"Tree of Life"

[EphremHagos]

The absence of any literature, outside the Holy Bible, on the subject of Jesus Christ's diacritical death on the cross (the "tree of life") as instrument of His perpetual self-revelation confirms theology ("tree of knowledge") as enmity to God!

Somebody please tell me that I Am wrong and the reason why.

[Rayado]

:hi: Welcome to Theologyweb!

Someone should come along shortly to properly introduce you around.

[bc1980]

The absence of any literature, outside the Holy Bible, on the subject of Jesus Christ's diacritical death on the cross (the "tree of life") as instrument of His perpetual self-revelation confirms theology ("tree of knowledge") as enmity to God!

Somebody please tell me that I Am wrong and the reason why.

If I read you correct you are wrong.

The absence of any literature, outside the Holy Bible, on the subject of Jesus Christ's diacritical death on the cross (the "tree of life") as instrument of His perpetual self-revelation

Are you referring to that there is no literature that carry's what we call the "Holy Spirit Inspired" authority or are you saying no one else besides the Bible wrote on the subject of Christ's crucifixion.? Or are you saying the Holy Bible is the only authoritative literature on Christs' crucifixion?

theology ("tree of knowledge") as enmity to God!

Regardless of the first part of the sentence, the second part is not true or it's worded incorrectly.

Theology is simply the study of God. It is how you form what you believe concerning God. The fact that you have related "theology .... as enmity to God" is proof that you use theology and therefore you are a theologian.

All people are theologians. Some study more than others. Some base their beliefs on what the Bible says. Some don't. But all base their beliefs on what they think they know about God, whether true or false.

If you think you can come to understand or know God apart from His revelation, then you are operating out of the "tree of knowledge".

Many have developed a bad attitude about theology, thinking theology is the problem. Theology is not the problem. BAD theology is the problem. But that comes from bad processes.

[John Goddard]

The absence of any literature, outside the Holy Bible, on the subject of Jesus Christ's diacritical death on the cross (the "tree of life") as instrument of His perpetual self-revelation confirms theology ("tree of knowledge") as enmity to God!

Somebody please tell me that I Am wrong and the reason why.

Tree of Knowledge = Disobeying God and Knowledge of that sin.
Tree of Life = Life in obeying God and repentance of sin.

It's not about all knowledge, only knowledge of your sins, which you can only get by sinning. Which Adam and Eve did when they disobeyed God and ate from it.

[RBerman]

What is Christ's "diacritical death"?

[Johnny MacManky]

What is Christ's "diacritical death"?

"distinguishing (adj) death"? :shrug: Doesn't seem to make the intended point much clearer.

Oh, just a wee reminder... "While this area is for the discussion of . . . doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here".

[RBerman]

Yeah. I'm not sure whether this thread belongs in "Unorthodox Theology" or "Lost in Translation."

[EphremHagos]

You are not reading me correctly for two reasons. 1) As anticipated in prophecy and taught in the gospels, the factors of cause, effect and timing of the death of Jesus Christ on the cross ("tree of life")are, briefly, all determinants of the outpouring of life-giving Spirit and Christ's perpetual self-revelation as the "I Am Who I Am" or the Father (John 8: 24-28) --the exclusive basis of valid, sustainable and sacred faith! 2) Not only is there nothing at all about such a great defining moment of Jesus Christ in theology ("tree of knowledge") but the the latter tree was destined to be enemy of the former from the very beginning (Gen. 2: 8-9).
As both points are well-documented throughout Scriptures, all
substantiated contrary views will be greatly appreciated!

[EphremHagos]

Tree of Knowledge = Disobeying God and Knowledge of that sin.
Tree of Life = Life in obeying God and repentance of sin.

It's not about all knowledge, only knowledge of your sins, which you can only get by sinning. Which Adam and Eve did when they disobeyed God and ate from it.
I propose that the "tree of life" and "tree of knowledge" are the two diametrically opposed natures in the first man representing God-reliance and self-reliance, respectively, in understanding of the origin, meaning and direction of life. We know of the choices made and the consequences (Gen. 3).
Exactly the same prospects are present in the once and for all answer to the key question, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" (Matt. 16: 13-28) including an interesting note of "enmity to the cross of Christ" as personified, in substance, by no less than Simon Peter. It is no secret that today we are committing on a global scale exactly the same sin of self-reliance at the expense of God-reliance with respect to God's promises in the terms and seal of the "new covenant" (Jer. 31: 31-34; Matt. 26: 26-29 ff; Phil. 3:18).

[RBerman]

I don't have a problem with seeing the Edenic "Tree of Life" as one of many "types" or pictures of Christ. But you must have an odd definition of "theology" to equate it with the "Tree of Knowledge" and sinful self reliance. You have a theology too. Your posts in this thread are full of theology, meaning that you read the Bible and then talk about what it means.

[bc1980]

So what are you saying?

[Johnny MacManky]

So what are you saying?

. . . His perpetual self-revelation confirms theology ("tree of knowledge") as enmity to God! ...

:shrug: Clearly "theology [is] emnity to God"... :yes: Talking about God puts us at emnity with Him. :idea: Unless... Maybe EphHagos thinks that the "theo" in Theology means Tree and "logy" means Knowledge... :doh:

[EphremHagos]

No, Ephrem is thinking rather about the irreconcilable difference between the forbidden "tree of knowledge" representing self-reliance, i.e., acccording to the thoughts and ways of man; and the permitted "tree of life" representing God-reliance, i.e, according to the thoughts and ways of God (Isa. 55: 8-9).
It will be recalled that such basic enmity was identified from the very beginning (Gen. 2:8-17); explained at the time of the Prophet Isaiah (see above); anticipated in the announcement of Jesus Christ's suffering and death (Matt. 16: 22-23); demonstrated in Simon Peter's final denials (Matt. 26: 69-75) and desertion by the majority of the disciples (Matt. 26: 56) and re-echoed by Paul (Phil 3: 17-19).
Not only can academic theology not comprehend the wisdom and power of God in Christ's death on the cross, they are in opposition to each other! This is the record of all Scriptures starting from Genesis to Revelation.
By the way, I am a bonafide disciple of Jessus Christ and a long-time student of the Bible but not at all a theologian!

[bc1980]

I am a bonafide disciple of Jessus Christ and a long-time student of the Bible but not at all a theologian!

That statement is illogical. If you are a student of Jesus and a student of the Bible, you are a theologian. You may not like the term, but that is what the term means. You are a studier (like that word?) of God. I can declare I'm not a redhead until I'm blue in the face; I can dye my hair a different color, but none of that changes what I am, I'm a redhead, whether I like it or not.

You are a theologian, like it or not.

[EphremHagos]

I don't have a problem with seeing the Edenic "Tree of Life" as one of many "types" or pictures of Christ. But you must have an odd definition of "theology" to equate it with the "Tree of Knowledge" and sinful self reliance. You have a theology too. Your posts in this thread are full of theology, meaning that you read the Bible and then talk about what it means.
From the point of view of immediate source of knowledge, the "tree of life" (God-reliance for visions) and the "tree of knowledge" (self-reliance in academic pursuit) are in diammetrical oppostion to each other (Isa. 55: 8-9)!
Therefore, the issue is not the knowledge but the source. For example, the whole of the "new testament" proper is exclusively based on Christ's death on the cross as source of self-sufficient life and light to mankind --something thoroughly corrupted in Christian theology!

[EphremHagos]

I am a bonafide disciple of Jessus Christ and a long-time student of the Bible but not at all a theologian!

That statement is illogical. If you are a student of Jesus and a student of the Bible, you are a theologian. You may not like the term, but that is what the term means. You are a studier (like that word?) of God. I can declare I'm not a redhead until I'm blue in the face; I can dye my hair a different color, but none of that changes what I am, I'm a redhead, whether I like it or not.

You are a theologian, like it or not.
As I have tried to explain elsewhere, the difference between a disciple and a theologian is their source of knowledge, viz.: on the one hand, God-reliant visions and direct inspirations from the ever-present "tree of life" (the cross of Christ) ; and, on the other hand, self-reliant academic pursuit based on human authorities.
Therefore, there is nothing at all in common between a disciple and a theologian. As Jesus Christ has said, "The knowledge about the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to [disciples] but not to [theologians] with frightfully decreasing returns to the latter (Matt. 13: 11-12). The greatest of these secrets being the divine identity of Jesus Christ conclusively revealed at his death on the cross which I have seen! Thanks be to God that I am a disciple but not a theologian!

[RBerman]

Your distinction between "disciple" (someone who gets visions from God) and a "theologian" (someone who is self-reliant and follows human authorities) has no connection to how those words are usually used. A disciple is a student of someone or something. A theologian is someone who makes a claim about spiritual truth, regardless of what authority they accept. Christians should be disciples of Christ and theologians who accept the Bible as the source of Spiritual authority.

[Johnny MacManky]

As I have tried to explain elsewhere, the difference between a disciple and a theologian is their source of knowledge, viz.: on the one hand, God-reliant visions and direct inspirations from the ever-present "tree of life" (the cross of Christ) ; and, on the other hand, self-reliant academic pursuit based on human authorities.
Therefore, there is nothing at all in common between a disciple and a theologian. As Jesus Christ has said, "The knowledge about the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to [disciples] but not to [theologians] with frightfully decreasing returns to the latter (Matt. 13: 11-12). The greatest of these secrets being the divine identity of Jesus Christ conclusively revealed at his death on the cross which I have seen! Thanks be to God that I am a disciple but not a theologian!

Do you know what your primary mistake (error) is in the above statement?

