies? |
|
|
|
Gen 6:4
|
| |
Dear Ray V.H.: Greetings! I read with interest your posting, "Dear Minister, Thank you for your input..." It is not my intent to take issue with you, but I would just like to point out one or two things.
. . . Regarding your sentence: "Not only then is Jesus the Son of Joseph in the spiritual sense..." I would like to know: Who ever accurately and correctly called Jesus the son of Joseph? Luke 3:23 New King James Version: "Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph..." "*as was supposed.* Luke had already established the fact of the virgin birth (1:34,35); here he made clear once again that Joseph was not Jesus' true father" (p. 1529, MacArthur Study Bible, Word Publishing, 1997).
. . . You wrote concerning Adam: "In a sense then, he became a man." I would have to disagree with you. God *created* Adam as a man. I cannot agree that sometime subsequent to his creation, Adam *became* a man, since he was a man from the moment of his creation.
. . . You wrote: "In Adam's case also there didn't have to be a father, just a Creator." Please note what it plainly says in Luke 3:38: "the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God." Repeating: "Adam, the son of God." If one wishes to debate whether the meaning of "Adam, the son of God" is literal or metaphorical, one may do so. But in the Scriptures, when the plain sense makes good sense, seek no other sense, lest it be nonsense.
. . . (Yet it is true that not every statement in Scripture was meant to be taken literally. No one can deny that often Scripture uses figurative language. Care must be taken to distinguish the figurative from the literal. Notice that in the above paragraph, I did not say "literal sense." To be safe, I prefer to use the term "the plain sense.")
. . . Again, thank you for a most interesting posting. In Christ, JVH0212
|
| |
is it wrong to masterbate? |
|
|
|
1 Cor 7:9
|
| |
l Corinthians 7:1b,..."it is good for a man not to touch a woman." In this day and age of equality, we'd have to say also that it is good for a woman not to touch a man. Verse 2, "But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband." We can't all find a mate or keep a mate but if we seek one we seek a person that is not taken.
"The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does." This is saying that the husband and wife have to be available and capable. They don't deprive each other of sexual activities, and in regard to your question, they don't masturbate if its going to interfere with their fulfilling their duty to each other.
If they need some time for themselves and their relationship with God, they agree on a time period, and then fulfill their duty to their marital commitments when they come together again. Personally, I would think that they could masturbate during this time period. I wouldn't command it, but it could be plausible and understandable. Is that what Paul is saying?
I think that if you want to be celibate and have sexual feelings and you don't masturbate, then you can be tempted by Satan all the more. But I'm not commanding you. It's certainly best to think on other things and pray. Just remember that the feelings will still be there and Satan will continue to tempt you to enter into sin and not be celibate. You may be tempted at a time when you don't expect it.
Charlie Shedd, a writer when I was growing up and considering these things, was said to have called masturbation a "gift from God". Whether he was considering l Cor 7:7 or not I don't know. But there are certainly people with physical handicaps but yet with sexual needs that would consider it a gift.
I would say that masturbation is self-control. Use it for a time if you need to, but spend time in prayer and you can use your time of singleness to do the work of God that married people don't have the time to do.
l Cor 7:323, "But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is conceerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and his interests are divided. The woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit;...This I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but to promote what is appropriate and to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord."
I hope whatever I said that is from God may be helpful to you. |
| |
God can use woman in the ministry? |
|
|
|
Gal 3:28
|
| |
I Timothy 2:9-15: I wouldn't label this passage as Paul's opinion, and I believe many would agree with me. This passage is clearly different than the occasions when Paul gives his opinion about widowers, virgins, and folks married to nonbelievers in I Cor., where he clearly states, I say, not the Lord. Paul speaks with the statement, "I" in many commands that most consider commands of GOD. See Eph. 4:1 Therefore I implore you, Romans 12:1 Therefore I urge you, etc. The "therefore" in the two passages are different words than, "but" however they are both particles, and Paul still commands through his own person, but most agree he was speaking for the Lord. See also Rom. 11:11 "I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they?" I don't think this is Paul's opinion, but he does use ‘I'.
