"First Born from the Dead"

[EphremHagos]

Without any precedent in kind whatsoever, “the first born (raised) from the dead” (Col. 1:15, 18; Rev. 1:5) is the literal and most fitting description of the divine identity of Jesus Christ, that is to say: deeply mysterious, exceedingly powerful and life-transforming vision (“light to come to"), as made publicly known at his diacritical death on the cross for people to look at whom they pierced, call his name and be saved! (John 3: 1-21; 8: 21-28; 12: 20-36; 19: 30-37; Joel 2:32 quoted in Acts 2:21)

[Michelle]

What does "diacritical death" mean?

[RBerman]

What does "diacritical death" mean?
It doesn't mean anything. If you'll search for the phrase "diacritical death" on the internet, you'll find that EH is the only person in the universe who uses it. If you'll search for that phrase on this board, you'll find several previous discussions where we begged him not to use terms that don't mean anything, but as you can see he persists.

[Michelle]

It doesn't mean anything. If you'll search for the phrase "diacritical death" on the internet, you'll find that EH is the only person in the universe who uses it. If you'll search for that phrase on this board, you'll find several previous discussions where we begged him not to use terms that don't mean anything, but as you can see he persists.

I did as you suggested and :stunned: wow, Ephrem just picks up words and uses them however he wants to, doesn't he?

[EphremHagos]

What does "diacritical death" mean?

"Diacritical death" is just a new expression for the death of Jesus Christ on the cross strictly "according to the Scriptures" (the gospels, the books of Moses and the writings of the prophets) which give Christ's death a far greater meaning than conventionally assumed. Diacritical death is a key insider expression promising us faith based on firsthand knowledge of the single, exclusive condition (John 6: 62-63) under which the VISION-based absolute authority of Jesus Christ (John 1: 47-51) is conclusively demonstrable and knowable for posterity in terms of other synonyms like "first born from the dead" (already referenced); "source of life" (John 1:4), "I Am Who I Am", i.e., self-sufficient life (John 8: 21-28), etc.

By all means test the new concept but please do not reject it outright!

[EphremHagos]

It doesn't mean anything. If you'll search for the phrase "diacritical death" on the internet, you'll find that EH is the only person in the universe who uses it. If you'll search for that phrase on this board, you'll find several previous discussions where we begged him not to use terms that don't mean anything, but as you can see he persists.

I wonder why you consider "diacritical" so offensive for the once-and-for-all, truly divinity-revealing and salvation-defining vision inherent in the death of Jesus Christ on the cross as objective basis for sustainable faith and teaching? (John 3: 1-21; 6: 43-45; 8: 21-28)

Admittedly, one has to see the vision to believe it!

[RBerman]

I wonder why you consider "diacritical" so offensive for the once-and-for-all, truly divinity-revealing and salvation-defining vision inherent in the death of Jesus Christ on the cross as objective basis for sustainable faith and teaching? (John 3: 1-21; 6: 43-45; 8: 21-28)
It doesn't offend me. It's just incorrect. "Diacritical" already has a meaning, and it's not the meaning you give above. Thus, what you say is confusing, and apparently intentionally so. Your language is a stumbling block to your meaning.

[themuzicman]

Anyone feeling gnostic?

[EphremHagos]

I did as you suggested and :stunned: wow, Ephrem just picks up words and uses them however he wants to, doesn't he?

Before you hold on too firmly to your line (quoted), reject outright what is implied in "diacritical death", and lose the greatest opportunity of seeing the open-vision of the glory of Christ in his death on the cross, (just as taught and implemented in the gospel of John), please take time to evaluate carefully the following.

Even if there is no simple way of condensing half a life time of training, it should not stop me from trying.

Independent students of the Bible, under the exclusive tutorship of Jesus Christ (Isa. 54: 13 and Jer. 31: 31-34 as quoted by the same John 6:45) of whom they have the comparative advantage of prior, firsthand and personal knowledge based on mysterious, powerful and life-transforming vision centered on his death on the cross, have the promise of more insight and understanding of "the secrets of the Kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 13: 10-17).

Until further refined, diacritical death expresses the bipolarity between "God's life-giving Spirit" and the utter uselessness of the "flesh" as can be observed in visions of the death of Jesus Christ on the cross "according to the Scriptures" which, fyi, have an identical benchmark in the self-sufficient fire coming from the middle of a bush complete with name ("I Am Who I Am") and a parallel promise for posterity. I hope you get the drift.

For the common good, therefore, questions and comments will be more constructive than objections and rejections!

GOD BLESS YOU!

[themuzicman]

Personally, I think we should identify it as an illogical death, where illogical means that you gave yourself for someone who isn't a friend.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

Stop redefining words.

[Michelle]

Before you hold on too firmly to your line (quoted), reject outright what is implied in "diacritical death", and lose the greatest opportunity of seeing the open-vision of the glory of Christ in his death on the cross, (just as taught and implemented in the gospel of John), please take time to evaluate carefully the following.