Other than that you postulate extremes (as if a disciple cannot also pursue academic Biblical Studies), you are adding to Scripture.

Matt. 13:11 He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. (KJV)

You have imposed the word "theologians" upon the text, in order to support your own ideas. There is no mention whatsoever in the verse, passage or context which could possibly merit such an imposition.

(For the record, I'm not an academic theologian.)

[EphremHagos]

In a forum such as this one, all ideas (Including mine and yours) should stand or fall on their Biblical merits alone! If not, no one will benefit, in the long run, from Holy Scripture's power of teaching the truth, rebuking error, correcting faults and giving instruction for right living (2 Tim. 3:16).
Based on the terms and seal of the "new covenant" (Jer. 31: 31-34; Matt. 26: 26-29 ff), I wish to postulate further that a bona-fide disciple today, who knows Jesus Christ firsthand and is trained personally and equipped thoroughly by Him alone (John 6:45), has no reason whatsoever of compromising himself by pursuing academic Biblical studies! It just doesn't fit!
Lastly, in the sharp division between the "haves" (disciples) and "havenots" (other people) of knowledge about the secrets of the Kingdom of heaven (Matt. 13: 10-17), it should not prove too difficult to classify theologians with their self-reliant academic pursuit based on accumulated wisdom of human origin.

[EphremHagos]

The designations "disciple" and "theologian", as they relate to "knowledge about the secrets of the Kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 13: 10-17), cannot be used in the way you suggested.

Therefore, I am afraid that the difference between the two names defined by their underlying sources as portrayed in God's Word, stands!

[RBerman]

Neither Matthew 13 nor any other passage in the Bible uses the word "theologian" so you can't very well use the Bible to define the word "theologian." Unless you can demonstrate why we should accept your definition of "theologian" then we really have no reason to accept what you're saying. But even then, your definition of "theologian" will not be based on the Bible alone, will it now?

[Bernie]

From the point of view of immediate source of knowledge, the "tree of life" (God-reliance for visions) and the "tree of knowledge" (self-reliance in academic pursuit) are in diammetrical oppostion to each other (Isa. 55: 8-9)!
Therefore, the issue is not the knowledge but the source. For example, the whole of the "new testament" proper is exclusively based on Christ's death on the cross as source of self-sufficient life and light to mankind --something thoroughly corrupted in Christian theology!
I think J MacManky hit the nail on the head; you're postulating extremes that fall apart on close scrutiny. In my theology, unless humans are inspired to study God's word to discern its truth, whether academically or indiviudally, truth won't be searched for because spiritual truth itself is an enemy to the human soul. This eradicates imh the extreme antithesis between theology and revelation you seem to be demanding. This isn't to say that some (perhaps many) don't pursue Biblical studies from a primarily secular angle, with salary, prestige, etc. higher on one's list than the apprehension of truth itself. But to state that "Christ's death on the cross as source of self-sufficient life and light to mankind" is "something thoroughly corrupted in Christian theology" just doesn't ring true.

I see the church as corrupt in the same sense man naturally corrupts all that God gives us, but to declare theology diametrically opposed to absolute Truth [my interpretation of your meaning, correct me if wrong] would place theology in the same category of corruption as the sort of opposition atheism exhibits to the gospel. This just doesn't seem a reasonable view.

On the other hand, I place a lot of weight on the truth-value of allegory and find your tree of life/tree of knowledge assessment interesting. Haven't run into this comparison before. I think it has definite merit, but not in the absolute sense you seem to be employing it.

[EphremHagos]

I think J MacManky hit the nail on the head; you're postulating extremes that fall apart on close scrutiny. In my theology, unless humans are inspired to study God's word to discern its truth, whether academically or indiviudally, truth won't be searched for because spiritual truth itself is an enemy to the human soul. This eradicates imh the extreme antithesis between theology and revelation you seem to be demanding. This isn't to say that some (perhaps many) don't pursue Biblical studies from a primarily secular angle, with salary, prestige, etc. higher on one's list than the apprehension of truth itself. But to state that "Christ's death on the cross as source of self-sufficient life and light to mankind" is "something thoroughly corrupted in Christian theology" just doesn't ring true.

I see the church as corrupt in the same sense man naturally corrupts all that God gives us, but to declare theology diametrically opposed to absolute Truth [my interpretation of your meaning, correct me if wrong] would place theology in the same category of corruption as the sort of opposition atheism exhibits to the gospel. This just doesn't seem a reasonable view.

On the other hand, I place a lot of weight on the truth-value of allegory and find your tree of life/tree of knowledge assessment interesting. Haven't run into this comparison before. I think it has definite merit, but not in the absolute sense you seem to be employing it.
Thank you for your very constructive response!
In the same vein, I will be more than happy to settle our differences, at the beneficial cost of being proved wrong by Holy Scriptures, in a debate between our corresponding positions, i.e., ACADEMIC THEOLOGY (by Bernie) and LAYMAN DISCIPLESHIP (by Ephrem) in order to know whose position has more Biblical justificationt and promise.
If we agree for each one to propose the SUBJECTS OF OUR CHOICE, here is my choice #1: "The Relative Contributions of Theology and Discipleship Towards Understanding the Significance of Christ's Death on the Cross".
I look forward to hear from you.

[EphremHagos]

Your distinction between "disciple" (someone who gets visions from God) and a "theologian" (someone who is self-reliant and follows human authorities) has no connection to how those words are usually used. A disciple is a student of someone or something. A theologian is someone who makes a claim about spiritual truth, regardless of what authority they accept. Christians should be disciples of Christ and theologians who accept the Bible as the source of Spiritual authority.
Were it not for their underlying antagonistic Biblical principles, the words "disciple" and "theologian" would, indeed, be complimentary. According to the consistent witness of Holy Scriptures ranging from Genesis to Revelation, however, they have neither been nor can they ever be. Amen! Yes, Amen! Amen!

[RBerman]

Were it not for their underlying antagonistic Biblical principles, the words "disciple" and "theologian" would, indeed, be complimentary. According to the consistent witness of Holy Scriptures ranging from Genesis to Revelation, however, they have neither been nor can they ever be. Amen! Yes, Amen! Amen!
As I said above, the word "theologian" is not contained in the Bible, so there can't be a Biblical witness against it. You're engaging in (bad) theology by saying that the Bible speaks against the term "theology."

[Bernie]

Hi EH,

I will be more than happy to settle our differences, at the beneficial cost of being proved wrong by Holy Scriptures..,
And whom will we appoint as arbiter of the proper meaning of the Holy Scriptures? You? Me? Another? Until and unless a legitimate authenticator of Scripture can be found, "proof" of the strength of these kinds of arguments are subjective and never get past first base. You'll believe you've won, and I'll vote for me.

...in a debate between our corresponding positions, i.e., ACADEMIC THEOLOGY (by Bernie) and LAYMAN DISCIPLESHIP (by Ephrem) in order to know whose position has more Biblical justificationt and promise.
Firstly, I did not in my previous post argue that acedemic theology is superior to layman discipleship. You seem to have read that into it. My point was that I don't think you can properly make the case that theology and discipleship are wholly antithetical to each other.

Also, I'm not qualified to defend academic theology.

[EphremHagos]

As I said above, the word "theologian" is not contained in the Bible, so there can't be a Biblical witness against it. You're engaging in (bad) theology by saying that the Bible speaks against the term "theology."
As you well know, the meaning of words is more in their notional and relational terms of thought than in the words themselves. In other words, the substance is more basic than the form of the word. So it is with "theology" whose substance is first defined as the "the tree of knowledge of what is good and what is bad", as early as the creation of the first man (Gen. 2:9, 17; 3) and again referred to as deadly, self-reliant "proud obstacle raised against the knowledge of God" (2 Cor. 10: 4-6). Other synonyms of "theology", in substance, are not lacking in the rest of Scriptures.
Therefore, the Bible surely speaks against the term "theology" in favor of directly and personally revealed, on-going, vision-based knowledge of God as per the terms and seal of the "new covenant" (Jer. 31: 31-34; Matt. 26: 26-29 ff). AMEN!

[EphremHagos]

For the record, there is no better impartial arbiter than the power of the word itself, even without prior belief in it, which alone is "alive and active, sharper than double-edged sword cutting all the way through to where soul and spirit meet, to where joints and marrow come together judging the desires and thoughts of man's heart" (Heb 4:12) --a win-win situation in which we can all walk to home-base!
Secondly, I regret reading too much into your position which you say does not really qualify you to defend academic theology. Nevertheless, there are nothing more antithetical throughout Scriptures, in terms of knowledge of God, than DISCIPLESHIP --defined by God-reliant "tree of life" (type of the cross of Christ now lost to posterity) and THEOLOGY --defined by deadly, self-reliant "tree of knowledge of what is good and what is bad" (reigning supreme today in our apostetic churches)!
Lastly, of course, I would happily stand to be corrected if I have committed any Biblical error of fact. AMEN!

[bc1980]

Your use of the words "discipleship" and "theology" are as defined by you. "Discipleship" is to be a student (studier) under someone else's guide, with no regard to being good or bad. "Theology" is a word used to describe a studier of God with no regard as to what the source is - good or bad.

Red is red. You can give it different names but in the end it is still red.

Webster:

theology - the study of religious faith, practice, and experience ; especially : the study of God and of God's relation to the world

disciple - one who accepts and assists in spreading the doctrines of another: a convinced adherent of a school or individual

In the purest sense of the words, theology is the process one would use in becoming a disciple.

