John 6: 62-64

[EphremHagos]

"Suppose, then, that you should see the Son of Man go back to the place where he was before. What gives life is God's Spirit; man's power is of no use at all. The words I have spoken to you bring God's life-giving Spirit. Yet some of you do not believe." (Jesus knew from the very beginning who were the ones that would not believe and which one would betray him.)

FOOD FOR THOUGHT
If many of Jesus' followers found the specific teaching on his divine identity ("bread of life", "bread that came down from heaven""(John 6: 25-59) too hard to listen to, how much less would they anticipate to see the hard proof at his crucifixion and death (John 8: 21-28)?

[bc1980]

how much less would they anticipate to see the hard proof at his crucifixion and death (John 8: 21-28)?

What are you asking here?

Are you saying that the fact that He died on a cross is proof that He is "the bread of life"?

[EphremHagos]

Definitely!

Jesus Christ's death on the cross was a diacritical death, with supernatural power to produce the intended effect, in real time, which by all accounts dated back to Genesis 2: 7-9; through Ex. 3:15; Num. 21: 4-9; Jer. 31: 31-34; John 8: 21-28; 14: 15-21; 19: 3037; Matt. 26: 26-29 ff; Acts 1: 1-5; 2; 9; 1 Cor. 11: 23-26 ff; Rev. 5; extending indefinitely for posterity (Matt. 26: 63-64; Luke 22: 66-71)!

Based on the 2 supernatural keys of cause and effect, the diacritical death of Jesus Christ never failed to produce (including for me) the infallible proof of His divine identity into deeply mysterious and life-transforming vision of the proverbial supernatural light (John 3: 1-21) --the Biblical, "litmus-test" of salvation (Prov. 29:18).

The result is sustainable faith that grows by itself (Mark 4: 26-29; John 19: 30-37). It is worth exploring!

[RBerman]

di-a-crit-i-cal   /ˌdaɪəˈkrɪtɪkəl/
Pronunciation [dahy-uh-krit-i-kuhl]
–adjective 1. serving to distinguish; distinctive.
2. capable of distinguishing.
3. Phonetics. serving as a diacritic.
Which meaning of "diacritical" are you applying to Jesus' death, Ephrem? In the words of Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

[bc1980]

Based on the 2 supernatural keys of cause and effect, the diacritical death of Jesus Christ never failed to produce (including for me) the infallible proof of His divine identity

This is where you are wrong youngling.

It was not his death on the cross that proved His divine identity. There were 2 others that died that day right beside Him. Were they the Messiah? No! His death proved nothing.

It was His resurrection that was God's stamp of who Christ is.

31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead.” Acts17:31

You keep putting the wrong emphasis (im-FAS'-is) on the wrong syllable (sil-A'-bel).

His death on the cross is nothing without His resurrection.

Ormly was right. The door is right in front of you. Step through. Stop marveling at how beautiful the door is and enter the house. There is alot more to see.

Why not say the Gospel Event produced the infallible proof of His divine identity? That takes into account his ancestry, birth, life, ministry, death, burial, resurrection, ascension and sending of the Holy Spirit. If you are going to split hairs, make sure you've got all the hairs present.

[Heterodoxus]

.....
If many of Jesus' followers found the specific teaching on his divine identity ("bread of life", "bread that came down from heaven" too hard to listen to, how much less would they anticipate to see the hard proof at his crucifixion and death ...?As worded, your question begs a conclusion by the reader before s/he has an opportunity to develop a response. IOW, it seems to be a loaded question, and it doesn't make much sense to me. Who would want to anticipate seeing the hard proof of anything?

How about restating your question in an unloaded form?

[EphremHagos]

Which meaning of "diacritical" are you applying to Jesus' death, Ephrem? In the words of Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
One highly significant meaning of "diacritical" is the sign attached to Jesus's death to distinguish it as (an indicative list follows):

1. Supernaturally caused by own will and power of "alive and active word" (Matt. 27:50; Mk. 15:37; Lk. 23:46; Jn. 19:30);
2. Diacritical death was the defining moment for Jesus' self-sufficient life or immortality (John 11: 25-26; Acts 1:3); and perfection and glory (Heb. 2: 9-10);
3. Qualification for "the first among many brothers" (Rom. 8: 28-30)
4. Characterized by victory over the Devil and death (Heb. 2:14);
5. Timing for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (John 14; 16);
6. Qualification for "the first to be raised from death" (Rev. 1:5);
7. "A Lamb standing in the centre of the throne ... appeared to have been killed ... (with) the seven spirits of God sent throughout the whole world ... (full of) power, wealth, wisdom, and strength, honor, glory and praise .. for ever and ever!" (Rev. 5: 6, 12-14).

Looked at two different ways, this is the powerful reason why for the early Jewish Christians the date for the celebration of the Resurrection was determined by the Hebrew Passover festival; and why later undiscipled Gentile Christians, who lacked insight into the mystery and power of the Resurrection, moved the celebration to a Sunday by sheer strength of "three days". (See The INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPEDIA, Vol. 2, p.6)

Berman, I keep using the word ("diacritical") because it means exactly what I think it means!

[EphremHagos]

Based on the 2 supernatural keys of cause and effect, the diacritical death of Jesus Christ never failed to produce (including for me) the infallible proof of His divine identity

This is where you are wrong youngling.

It was not his death on the cross that proved His divine identity. There were 2 others that died that day right beside Him. Were they the Messiah? No! His death proved nothing.

It was His resurrection that was God's stamp of who Christ is.

31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead.” Acts17:31

You keep putting the wrong emphasis (im-FAS'-is) on the wrong syllable (sil-A'-bel).

His death on the cross is nothing without His resurrection.

Ormly was right. The door is right in front of you. Step through. Stop marveling at how beautiful the door is and enter the house. There is alot more to see.

Why not say the Gospel Event produced the infallible proof of His divine identity? That takes into account his ancestry, birth, life, ministry, death, burial, resurrection, ascension and sending of the Holy Spirit. If you are going to split hairs, make sure you've got all the hairs present.
If you still think I am wrong after you read my reply to Berman, your reasons will surely help me to study more deeply and correct my faults or at least retune my position.

[RBerman]

One highly significant meaning of "diacritical" is the sign attached to Jesus's death to distinguish it as (an indicative list follows):

1. Supernaturally caused by own will and power of "alive and active word" (Matt. 27:50; Mk. 15:37; Lk. 23:46; Jn. 19:30);
2. Diacritical death was the defining moment for Jesus' self-sufficient life or immortality (John 11: 25-26; Acts 1:3); and perfection and glory (Heb. 2: 9-10);
3. Qualification for "the first among many brothers" (Rom. 8: 28-30)
4. Characterized by victory over the Devil and death (Heb. 2:14);
5. Timing for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (John 14; 16);
6. Qualification for "the first to be raised from death" (Rev. 1:5);
7. "A Lamb standing in the centre of the throne ... appeared to have been killed ... (with) the seven spirits of God sent throughout the whole world ... (full of) power, wealth, wisdom, and strength, honor, glory and praise .. for ever and ever!" (Rev. 5: 6, 12-14).