Even if there is no simple way of condensing half a life time of training, it should not stop me from trying.

Independent students of the Bible, under the exclusive tutorship of Jesus Christ (Isa. 54: 13 and Jer. 31: 31-34 as quoted by the same John 6:45) of whom they have the comparative advantage of prior, firsthand and personal knowledge based on mysterious, powerful and life-transforming vision centered on his death on the cross, have the promise of more insight and understanding of "the secrets of the Kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 13: 10-17).

Until further refined, diacritical death expresses the bipolarity between "God's life-giving Spirit" and the utter uselessness of the "flesh" as can be observed in visions of the death of Jesus Christ on the cross "according to the Scriptures" which, fyi, have an identical benchmark in the self-sufficient fire coming from the middle of a bush complete with name ("I Am Who I Am") and a parallel promise for posterity. I hope you get the drift.

For the common good, therefore, questions and comments will be more constructive than objections and rejections!

GOD BLESS YOU!

Tell me, Ephrem, how have you benefitted from this vision you've had? Or, should I say visions, since I'm not sure if you're talking about a one-off or if it's an ongoing, multiple occurring experience?

What is an open-vision? Is it in contrast to a closed-vision?

Why, oh why, did you pick the word diacritical to describe Christ's death? That word already has a meaning. Why didn't you just make up a new word altogether?

[EphremHagos]

Anyone feeling gnostic?

Certainly not me! In any case, here is for all of us some food-for-thought right out of the Lord's mouth.

According to the blueprint and construction of the Church of Worship of the one true God by Jesus Christ and the power of God's Spirit (Matt. 16: 13-28; 27: 50-56), there is no room, whatsoever, for any religious divisions and barriers including Samaritanism and Judaism (John 4: 19-26) let alone gnosticism.

[EphremHagos]

It doesn't offend me. It's just incorrect. "Diacritical" already has a meaning, and it's not the meaning you give above. Thus, what you say is confusing, and apparently intentionally so. Your language is a stumbling block to your meaning.

Whoever you are, you have no right to be so presumptious and condescending!

[themuzicman]

Without any precedent in kind whatsoever, “the first born (raised) from the dead” (Col. 1:15, 18; Rev. 1:5) is the literal and most fitting description of the divine identity of Jesus Christ, that is to say: deeply mysterious, exceedingly powerful and life-transforming vision (“light to come to"), as made publicly known at his diacritical death on the cross for people to look at whom they pierced, call his name and be saved! (John 3: 1-21; 8: 21-28; 12: 20-36; 19: 30-37; Joel 2:32 quoted in Acts 2:21)

Are you saying that Christ isn't co-eternal with God?

[RBerman]

Whoever you are, you have no right to be so presumptious and condescending!
No condescension intended. I'm not the only one around here who finds your invented use of the word "diacritical" confusing. It just doesn't mean what you say it means.

[bc1980]

Independent students of the Bible, under the exclusive tutorship of Jesus Christ (Isa. 54: 13 and Jer. 31: 31-34 as quoted by the same John 6:45) of whom they have the comparative advantage of prior, firsthand and personal knowledge based on mysterious, powerful and life-transforming vision centered on his death on the cross, have the promise of more insight and understanding of "the secrets of the Kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 13: 10-17).

Until further refined, diacritical death expresses the bipolarity between "God's life-giving Spirit" and the utter uselessness of the "flesh" as can be observed in visions of the death of Jesus Christ on the cross "according to the Scriptures" which, fyi, have an identical benchmark in the self-sufficient fire coming from the middle of a bush complete with name ("I Am Who I Am") and a parallel promise for posterity. I hope you get the drift.

For the common good, therefore, questions and comments will be more constructive than objections and rejections!

Your doctrinal confessions and the words you use in them do not bring clarity, which is the point of doctrinal confessions to begin with. You are continuously throwing in words that cloud the issue instead of clarifying it such as diacritical, vision-centered, etc.

Such words are thrown in by you and are not Scriptural at all. No where do you find in Scripture that one must have a vision of Christ to be saved.

You have been shown over and over that your words are inaccurate, at best.

For the common good, therefore, questions and comments will be more constructive than objections and rejections

What are you saying? Are you wanting us to swallow your rhetoric hook, line and sinker with no objections? We ask the questions. We made the comments.

You have received numerous objections from numerous people to your inaccurate use of these words, but you refuse to take to heart any of them.

Objections and rejections are appropriate when presented with objectionable and rejectionable material.

For 2000 years the Gospel of the Kingdom of God and Jesus Christ have survived and been powerful unto the salvation of man without the use of such descriptions. Why start now, especially when they are wrong?

Let's preach the good news with clarity without the use of such divisive, inaccurate words that serve no purpose.