Back to the relevant passage, starting at I Tim Ch.2:1 Paul uses ‘I' and again, this is considered by many to be a command from GOD. So, I see no difference in verse 12; the particle translated, "But" in the NASB could be 'but' or 'and', so Paul, in my opinion, is simply giving additional information about women in the church. Paul states in v. 7 his authority as an apostle and starts v. 8 with the particle, ‘therefore' and v. 9 starts with ‘likewise' so the authority continues through to v. 15.
If you know something about translation, I would like to know if there is any particular reason the NASB chose "But" in verse 12. It seems to me that the context would demand ‘and'. Any comment? Thanks for the comment please let me know if I'm wrong about anything, or if you simply disagree! GOD bless! |
| |
God can use woman in the ministry? |
|
|
|
Gal 3:28
|
| |
1 Cor 7:12a (first part of the verse) The Amplified Bible "To the rest I declare -- I, not the Lord [for Jesus did not discuss this]..."
. . . Greetings to you, Chris! I have enjoyed reading your postings to the Forum. If I may, I hope to shed a little light on the discussion of "I, not the Lord."
. . . You write in part: "...Paul gives his opinion about widowers, virgins, and folks married to nonbelievers in I Cor., where he clearly states, I say, not the Lord. Paul speaks with the statement, "I" in many commands that most consider commands of GOD."
. . . Please note: in 1 Cor 7:12 "*I...say.* Not a denial of inspiration or an indication that Paul is giving human opinion, but simply a way of saying that Jesus had not spoken on this and God had not previously given revelation on the matter, as Paul was then writing" (p. 1738, MacArthur Study Bible, Word, 1997)
. . . "(7:12) In vv. 1-12 the contrast is not between inspired teaching and uninspired teaching, as some have supposed. In vv. 10-11 Paul is repeating in substance something already taught by the Lord; but in v. 12 he is dealing with a situation not covered by our Lord's teaching. Instead of disclaiming inspiration for what he writes in v. 12, the apostle is actually claiming for his own words here the same authority as for the words of Christ Himself" (note at 1 Cor 7:12, New Scofield Reference Bible, Oxford, 1967).
. . . I thank you for hearing me out. --JVH0212
|
| |
What about human cloning? |
|
|
|
Gen 2:7
|
| |
I believe it is a very dangerous area, because we are tampering with GOD's responsibility! One of my key passages of scripture is Psalm 131, and I believe that unless we are explicitly asked we should not get involved with GOD's stuff! Everything we humans mess with we screw up, at least we do for 30 years or so and then we say, Oh no! we've got to go fix it (see health research, environment, wild life, etc.; I am very guilty of generalization here, sorry!!). This one (cloning) may be to tough to fix!!