Looked at two different ways, this is the powerful reason why for the early Jewish Christians the date for the celebration of the Resurrection was determined by the Hebrew Passover festival; and why later undiscipled Gentile Christians, who lacked insight into the mystery and power of the Resurrection, moved the celebration to a Sunday by sheer strength of "three days". (See The INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPEDIA, Vol. 2, p.6)
Are you saying that the International Standard Bible Encylopedia defines "diacritical" in the way you describe? Because I've never heard that word used in that way. The only places on the whole internet where the words "diacritical death" are used together are in posts made by you here and on this other board:

http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=messages&webtag=ab-christianity&tid=23449

In other words, I think you're making it up. Can you point me to anything not written by you that discusses the "diacritical death" of Christ in those terms?

[bc1980]

One highly significant meaning of "diacritical" is the sign attached to Jesus's death to distinguish it as (an indicative list follows):

1. Supernaturally caused by own will and power of "alive and active word" (Matt. 27:50; Mk. 15:37; Lk. 23:46; Jn. 19:30);

"Breathing his last" and "giving up his spirit" are colorful metaphors for "he died". I would not say his death was "supernaturally caused by his own will and power" based on those metaphors. However, I willingly agree he had the power to not die had he so chosen. He willing lay down his life is not cause for calling it a "supernatural death".

I can see where you get that, but imo you're making mountains out of mole hills.

2. Diacritical death was the defining moment for Jesus' self-sufficient life or immortality (John 11: 25-26; Acts 1:3); and perfection and glory (Heb. 2: 9-10);

John 11:25-26, Jesus' statement to Martha ("I am the resurrection and the life.....") was way before he was crucified and was not an announcement that his death would be "diacritical".

Acts 1:3, Jesus presents (proved) himself alive (resurrected) to the apostles. This makes my point. It was his resurrection that was "diacritical".

Hebrews 2:9-10, the writer is explaining how Jesus suffered as a man so he might be the perfect sacrifice. ( v. 9 "....He might taste death for everyone.") His death was "critical" but it was not "diacritical".

3. Qualification for "the first among many brothers" (Rom. 8: 28-30)

Romans 8:28-30, is a great passage that is talking about how and why God works in the believer's life. It is not a passage pointing to the "defining" moment when Jesus was crucified.

4. Characterized by victory over the Devil and death (Heb. 2:14);

Yes! Through his death, Christ rendered Satan powerless. Christ's death was a "diacritical" moment for Satan.

5. Timing for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (John 14; 16);

John 14; 16, I'm assuming you are meaning chapters 14 & 16. Yes, Jesus had to die before he could send the Holy Spirit. He also had to be born before he died. He had to be baptized. He had to be resurrected. That's why I say the Gospel event is "diacritical".

4 But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, 5 to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. 6 Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.” 7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir.
Galatians 4:4

The whole Gospel event was right on God's time.

6. Qualification for "the first to be raised from death" (Rev. 1:5);

Revelation 1:5 is not saying because Jesus was crucified he is qualified to be the first raised from the dead.

If anything it was his sinless life that qualified him to be the first raised from the dead.

If you want a defining moment, look at his baptism.

16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”
Matthew 3:16-17

Or the transfiguration.

5 While he was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!”
Matthew 17:5

Context! Context! Context! Stay with the context. The Gospel is more than adequately explained in context within the Scriptures. We do not have to use eisegesis to magnify Christ. Who he is has done that for us. If we just present the truth in simple language, the Holy Spirit uses that to draw people to Christ.

I am thrilled that you seem excited about who Christ is and what He has done. We will continue to discover how that has effected us for the all of eternity. Still, we need not read into passages something that the passage is not saying.

Stay close to the context and you should be fine.

Be blessed!

[Overlord!]

"Suppose, then, that you should see the Son of Man go back to the place where he was before. What gives life is God's Spirit; man's power is of no use at all. The words I have spoken to you bring God's life-giving Spirit. Yet some of you do not believe." (Jesus knew from the very beginning who were the ones that would not believe and which one would betray him.)

FOOD FOR THOUGHT
If many of Jesus' followers found the specific teaching on his divine identity ("bread of life", "bread that came down from heaven""(John 6: 25-59) too hard to listen to, how much less would they anticipate to see the hard proof at his crucifixion and death (John 8: 21-28)?


People still find Identity Theology too hard to listen to.
But it is only through Identity that we find God's life-giving Spirit.
"Man" is not an identity we want to identify with...if we are interested in Life.
For man's magic is of no use at all.
For that matter, magic is of no use at all.
For magic is what makes the whole world of man.
Man comes "down" from heaven...so-to-speak.
Man comes down through magical morphing...cosmic shapeshifting.
This is how the Son of God "became flesh"...through the magic of "sin".
Man is a manifestation of the concept of many.
The many destroys the One [Christ].
The many sacrifices the One...that the many may "live".
But,
Man is the transformation of the glory of GoD to something far short of it.
"We have all fallen short of the glory of God"
This means we have all fallen from the grace of heaven...our home.
Jesus was the "firstfruits" among us to go back to the "place" we were before.
We will follow, all in our own time.

[EphremHagos]

By the grace of God, all I did was to coin a highly telling term to describe, without any modification, what is wholly Scriptural.

“Diacritical” is the fitting description of the self-induced death of Jesus Christ on the cross which, according to Scriptures, consistently allows man’s life-transforming verification of God’s personal name, signature, seal and awesome power of salvation! According to John 3: 1-21 and 19: 30-37, the complete Terms of Reference in the death of Jesus Christ on the cross, (including Purpose, Manner, Timing and Verification), bears the all-in-one prospectus for the following:

• The giving of the Holy Spirit (including Pentecost),
• Revelation of Jesus’ divine identity (“the light”) and
• The inducing of spiritual rebirth.

To qualify the death of Jesus Christ with anything less than “diacritical” and “living sacrifice” is to make the gospel devoid of mystery, power and attraction! The diacritical death of Jesus Christ on the cross is the transcendent Forum for the Son of Man going back to the place where he was before (glory) pitting man’s inconsequential power (“dead in the flesh”) against God’s life-giving Spirit (John 6: 62-63) –the exact manner of God’s self-revelation to man throughout Scriptures!