The Bereans examined (studied) the Scriptures to see if what Paul was saying was true. They were described as having " more noble character." (see Acts 17:11)

The Bereans used theology to confirm the revelations Paul was preaching and they were described as more noble than the one's who accepted it without any study.

The words are neither good nor evil, they are simply descriptive words. It is the source that defines whether the words are good or evil. (i.e. bad theology, disciple of Satan)

[Bernie]

Hello EH,

Due to content, I assume post 28, allegedly responding to RBerman, was actually a response to my last post.

For the record, there is no better impartial arbiter than the power of the word itself, even without prior belief in it, which alone is "alive and active, sharper than double-edged sword cutting all the way through to where soul and spirit meet, to where joints and marrow come together judging the desires and thoughts of man's heart" (Heb 4:12) --a win-win situation in which we can all walk to home-base!
If it were truly this easy, there would be no arguments in these matters, and all truth would have long ago been revealed. I'm preparing right now to defend the Bible as a primarily spiritual rather than literal book on another board and frankly would likely find more overall agreement with your views than difference. But it seems to me you fall into the same trap as RBerman in the idea of the Bible as final arbiter. He's tried to trap you into the abscence of a literal word [theology] from Scripture as a stumbling point, and you properly responded, "...the meaning of words is more in their notional and relational terms of thought than in the words themselves" Do you realize that to use Scripture itself as arbiter of truth is a notion cut from the same cloth? The only way this could be possible is if the literal words of the Bible actually possessed the strength modern Christianity tends to assign it, in which case one could perform a simple 'connect the dots' from one verse to another to arrive at the truth of any given proposition. I believe it's precisely because God designed His word to possess truth in plurality or layers in any verse or set of corresponding verses that any single opinion of what a particular set of passages from Scripture means in the human intellect--because such opinions are themselves propositions derived from a mix of true/false information and are in only fragmented unity with all levels or layers of external truth available in any such set--canl ultimately ever only be a subjectively-held opinion. Scripture as arbiter flies out the door at the end of the day, with only God Himself actually knowing the score in any particular exchange.

I like bc1980's last post, very direct, good explanation of why discipleship and theology are not antithetical.

Anyway, I agree with you that there is significant contrariety between the understanding of meaning in Scripture from academic scrutiny over against that of the heart set on (or cleansed to a higher reception of) God's truth.

[RBerman]

As you well know, the meaning of words is more in their notional and relational terms of thought than in the words themselves. In other words, the substance is more basic than the form of the word. So it is with "theology" whose substance is first defined as the "the tree of knowledge of what is good and what is bad", as early as the creation of the first man (Gen. 2:9, 17; 3) and again referred to as deadly, self-reliant "proud obstacle raised against the knowledge of God" (2 Cor. 10: 4-6). Other synonyms of "theology", in substance, are not lacking in the rest of Scriptures.
Therefore, the Bible surely speaks against the term "theology" in favor of directly and personally revealed, on-going, vision-based knowledge of God as per the terms and seal of the "new covenant" (Jer. 31: 31-34; Matt. 26: 26-29 ff). AMEN!
So what you're saying is that you've:

1) Defined the term "theology" to mean "the tree of knowledge of what is good and what is bad"
2) Recognized that the sin of Adam and Eve in eating the tree was one of sinful self-reliance
3) Determined that "theology" is bad.

(2) and (3) are fine. (1) is false. And all three are acts of theology, meaning that you read the Bible and interpret its meaning. Someone has drilled it into your head that "theology is bad" and now you're stuck admitting that the Bible doesn't speak against "theology," but that "theology" means something bad (and how do you know this?), and the Bible speaks against bad things, so the Bible speaks against theology.

[EphremHagos]

To move forwards, please consider the following 3 points:
1) The Bible makes the basic distinction between means and end -- with the former, i.e., SCRIPTURES, leading to but not identified with the latter, i.e., the infallible proof of the self-revealing CHRIST (John 5: 39-40) as effected for posterity.
2) Experiencing the power in the "word of God" is only beyond the reach of the self-reliant, academic and proud THEOLOGIAN but not of the truly humble and "pure in heart" DISCIPLE of the the LORD Jesus with zero self-reliance to whom is given the ultimate promise of "seeing God" (Matt. 5: 3-12).
3) As any bona-fide disciple would know, notwithstanding any proud theological obstacle to the contrary, the self-revelation of God in Christ fits perfectly the diacritical death of Jesus Christ on the cross --the "Tree of Life" of which we should all look for a more clear description and wherein is "the key that opens all the hidden treasures of God's wisdom and knowledge" (Col. 2:3; 1 Cor. 1: 18-31; Rev. 5; etc.).
Only through the vision of the immortal Lamb, "who appears to have been killed, standing in the centre of the throne", i.e., the crucified Christ, can we all today experience the power in God's word --a win-win situation!
This is what Jesus Christ taught, and what the Apostles knew and ministered. This is also what post-Apostolic Christianity has lost as predicted by Jesus in the Parable of the Weeds (Matt. 13: 24-30, 36-43)! Thanks God all is not lost. "The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has never put it our" (John 1:5). AMEN!

[EphremHagos]

Your use of the words "discipleship" and "theology" are as defined by you. "Discipleship" is to be a student (studier) under someone else's guide, with no regard to being good or bad. "Theology" is a word used to describe a studier of God with no regard as to what the source is - good or bad.

Red is red. You can give it different names but in the end it is still red.

Webster:

theology - the study of religious faith, practice, and experience ; especially : the study of God and of God's relation to the world

disciple - one who accepts and assists in spreading the doctrines of another: a convinced adherent of a school or individual

In the purest sense of the words, theology is the process one would use in becoming a disciple.

The Bereans examined (studied) the Scriptures to see if what Paul was saying was true. They were described as having " more noble character." (see Acts 17:11)

The Bereans used theology to confirm the revelations Paul was preaching and they were described as more noble than the one's who accepted it without any study.

The words are neither good nor evil, they are simply descriptive words. It is the source that defines whether the words are good or evil. (i.e. bad theology, disciple of Satan)
Personally, I cannot protest strongly enough against the assumed, completely unauthorized, out-of-place and-out-of time justification for theology.
I agree, however, with the broad definition of "disciple" which is not mutually exclusive with the specific defintions last used in the Holy Bible, e.g., John's disciples and Christ's disciples.
If we were only mindlful of our prospect and potential in the "new covenant" order in which "all will know God" without any hearsay (Jer. 31:34; Matt. 26: 26-29) and "everyone will be taught by God" (John 6:45) -- the final death blow to academic theolgy!
This is the way for "seeking first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness and for God taking care of the other stuff" and a risk very much worth taking!

[Johnny MacManky]

. . . Only through the vision of the immortal Lamb, "who appears to have been killed, standing in the centre of the throne", i.e., the crucified Christ, can we all today experience the power in God's word --a win-win situation!
This is what Jesus Christ taught, and what the Apostles knew and ministered.

With ref to the phrase I've highlighted, in particular the word "appears".

What evidence do you have that "This is what Jesus Christ taught, and what the Apostles knew and ministered"?

[bc1980]

Personally, I cannot protest strongly enough against the assumed, completely unauthorized, out-of-place and-out-of time justification for theology.

Protest all you want. Baptizing one term and cursing another makes no difference. The words and their meanings stand. For someone who is professing New Covenant teaching, you sure are taking an legalistic mindset against the term "theology." If you feel so strongly about the academic pursuit of Biblical doctrines, then phrase your sentence that way instead of re-defining a word that is neither good nor evil.

Why when I read your post do I feel like I'm reading a text book? This is not an accusation, just an observation. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one that is having a hard time figuring out what you are saying.

[EphremHagos]

DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION

“Where there is no vision, the people perish.” (Proverbs 29:18)

The vision of the immortal Lamb, “who appears to have been killed, standing in the centre of the throne” (Rev. 5:6), is the missing link in heaven or on earth or in the world below who could open the scroll and look into it” (Ibid, verse 3) –a perfect prediction of our contemporary predicament!

For the sake of completeness, the following sources of evidence or highlights of Scripture complete with beginning and conclusion, i.e, the means, provide us in climax the divine authorization for the clearest vision of God, i.e., the end, in Jesus Christ’s diacritical death on the cross from where anyone, without self-reliance, can perpetually experience personally God’s life-giving Spirit prevailing even over the deceased flesh of Jesus Christ (John 6: 62-63) as per the first prescription for being born again (John 3: 1-15).