However, I don't believe in getting too involved in the government (protest, etc.), again I reference my focus scripture of Ps 131, I don't see anyplace in scripture were GOD specifically asks me to try to rule over a world under the sway of the evil one. Just my opinion, and here in West Virginia, and other places, we have a saying, "Opinions are like rear ends, every bodies got'em and they usually stink!" And remember, you did say 'all'! GOD bless!! |
| |
The Rapture, when will it be? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
I believe in a Pre-Trib rapture based upon I Thessalonians 5:2. As I read it, Jesus will not come as a, "theif in the night" at the second coming. He will come as the dominating ruling of the universe and everyone will see Him, and those who oppose Him will fear! The rapture doctrine is based upon a 'gap' in the Biblical information. Why do so many of the apostles and the Lord, himself, emphasize the idea of Jesus' immenint return as a theif in the night, if at the second coming all the world will see Him? (Mat. 24:30) What about the parable of the ten virgins? Notice, the bridegroom took in the PRUDENT virgins (believers) and left the foolish outside! (Mat. 25:1-10) And, lastly if we were to look for the anti-christ the apostles would tell us to look for him, not our Lord! |
| |
The Rapture, when will it be? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
I understand the reasoning behind my brother's answer, but I see no evidence of a pre-trib rapture. It could be argued from the same passages given that a mid-trib rapture will take place for four reasons:1)We have been warned about false christs and such. 2)We have been warned of the hardships people have to endure. 3)There is no place we can hide from it. 4)The warnings of the false christs suggest the real Christ has not yet returned and we need to be patient. Therefore, we have been given two promises concerning the tribualtion, if we are indeed caught up in it. First,the days have been shortened as stated in Matthew 24:22. Second, we won't have a chance to notice when Christ comes as stated in Matthew 24:27 and 1 Thess 5:2. Personally, I don't think we should be concerned about when we will taken home to be with our Lord. I think we should be concerned that Christ is most definitely coming back to receive us unto himself. It is a promise I hold very close to my heart. As Christians we will enudre the time of tribulation if we remain with the Body of Christ and make our stand together. We must prepare ourselves to live during those times of difficulty now rather than wait and be caught unprepared. I think this is also a valid teaching of the Ten Virgins parable. Not only should we accept Christ as our Savior and Lord but we should be prepared to wait on his return and endure whatever may come our way. No matter when the tribulation might occur. |
| |
Are Christmas and Easter pagan in origin |
|
|
|
Gal 4:10
|
| |
Christmas and Easter are definitely pagan in origin. Twenty years ago, many Bible believers would readily admit that. However, it seems that many have forsaken that view because they know it runs people off. Perhaps we are too concerned with "nickels and noses" in this day and age. Both of these holidays were brought from polytheism (which is rooted in Babylonianism) into the false church, Roman Catholicism--thus the term "Christ-mass." Easter actually comes from the pagan god Ishtar, or Eastara. What these holidays are is a mixture of some truth and some pagan. For instance, Christ was really born of a virgin, in a manger, and there were really wise men (though the Scripture says nothing of 3 wise men, just 3 gifts). The Romans instituted something that was never instructed by or ever observed by the early churches--Christmas. They mixed a little truth with a lot of error producing error--a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
As for the word Easter appearing in Acts 12:4, that Greek word is never translated anything but passover in the Bible except in that one spot.
God bless. |
| |
Who were the son's of God in Job? |
|
|
|
Gen 6:4
|
| |
Well, I might argue with you concerning the reliability of the NASB. But you really surprised me by giving Jesus' conception as an example of a spirit procreating with a human being. I suppose that you believe that since the Bible says that Mary was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit that you think the Holy Spirit fathered Jesus by having sexual relations with Mary as you seem to think the angels had sexual relations with human beings in Genesis 6:4. If that's not what you mean I hope you will say so. If it is what you mean have you thought about the consequences of such a belief? If what you imply is so, then why does the Bible call Mary a virgin? If what you say is so, then Mary committed fornication with the Holy Spirit and Jesus was an illigetimate child. The fact is that Jesus' birth was a miracle performed by the Holy Spirit. Jesus was and is the only child who has ever been born of a virgin. MARY DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH A SPIRIT!! To take such a view is SACRILEGIOUS and it is a PERVERSION of scripture to so state!