Therefore, "diacritical death" is likely to withstand all criticisms until somebody comes up with a better expression for the supernatural death of Jesus Christ complete with sustainable faith producing "blood" and "water" for "People to look at him whom they pierced" (John 19: 30-37).

[EphremHagos]

I thank God that I have met my match: a brother, who shares my passion for the specific manner of Jesus Christ’s death and his continuous, self-revelation therein.

Of course, we should be ware of (two) type(s) of errors as you implied. I propose that we are much more inclined by nature to undervalue than to overvalue the meaning of passages which, in any case, we cannot read carefully enough (Luke 8:18)! Now, to my first return of rebuttals:

1. Aren’t the “live and active” words and their phenomenal outcomes including the reported raising to life of many of God's people (Matt. 27: 50-56; Mark 15: 33-41; Luke 23: 44-49; John 19: 30-37) applications of “No one takes away 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: 17-18) --

• Preempting the soldiers from the effect of breaking of Jesus’ bones who overreacted instead with postmortem plunging of spear into Jesus’ side (John 19: 31-34);
• Impressing Pilate with the unusually hasty death of Jesus (Mark 15:44); and
• Arousing the wonders of “People (to) look at him whom they pierced” (John 19:37)?

It is perhaps many think that Jesus died a mere human, albeit vicarious death, that Christianity has lost its holding power!

More rebuttals will follow. BE BLESSED TOO!

[EphremHagos]

2) Jesus, who said, “If I testify on my own behalf, what I say is not to be accepted as real proof “(John 5:31), put far more value on the witness of his works (5:36; 10: 37-38) referred to Paul as “God’s powerful weapons” indispensable for evangelism (2 Cor. 10: 4-6).

Accordingly, Jesus claim in John 11: 25-26 is not to be taken at face value but as an invitation to authenticate his real identity, viz.: “Source of life” or self-sufficient life as can be known and experienced only at his diacritical death (John 8: 21-29) to which his and our resurrection are referred to in its original sense!

For precedence, see “Many of God’s people who had died were raised to life. They left the graves and after Jesus rose from death, they went into the Holy City where many people saw them” (Matt. 27: 52-53). Either these are out-of-context verses or refer to another resurrection whose original, unique meaning of co-resurrection (“raised us up with him”) has been lost to us (Eph. 2:6) because of our disobedience to be taught exclusively by God as disciples of the Lord Jesus!

[bc1980]

I'm sorry E.H. I'm having a hard time following what you are saying in post #13 and # 14. To me, your post read like a medical text book. It's my lack, not yours.

My main point is, I disagree with your "diacritical death" usage. The whole Gospel event, as described earlier, is diacritical, culminating with His resurrection, not His crucifixion. To stop at His crucifixion is to stop short of the finish line.

[EphremHagos]

I'm sorry E.H. I'm having a hard time following what you are saying in post #13 and # 14. To me, your post read like a medical text book. It's my lack, not yours.

My main point is, I disagree with your "diacritical death" usage. The whole Gospel event, as described earlier, is diacritical, culminating with His resurrection, not His crucifixion. To stop at His crucifixion is to stop short of the finish line.
Sorry, you miss the whole point!

The climax of the ministry of Jesus Christ is not at all his death, according to man's thoughts, but his diacritical death of self-revelation --as per all prophecy, his own consistent teaching to his disciples and all the witnesses of the apostles including Paul. Jesus Christ's "diacritical death" on the cross is the seal and finishing line of the "new covenant" (Jer. 31: 31-34; Matt. 26: 26-29 ff). A post-resurrection appearance is anti-climactic and ridiculously less important than what precedes it or the all-in-one, God's once and for all self-revelation in Christ for all posterity!

You will be permanently blessed if you take your time to check it out thoroughly and carefully, as you should!

[bc1980]

A post-resurrection appearance is anti-climactic and ridiculously less important than what precedes it

That statement is anti-Scripture. You need to spend some time studying the resurrection.

[EphremHagos]

One highly significant meaning of "diacritical" is the sign attached to Jesus's death to distinguish it as (an indicative list follows):

1. Supernaturally caused by own will and power of "alive and active word" (Matt. 27:50; Mk. 15:37; Lk. 23:46; Jn. 19:30);

"Breathing his last" and "giving up his spirit" are colorful metaphors for "he died". I would not say his death was "supernaturally caused by his own will and power" based on those metaphors. However, I willingly agree he had the power to not die had he so chosen. He willing lay down his life is not cause for calling it a "supernatural death".

I can see where you get that, but imo you're making mountains out of mole hills.

2. Diacritical death was the defining moment for Jesus' self-sufficient life or immortality (John 11: 25-26; Acts 1:3); and perfection and glory (Heb. 2: 9-10);

John 11:25-26, Jesus' statement to Martha ("I am the resurrection and the life.....") was way before he was crucified and was not an announcement that his death would be "diacritical".

Acts 1:3, Jesus presents (proved) himself alive (resurrected) to the apostles. This makes my point. It was his resurrection that was "diacritical".

Hebrews 2:9-10, the writer is explaining how Jesus suffered as a man so he might be the perfect sacrifice. ( v. 9 "....He might taste death for everyone.") His death was "critical" but it was not "diacritical".

3. Qualification for "the first among many brothers" (Rom. 8: 28-30)

Romans 8:28-30, is a great passage that is talking about how and why God works in the believer's life. It is not a passage pointing to the "defining" moment when Jesus was crucified.

4. Characterized by victory over the Devil and death (Heb. 2:14);

Yes! Through his death, Christ rendered Satan powerless. Christ's death was a "diacritical" moment for Satan.

5. Timing for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (John 14; 16);

John 14; 16, I'm assuming you are meaning chapters 14 & 16. Yes, Jesus had to die before he could send the Holy Spirit. He also had to be born before he died. He had to be baptized. He had to be resurrected. That's why I say the Gospel event is "diacritical".

4 But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, 5 to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. 6 Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.” 7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir.
Galatians 4:4

The whole Gospel event was right on God's time.

6. Qualification for "the first to be raised from death" (Rev. 1:5);

Revelation 1:5 is not saying because Jesus was crucified he is qualified to be the first raised from the dead.

If anything it was his sinless life that qualified him to be the first raised from the dead.

If you want a defining moment, look at his baptism.

16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”
Matthew 3:16-17

Or the transfiguration.

5 While he was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!”
Matthew 17:5

Context! Context! Context! Stay with the context. The Gospel is more than adequately explained in context within the Scriptures. We do not have to use eisegesis to magnify Christ. Who he is has done that for us. If we just present the truth in simple language, the Holy Spirit uses that to draw people to Christ.

I am thrilled that you seem excited about who Christ is and what He has done. We will continue to discover how that has effected us for the all of eternity. Still, we need not read into passages something that the passage is not saying.

Stay close to the context and you should be fine.