[Michelle]

Before you hold on too firmly to your line (quoted), reject outright what is implied in "diacritical death", and lose the greatest opportunity of seeing the open-vision of the glory of Christ in his death on the cross, (just as taught and implemented in the gospel of John), please take time to evaluate carefully the following.

Even if there is no simple way of condensing half a life time of training, it should not stop me from trying.

Independent students of the Bible, under the exclusive tutorship of Jesus Christ (Isa. 54: 13 and Jer. 31: 31-34 as quoted by the same John 6:45) of whom they have the comparative advantage of prior, firsthand and personal knowledge based on mysterious, powerful and life-transforming vision centered on his death on the cross, have the promise of more insight and understanding of "the secrets of the Kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 13: 10-17).

Until further refined, diacritical death expresses the bipolarity between "God's life-giving Spirit" and the utter uselessness of the "flesh" as can be observed in visions of the death of Jesus Christ on the cross "according to the Scriptures" which, fyi, have an identical benchmark in the self-sufficient fire coming from the middle of a bush complete with name ("I Am Who I Am") and a parallel promise for posterity. I hope you get the drift.

For the common good, therefore, questions and comments will be more constructive than objections and rejections!

GOD BLESS YOU!
Thanks, God bless you, as well.

Your admonition to ask questions and make comments because they are more constructive than objections and rejections took me aback, so I asked some questions. Perhaps they seemed like veiled objections or rejections, but I really just wanted to get some insight into what you're trying to tell people. You ignored them. :frown: Here they are again. Honestly, I just want to know...

Tell me, Ephrem, how have you benefitted from this vision you've had? Or, should I say visions, since I'm not sure if you're talking about a one-off or if it's an ongoing, multiple occurring experience?

What is an open-vision? Is it in contrast to a closed-vision?

Why, oh why, did you pick the word diacritical to describe Christ's death? That word already has a meaning. Why didn't you just make up a new word altogether?

[Bernie]

I'm not the only one around here who finds your invented use of the word "diacritical" confusing. It just doesn't mean what you say it means.
I've said this before, EH, if you will play the 'good ole boy club' game with them, they'll let you define terms all the day long.

Redefining terms for clarity in expressing a particular point of view is fairly common among scholars, and is one's peers generally graciously concede this to the redefiner as long as he maintains consistency of definition throughout his text. But the fact that you have been faithful to this rule means nothing if aren't willing to play by club rules. I'm quite sure you're aware of this, though, and I'd personally consider the integrity of your posts degaded if you relented and bowed to their pressure. Let 'em keep on taking shots at you whilst maintaining your typical charitable demeanor. Makes It easy to see in whom Christ shines more brightly....and how serious they are in their search for truth.

[Michelle]

I've said this before, EH, if you will play the 'good ole boy club' game with them, they'll let you define terms all the day long.

Redefining terms for clarity in expressing a particular point of view is fairly common among scholars, and is one's peers generally graciously concede this to the redefiner as long as he maintains consistency of definition throughout his text. But the fact that you have been faithful to this rule means nothing if aren't willing to play by club rules. I'm quite sure you're aware of this, though, and I'd personally consider the integrity of your posts degaded if you relented and bowed to their pressure. Let 'em keep on taking shots at you whilst maintaining your typical charitable demeanor. Makes It easy to see in whom Christ shines more brightly....and how serious they are in their search for truth.

Well, Bernie, perhaps you can point me to the place where Ephrem explained his terms, why he chose to use those words, and what they mean according to his own definitions. I agree with you that he's been consistent in his use, I just cannot understand what it is he's trying to get across.

[RBerman]

I think that comment was directed at me, Michelle. Bernie is bitter that I told him that fundamentalist Christians are not universalists. He wants to self-identify as a fundamentalist universalist because he believes a certain subset of what fundmentalists believe, as well as believing something else highly offensive to fundamentalists.

[Michelle]

I think that comment was directed at me, Michelle. Bernie is bitter that I told him that fundamentalist Christians are not universalists. He wants to self-identify as a fundamentalist universalist because he believes a certain subset of what fundmentalists believe, as well as believing something else highly offensive to fundamentalists.

I had a feeling that I'd stepped into a scene where I didn't know the players parts and I didn't know the nuances of the well-rehearsed lines that were being thrown out. Still, I'd like to know the definitions. :shrug: Otherwise, why bother posting?

Well, I take that back. I can imagine some reasons for posting, other than to bring enlightenment, but wouldn't it be nice to at least try?

[Bernie]

I had a feeling that I'd stepped into a scene where I didn't know the players parts and I didn't know the nuances of the well-rehearsed lines that were being thrown out.
Your feeling is misplaced and RBs nonsense likely arises from the fact that I quoted his post rather than anothers'. In fact, my comments were directed to all the uncharitable posters from the good ole boy's Christianity club here who repeatedly give EH a hard time. Didn't intend to single out RB, simply used a comment from his post as a model of all the clubbers' bitter commentary.