BACKGROUND
(Indicative List)

1. Precedent & Promise: “ from the very beginning”
Moses’ vision of the self-sufficient fire/life in the bush --“‘I Am Who I Am’ –a name for ever, a name by which all future generations are to call” God (Ex. 3: 1-15)

2. The Bronze Snake Lifted on a Pole in the desert (Type of Christ)
A Single source with dual authority: judgment/death and life/light (Num. 21: 4-9; John 3: 1-21)

3. More Promises in the “new covenant”:
• I will put my law within them and write it on their hearts.
• I will be their God and they will be my people.
• None of them will have to teach his fellow-countryman to know the LORD, because all will know me, from the least to the greatest (strong implication of vision basis)
• I will forgive their sins and I will no longer remember their wrongs. I the LORD, have spoken.
Jer. 31: 33-34

PRIMARY (“The gospel: exclusive Source of Sound Doctrine”, 1 Tim. 1: 10-11)
(Indicative List)

4. Further Promises: “the seal” and vision-based standard of Judgment: “the light”
“The Son of Man must be lifted up so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.” (John 3: 14-15)
“I am what I have told you from the very beginning … the Father … When you lift up the Son of Man; you will know that ‘I Am Who I Am’, i.e., the self-sufficient source of life as already revealed and promised earlier. (Ex. 3: 1-15; John 8: 25, 27-28)

“This is how the judgment works: the light has come into the world, but people love the darkness rather than the light, because their deeds are evil….But whoever does what is true comes to the light in order that the light may show that what he did was in obedience to God.” (John 3: 19-21)

Then he took a cup, gave thanks to God, and gave it to them. He said, “Drink it, all of you. This is my blood which seals God’s covenant, my blood poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I will never again drink this wine until the day I drink the new wine with you in my Father’s Kingdom.” (Matt. 26: 27-28)

5. Terms & New Promises
Cause & effect of death: “No one takes my life away from me. I give it up of my own free will. I have the right to give it up, and I have the right to take it back.” (John 10: 18-19)

“I am telling you the truth: it is better for you that I go away, because if do not go, the Helper will not come to you. But if I do go away, then I will send him to you.” (Ibid, 16:7)



6. The Ultimate Death-specific Promise

“When I go, you will not be left all alone; I will come back to you. In a little while the world will see me no more, but you will see me; and because I live, you will also live.
“Whoever accepts my commandments and obeys them… I will reveal myself to him.” (John 14: 18-21)

7. Verification: the Evidence
Christ’s diacritical death on the cross: “One of the soldiers, however, plunged his spear into Jesus’ side, and at once blood and water poured out –‘the blood of his death’ and ‘the water of his baptism’” (John 19: 34;
1 John 5:6):

8. Fulfillment: “Light” or Vision of God in Christ’s timeless death on the Cross
“How the judgment works” (John 3: 1-21)
“People will look at him whom they pierced.” (John 19: 34, 37)

Summary: The “seal” and the “light” of the new covenant”

• The cause of Jesus’ death (“own free will and right”) and
• Its effect (baptism in the Holy Spirit) and
• Personal vision of God to the “pure in heart”, e.g., the bare footed Moses at the burning bush (Ex. 3: 5-6) and the proverbial self-empty Christ (Matt. 5:8; Phil. 2: 5-11); as source of self-sufficient life and light to mankind (John 1: 4-5, 9; 3:19-21; 8:12; 9:5; 12:46; 2 Cor. 4:4).

SECONDARY
(Indicative List)

9. Infallible Proof of Christ’s Immortality
Diacritical death, (Acts 1: 1-5)

10. The Coming of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost
Immortality defined: “handed over … crucified … killed … raised from death because it was impossible that death should hold him/ ‘Lord and Messiah’ prisoner.” (Acts 2:23-24)

11. Life in Union with Christ in His death
“When we were baptized into union with Christ, we were baptized into union with his death. By our baptism, then, we were buried with him and shared his death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from death by the glorious power of the Father, so also we might live a new life. For since we have become one with him in dying as he did, in the same way we shall be one with him by being raised to life as he was.” (Rom. 6: 3-5)

12. God’s Power in Christ’s Death on the Cross
Invalidating the wisdom and understanding of the wise and of the scholars (self-reliance) 1 Cor. 1: 18-31

13. Condition for Receiving God’s Spirit
“A clear description of the death of Jesus Christ on the cross” (Gal. 3: 1-5)

14. “I ask God … to give you the Spirit, who will make you wise and reveal God to you, so that you will know him. …that your minds may be opened to see his light, so that you will know what is the hope to which he has called you, how rich are the wonderful blessings he promises to his people, and how very great is his power at work in us who believe –the same as the mighty strength … used when he raised Christ from death and seated him at his right side in the heavenly world.” (Eph. 1: 16-20)

15. Knowledge of Christ Jesus, the Lord
“All I want is to know Christ and to experience the power of his resurrection, to share in his sufferings and become like him in his death, in the hope that I myself will be raised from death to life.” (Phil. 3: 10-11)

16. Immortal Life Here and Now
“As has been revealed through the coming of our Savior, Christ Jesus, he has ended the power of death and revealed immortal life through the gospel” (2 Tim. 1:10)

17. Perfection through Suffering/Captain of Salvation
“It was only right that God… should make Jesus perfect through suffering, in order to bring many sons top share his glory.”
“Jesus shared the nature of people of flesh and blood so that through death he might destroy the Devil, who has the power over death … and set free those who were slaves all their lives because of their fear of death” (Heb. 2: 10, 14-15)

18. Being Born Again
“Love one another earnestly with all your heart! For through the living and eternal word of God you have been born again as the children of a parent who is immortal, not mortal.” (1 Pet. 1: 22-23)

19. Diacritical Death of the Lamb
“I saw a Lamb standing in the centre of the throne. The Lamb appeared to have been killed … and had seven horns and seven eyes –the seven spirits of God that have been sent throughout the whole earth. … The Lamb who was killed is worthy to receive power, wealth, wisdom and strength, honor, glory and praise … for ever and ever.” (Rev. 5: 6, 12-14)

[Johnny MacManky]

. . . Only through the vision of the immortal Lamb, "who appears to have been killed, standing in the centre of the throne", i.e., the crucified Christ, can we all today experience the power in God's word --a win-win situation! . . .

With ref to the phrase I've highlighted, in particular the word "appears".

What evidence do you have that "This is what Jesus Christ taught, and what the Apostles knew and ministered"?

DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION

“Where there is no vision, the people perish.” (Proverbs 29:18)

The vision of the immortal Lamb, “who appears to have been killed, standing in the centre of the throne” (Rev. 5:6), is the missing link in heaven or on earth or in the world below who could open the scroll and look into it” (Ibid, verse 3) –a perfect prediction of our contemporary predicament! . . .

EphremHagos,

You are demonstrating, quite superbly, just how essential Good Theology is for one who would follow Christ. Now, I do not question your wish to be a true disciple, not for a moment, but your antagonism towards Theology is leading you away from the teachings of Christ and His inspired Apostles.

Good Theology always begins with (and stands or falls upon) a sound exegesis of the words and meaning of what is said in the Bible.

What does Rev. 5:6 actually say? Does it say that the immortal Lamb "appears to have been killed"? No, it does not. Does the text allow for an interpretation which implies that the dead of Christ was seeming, but not actual? No, it does not.

So, why am I getting so hung up on this one word "appears"? It's because there is a false teaching propagated, amongst others, by Islam and historically by some of the ancient Gnostic sects, which teaches that Christ did not actually die on the cross, but only appeared to have died. (The "swoon" theory.)

What was it Paul said? (I paraphrase) "If Christ has not been raised from the dead then we are, of all men, most miserable". If Christ has not been raised from the dead, then our hope is in vain. We have a false hope, and of course, if Christ only "appeared" to have died, He wasn't actually dead and therefore there could be no resurrection.

Now, it may be that I'm completely misunderstanding your use of the word "appears", but I've put the question to you previously and you haven't responded. If I have misunderstood what you are trying to say (when you use the phrase "appears to have been killed") then please correct me. Otherwise, I accuse you of propagating heresy.

[EphremHagos]

Personally, I cannot protest strongly enough against the assumed, completely unauthorized, out-of-place and-out-of time justification for theology.

Protest all you want. Baptizing one term and cursing another makes no difference. The words and their meanings stand. For someone who is professing New Covenant teaching, you sure are taking an legalistic mindset against the term "theology." If you feel so strongly about the academic pursuit of Biblical doctrines, then phrase your sentence that way instead of re-defining a word that is neither good nor evil.

Why when I read your post do I feel like I'm reading a text book? This is not an accusation, just an observation. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one that is having a hard time figuring out what you are saying.
The authority to "baptize" one term, e.g., disciple and "curse" another, e.g., theologian; and the consistent stand against self-reliant, scholarly knowledge of God, as opposed to God-reliant, direct and personal revelation, is as old as the creation of man endowed with the free choice between the "tree that gives life" and the "tree that gives knowledge of what is good and what is bad" (Gen. 2:9).
Therefore, refraining from "calling a spade a spade" has not to this day taken the difference away which, on the contrary, is bound even to increase over time (Isa. 29: 13-14; 55: 8-9; Matt. 13: 10-17; Luke 10: 21-24; 1 Cor. 1 18-31).
Short of a commonloy shared, crucifixion-based, FIRSTHAND AND PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF JESUS CHRIST --this is what the gospel is all about, there is no other way for us to agree on anything of Biblical substance! (Rev. 5). Thanks God for the solution!!!!!!!!!!

[bc1980]

Now we are getting to the core and now I think we can discuss the issue with better clarity.

The authority to "baptize" one term, e.g., disciple and "curse" another, e.g., theologian; and the consistent stand against self-reliant, scholarly knowledge of God, as opposed to God-reliant, direct and personal revelation,................
Short of a commonloy shared, crucifixion-based, FIRSTHAND AND PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF JESUS CHRIST --this is what the gospel is all about

You are assigning "self-reliant, scholarly knowledge of God" and that is not the definition of theology.

In regards to "crucifixion-based, FIRSTHAND AND PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF JESUS CHRIST --this is what the gospel is all about"I could not agree more. Theology will not bring one into a relationship with God. That must come through a revelation of who Christ is (and what He has accomplished). However, theology is the process by which we learn. It is how we plug in the pieces of the puzzle. And it is my opinion that we only put the pieces in the right place as we view Christ as the center and sum of all that is revealed in Scripture.