In response to the last sentence of your note just let me say that a word does not always mean the same thing in every passage in the Bible. Sometimes the meaning of the word has to be determined by the context. Take the word "serpent" for example. At times the word serpent refers to Satan (Genesis 3:1) but at other times it just refers to the animal we know as a snake (Exodus 4:3). In Genesis 49:16 Dan is referred to as a "serpent." The word serpent does not always refer to Satan. The context must determine what it refers to. Thus, there are examples of the Bible using words that do not always mean the same thing in every passage. I hope you will study further and renounce your example of Jesus' conception being the result of Mary having sexual relations with a spirit. Such a belief not only questions the legitimate birth of Jesus but it questions the purity of Mary. |
| |
Did Jephthah sacrifice his daughter? |
|
|
|
Judg 11:31
|
| |
Good morning, JVH! Maybe we will both be studying soon out of the ASV.. :)
Yes, I had the same impression from Judg. 11:30 even though Jephthah was not under orders from God to do this since God had forbidden human sacrifice. (Lev. 18:21; 20:2-5 and Deut. 12:31; 18:10) Of course, in the Book of Judges 'everyone did what was right in his own eyes' (Judg. 21:25). But another way of looking at this is that Jephthah just simply 'kept her a virgin'... I know that this sounds 'least harsh' in light of his vow in v. 30, but his daughter makes no mention of sacrifice in v. 37, she just refers to the fact that she will never marry (which I find interesting if she was being sacrificed!).. Anyways, that is interesting and I appreciate your input! Your brother in the Lord, Nolan! |
| |
Agree now? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
The Apostles' Creed
I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.
Would you agree with this? In an older translation where this one says
"He descended to the dead." It would say, "descended into hell". So a modern translation of the Creed of St. Athanasius might say dead instead of hell. Would you agree then? But I suppose from what you say that you would not agree with this prayer,
O God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, our only Savior, the Prince of Peace: Give us grace seriously to lay to heart the great dangers we are in by our unhappy divisions; take away all hatred and prejudice, and whatever else may hinder us from godly union and concord; that, as there is but one Body and one Spirit, one hope of our calling, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of us all, so we may be all of one heart and of one soul, united in one holy bond of truth and peace, of faith and charity, and may with one mind and one mouth glorify thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Yours in Christ Jesus, wist ye not
|
| |
Did Jesus go to hell after dying? |
|
|
|
Ephesians
|
| |
Psalm 68:18 is quoted by Paul in Ephesians 4:8, and explained by him in verses 9-13. Most if not all interpreters will agree that the ascension to on high refers to Jesus' ascension back to heaven. But the dispute arrises based on the interpretation of his descension. Some interpreters assert that this refers to Jesus descending into hell (Hades) after His death on the cross. At this time, they say that He took the Old Testament believers out of the "saved" part of Hades, and led them to heaven. These are the captives that are spoken of.
The problem with this interpretation is that the quotation in the Psalms sounds more like a victorious conqueror riding into the city of the defeated king. In the time of David, the conqueror would lead the captured soldiers back into the city where the inhabitants would be forced to watch their army being humiliated. The Old Testament saints are not a defeated army. They are the victorious soldiers going with their king. The captives may be unsaved people and/or Satanic forces.
The basis of suggesting that Jesus wet to Hades after His death is usually made to account for this verse. If we remove the problem of having to depolulate "saved" Hades, then there is no reason for Jesus to have gone to Hades.
What of the phrase "He also descended into the lower parts of the earth"? Those who take the second view will say that this refers to the incarnation, when Jesus descended from heaven to be born as a little baby of a virgin.
In short, No, I don't believe Jesus ever went to hell, despite the Apostles' Creed.
God Bless.
In Christ,
Koinekid
Upholding Scriptural Integrity, Accuracy, and Immutability. |
| |
Three Offices or Three Persons? |
|
|
|
John 6:56
|
| |
Hi Tim
We have Jesus born of a virgin, called son of God, son of man, son of David, holy child (Acts 4:30), holy thing (Luke 1:35) ect.
As a man he grew from an infant, he was hungry and had to eat,thirsty and had to drink, we find him asleep in a ship during a bad storm. Jesus was
God and man, God is not flesh and blood. As a man
he got hungry, as God he feed the multitude, as a man he got thirsty, as God he said he would give living water, as a man he needed sleep, God does not need to sleep.
So Jesus could speak as God and as a man, he prayed as a man, unless we have a lesser god who needs help which was not the case, flesh, even sinless flesh needs to be yeilded completely to the Spirit. He also was our example.