Be blessed!
3) Romans 8: 28-30
(Content Analysis with Insight)

First, I want to assure you that what is difficult to understand is not at all my language, as you think, but the substance we are dealing with, viz.: “secrets of the Kingdom of heaven” knowledge of which is given only to past, present and future disciples of Jesus Christ (Matt. 13:11).

“Called according to his purpose”, “whom God had already chosen”, “set apart to become like his Son” and “so … Son would be the first among many brothers” to whom he “shared his glory” are all explicit expressions with powerful backward linkages to the “Gospel” of divine, glorious and blessed origin (1Tim. 1:11): associated with firsthand and personal vision of the immortal Christ at his diacritical death on the cross (“I am Jesus whom you persecute”, Acts 9:5).

However insightful the analysis may be, no one can take the expression “the first among many brothers” at its premium value without his whole body being full of light with no part of it in darkness (Luke 11:36) –bright light originating from the slain Lamb standing in the centre of the throne: a definite reference to Christ in his diacritical death as exclusive authority to break the seals and open the scroll and source of the seven spirits of God that have been sent throughout the whole world (Rev. 5: 1-14).

Let us all show our love for Jesus Christ by making him our sole mentor wholly in accordance with the “new covenant” order (Jer. 31: 31-34; John 6: 45; Matt. 26: 26-29 ff) or be prepared to be excluded forever from the Kingdom of heaven (Matt. 7: 21-23).

GOD BLESS YOU ALL!

[bc1980]

Let us all show our love for Jesus Christ by making him our sole mentor wholly in accordance with the “new covenant” order

If this statement means that you believe you don't need teachers you are falling into a rebellious trap that many have fallen into when they think their revelation exceeds that of everyone else. It happens frequently with guys in their 20's & 30's.

Christ established teachers, pastors, leaders, etc. in the church for our good. They are not the enemy and they are not holding us back.

God designed the church to live in communtity.

Youthful zeal is good when harnessed, but dangerous when left unfettered.

Good luck!

[EphremHagos]

One highly significant meaning of "diacritical" is the sign attached to Jesus's death to distinguish it as (an indicative list follows):

1. Supernaturally caused by own will and power of "alive and active word" (Matt. 27:50; Mk. 15:37; Lk. 23:46; Jn. 19:30);

"Breathing his last" and "giving up his spirit" are colorful metaphors for "he died". I would not say his death was "supernaturally caused by his own will and power" based on those metaphors. However, I willingly agree he had the power to not die had he so chosen. He willing lay down his life is not cause for calling it a "supernatural death".

I can see where you get that, but imo you're making mountains out of mole hills.

2. Diacritical death was the defining moment for Jesus' self-sufficient life or immortality (John 11: 25-26; Acts 1:3); and perfection and glory (Heb. 2: 9-10);

John 11:25-26, Jesus' statement to Martha ("I am the resurrection and the life.....") was way before he was crucified and was not an announcement that his death would be "diacritical".

Acts 1:3, Jesus presents (proved) himself alive (resurrected) to the apostles. This makes my point. It was his resurrection that was "diacritical".

Hebrews 2:9-10, the writer is explaining how Jesus suffered as a man so he might be the perfect sacrifice. ( v. 9 "....He might taste death for everyone.") His death was "critical" but it was not "diacritical".

3. Qualification for "the first among many brothers" (Rom. 8: 28-30)

Romans 8:28-30, is a great passage that is talking about how and why God works in the believer's life. It is not a passage pointing to the "defining" moment when Jesus was crucified.

4. Characterized by victory over the Devil and death (Heb. 2:14);

Yes! Through his death, Christ rendered Satan powerless. Christ's death was a "diacritical" moment for Satan.

5. Timing for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (John 14; 16);

John 14; 16, I'm assuming you are meaning chapters 14 & 16. Yes, Jesus had to die before he could send the Holy Spirit. He also had to be born before he died. He had to be baptized. He had to be resurrected. That's why I say the Gospel event is "diacritical".

4 But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, 5 to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. 6 Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.” 7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir.
Galatians 4:4

The whole Gospel event was right on God's time.

6. Qualification for "the first to be raised from death" (Rev. 1:5);

Revelation 1:5 is not saying because Jesus was crucified he is qualified to be the first raised from the dead.

If anything it was his sinless life that qualified him to be the first raised from the dead.

If you want a defining moment, look at his baptism.

16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”
Matthew 3:16-17

Or the transfiguration.

5 While he was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!”
Matthew 17:5

Context! Context! Context! Stay with the context. The Gospel is more than adequately explained in context within the Scriptures. We do not have to use eisegesis to magnify Christ. Who he is has done that for us. If we just present the truth in simple language, the Holy Spirit uses that to draw people to Christ.

I am thrilled that you seem excited about who Christ is and what He has done. We will continue to discover how that has effected us for the all of eternity. Still, we need not read into passages something that the passage is not saying.

Stay close to the context and you should be fine.

Be blessed!
4) Jesus’ Death as Victory over the Devil and Death (Heb. 2:14)

Defined retroactively and in more precise terms, Christ rendered Satan completely powerless through the supernatural works of a) Cause (“blood” or self) and b) Effect (“water” or baptism work in the Holy Spirit) of his death resulting in the self-revelation of God in Jesus Christ as promised, taught and anticipated.

Jesus Christ’s diacritical death is the mystery and glory of the Gospel as defining moment of his divine identity once and for all!

Therefore, “Christ’s death (as) a diacritical moment for Satan” would reinstate the power he once wielded over death now destroyed for good!

[EphremHagos]

One highly significant meaning of "diacritical" is the sign attached to Jesus's death to distinguish it as (an indicative list follows):

1. Supernaturally caused by own will and power of "alive and active word" (Matt. 27:50; Mk. 15:37; Lk. 23:46; Jn. 19:30);

"Breathing his last" and "giving up his spirit" are colorful metaphors for "he died". I would not say his death was "supernaturally caused by his own will and power" based on those metaphors. However, I willingly agree he had the power to not die had he so chosen. He willing lay down his life is not cause for calling it a "supernatural death".

I can see where you get that, but imo you're making mountains out of mole hills.

2. Diacritical death was the defining moment for Jesus' self-sufficient life or immortality (John 11: 25-26; Acts 1:3); and perfection and glory (Heb. 2: 9-10);

John 11:25-26, Jesus' statement to Martha ("I am the resurrection and the life.....") was way before he was crucified and was not an announcement that his death would be "diacritical".

Acts 1:3, Jesus presents (proved) himself alive (resurrected) to the apostles. This makes my point. It was his resurrection that was "diacritical".

Hebrews 2:9-10, the writer is explaining how Jesus suffered as a man so he might be the perfect sacrifice. ( v. 9 "....He might taste death for everyone.") His death was "critical" but it was not "diacritical".