Well, Bernie, perhaps you can point me to the place where Ephrem explained his terms, why he chose to use those words, and what they mean according to his own definitions.
Sure…maybe you missed it.

Until further refined, diacritical death expresses the bipolarity between "God's life-giving Spirit" and the utter uselessness of the "flesh" as can be observed in visions of the death of Jesus Christ on the cross "according to the Scriptures"

[themuzicman]

Which is also known as Gnosticism, a heresy of syncretism between Greek Paganism and Christianity, where the "flesh" (body, the material world) is bad, useless, meaningless, and the "spirit" (the ethereal) is good, useful, and worthy of our focus.

Of course, the church has rejected this entire philosophy, as mankind was created both flesh AND spirit, and both were "very good."

Since the rest of the argument is based upon this faulty foundation, it is rejected.

(In fact, I'm pretty sure you'll see a rejection of bodily resurrection forthcoming.)

[Michelle]

Your feeling is misplaced and RBs nonsense likely arises from the fact that I quoted his post rather than anothers'. In fact, my comments were directed to all the uncharitable posters from the good ole boy's Christianity club here who repeatedly give EH a hard time. Didn't intend to single out RB, simply used a comment from his post as a model of all the clubbers' bitter commentary.
So you used RBerman and his quote to stand for the whole "club" and, in fact, there is (in your mind at least) a "club" to be represented, but my feeling is misplaced, and RB shouldn't take what you said personally? Do I really give the impression that I'm that ditzy?


Sure…maybe you missed it.
I did miss that, thanks for pointing it out. It's gnosticism, it's heretical, and I do reject it out of hand.

[Bernie]

It's gnosticism, it's heretical, and I do reject it out of hand.

Which is also known as Gnosticism, a heresy of syncretism between Greek Paganism and Christianity, where the "flesh" (body, the material world) is bad, useless, meaningless, and the "spirit" (the ethereal) is good, useful, and worthy of our focus.

Of course, the church has rejected this entire philosophy, as mankind was created both flesh AND spirit, and both were "very good."

Since the rest of the argument is based upon this faulty foundation, it is rejected.

.....they declared with finality, brushing the dust from their hands and clothes. "C'mon, guys, lets get on down to the waterin' hole. I'm thinkin' Jesus will be a mite proud of the way we dispatched that there gnostic fellow, without even an intelligent argument! Betcha He'll buy us a cold beer and we can drink to to the downin' of yet another vampire!"

[Michelle]

.....they declared with finality, brushing the dust from their hands and clothes. "C'mon, guys, lets get on down to the waterin' hole. I'm thinkin' Jesus will be a mite proud of the way we dispatched that there gnostic fellow, without even an intelligent argument! Betcha He'll buy us a cold beer and we can drink to to the downin' of yet another vampire!"

You're saying that like it's a bad thing. :shrug: I'm sure Ephrem is just fine, and I'm sure our opinions roll off his back like water off a duck. Ephrem doesn't seem to desire discourse, he just wants to keep throwing out his obscure language.

[EphremHagos]

Attention: Michelle

Michelle, Thank you very much for your comments!
In the context of the insurmountable differences between the “haves” and “have-nots” which, as explained in Matt. 13: 10-17, can only be overcome, not through discourse (hearsay), but by firsthand and personal “knowledge of the secrets of the Kingdom of heaven” or the “identity of Jesus Christ” --two terms synonymously used throughout Scriptures beginning in John 3: 1-3—I can only give you some pointers. With European, tertiary level education and degree in Empirical Research in the Social Sciences, I can assure you that what appears “obscure “in my postings, therefore, is neither my language nor my faculty of thinking but the substance of the mystery of divinity itself which can only be understood and accepted through firsthand and personal vision of God as provided for in Scriptures.
Here are three specific pointers:
1. I use the adjective “diacritical” to describe the death of Jesus Christ on the cross in the same way a phonetic mark added to a letter indicates a change in the way it is to be pronounced or stressed. Therefore, the following are the diacritics in the death of the subject and even His followers:
• The here-and-now, knowable and life-transforming presence of “I Am Who I Am”, or God Almighty, the Father as self-sufficient life in the crucified Jesus directly reinterpreting the self-sufficient fire or flame coming from the middle of a bush on fire but not burning up (Ex. 3: 1-15; John 8: 21-28) –this is where the women should have looked for “the living” not among the dead (Luke 24: 1-7);
• Baptism in the Holy Spirit (John 14: 1-25; 16: 1-15); and, as a consequence,
• “Life even in death” or immortality for whoever believes and lives in Jesus as the “resurrection and the life” (John 11: 25-26)
2. “Open-vision”, as posted in another thread, is the climax of God’s self-revelation in the death of Jesus Christ according to the Scriptures of Moses and the writings of the prophets. On the latter, it is sufficient to look at the terms of the “new covenant” especially, Jer. 31: 34, “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.” Jesus’ questioning of Nathanael’s confession of faith based on hearsay and advocating instead another, i.e., faith based on vision of His absolute authority (John 1: 47-51) to be defined later, in principle and practice, in terms of Jesus’ absolute authority over death and life (John 10: 17-18; 19: 30-37) is worth noting and serious investigation.
3. Therefore, the indicative but not exhaustive list of benefits of vision are:
• Knowing Jesus Christ, firsthand and personally, as basis of sustainable and growing faith by itself;
• A second chance or brand new life, i.e., “being born again” strictly by crucifixion-based prescription (John 3: 1-21); and
• Being taught exclusively by God (John 6:45) the secrets of the Kingdom of heaven; and
• “life in all its fullness” (John 10:10)