Isa. 9:6 states that his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
He is the Counselor or comforter. In John 14:17,18 Jesus said the comforter was the Spirit of truth, isn't he the way the truth and the life, dwelling with them and shall be in them. Jesus said in ver. 18 he would not leave them comfortless he would come to them.
We could say offices or manifestations and God has manifested Himself in many ways.
Heb 1
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
I would ask, did not the sonship have a beginning, begotten does mean that, right?
sharp
|
| |
Human and Divine? |
|
|
|
John 6:56
|
| |
Hi Sharp!
Let me start with me response, then I'll deal with your question.
1) Response
If I understand your response to my question correctly, you are saying that Jesus was praying to Himself because He was operating at that moment as a man and not as God. Let me know if I have missed the boat! My problem with that interpretation is this: Yes, Jesus was fully man, but He was also fully God. What I mean is this. The fullness of the Godhead was always as much a part of His nature as was His humanity. There was never a time when Jesus was not aware of who He was (the 2nd person of the Godhead.) Jesus even says to Philip, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?" (John 14:9). Clearly, Jesus is fully aware of His Divinity as well as His humanity. Therefore, when Jesus says that He will pray to the Father, I believe He is really praying to someone. Also, when He says that He will pray for another Comforter, I believe that there really is another Comforter. Therefore, I don't think that you can explain this verse away by appealing to His humanity. What do you think?
2) Answer.
I'm not sure I understand where you are going with this line of questioning. Usually, this is a tact taken by those trying to disprove the Deity of Christ. Can you clarify where you are going?
In the meantime, let me address this passage. There is one thing that we know about Christ, there never was a time when He did not exist. He is fully God (Col. 2:9, John 1:1) and as such has always existed. So, whatever Heb. 1:6 is refering to it is not refering to a point in time when Christ came into existence. However, the incarnation is not the normal state of Christ. This seems to be what Heb. 1:6 is refering to. On the day that Christ was born of the virgin Mary, He became the Son of God (a status change). This is a name that is superior to the angels and unique to Christ (Phil. 2:9-11).
Two other passages (Acts 13:33 and Rom. 1:3-4) even go further and specify that it was the resurrection which declares the Jesus is the Son of God.
So, my answer to your question is this: At His birth and resurrection, Jesus was declared the Son of God. However, there never was a time when Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity did not exist.
God Bless,
Tim Moran |
| |
Will you join me? |
|
|
|
Acts 2:33
|
| |
Dear saints, The above verse, preceded by "This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses." Acts 2:32 NASB, speaks clearly of the Tri-Une nature of our God, or the Trinity. In the statement of faith of our sponsors is written, "We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is the only Begotten Son of God, conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary." This is a clear statement of the Three-in-One God. Call it what you will, but this is the faith of Christianity from the very beginning of the Lord Jesus' ministry on earth. Any attempt to 'unify' or 'combine' this basic, ubiquitous doctrine into 'One Entity' is not in keeping with the Bible, nor with the creed of our sponsors and purpose of this forum. I am forthwith boycotting any further discussion of the 'Oneness' or 'Jesus-only' topics. Further consideration of this line is without merit, and will only hurt this forum, and the saints in this fellowship.
Will you join me in stopping this unwise waste of time?
Blessings in Christ Jesus, charis
|
| |
Will you join me? |
|
|
|
Acts 2:33
|
| |
Dear RevC, These discussions have not borne fruit. I do not lambaste you, personally, and I admit that you have been a gentleman. However the Tri-Une nature of God is an integral part of virtually every Christian creed, and is not food for debate, any more than a denial of the Virgin Birth, the infallibility of the Bible, or the work of the Cross. A 'oneness' or 'Jesus-only' God is not merely a 'matter of discussion,' but divisive, and inherently destructive. This is the reason for my boycott. Indeed, you are free to discuss anything you like, but I cannot participate.
With Love in Christ Jesus, charis |
| |
| To See More, Click Here... |
|
|