So, if you are saying that "self-reliant, scholarly knowledge of God" is totally worthless, then I can agree with you whole heartedly. But if you assign that definition to "theology", I can't agree with that. I believe you will close more doors by cursing "theology" and I don't believe that is your heart. I believe your heart is for a Christ centered, God reliant basis for all truth and the ability and opportunity to share that with as many people as possible. I think we have that in common.

A fun thing to do instead of redefining "theology" is invent a new term for "self-reliant, scholarly knowledge of God". People do it all the time. If it is a good term, it will catch on quickly.

[EphremHagos]

EphremHagos,

You are demonstrating, quite superbly, just how essential Good Theology is for one who would follow Christ. Now, I do not question your wish to be a true disciple, not for a moment, but your antagonism towards Theology is leading you away from the teachings of Christ and His inspired Apostles.

Good Theology always begins with (and stands or falls upon) a sound exegesis of the words and meaning of what is said in the Bible.

What does Rev. 5:6 actually say? Does it say that the immortal Lamb "appears to have been killed"? No, it does not. Does the text allow for an interpretation which implies that the dead of Christ was seeming, but not actual? No, it does not.

So, why am I getting so hung up on this one word "appears"? It's because there is a false teaching propagated, amongst others, by Islam and historically by some of the ancient Gnostic sects, which teaches that Christ did not actually die on the cross, but only appeared to have died. (The "swoon" theory.)

What was it Paul said? (I paraphrase) "If Christ has not been raised from the dead then we are, of all men, most miserable". If Christ has not been raised from the dead, then our hope is in vain. We have a false hope, and of course, if Christ only "appeared" to have died, He wasn't actually dead and therefore there could be no resurrection.

Now, it may be that I'm completely misunderstanding your use of the word "appears", but I've put the question to you previously and you haven't responded. If I have misunderstood what you are trying to say (when you use the phrase "appears to have been killed") then please correct me. Otherwise, I accuse you of propagating heresy.
You are, indeed, so much hung up on one word ("appears"), out of context, that you have failed completely to see God's once-and-for- all, self-revelation in the diacritical death of Jesus Christ on the cross without which we have nothing at all!
What I did was, no less than, to survey, identify and document in detail the deep mystery and power in Jesus Christ's actual death on the cross in which, timeless witness, we would all do well to boast (1 Cor. 1:31)!
This is the whole teaching, in substance, of the prophets, of Jesus Christ and of the apostles completely beyond the grasp of any theology which is contrary to the thoughts and ways of God anyway!

[EphremHagos]

Now we are getting to the core and now I think we can discuss the issue with better clarity.

The authority to "baptize" one term, e.g., disciple and "curse" another, e.g., theologian; and the consistent stand against self-reliant, scholarly knowledge of God, as opposed to God-reliant, direct and personal revelation,................
Short of a commonloy shared, crucifixion-based, FIRSTHAND AND PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF JESUS CHRIST --this is what the gospel is all about

You are assigning "self-reliant, scholarly knowledge of God" and that is not the definition of theology.

In regards to "crucifixion-based, FIRSTHAND AND PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF JESUS CHRIST --this is what the gospel is all about"I could not agree more. Theology will not bring one into a relationship with God. That must come through a revelation of who Christ is (and what He has accomplished). However, theology is the process by which we learn. It is how we plug in the pieces of the puzzle. And it is my opinion that we only put the pieces in the right place as we view Christ as the center and sum of all that is revealed in Scripture.

So, if you are saying that "self-reliant, scholarly knowledge of God" is totally worthless, then I can agree with you whole heartedly. But if you assign that definition to "theology", I can't agree with that. I believe you will close more doors by cursing "theology" and I don't believe that is your heart. I believe your heart is for a Christ centered, God reliant basis for all truth and the ability and opportunity to share that with as many people as possible. I think we have that in common.

A fun thing to do instead of redefining "theology" is invent a new term for "self-reliant, scholarly knowledge of God". People do it all the time. If it is a good term, it will catch on quickly.
If we agree, as we seem to do, on the supernatural basis of continuous, vision-based, firsthand and personal knowledge of Jesus Christ in terms of the cause and effect of his death on the cross, it is much more than enough!

In any case, this is the stuff of Discipleship Training not Theology --a distinction I have not drawn.

[EphremHagos]

Now we are getting to the core and now I think we can discuss the issue with better clarity.

The authority to "baptize" one term, e.g., disciple and "curse" another, e.g., theologian; and the consistent stand against self-reliant, scholarly knowledge of God, as opposed to God-reliant, direct and personal revelation,................
Short of a commonloy shared, crucifixion-based, FIRSTHAND AND PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF JESUS CHRIST --this is what the gospel is all about

You are assigning "self-reliant, scholarly knowledge of God" and that is not the definition of theology.

In regards to "crucifixion-based, FIRSTHAND AND PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF JESUS CHRIST --this is what the gospel is all about"I could not agree more. Theology will not bring one into a relationship with God. That must come through a revelation of who Christ is (and what He has accomplished). However, theology is the process by which we learn. It is how we plug in the pieces of the puzzle. And it is my opinion that we only put the pieces in the right place as we view Christ as the center and sum of all that is revealed in Scripture.

So, if you are saying that "self-reliant, scholarly knowledge of God" is totally worthless, then I can agree with you whole heartedly. But if you assign that definition to "theology", I can't agree with that. I believe you will close more doors by cursing "theology" and I don't believe that is your heart. I believe your heart is for a Christ centered, God reliant basis for all truth and the ability and opportunity to share that with as many people as possible. I think we have that in common.

A fun thing to do instead of redefining "theology" is invent a new term for "self-reliant, scholarly knowledge of God". People do it all the time. If it is a good term, it will catch on quickly.
Post Script:

Here is another big difference worth testing.

Once self-revealed in the death-on-the-cross vision, only in Discipleship Training is one exclusiverly favored by Jesus Christ as personal instructor (John 6: 45-46) --the only way both to know Him and to continue to grow in His grace and knowledge that leaves no room for theology!

[bc1980]

I can get on board with your concept. I cannot get on board with you continually wrongly defining theology.

Be blessed!

[EphremHagos]

EphremHagos,

You are demonstrating, quite superbly, just how essential Good Theology is for one who would follow Christ. Now, I do not question your wish to be a true disciple, not for a moment, but your antagonism towards Theology is leading you away from the teachings of Christ and His inspired Apostles.

Good Theology always begins with (and stands or falls upon) a sound exegesis of the words and meaning of what is said in the Bible.

What does Rev. 5:6 actually say? Does it say that the immortal Lamb "appears to have been killed"? No, it does not. Does the text allow for an interpretation which implies that the dead of Christ was seeming, but not actual? No, it does not.

So, why am I getting so hung up on this one word "appears"? It's because there is a false teaching propagated, amongst others, by Islam and historically by some of the ancient Gnostic sects, which teaches that Christ did not actually die on the cross, but only appeared to have died. (The "swoon" theory.)

What was it Paul said? (I paraphrase) "If Christ has not been raised from the dead then we are, of all men, most miserable". If Christ has not been raised from the dead, then our hope is in vain. We have a false hope, and of course, if Christ only "appeared" to have died, He wasn't actually dead and therefore there could be no resurrection.

Now, it may be that I'm completely misunderstanding your use of the word "appears", but I've put the question to you previously and you haven't responded. If I have misunderstood what you are trying to say (when you use the phrase "appears to have been killed") then please correct me. Otherwise, I accuse you of propagating heresy.
Johnny MacManky and bc 1980,

How can you reconcile two eternally irreconcilables, viz.:
1) the "tree of life" (God-reliant, Jesus-Christ's-death-on-the-cross-based, direct and personal vision or 'light', John 3: 1-21) and
2) the "tree of knowledge of what is good and what is bad" (self-reliant, false arguments for knowledge of God)?

Remember Adam and Eve?

Only if you experience the vision of immortality from the "tree of life", can you go on board with my concept!

By the grace of God, I have seen the LORD 35 years ago and grown thereafter in His knowledge entirely from Scriptures!

Is it too much to trade in theology for wonderful and marvellous things that neither it nor you know nothing about? (Jer. 33:3)

All you need to do is to "ask", "seek" and "knock" to receive the mystery-revealing and Christ-glorifying Holy Spirit! (Luke 11: 9-13). This is not the stuff of theology! Is it?

BE REALLY BLESSED!!!!!!!!!

[Bernie]

Good Theology always begins with (and stands or falls upon) a sound exegesis of the words and meaning of what is said in the Bible.
This helps make EH's case, imo. Calvinists think their version of salvation is "sound", Arminians think theirs is "sound".

These have been at war for four hundred years, with no clear winner in sight. Man always plasters over God's Truth with his own manmade mortar. The religious leaders of the OT and Christ's time down to the church today does the same thing. Theology is great, interesting stuff until we start mistaking it as identical to the truth and calling it "sound".

[EphremHagos]

This helps make EH's case, imo. Calvinists think their version of salvation is "sound", Arminians think theirs is "sound".

These have been at war for four hundred years, with no clear winner in sight. Man always plasters over God's Truth with his own manmade mortar. The religious leaders of the OT and Christ's time down to the church today does the same thing. Theology is great, interesting stuff until we start mistaking it as identical to the truth and calling it "sound".
Thanks God for all imminent breakthroughs in "the hard way and narrow gate to life"! (Matt. 7: 13-14)

Bernie,

Much more than helping me make my case, it appears that we have come as a group face to face with the judgment of God. Or in Jesus Christ's own words, "This is how the judgment works: the light has come into the world, but people love the darkness rather than the light because their deeds are evil. Anyone who does evil things hates the light and will not come to the light, because he does not want his evil deeds to be shown up. But whoever does what is true comes to the light in order that the light may show that what he did was in obedience to God."JOHN 3: 19-21

It is highly imperative to note that what is referred to in the verses immediate preceding the judgment is the "the tree of life" or the diacritical death of Jesus Christ on the cross -- timing for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit as exclusive basis for "being born again" and knowing Jesus Christ firsthand and personally. JOHN 3: 1-18

What food-for-thought in the upcoming GOOD FRIDAY!!!!!!!!!!!!