3. Qualification for "the first among many brothers" (Rom. 8: 28-30)

Romans 8:28-30, is a great passage that is talking about how and why God works in the believer's life. It is not a passage pointing to the "defining" moment when Jesus was crucified.

4. Characterized by victory over the Devil and death (Heb. 2:14);

Yes! Through his death, Christ rendered Satan powerless. Christ's death was a "diacritical" moment for Satan.

5. Timing for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (John 14; 16);

John 14; 16, I'm assuming you are meaning chapters 14 & 16. Yes, Jesus had to die before he could send the Holy Spirit. He also had to be born before he died. He had to be baptized. He had to be resurrected. That's why I say the Gospel event is "diacritical".

4 But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, 5 to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. 6 Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.” 7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir.
Galatians 4:4

The whole Gospel event was right on God's time.

6. Qualification for "the first to be raised from death" (Rev. 1:5);

Revelation 1:5 is not saying because Jesus was crucified he is qualified to be the first raised from the dead.

If anything it was his sinless life that qualified him to be the first raised from the dead.

If you want a defining moment, look at his baptism.

16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”
Matthew 3:16-17

Or the transfiguration.

5 While he was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!”
Matthew 17:5

Context! Context! Context! Stay with the context. The Gospel is more than adequately explained in context within the Scriptures. We do not have to use eisegesis to magnify Christ. Who he is has done that for us. If we just present the truth in simple language, the Holy Spirit uses that to draw people to Christ.

I am thrilled that you seem excited about who Christ is and what He has done. We will continue to discover how that has effected us for the all of eternity. Still, we need not read into passages something that the passage is not saying.

Stay close to the context and you should be fine.

Be blessed!
5) TIMING FOR THE OUTPOURING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT (John 14; 16)

You assume right!

I maintain that all the teachings of Jesus Christ beginning in John 3 through 7, 14 and 16 clearly promise the decisive giving of the Holy Spirit beginning exactly at Jesus Christ's death on the cross, i.e., his defining moment or self-revelation (John 8: 21-28). IOW, Pentecost is a large scale application of the convincing proof of the power of God's Spirit activated exactly at the moment of Jesus' death!

[EphremHagos]

One highly significant meaning of "diacritical" is the sign attached to Jesus's death to distinguish it as (an indicative list follows):

1. Supernaturally caused by own will and power of "alive and active word" (Matt. 27:50; Mk. 15:37; Lk. 23:46; Jn. 19:30);

"Breathing his last" and "giving up his spirit" are colorful metaphors for "he died". I would not say his death was "supernaturally caused by his own will and power" based on those metaphors. However, I willingly agree he had the power to not die had he so chosen. He willing lay down his life is not cause for calling it a "supernatural death".

I can see where you get that, but imo you're making mountains out of mole hills.

2. Diacritical death was the defining moment for Jesus' self-sufficient life or immortality (John 11: 25-26; Acts 1:3); and perfection and glory (Heb. 2: 9-10);

John 11:25-26, Jesus' statement to Martha ("I am the resurrection and the life.....") was way before he was crucified and was not an announcement that his death would be "diacritical".

Acts 1:3, Jesus presents (proved) himself alive (resurrected) to the apostles. This makes my point. It was his resurrection that was "diacritical".

Hebrews 2:9-10, the writer is explaining how Jesus suffered as a man so he might be the perfect sacrifice. ( v. 9 "....He might taste death for everyone.") His death was "critical" but it was not "diacritical".

3. Qualification for "the first among many brothers" (Rom. 8: 28-30)

Romans 8:28-30, is a great passage that is talking about how and why God works in the believer's life. It is not a passage pointing to the "defining" moment when Jesus was crucified.

4. Characterized by victory over the Devil and death (Heb. 2:14);

Yes! Through his death, Christ rendered Satan powerless. Christ's death was a "diacritical" moment for Satan.

5. Timing for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (John 14; 16);

John 14; 16, I'm assuming you are meaning chapters 14 & 16. Yes, Jesus had to die before he could send the Holy Spirit. He also had to be born before he died. He had to be baptized. He had to be resurrected. That's why I say the Gospel event is "diacritical".

4 But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, 5 to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. 6 Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.” 7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir.
Galatians 4:4

The whole Gospel event was right on God's time.

6. Qualification for "the first to be raised from death" (Rev. 1:5);

Revelation 1:5 is not saying because Jesus was crucified he is qualified to be the first raised from the dead.

If anything it was his sinless life that qualified him to be the first raised from the dead.

If you want a defining moment, look at his baptism.

16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”
Matthew 3:16-17

Or the transfiguration.

5 While he was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!”
Matthew 17:5

Context! Context! Context! Stay with the context. The Gospel is more than adequately explained in context within the Scriptures. We do not have to use eisegesis to magnify Christ. Who he is has done that for us. If we just present the truth in simple language, the Holy Spirit uses that to draw people to Christ.

I am thrilled that you seem excited about who Christ is and what He has done. We will continue to discover how that has effected us for the all of eternity. Still, we need not read into passages something that the passage is not saying.

Stay close to the context and you should be fine.

Be blessed!
6) Qualification for the “the first to be raised from death” (Rev. 1:5)

Of course, Jesus’ baptism was a defining moment but only, firsthand and personally, for John the Baptist (John 1: 29-34). “A witness even greater than the witness that John gave” is in store for us (John 5:36).

The transfiguration, complete with two witnesses in glory (Moses and Elijah), was just a foretaste of much greater things to see and an additional preparation for three promising disciples in the way in which Jesus would soon fulfill God’s purpose by dying in Jerusalem (Luke 9: 28-31) in order to prosper in his great defining moment of going back up to the glory where he was before (John 6: 62-63; 17: 1-5).

Therefore, the truth in Rev. 1:5 in conjunction with the prospect in Rom. 8: 28-30 lines up “many brothers” right behind Jesus Christ as he shares his glory with them –the glory of “I am the resurrection and the life” in the here and now, at death and here-after (John 11: 25-26) for those who are baptized in the Spirit into union with his (diacritical) death (Rom. 6: 3-5).

This is “life in all its fullness” defined in the context of the death of Jesus! (John 10:10). AMEN!!!!!!!!!

[EphremHagos]

Let us all show our love for Jesus Christ by making him our sole mentor wholly in accordance with the “new covenant” order

If this statement means that you believe you don't need teachers you are falling into a rebellious trap that many have fallen into when they think their revelation exceeds that of everyone else. It happens frequently with guys in their 20's & 30's.

Christ established teachers, pastors, leaders, etc. in the church for our good. They are not the enemy and they are not holding us back.

God designed the church to live in communtity.