[EphremHagos]

Personally, I think we should identify it as an illogical death, where illogical means that you gave yourself for someone who isn't a friend.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

Stop redefining words.

If the death of Jesus Christ appears “illogical” to you personally, please reexamine the evidence.
Scripturally, nothing could be further from the truth! On the basis of the following work-based, hard evidence, one can literally portray the “perfect death” and the mother-of-all- “born from the dead” (see “final work” below).
On the ticket of “perfect death”, one can see Jesus in full control of all the following preliminary works:
1. Fixing the day of his death (Matt. 26: 1-5);
2. Fixing the hour of his death --in advance (John 12:27);
3. Self-identification for arrest (John 18: 1-9);
4. Self-surrender for arrest (John 18: 12-14);
5. Self-incrimination for death sentencing (Matt. 26: 57-68; John 18: 19-24); and
6. Waiver of right of appeal (John 19: 8-16).
The final work of baptism in the Holy Spirit (John 14: 15-21; 16: 5-15) reveals the identity of Jesus Christ for firsthand, personal and saving knowledge by one and all in terms of:
1. Jesus’ absolute authority over death (Matt. 27:50; John 19:30) and
2. His absolute authority over life (Matt. 27: 51-56; John 19: 31-37).
The real reason why Jesus went to such an extent of perfection can be gauged only by fine-drawing the death of Jesus Christ on the cross with what is defined, developed and promised in the “weightier matters of the Law” of the books of Moses and the writings of the prophets, viz.: the sealing of the “new covenant” in the long promised, once and for all self-revelation of God in Jesus Christ’s same-day resurrection par excellence!
Please do not take my word for it. It is there to be checked out by one and all!

[Godservant]

I haven't even read this and I know the answer is:

YES YOU CAN SPELL J E S U S SPELLED O U T

[Michelle]

If the death of Jesus Christ appears “illogical” to you personally, please reexamine the evidence.
Scripturally, nothing could be further from the truth! On the basis of the following work-based, hard evidence, one can literally portray the “perfect death” and the mother-of-all- “born from the dead” (see “final work” below).
On the ticket of “perfect death”, one can see Jesus in full control of all the following preliminary works:
1. Fixing the day of his death (Matt. 26: 1-5);
2. Fixing the hour of his death --in advance (John 12:27);
3. Self-identification for arrest (John 18: 1-9);
4. Self-surrender for arrest (John 18: 12-14);
5. Self-incrimination for death sentencing (Matt. 26: 57-68; John 18: 19-24); and
6. Waiver of right of appeal (John 19: 8-16).
The final work of baptism in the Holy Spirit (John 14: 15-21; 16: 5-15) reveals the identity of Jesus Christ for firsthand, personal and saving knowledge by one and all in terms of:
1. Jesus’ absolute authority over death (Matt. 27:50; John 19:30) and
2. His absolute authority over life (Matt. 27: 51-56; John 19: 31-37).
The real reason why Jesus went to such an extent of perfection can be gauged only by fine-drawing the death of Jesus Christ on the cross with what is defined, developed and promised in the “weightier matters of the Law” of the books of Moses and the writings of the prophets, viz.: the sealing of the “new covenant” in the long promised, once and for all self-revelation of God in Jesus Christ’s same-day resurrection par excellence!
Please do not take my word for it. It is there to be checked out by one and all!

Same-day resurrection, eh? What does that mean?

[EphremHagos]

Attention: the muzicman

“FIRST BORN FROM THE DEAD”
The expression (Col. 1:15; Rev. 1:5) is a most fitting description of Christ’s death on the cross, as a standard, working demonstration of Christ’s once-and-for-all self-revelation in his immortality according to the Scriptures. Therefore, there is no shadow of doubt expressed.
GNOSTICISM
Gnosticism, I neither know nor care about! My sole guides are the following insightful and anticipatory words of Jesus to which the care we take how we listen is the precondition for our seeing the light or vision (Luke 8: 16-18). Only the latter are in my vocabulary.
John 6
62. “Suppose, then, that you should SEE the Son of Man go back up to the place where he was before? (Emphasis mine)
63. What gives life is God’s Spirit; man’s power is of no use at all. The words I have spoken to you are Spirit and life”.