[RBerman]

I still don't know what you mean that Jesus' death was "diacritical." Is this another one of your redefined words?

[EphremHagos]

Just like the cedilla indicates, in French, that the c does not have its regular prevocalic value k, but a sibilant value s, as in garcon (with the sign under c), the the death of Jesus Christ on the cross bears the distinction of verifiable divine characteristic of "I Am Who I Am" (self-sufficient source of life and light) as the seal of God's promise of firsthand self-revelation for mankind for posterity and under the "new covenant" (Ex. 3: 1-15; Num. 21: 4-9; Jer. 31: 31-34; Matt. 26: 26-29 ff; etc.)

That is why it is written "People will look at him whom they pierced" (Zech. 12:10 quoted in John 19:37; and Rev. 1:7) continuously confirming the seal of God's promise in the "tree of life" or the cross of Christ as supernatural demonstration of the power and wisdom of God, i.e., immortality for man's reflection and appropriation here and now: stranger than fiction but true. (John 11: 25-26). PRAISE THE LORD!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[EphremHagos]

P.S.

In anticipation of any other possible issues, the Bible assures us that the timing of the death of Jesus Christ on the cross was also opportune, as anticipated, (John 3: 14-15; 4: 23-24; 6: 62-63; 7: 37-39; 10: 17-18; 14: 15-21; 16: 5-15), for the long-awaited baptism in the Holy Spirit by Jesus Christ at the outpouring of the "blood" and "water" from the pierced side of Jesus for our union with Christ in his death (Rom. 6: 3-4; Gal. 3: 1-5; Eph. 4:5; Col. 2:12; 1 John 5:6). As a large-scale application, Pentecost was no exception what-soever! (Acts 2).

With these powerful divine weapons, we are instructed to expect and see the destruction of strongholds; the pulling down of false arguments and proud obstacle raised against the knowledge of God ("tree of knowledge ..."); and the punishment of backsliders (2 Cor. 10: 4-6). AMEN!!!!!

[Ormly]

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u48/Ormly/PathtoThrone-ship2-2.gif

[EphremHagos]

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u48/Ormly/PathtoThrone-ship2-2.gif
To write that the Cross of redemption is now incorporated into the plan is actually a self-contradiction and denial of God's eternal purpose which precludes any Plan B.

The essence of the Cross of Christ, complete with its friends and enemies (Matt. 16: 13-28), is God's ultimate self-revelation in the death of Jesus. This was fully anticipated even at the time of Creation in the concepts of free choice between the tree of life consistently representing God-reliance and, its exact opposite, the tree of knowledge of what is good and what is bad consistently representing self-reliance! (Gen. 2:9). Such a revelation was also promised to Moses in the incident of the self-sufficient fire and the burning bush (Ex. 3: 1-15); as well as in the terms and seal of the "new covenant" (Jer. 31: 31-34; Matt. 26: 26-29 ff).

What could be more serious, frightening and final than the scale and severity of our own disobedience and judgment? (Matt. 7: 21-23)

[Ormly]

[QUOTE]To write that the Cross of redemption is now incorporated into the plan is actually a self-contradiction and denial of God's eternal purpose which precludes any Plan B.

How so?

The essence of the Cross of Christ, complete with its friends and enemies (Matt. 16: 13-28), is God's ultimate self-revelation in the death of Jesus.

Huh??

This was fully anticipated even at the time of Creation in the concepts of free choice between the tree of life consistently representing God-reliance and,

You must mean incarnation?

its exact opposite, the tree of knowledge of what is good and what is bad consistently representing self-reliance! (Gen. 2:9).

as opposed to being incarnated.

Such a revelation was also promised to Moses in the incident of the self-sufficient fire and the burning bush (Ex. 3: 1-15); as well as in the terms and seal of the "new covenant" (Jer. 31: 31-34; Matt. 26: 26-29 ff).

Huh??

What could be more serious, frightening and final than the scale and severity of our own disobedience and judgment? (Matt. 7: 21-23)

Too much for anyone to wade through here for good understanding of what you are trying convey. Sorry.

[EphremHagos]

[quote=EphremHagos;2604118]

How so?


Huh??


You must mean incarnation?



as opposed to being incarnated.



Huh??



Too much for anyone to wade through here for good understanding of what you are trying convey. Sorry.
I truly sympathize!

Without the key to all Scriptures or firsthand and personal knowledge of who Jesus Christ is (the gospel's whole purpose), exactly as prescribed, you will of course not understand what I am trying to convey.

Such a prescription for knowing divinity is equivalent to a valid, reliable and objective vision of Jesus Christ's self-revelation in power and glory at his once-and-for-all death on the cross (John 8: 21-30; 10: 34-38). Nothing less than such a common vision of divinity can empower two or more people to have an identical understanding of Scriptures and their meaning.

A complete PRESCRIPTION for knowing Jesus Christ through a personal vision is given in John 3: 1-21 divided into four parts, viz.:
1) PURPOSE (verses 2, 3);
2) MANNER ( verses 5-6, 8);
3) TIMING (verses 14,15); and
4) "LIGHT" or vision-based litmus test (verses 19-21).

Follow-up references to the vision-producing cause and effect of Jesus Christ's death on the cross can be found in www.the2keys.com.

By the grace of God, I had the privilege to satisfy the requirement and even grow in his knowledge since more than 34 years ago. Now that you have heard what to do, it is your turn! GOD BLESS YOU!!!!!!!

[Bernie]

EH,

For what it's worth, it seems to me both you and your audience are beating yourr collective heads against the wall. I find the thread particularly interesting because I find myself so often in the seemingly paradoxical role of someone who both hates--as you also seem to do--the cold, static heartlessness of scholarly theology, while simultaneously embracing it as an accepted "way of speaking" about the Christian faith. As one of the few (or maybe only) fundamentalist universalists, I cherish what I believe to be major, important (and, yep, fundamental) truths God has brought to us through the personal, scholarly study of His word. To the extent truth lies in theology, God is there. At the same time, I've been led in my personal spiritual life beyond the dry crust of godless manmade theology to the understanding that the [I]spiritual sense of God's word is where it holds its deepest meaning. From this vantage point, I enjoy reading your posts. I also like reading the rebuttals; both feed my love/hate relationship with theology.

Hint: If you play by theology's rules, they'll let you use redefinition of terms all you want. People do it all the time and aren't treated as you are here. But if you stand the spiritual up as purely in antithesis to the literal--and to my thinking, this thread and those thousands of others like it where spirit and flesh wage war with one another all seem to boil down to this--you're gonna get the static you're getting here. Theology/dogma, as falsified as it is and has always been, yet holds truth that we shouldn't throw out just because it's spattered with falsity.

For what it's worth, but keep up the good fight all the same. Sometimes planted seeds sprout later on after the dust has settled.

[EphremHagos]

EH,

For what it's worth, it seems to me both you and your audience are beating yourr collective heads against the wall. I find the thread particularly interesting because I find myself so often in the seemingly paradoxical role of someone who both hates--as you also seem to do--the cold, static heartlessness of scholarly theology, while simultaneously embracing it as an accepted "way of speaking" about the Christian faith. As one of the few (or maybe only) fundamentalist universalists, I cherish what I believe to be major, important (and, yep, fundamental) truths God has brought to us through the personal, scholarly study of His word. To the extent truth lies in theology, God is there. At the same time, I've been led in my personal spiritual life beyond the dry crust of godless manmade theology to the understanding that the [I]spiritual sense of God's word is where it holds its deepest meaning. From this vantage point, I enjoy reading your posts. I also like reading the rebuttals; both feed my love/hate relationship with theology.

Hint: If you play by theology's rules, they'll let you use redefinition of terms all you want. People do it all the time and aren't treated as you are here. But if you stand the spiritual up as purely in antithesis to the literal--and to my thinking, this thread and those thousands of others like it where spirit and flesh wage war with one another all seem to boil down to this--you're gonna get the static you're getting here. Theology/dogma, as falsified as it is and has always been, yet holds truth that we shouldn't throw out just because it's spattered with falsity.

For what it's worth, but keep up the good fight all the same. Sometimes planted seeds sprout later on after the dust has settled.
The common denominator between the constants, i.e., "tree of life" and "tree of knowledge of what is good and what is bad", is not all that significant. There is a whole world of difference between scholarly theolgy and what is to be firsthand and personally revealed by God to people. Firsthand and personal as the latter may be, yet the knowledge imparted is absolutely identical. In addition, the truth is so deeply mystyerious, so much greater than revealed knowledge and powerfully life-transforming that it is beyond any description for communication among mortals. Although knowable and liberating, truth is inexpressible! So inexpressisble, in fact, that it is written: "None of them will have to teach his fellow man to know the LORD (the truth) because all will know me, from the least to the greatest" (Jer. 31:34). That is why the prophets also wrote "Everyone will be taught by God" (Isa. 54:13 quoted and applied by Jesus Christ in John 6:45).

In short, there is no room whatsoever for any kind of theology in the "new covenant" sealed at the death of Jesus Christ on the cross (Matt. 26: 27-29) --"the tree of life" or diacritical death with liberating powers even from the here-and-now limitations of the flesh and mortality (John 6: 62-63; 11: 25-26).