Youthful zeal is good when harnessed, but dangerous when left unfettered.

Good luck!
In view of the following highlights among many:

• “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. Jer. 31: 33-34
• “The prophets wrote, ‘Everyone will be taught by God.’ Anyone who hears the Father and learns from him comes to me.” John 6:45
• “Sound doctrine is found in the gospel that was entrusted to me to announce the Good News from the glorious and blessed God.” 1 Tim. 1: 10-11

It is not youthful zeal to ascribe primary authority in teaching for Jesus rather than for human teachers, pastors, leaders, etc. that are not thoroughly in tune themselves with God’s instructions. Only Jesus can teach with authority! (Matt. 24-29).

In any case, we will not wait long to see which of our “two houses” are built to withstand life’s testing and troubles.

[bc1980]

Only Jesus can teach with authority! (Matt. 24-29).

Peter, Paul, John, James, etc. didn't seem to have a problem with teaching "with authority" either. If you don't recognize Jesus' delegated authorities (your pastor, teachers, boss, parents - if you live with them, etc.) in your life, you are walking in rebellion.

Trying using the whole of Scripture to form your doctrine.

[RBerman]

By the grace of God, all I did was to coin a highly telling term to describe, without any modification, what is wholly Scriptural.

“Diacritical” is the fitting description of the self-induced death of Jesus Christ on the cross which, according to Scriptures, consistently allows man’s life-transforming verification of God’s personal name, signature, seal and awesome power of salvation! According to John 3: 1-21 and 19: 30-37, the complete Terms of Reference in the death of Jesus Christ on the cross, (including Purpose, Manner, Timing and Verification), bears the all-in-one prospectus for the following:

• The giving of the Holy Spirit (including Pentecost),
• Revelation of Jesus’ divine identity (“the light”) and
• The inducing of spiritual rebirth.

To qualify the death of Jesus Christ with anything less than “diacritical” and “living sacrifice” is to make the gospel devoid of mystery, power and attraction! The diacritical death of Jesus Christ on the cross is the transcendent Forum for the Son of Man going back to the place where he was before (glory) pitting man’s inconsequential power (“dead in the flesh”) against God’s life-giving Spirit (John 6: 62-63) –the exact manner of God’s self-revelation to man throughout Scriptures!

Therefore, "diacritical death" is likely to withstand all criticisms until somebody comes up with a better expression for the supernatural death of Jesus Christ complete with sustainable faith producing "blood" and "water" for "People to look at him whom they pierced" (John 19: 30-37).
You seem to think that it's very helpful for you to describe the death of Christ as "diacritical" when talking to people. I don't think it's helpful at all. I think it's quite confusing. It doesn't make the gospel void if I don't use your idiosyncratic terminology to discuss the work of Christ. Christians have been talking about the gospel for two millenia, and no one calls it "diacritical" but you. There are plenty of perfectly good words already in wide usage to discuss the topics you're covering. The giving of the Holy Spirit results in our "indwelling" by the Spirit. The revelation of Jesus' character is just that: "revelation." Spiritual rebirth is called "regeneration." There's no need to make up new phrases familiar to no one but yourself. Do you find that most people you talk with are aided by your new term, as opposed to the old ones?

[EphremHagos]

You seem to think that it's very helpful for you to describe the death of Christ as "diacritical" when talking to people. I don't think it's helpful at all. I think it's quite confusing. It doesn't make the gospel void if I don't use your idiosyncratic terminology to discuss the work of Christ. Christians have been talking about the gospel for two millenia, and no one calls it "diacritical" but you. There are plenty of perfectly good words already in wide usage to discuss the topics you're covering. The giving of the Holy Spirit results in our "indwelling" by the Spirit. The revelation of Jesus' character is just that: "revelation." Spiritual rebirth is called "regeneration." There's no need to make up new phrases familiar to no one but yourself. Do you find that most people you talk with are aided by your new term, as opposed to the old ones?
"Diacritical" is, indeed, an idiosyncratic terminology very useful to remind us of the self-revelation of the immortal Christ right at his self-produced death on the cross --a Biblical truth rarely, if at all, heard in contemporary Christian circles!

Although regrettable, your offense by the catchy word will never stop me from using it.

[EphremHagos]

Only Jesus can teach with authority! (Matt. 24-29).

Peter, Paul, John, James, etc. didn't seem to have a problem with teaching "with authority" either. If you don't recognize Jesus' delegated authorities (your pastor, teachers, boss, parents - if you live with them, etc.) in your life, you are walking in rebellion.

Trying using the whole of Scripture to form your doctrine.
If Peter's request to make three tents: one for Jesus, a second for Moses and a third for Elijah was turned down outright with the unmistakable answer: "This is my own dear Son, with whom I am pleased --listen to him" (Matt. 16: 4-5), one can settle for pastors, teachers, boss, parents, etc, only through suppression of the given firsthand and personal knowledge of Jesus Christ! This is not a secret to one of three scores and ten years around.

No, thank you!

[bc1980]

Good luck on your on!

[phase]

1) Diacritical if used while witnessing or trying to get a point across will be a word of confusion and not clarification, thus it will be a liability and not an asset (by the way, i think it is a cool word)
2) Authority is everywhere. Best to recognize and be synergistic with it. If a cop pulls you over for speeding, rest assured you are in his authority. Examples could go on for a long time.
On a personal note: Until reading this tread and posting I thought I had a problem with church authority but now realize that I have a problem with trust and not the authority.
Thanks for the thread. :smile:

[RBerman]

"Diacritical" is, indeed, an idiosyncratic terminology very useful to remind us of the self-revelation of the immortal Christ right at his self-produced death on the cross --a Biblical truth rarely, if at all, heard in contemporary Christian circles!

Although regrettable, your offense by the catchy word will never stop me from using it.
That's disappointing. Perhaps after enough people tell you how unhelpful it is, you'll reconsider.

[EphremHagos]

A post-resurrection appearance is anti-climactic and ridiculously less important than what precedes it

That statement is anti-Scripture. You need to spend some time studying the resurrection.
Let us forgive and forget in the Spirit of the day: HAPPY GOOD FRIDAY!
As we have gone too far to mind our little sensitivities,here is a challenge. Please prove to me that my statement: "A post-resurrection appearance is anti-climactic and ridiculously less than what precedes it", i.e., resurrection appearance is "anti-Scripture" as you called it.

Blessisngs!

[bc1980]

EphremHagos said:

A post-resurrection appearance is anti-climactic and ridiculously less important than what precedes it

BC said:

That statement is anti-Scripture. You need to spend some time studying the resurrection.