[EphremHagos]

Your doctrinal confessions and the words you use in them do not bring clarity, which is the point of doctrinal confessions to begin with. You are continuously throwing in words that cloud the issue instead of clarifying it such as diacritical, vision-centered, etc.

Such words are thrown in by you and are not Scriptural at all. No where do you find in Scripture that one must have a vision of Christ to be saved.

You have been shown over and over that your words are inaccurate, at best.

For the common good, therefore, questions and comments will be more constructive than objections and rejections

What are you saying? Are you wanting us to swallow your rhetoric hook, line and sinker with no objections? We ask the questions. We made the comments.

You have received numerous objections from numerous people to your inaccurate use of these words, but you refuse to take to heart any of them.

Objections and rejections are appropriate when presented with objectionable and rejectionable material.

For 2000 years the Gospel of the Kingdom of God and Jesus Christ have survived and been powerful unto the salvation of man without the use of such descriptions. Why start now, especially when they are wrong?

Let's preach the good news with clarity without the use of such divisive, inaccurate words that serve no purpose.

The following is a clarification of what I wrote (not a defense of what I didn’t).
I did not use any “doctrinal confessions”, did I? In fact, I am against such confessions which are, in Spirit and letter, completely unscriptural and contrary to the terms of the “new covenant” (Jer. 31: 31-34) and the teaching of Jesus Christ.
As first taught by Jesus Christ, witnessed by the first Apostles on the Day of Pentecost, extended to Gentiles through the Apostle Paul and documented for posterity, the basic purpose of the gospel is an experiential, standard knowledge of Jesus Christ, based on firsthand and personal visions of his divine identity, originating from a series of single-handed works culminating in self-revelation of His absolute authority over death and life right on the cross!
The following are basic specific references, full of promises of vision of the absolute authority of Jesus Christ, serving as starting point, i.e., in the first days of Discipleship Training.
“Do you believe just because I told you I saw you when you were under the fig-tree”? … “You will see much greater things than this! I am telling you the truth: you will see heaven open and God’s angels going up and coming down on the Son of Man.” John 1: 50-51
“Where there is no vision, the people perish” (Prov. 29:18) is a forerunner of the modus operandi of “HOW THE JUDGMENT WORKS”, viz.:
“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
Finally, the promise of knowing Jesus Christ, as the “I Am Who I Am”, i.e., God Almighty or “the Father” (Ex. 3: 1-15) at his death on the cross (John 8: 21-28) is fulfilled by “People will look at him whom they pierced.” John 19:37 and vision of “A Lamb standing in the centre of the throne … appeared to have been killed … having the seven Spirits of God sent throughout the whole earth … with power, wealth, wisdom and strength, honor, glory and praise!” Rev. 5: 6 ff
AMEN! Or ?

[themuzicman]

Attention: the muzicman

“FIRST BORN FROM THE DEAD”
The expression (Col. 1:15; Rev. 1:5) is a most fitting description of Christ’s death on the cross, as a standard, working demonstration of Christ’s once-and-for-all self-revelation in his immortality according to the Scriptures. Therefore, there is no shadow of doubt expressed.

"First born from the dead" refers to Christ's resurrection, not his death.

GNOSTICISM
Gnosticism, I neither know nor care about! My sole guides are the following insightful and anticipatory words of Jesus to which the care we take how we listen is the precondition for our seeing the light or vision (Luke 8: 16-18). Only the latter are in my vocabulary.

The problem is that your interpretation along with your philosophical and exegetical backgrounds are taking you down an old and well traveled path known as GNOSTICISM or PLATONISM. Both are heretical.

John 6
62. “Suppose, then, that you should SEE the Son of Man go back up to the place where he was before? (Emphasis mine)
63. What gives life is God’s Spirit; man’s power is of no use at all. The words I have spoken to you are Spirit and life”.

Your translation needs a little work.

[EphremHagos]

No condescension intended. I'm not the only one around here who finds your invented use of the word "diacritical" confusing. It just doesn't mean what you say it means.

It is better to evaluate "diacritical death" on its own merit rather than taking polls.

[themuzicman]

And since it has no merit.. end of story.

[EphremHagos]

.....they declared with finality, brushing the dust from their hands and clothes. "C'mon, guys, lets get on down to the waterin' hole. I'm thinkin' Jesus will be a mite proud of the way we dispatched that there gnostic fellow, without even an intelligent argument! Betcha He'll buy us a cold beer and we can drink to to the downin' of yet another vampire!"
Even if there is no substitute for a hard time to test one's thoughts and faith, one dissenting kind word should be for us humans a source of praise to God (Matt. 12: 25-26). God bless you!