[Ormly]

The common denominator between the constants, i.e., "tree of life" and "tree of knowledge of what is good and what is bad", is not all that significant. There is a whole world of difference between scholarly theolgy and what is to be firsthand and personally revealed by God to people. Firsthand and personal as the latter may be, yet the knowledge imparted is absolutely identical. In addition, the truth is so deeply mystyerious, so much greater than revealed knowledge and powerfully life-transforming that it is beyond any description for communication among mortals. Although knowable and liberating, truth is inexpressible! So inexpressisble, in fact, that it is written: "None of them will have to teach his fellow man to know the LORD (the truth) because all will know me, from the least to the greatest" (Jer. 31:34). That is why the prophets also wrote "Everyone will be taught by God" (Isa. 54:13 quoted and applied by Jesus Christ in John 6:45).

In short, there is no room whatsoever for any kind of theology in the "new covenant" sealed at the death of Jesus Christ on the cross (Matt. 26: 27-29) --"the tree of life" or diacritical death with liberating powers even from the here-and-now limitations of the flesh and mortality (John 6: 62-63; 11: 25-26).

Indeed, knowledge plus nothing only serves to puff up. You come across that way. I believe the issue lies with majoring on the "doorway of the facts" and not stepping through the doorway to discover there is more to the redemption-salvation issue than Jesus hanging on the cross. Churches with no realization of that tend to setup shop at the foot of the cross and hold pep rallies. Folk who get bored but know there is no other way, tend to write self-help books with titles like: "How to hang on til death or Jesus comes". I call it belonging to the, "White Knuckle Club".

FWIW, I got you beat in your journey by 30+ years. So settle down son.

[EphremHagos]

Indeed, knowledge plus nothing only serves to puff up. You come across that way. I believe the issue lies with majoring on the "doorway of the facts" and not stepping through the doorway to discover there is more to the redemption-salvation issue than Jesus hanging on the cross. Churches with no realization of that tend to setup shop at the foot of the cross and hold pep rallies. Folk who get bored but know there is no other way, tend to write self-help books with titles like: "How to hang on til death or Jesus comes". I call it belonging to the, "White Knuckle Club".

FWIW, I got you beat in your journey by 30+ years. So settle down son.
Thank you for your good advice! Really, I have nothing to worry about, just like Paul, because of built-in safeguards against pride.Sins of one type or another, except the mortal sin of not knowing Jesus Christ firsthand and personally (John 8:24), keep humiliating my body to keep me from being puffed up with my growing knowledge about the secrets of the Kingdom of heaven (Matt. 13: 11-12).

Christ's all-sufficient grace to cover our weaknesses is an extra privilege we all share with our Apostle Paul (2 Cor. 12: 1-10). PRAISE THE LORD FOR HIS MERCY!!!!!!!!!

[Ormly]

Christ's all-sufficient grace to cover our weaknesses is an extra privilege we all share with our Apostle Paul (2 Cor. 12: 1-10). PRAISE THE LORD FOR HIS MERCY!!!!!!!!!

Which is all to often the excuse we use for remaining in them.

[EphremHagos]

Which is all to often the excuse we use for remaining in them.
If you have a better solution for sins than what Christ offers, why don't you spell it out!

What we are warned against "dying in our sins", however, is the sin of not knowing that Jesus Christ as the "I Am Who I Am", the Father who spoke from the very beginning , as He promised to reveal Himself again at Jesus Christ's death on the cross (John 8: 21-30).

If only we reconsider our excuse for remaining in the sin of not knowing Jesus Christ firsthand and personally, exactly as prescribed, His grace would take care of all our other sins. What a LORD!

[LambofElohim]

Greetings,

Being a Theologian does not make you and expert about "God "or "Jesus Christ". Having a degree on your wall given to you by a man who learned from a man who learned from a man does not make you an authority on the bible either.

As for the tree of life...oh...you mean the tree in the "midst" of the garden that the LORD God had the woman he formed from the rib of the man he formed out of the ground eat from so he could make a being like God had already spoke into existence on day six. The tree of life is not the cross of Christ as this person happens to believe. As for the tree of knowledge of good and evil...answer me this: Why would God create a deadly tree if everything He created was GOOD and seen to be VERY GOOD by Him? A deadly tree is BAD...VERY BAD! Especially after God told Hid creation of man (Gen 1:26-28 and Gen 5:1-2) to eat from EVERY TREE with no exceptions? Someone is lying and my bet is on the LORD God!

The Brother of the Jesus Christ that the only true God hast sent
Reverend Carlton

"Oh your missing the God...missing the God...missing the God of Jesus Christ"!

[Overlord!]

The absence of any literature, outside the Holy Bible, on the subject of Jesus Christ's diacritical death on the cross (the "tree of life") as instrument of His perpetual self-revelation confirms theology ("tree of knowledge") as enmity to God!

Somebody please tell me that I Am wrong and the reason why.

Here's a better understanding.

The Tree of Life = Tree of Knowledge = Christ
The tree of the knowledge of good and evil = belief = anti-christ.

The tree of the "knowledge" of good and evil is a temptation to go beyond the Tree of Knowledge. Beyond Knowledge is belief masquerading as "knowledge". So it is a lie. The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is the whole world we call "the universe". It competes with the Tree of Life/Knowledge for its attributes. It competes, for example, for the title "reality".

We believe we can gain knowledge from reaching beyond all good to "good and not good".
But this is not only stupid, but insane. So, it is "sin".
The tree of "good and evil" symbolized a reaching beyond.
We reach beyond the Tree of Life through imagination.
We imagine death, and "taste it".
So it goes for all other attributes.
We reach beyond Everything, and get hold of nothing.
We reach beyond Truth and get lies.
We reach beyond Knowledge and get ignorant beliefs.
We reach beyond Oneness and get many different separated and special ones.
This is the genesis of mankind.
Man is merely blamed.
The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is watered by the "blame game".
It requires the concept of guilt to mulch it, providing it with its unnatural nutrients.

Christ "dies" on the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
It's a magical tree...full of contradiction...paradox...oxymorons...enigmas and riddles.
It's a cruel hoax we play on ourSelves...in our own minds.

[LambofElohim]

Greetings,

Overlord you are wrong and I call you a liar! You are spreading diseased false doctrine! See one reply up from yours for The Truth!

The Brother of Jesus Christ that the only true God hast sent!
Reverend Carlton

[Ormly]

If you have a better solution for sins than what Christ offers, why don't you spell it out!

What we are warned against "dying in our sins", however, is the sin of not knowing that Jesus Christ as the "I Am Who I Am", the Father who spoke from the very beginning , as He promised to reveal Himself again at Jesus Christ's death on the cross (John 8: 21-30).

If only we reconsider our excuse for remaining in the sin of not knowing Jesus Christ firsthand and personally, exactly as prescribed, His grace would take care of all our other sins. What a LORD!

Solution for sin? No. However, to emphasize weaknesses is to make yourself sound as a victim with whom Jesus sympathizes. He never does. What He did do is identify with us and died thereby showing us to what degree, if necessary, we must also die. Now the question becomes one of learning how to do that instead of making excuses for not, in many lives, even making the attempt.

[Ormly]

Here's a better understanding.

The Tree of Life = Tree of Knowledge = Christ
The tree of the knowledge of good and evil = belief = anti-christ.

The tree of the "knowledge" of good and evil is a temptation to go beyond the Tree of Knowledge. Beyond Knowledge is belief masquerading as "knowledge". So it is a lie. The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is the whole world we call "the universe". It competes with the Tree of Life/Knowledge for its attributes. It competes, for example, for the title "reality".

We believe we can gain knowledge from reaching beyond all good to "good and not good".
But this is not only stupid, but insane. So, it is "sin".
The tree of "good and evil" symbolized a reaching beyond.
We reach beyond the Tree of Life through imagination.
We imagine death, and "taste it".
So it goes for all other attributes.
We reach beyond Everything, and get hold of nothing.
We reach beyond Truth and get lies.
We reach beyond Knowledge and get ignorant beliefs.
We reach beyond Oneness and get many different separated and special ones.
This is the genesis of mankind.
Man is merely blamed.
The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is watered by the "blame game".
It requires the concept of guilt to mulch it, providing it with its unnatural nutrients.

Christ "dies" on the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
It's a magical tree...full of contradiction...paradox...oxymorons...enigmas and riddles.
It's a cruel hoax we play on ourSelves...in our own minds.

This is "GARBAGE"

[EphremHagos]

Greetings,

Being a Theologian does not make you and expert about "God "or "Jesus Christ". Having a degree on your wall given to you by a man who learned from a man who learned from a man does not make you an authority on the bible either.

As for the tree of life...oh...you mean the tree in the "midst" of the garden that the LORD God had the woman he formed from the rib of the man he formed out of the ground eat from so he could make a being like God had already spoke into existence on day six. The tree of life is not the cross of Christ as this person happens to believe. As for the tree of knowledge of good and evil...answer me this: Why would God create a deadly tree if everything He created was GOOD and seen to be VERY GOOD by Him? A deadly tree is BAD...VERY BAD! Especially after God told Hid creation of man (Gen 1:26-28 and Gen 5:1-2) to eat from EVERY TREE with no exceptions? Someone is lying and my bet is on the LORD God!

The Brother of the Jesus Christ that the only true God hast sent
Reverend Carlton

"Oh your missing the God...missing the God...missing the God of Jesus Christ"!
Greetings to you too!