21 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”
Acts 1:21-22

31 Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. 32 God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. 33 Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear.
Acts 2:31-33

32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all.
Acts 4:32-33

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— 2 the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3 regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, 4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.
Romans 1:1-4

10 I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11 and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.
Philippians 3:10-11

3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
1 Peter 1:3

21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
1 Peter 3:21

How is a post-resurrection appearance anti-climactic and ridiculously less important than what precedes it based on these Scriptures?

[EphremHagos]

As worded, your question begs a conclusion by the reader before s/he has an opportunity to develop a response. IOW, it seems to be a loaded question, and it doesn't make much sense to me. Who would want to anticipate seeing the hard proof of anything?

How about restating your question in an unloaded form?

O.K. here is the question partially unloaded.

GOOD FRIDAY represents the defining moment of Jesus Christ: the "Son of the living God" or immortal --painstakingly taught in the gospel as the time when "the Son of Man (would) go back up to the place where he was before", i.e., glory; and observed by the first Jewish Christians as the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and believers in him (Eph. 2: 5-6).

This has to be experienced firsthand and personally to be believed!

HAPPY GOOD FRIDAY!

[bc1980]

GOOD FRIDAY represents the defining moment of Jesus Christ: the "Son of the living God" or immortal --painstakingly taught in the gospel as the time when "the Son of Man (would) go back up to the place where he was before", i.e., glory; and observed by the first Jewish Christians as the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and believers in him (Eph. 2: 5-6).

According to who?

You still did not answer the question. How is a post-resurrection appearance anti-climactic and ridiculously less important than what precedes it based on Scripture? I took the "these" out so as to unload the question, but the question remains.

[EphremHagos]

GOOD FRIDAY represents the defining moment of Jesus Christ: the "Son of the living God" or immortal --painstakingly taught in the gospel as the time when "the Son of Man (would) go back up to the place where he was before", i.e., glory; and observed by the first Jewish Christians as the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and believers in him (Eph. 2: 5-6).

According to who?

You still did not answer the question. How is a post-resurrection appearance anti-climactic and ridiculously less important than what precedes it based on Scripture? I took the "these" out so as to unload the question, but the question remains.
Of course, according to the unpopular gospel of Jesus Christ!

Careful study and analysis of the gospel records show that there are resurrection appearances in glory and post-resurrection appearances in physical body producing, as predicted, belief and unbelief, respectively.

In the belief category, the small number of beneficiaries included an army officer, soldiers, some women, Joseph, Mary, other Mary, Nicodemus and of course "the disciple Jesus loved" (John); and, subsequently, the Apostles, 120 believers, 3,000 others and Paul. Interestingly, the list does not fail to include "many of God's people who had died" referring to the well and alive in God --a great prospect and reason to praise God!!!!

The resurrection appearances are uniquely characterized by "looking at him whom they pierced" in whom there is much more than meets either the eye or the mind (John 19:37)

In the unbelief category of the post-resurrection appearances were the Apostles (in their first score) including Thomas who is given more credit today than warranted by the Lord himself,etc.

Most references have been omitted to avoid repetition.

[bc1980]

Lets try this again.

You said, "GOOD FRIDAY .......observed by the first Jewish Christians as the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and believers in him (Eph. 2: 5-6)

That is where the question, "According to who?" comes in. In other words, who says the first Jewish Christians observed "Good Friday" as the day Jesus was resurrected?

GOOD FRIDAY represents the defining moment of Jesus Christ: the "Son of the living God" or immortal --painstakingly taught in the gospel as the time when "the Son of Man (would) go back up to the place where he was before", i.e., glory

This statement too is false. Refer to John 20:17. The Scripture "painstakingly" teaches that Jesus was resurrected on the 1st day of the week, our Sunday. As seen in John 20:17, He had not yet returned to the Father prior to this.

From my perspective, you seem intent on redefining the gospel.

[EphremHagos]

Redefining or Reinstating the Gospel

Let us begin by briefly looking at your questions.

The date of observance of the Resurrection, by the first Jewish Christians, coinciding with the Hebrew Passover Festival (starting on Christian “Good Friday”) can be arrived at first and foremost from the greatest significance placed by Jesus himself on his own work-based, all-inclusive timeless, and diacritical death on the cross leading simultaneously to his self-revelation still at work (Matt. 16: 13-28); Christ’s and believers’ co-resurrection concepts advocated by Paul (Eph. 2: 5-6); firsthand and personal experience of Christ’s power over death, resurrection and transformation of utterly broken lives today (e.g. mine); and historical notes in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, page 6.

What part of my statement beginning with “GOOD FRIDAY … (and ending with) “glory” did you find false? References were omitted for the sake of brevity and clarity. Otherwise, the crucifixion-based defining moment, as described, is emphasized in Matt. 16: 13-28 as well as in John 8: 21-28 among many other passages. Please examine the passages very carefully and prayerfully!

As to Resurrection on the 1st day of the week, i.e., Sunday, three literal days takes too long for showing the truth in “making Jesus perfect through suffering” and destroying the Devil and death through death (Heb. 2:10, 14-15) or for the Son of Man to go back where he was before, i.e., in glory (John 6: 62-63) or proving what Jesus said “I am the resurrection and the life”. How else would the words “Whoever believes in me will live even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die” prove true? (John 11:25-26)

All resurrection appearances proper were either on Friday or crucifixion-based days. Sunday represents empty tomb, post-resurrection appearance or “looking for the living among the dead” (Luke 24:5). The place of the living is the cross (Luke 23:43). The gospel of Jesus Christ, after all, is not without its great mystery and power reserved both for bona-fide disciples and for others who obey their mandate (Acts 2)!

To understand better the individual parts and to help drawing of long-term personal plans for better and lasting results, here are the big pictures.

As in apostolic times, there are two gospels abroad today, viz.:

1. The gospel of divine origin; and
2. The “other” gospel of human origin.

Although not immediately apparent, the distinction is real and verifiable through serious follow-up (2 Cor. 11:4; Gal. 1: 6-9, 15-18; 1 Tim. 1: 10-11).

The gospel of divine origin is based on Jesus Christ’s self-revealing works on the cross as Lord, Savior and mentor like first taught in detail to the first apostles; and later summarized and modeled for gentiles through his apostle, Paul. Such works (“God’s powerful weapons”) are identifiable and effectually applicable in evangelism for all times (John 5: 36-37; 10: 37-38; 2 Cor. 10: 4-6). The long and hard road in the Gospel of John between questionable faith based on hearsay and secure faith based on personal vision of the sovereign authority of Jesus Christ, as demonstrated once and for all at his death on the cross, is a perfect illustration (John 1: 50-51; 8: 21-28; 19: 30-37).

The other gospel is a clever counterfeit of the former and based on the claims of Jesus about himself or by others about him both completely discredited by Jesus himself as unacceptable and unnecessary (John 5: 31-35). This is exactly where the devil and his ministers can disguise themselves to look like an angel of light and servants of righteousness, respectively (2 Cor. 11: 1-15).