[bc1980]

The following is a clarification of what I wrote (not a defense of what I didn’t).
I did not use any “doctrinal confessions”, did I? In fact, I am against such confessions which are, in Spirit and letter, completely unscriptural and contrary to the terms of the “new covenant” (Jer. 31: 31-34) and the teaching of Jesus Christ.

Just like theology, everybody has doctrinal confessions. Doctrinal confessions are summaries of what you believe. Everything you are writing IS "YOUR" doctrinal confessions.

As first taught by Jesus Christ, witnessed by the first Apostles on the Day of Pentecost, extended to Gentiles through the Apostle Paul and documented for posterity, the basic purpose of the gospel is an experiential, standard knowledge of Jesus Christ, based on firsthand and personal visions of his divine identity, originating from a series of single-handed works culminating in self-revelation of His absolute authority over death and life right on the cross!

I have no problem with this statement until it gets to the part that I underlined. At that point you depart from the truth.

The following are basic specific references, full of promises of vision of the absolute authority of Jesus Christ, serving as starting point, i.e., in the first days of Discipleship Training.

“Do you believe just because I told you I saw you when you were under the fig-tree”? … “You will see much greater things than this! I am telling you the truth: you will see heaven open and God’s angels going up and coming down on the Son of Man.” John 1: 50-51

Don't forget to add some context to your quote. Anyone can pull text out of context to make it say what they want it to say.


49 Then Nathanael declared, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel.”
50 Jesus said, “You believe because I told you I saw you under the fig tree. You shall see greater things than that.” 51 He then added, “I tell you the truth, you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.” John 1:49-51

Jesus was speaking to Nathanael. That does not mean you will see heaven open also. Jesus also told Peter how he would die. Do you want to apply Peter's crucifixion promise to you also.

In better context of how people are saved let's use one that is contextually accurate.

20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23 I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. John 17:20-23

Jesus was praying for his disciples (the 11). Then He included a prayer for "those that would believe in Jesus through the apostle's message." That is through "hearing" the Gospel. It promises no visions. The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation, not visions.

“Where there is no vision, the people perish” (Prov. 29:18) is a forerunner of the modus operandi of “HOW THE JUDGMENT WORKS”, viz.:

This is terrible exegesis! The CONTEXT is not about having "visions". It is speaking of "revelation" or "guidance from God" versus living "lawlessly".

the modus operandi of “HOW THE JUDGMENT WORKS”, viz:

“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

No problem.

Finally, the promise of knowing Jesus Christ, as the “I Am Who I Am”, i.e., God Almighty or “the Father” (Ex. 3: 1-15) at his death on the cross (John 8: 21-28) is fulfilled by “People will look at him whom they pierced.” John 19:37 and vision of “A Lamb standing in the centre of the throne … appeared to have been killed … having the seven Spirits of God sent throughout the whole earth … with power, wealth, wisdom and strength, honor, glory and praise!” Rev. 5: 6 ff
AMEN! Or ?

Why do you have to make it so complicated? Why not say something like, "We know Jesus is God, He died for our sins and rose from the grave, and He is now seated on His throne at the right hand of the Father in Heaven." You don't have to have a vision to believe this, all you have to do is hear it declared and believe.

I know it doesn't have the pizzazz of the way you put it, but it's not confusing.

If you would replace "vision" with "revelation" or "guidance of the Holy Spirit", I believe most people would get off your back on this point. Language can simplify or it can confuse.

Jesus spoke in parables to the hard-hearted. When He spoke to His disciples He explained everything. When He sent His disciples to preach the Gospel, He did not tell them to speak in parables. Look at how the Epistles are written. They wanted to clarify the Gospel, not code it.

You seem very passionate about Jesus, but you are fighting the way God layed out for the church to work.

You seem to imply that you don't need teachers or anybody's help. That totally goes against the Scriptures as layed out in Ephesians 4:11-15, which is written under the context of the New Covenant.

11 It was he (Jesus) who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12 to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.
14 Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. 15 Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ.

There are many good Bible teachers out there. There are some guys on TWEB that I respect very much. Listen to them. Glean from them. Submit your beliefs to somebody. Even Paul did that. If you don't you may very well run your race in vain.

[Pilgrim]