For the theologian or for the follower of a gospel of human origin, I refer you to others. I have nothing in common with either of them by the grace of God!

The meanings of the “tree of life” and the “tree of knowledge of what is good and what is bad” are clearly defined, as man’s freedom of choice between the extremes of God-reliance and self-reliance on questions concerning knowledge of God, in the context of the terms and seal of the “new covenant” (Jer. 31: 31-34; Matt. 26:29 ff) centered on the self-revelation of Jesus Christ at his death on the cross (Matt. 16: 23-28; John 8: 21-29). Simon Peter’s dilemma is a proverbial case in point.

Seen in the light of man’s freedom of choice, the question “Why would God create a deadly tree?” loses its biting edge! What is more important is to make the right choice and persevere in it to fruition.

HAPPY GOOD FRIDAY TO ALL!!!!

[EphremHagos]

Here's a better understanding.

The Tree of Life = Tree of Knowledge = Christ
The tree of the knowledge of good and evil = belief = anti-christ.

The tree of the "knowledge" of good and evil is a temptation to go beyond the Tree of Knowledge. Beyond Knowledge is belief masquerading as "knowledge". So it is a lie. The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is the whole world we call "the universe". It competes with the Tree of Life/Knowledge for its attributes. It competes, for example, for the title "reality".

We believe we can gain knowledge from reaching beyond all good to "good and not good".
But this is not only stupid, but insane. So, it is "sin".
The tree of "good and evil" symbolized a reaching beyond.
We reach beyond the Tree of Life through imagination.
We imagine death, and "taste it".
So it goes for all other attributes.
We reach beyond Everything, and get hold of nothing.
We reach beyond Truth and get lies.
We reach beyond Knowledge and get ignorant beliefs.
We reach beyond Oneness and get many different separated and special ones.
This is the genesis of mankind.
Man is merely blamed.
The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is watered by the "blame game".
It requires the concept of guilt to mulch it, providing it with its unnatural nutrients.

Christ "dies" on the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
It's a magical tree...full of contradiction...paradox...oxymorons...enigmas and riddles.
It's a cruel hoax we play on ourSelves...in our own minds.
No, thank you!

[LambofElohim]

Greetings,

I swore I posted this last night. Overlord you are still completely wrong. Man always wants to throw "Jesus Christ" into the Old Testament and compare him to YeHeVeh, this false god and and the formations of Adam and Eve. The first thing you need to get through to your waxened fat heart is that "Jesus Christ" was never part of the Old Testament other than some prophecies concerning the coming of all 4 in the gospels.

Next is that "God", Elohim wanted His creation of Adam, male and female as one being in Gen 1:26-28 and 5:1-2 to eat from BOTH trees and live forever like a god and have the knowledge of all things; good and evil so they could be discerned from. It was YeHeVeh this false god that modified "God's" decree for his own formation; "God's" creation was east of the garden on the outside so they could not get to them. How do you get someone to do something without having them do something else and have them think they are doing something else? Have them do both.

This false god verbally commanded his formation not to eat from the one tree, but was actually referring to the other tree as being the tree he did not want him to eat from by its location. It was like he was pointing at the tree of life; calling it the tree of knowledge of good and evil and lying by telling him he would die if he ate from it. He wouldn't have died because it was the tree of life and his formation did not know it and he would be ignorantly forced to eat from the tree he verbally commanded him not to eat from. Making him "damned if he did and damned if he didn't. The second formation confirms this in chapter three, which ties back to Gen 2:9 as it is written that "the tree of life in the midst of the garden" before the other tree is mentioned making it the primary tree and only tree in the midst or middle point of the garden. Both formations had eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil before the scene with the serpent and the tree of life. You could also assess it from the reverse. If it really was the tree of knowledge of good and evil; wouldn't that have given them free access to the tree of life? No where is it written that they ate from the tree of life; at least the man had not, he did eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, but that did not make him as "us or gods" as it is actually referring to.

The Brother of Jesus Christ that the only true God hast sent
Reverend Carlton

[EphremHagos]

Greetings,

I swore I posted this last night. Overlord you are still completely wrong. Man always wants to throw "Jesus Christ" into the Old Testament and compare him to YeHeVeh, this false god and and the formations of Adam and Eve. The first thing you need to get through to your waxened fat heart is that "Jesus Christ" was never part of the Old Testament other than some prophecies concerning the coming of all 4 in the gospels.

Next is that "God", Elohim wanted His creation of Adam, male and female as one being in Gen 1:26-28 and 5:1-2 to eat from BOTH trees and live forever like a god and have the knowledge of all things; good and evil so they could be discerned from. It was YeHeVeh this false god that modified "God's" decree for his own formation; "God's" creation was east of the garden on the outside so they could not get to them. How do you get someone to do something without having them do something else and have them think they are doing something else? Have them do both.

This false god verbally commanded his formation not to eat from the one tree, but was actually referring to the other tree as being the tree he did not want him to eat from by its location. It was like he was pointing at the tree of life; calling it the tree of knowledge of good and evil and lying by telling him he would die if he ate from it. He wouldn't have died because it was the tree of life and his formation did not know it and he would be ignorantly forced to eat from the tree he verbally commanded him not to eat from. Making him "damned if he did and damned if he didn't. The second formation confirms this in chapter three, which ties back to Gen 2:9 as it is written that "the tree of life in the midst of the garden" before the other tree is mentioned making it the primary tree and only tree in the midst or middle point of the garden. Both formations had eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil before the scene with the serpent and the tree of life. You could also assess it from the reverse. If it really was the tree of knowledge of good and evil; wouldn't that have given them free access to the tree of life? No where is it written that they ate from the tree of life; at least the man had not, he did eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, but that did not make him as "us or gods" as it is actually referring to.

The Brother of Jesus Christ that the only true God hast sent
Reverend Carlton


LambofElohim

1) Christ in the Old Testament
In order to save time, avoid confusion, and gain reliability and validity, let us exclude all claims and concentrate exclusively on works of Jesus Christ as evidence to establish his exact identity and the extent of his presence in the Old Testament, in the New Testament and, most importantly, his relevance to us (John 6: 31-36; 8: 21-28; 10: 17-18, 37-38; 14: 15-21).

Complete record has, in fact, been made available by one of two earliest disciples with initial insight into the nature of a complex subject from day 1 (“Messiah” Ibid, 1:39) through the progressive self-revelation of Jesus Christ climaxing to “I Am Who I Am”, “the Father” who spoke from the very beginning (Ibid, 8: 24-28; 19: 34-37) immortal, self-sufficient life, as demonstrated once-and-for-all right at his death on the cross (“the last day”).

Hence the verifiable and personal life-transforming claims as “source of life and light” (Ibid, 1: 4-5), “resurrection and the life” (Ibid, 11:25), “the way, the truth and the life” (Ibid, 14:6), etc!

2) The Two Trees
Here is the typical biographical data of man for rebuttal: formed out of the soil of the ground (“born of the flesh”) and faced with the following standing choices:

1. On the one hand, “being born again” in the image of God, becoming immortal through the breath of God’s life-giving Spirit caused and maintained through exclusively God-reliant knowledge and growth based on “the tree of life” by Adam and Eve; corresponding to the self-revelation of Christ at his death on the cross with reason for “people looking at him whom they pierced” –as source of the Spirit’s outpouring for eternal life; and,

2. On the other hand, preferring self-reliant knowledge and growth based on the “the tree of knowledge of what is good and what is bad” or enmity to the higher thoughts and ways of God as expressed at the cross of Christ with ostensible allegiance but spiritual death.

[EphremHagos]

Johnny MacManky and bc 1980,

How can you reconcile two eternally irreconcilables, viz.:
1) the "tree of life" (God-reliant, Jesus-Christ's-death-on-the-cross-based, direct and personal vision or 'light', John 3: 1-21) and
2) the "tree of knowledge of what is good and what is bad" (self-reliant, false arguments for knowledge of God)?

Remember Adam and Eve?

Only if you experience the vision of immortality from the "tree of life", can you go on board with my concept!

By the grace of God, I have seen the LORD 35 years ago and grown thereafter in His knowledge entirely from Scriptures!

Is it too much to trade in theology for wonderful and marvellous things that neither it nor you know nothing about? (Jer. 33:3)

All you need to do is to "ask", "seek" and "knock" to receive the mystery-revealing and Christ-glorifying Holy Spirit! (Luke 11: 9-13). This is not the stuff of theology! Is it?

BE REALLY BLESSED!!!!!!!!!

JUST IN CASE WE HAVE ONLY SHELVED , WITHOUT ACTUALLY RESOLVING, THE QUESTION OF "APPEARING TO HAVE BEEN KILLED" (REV. 5:6), I WANT TO ASSURE YOU AGAIN THAT WHAT I CALLED "DIACRITICAL DEATH" OF JESUS CHRIST ON THE CROSS, THAT BEARS THE VISION OF HIM AS "SON OF THE LIVING GOD" (IMMORTAL), IS COMPLETELY CONTRARY TO THE "SWOON THEORY"! THE LATTER HAS NO PLACE WHATSOEVER IN THE ACTUAL DEATH OF JESUS CHRIST ON THE CROSS BY HIS OWN FREE WILL AND AWESOME POWER JUST AS PREDICTED (JOHN 10: 17-18; 19: 30-37). THIS IS THE WHOLE FOUNDATION OF THE "NEW COVENANT" (JER. 31: 31-34; MATT. 26: 26-29 FF).

ALL IT TAKES IS A VISION OF WHAT IS PRESCRIBED!