Therefore, my intention is not to redefine the original (God forbid!) but to expose the counterfeit.

In the gospel of divine origin, the last word is never ours!

[bc1980]

What part of my statement beginning with “GOOD FRIDAY … (and ending with) “glory” did you find false?

You originally said, "GOOD FRIDAY represents the defining moment of Jesus Christ: the "Son of the living God" or immortal --painstakingly taught in the gospel as the time when "the Son of Man (would) go back up to the place where he was before", i.e., glory".

I said, "This statement too is false. Refer to John 20:17. The Scripture "painstakingly" teaches that Jesus was resurrected on the 1st day of the week, our Sunday. As seen in John 20:17, He had not yet returned to the Father prior to this."

If you will refer to John 20:17 it says, "Jesus said, 'Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father.'"

According to your statement, the day of His crucifixion is the day Jesus returned to the Father. According to JESUS, on resurrection day (3 days later) at this occurence He had not yet returned to the Father.

One of you (you or Jesus) is wrong. I bet Jesus knew what He was talking about.

You continue to pull passages out of the hat (out of context) to build your case. It is not necessary.

The fact that Jesus must be revealed through the Spirit (Mat. 16:13-28) is not proof of your "diacritical death on the cross".

As to Resurrection on the 1st day of the week, i.e., Sunday, three literal days takes too long for showing the truth in “making Jesus perfect through suffering” and destroying the Devil and death through death (Heb. 2:10, 14-15) or for the Son of Man to go back where he was before, i.e., in glory (John 6: 62-63)

So as to not lead to confusion I copied the statement in context. Your statement, "three literal days takes too long for showing the truth," is true based on what, your opinion or Scripture? God saw fit to include Jesus' geneology, birth announcement, birth, baptism, ministry, rejection from family, abandonment of friends (disciples), trial (false accusations), beatings, crucifixion, burial, resurrection, 40 days of post resurrection appearances and sending of the Holy Spirit, all for the sake of revealing Jesus as the Son of God. If all it took was Him dying on the cross to reveal this, allot of time was wasted.

My problem is not that you are saying Jesus must be revealed, that's true. I'm glad you have seen that. My problem is you excising the gospel down to fit your limited statement, part of that statement (diacritical death on the cross) being wrongly promoted at the expense of critical elements of the Gospel being left out, i.e. Romans 1:1-4 which reads,

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God - the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

If you don't see through Paul's statement that it was Jesus' resurrection that proved Him to be the Son of God, there is nothing else I can say that will contribute to that.

[EphremHagos]

What part of my statement beginning with “GOOD FRIDAY … (and ending with) “glory” did you find false?

You originally said, "GOOD FRIDAY represents the defining moment of Jesus Christ: the "Son of the living God" or immortal --painstakingly taught in the gospel as the time when "the Son of Man (would) go back up to the place where he was before", i.e., glory".

I said, "This statement too is false. Refer to John 20:17. The Scripture "painstakingly" teaches that Jesus was resurrected on the 1st day of the week, our Sunday. As seen in John 20:17, He had not yet returned to the Father prior to this."

If you will refer to John 20:17 it says, "Jesus said, 'Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father.'"

According to your statement, the day of His crucifixion is the day Jesus returned to the Father. According to JESUS, on resurrection day (3 days later) at this occurence He had not yet returned to the Father.

One of you (you or Jesus) is wrong. I bet Jesus knew what He was talking about.

You continue to pull passages out of the hat (out of context) to build your case. It is not necessary.

The fact that Jesus must be revealed through the Spirit (Mat. 16:13-28) is not proof of your "diacritical death on the cross".

As to Resurrection on the 1st day of the week, i.e., Sunday, three literal days takes too long for showing the truth in “making Jesus perfect through suffering” and destroying the Devil and death through death (Heb. 2:10, 14-15) or for the Son of Man to go back where he was before, i.e., in glory (John 6: 62-63)

So as to not lead to confusion I copied the statement in context. Your statement, "three literal days takes too long for showing the truth," is true based on what, your opinion or Scripture? God saw fit to include Jesus' geneology, birth announcement, birth, baptism, ministry, rejection from family, abandonment of friends (disciples), trial (false accusations), beatings, crucifixion, burial, resurrection, 40 days of post resurrection appearances and sending of the Holy Spirit, all for the sake of revealing Jesus as the Son of God. If all it took was Him dying on the cross to reveal this, allot of time was wasted.

My problem is not that you are saying Jesus must be revealed, that's true. I'm glad you have seen that. My problem is you excising the gospel down to fit your limited statement, part of that statement (diacritical death on the cross) being wrongly promoted at the expense of critical elements of the Gospel being left out, i.e. Romans 1:1-4 which reads,

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God - the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

If you don't see through Paul's statement that it was Jesus' resurrection that proved Him to be the Son of God, there is nothing else I can say that will contribute to that.
FINE-DRAWING THE RESURRECTION

The depth and width of the Resurrection mystery is too big for mortals like us to comprehend in its entirety. If the overwhelming majority of the first disciples of Jesus required repeated fine-drawings over “40 days after his death” to correct gross anomalies, e.g, the women visiting the tomb (Luke 24:5); Cleopas and friend (Luke 24: 25-27); and the apostles (John 20: 8-9; Acts 1: 3-5), HOW MUCH MORE DO WE!

I wonder how many of us would satisfy the qualification for the post of “Witness to His Resurrection” vacated by Judas (Acts 1:20-21)?

For the record, our BIG DIFFERENCE lies in our definition and experience of Jesus Christ’s Resurrection: “death on the cross-based” (mine) or “empty tomb-based” (yours).

To confound matters before they clear up, the basis for own baptism and resurrection “in union with Christ” is not the latter but the former (Rom. 6: 3-4; Gal. 3:27; Col 2:12; 1 John 5:6)!

Let us call “Time Out” for further individual study!

Blessings!

[EphremHagos]

That's disappointing. Perhaps after enough people tell you how unhelpful it is, you'll reconsider.

Believe me I am more disappointed than you are!

I admit that the word "diacritical" is theologically and traditionally incorrect. Biblically, however, you will not find a more appropriate word to describe the glorious death of Jesus Christ on the cross setting in immediate motion a one-stop Gospel of God's self-revelation and firsthand knowledge by personal vision of Jesus as taught in the Gospel but completely lacking in today's gospel! Please see Rev. 5 for a much better and more complete description.

I would have doubted myself, just like you, had I not personally seen this deeply mysterious and powerfully life-transforming vision of Jesus' diacritical death from which I benefitted immensely more than 3 decades ago; and fully confirmed from Scriptures !