The following is a clarification of what I wrote (not a defense of what I didn’t).
I did not use any “doctrinal confessions”, did I? In fact, I am against such confessions which are, in Spirit and letter, completely unscriptural and contrary to the terms of the “new covenant” (Jer. 31: 31-34) and the teaching of Jesus Christ.
As first taught by Jesus Christ, witnessed by the first Apostles on the Day of Pentecost, extended to Gentiles through the Apostle Paul and documented for posterity, the basic purpose of the gospel is an experiential, standard knowledge of Jesus Christ, based on firsthand and personal visions of his divine identity, originating from a series of single-handed works culminating in self-revelation of His absolute authority over death and life right on the cross!
The following are basic specific references, full of promises of vision of the absolute authority of Jesus Christ, serving as starting point, i.e., in the first days of Discipleship Training.
“Do you believe just because I told you I saw you when you were under the fig-tree”? … “You will see much greater things than this! I am telling you the truth: you will see heaven open and God’s angels going up and coming down on the Son of Man.” John 1: 50-51
“Where there is no vision, the people perish” (Prov. 29:18) is a forerunner of the modus operandi of “HOW THE JUDGMENT WORKS”, viz.:
“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
Finally, the promise of knowing Jesus Christ, as the “I Am Who I Am”, i.e., God Almighty or “the Father” (Ex. 3: 1-15) at his death on the cross (John 8: 21-28) is fulfilled by “People will look at him whom they pierced.” John 19:37 and vision of “A Lamb standing in the centre of the throne … appeared to have been killed … having the seven Spirits of God sent throughout the whole earth … with power, wealth, wisdom and strength, honor, glory and praise!” Rev. 5: 6 ff
AMEN! Or ?

No more unscriptural than is writing what you believe (your confession) on an internet discussion board.

[EphremHagos]

No more unscriptural than is writing what you believe (your confession) on an internet discussion board.

Of course, it is easier to deny something without disproving it. Where is the evidence to the contrary? Where is the serious debate in TheologyWeb?

[EphremHagos]

"First born from the dead" refers to Christ's resurrection, not his death.
I am sorry that you miss my point completely! According to the books of Moses, the writings of the prophets and the teaching in the gospels, the resurrection of Jesus Christ --strictly defined as the final self-revelation of God to man-- is embedded right in His death on the cross, i.e., the place where we should be looking for "the living".


The problem is that your interpretation along with your philosophical and exegetical backgrounds are taking you down an old and well traveled path known as GNOSTICISM or PLATONISM. Both are heretical.

GOD-RELIANCE personified by the "tree of life" (first herald of the cross of Christ) is wholly incompatible with man's SELF-RELIANCE in philosophy and exegesis personified by the "tree of knowledge of what is good and what is bad" (Gen. 2: 8-3).





Your translation needs a little work.

Please share the benefit of your wisdom with the BIBLE SOCIETIES which are responsible for the Good News Bible in Today's English Version --my preferred Bible translation!

[bc1980]

Of course, it is easier to deny something without disproving it. Where is the evidence to the contrary? Where is the serious debate in TheologyWeb?

Try answering post #37. Try paying attention to guys that have debated you over and over. You ignore the clear passages that contradict what you say and reinterpret definitions of words to make them fit your poor theology.

We are waiting for you to do "serious debate" instead of throwing out your doctrinal confession and ignoring the serious amount of evidence against them.

[Pilgrim]

Please share the benefit of your wisdom with the BIBLE SOCIETIES which are responsible for the Good News Bible in Today's English Version --my preferred Bible translation!

Just because you prefer it doesn't mean its the best translation.

[RumTumTugger]

Just because you prefer it doesn't mean its the best translation.

uh isn't the Good News Bible a paraphrase?

[EphremHagos]

The following is a clarification of what I wrote (not a defense of what I didn’t).
I did not use any “doctrinal confessions”, did I? In fact, I am against such confessions which are, in Spirit and letter, completely unscriptural and contrary to the terms of the “new covenant” (Jer. 31: 31-34) and the teaching of Jesus Christ.

Just like theology, everybody has doctrinal confessions. Doctrinal confessions are summaries of what you believe. Everything you are writing IS "YOUR" doctrinal confessions.

As first taught by Jesus Christ, witnessed by the first Apostles on the Day of Pentecost, extended to Gentiles through the Apostle Paul and documented for posterity, the basic purpose of the gospel is an experiential, standard knowledge of Jesus Christ, based on firsthand and personal visions of his divine identity, originating from a series of single-handed works culminating in self-revelation of His absolute authority over death and life right on the cross!

I have no problem with this statement until it gets to the part that I underlined. At that point you depart from the truth.

The following are basic specific references, full of promises of vision of the absolute authority of Jesus Christ, serving as starting point, i.e., in the first days of Discipleship Training.

“Do you believe just because I told you I saw you when you were under the fig-tree”? … “You will see much greater things than this! I am telling you the truth: you will see heaven open and God’s angels going up and coming down on the Son of Man.” John 1: 50-51

Don't forget to add some context to your quote. Anyone can pull text out of context to make it say what they want it to say.


49 Then Nathanael declared, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel.”
50 Jesus said, “You believe because I told you I saw you under the fig tree. You shall see greater things than that.” 51 He then added, “I tell you the truth, you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.” John 1:49-51

Jesus was speaking to Nathanael. That does not mean you will see heaven open also. Jesus also told Peter how he would die. Do you want to apply Peter's crucifixion promise to you also.

In better context of how people are saved let's use one that is contextually accurate.

20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23 I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. John 17:20-23

Jesus was praying for his disciples (the 11). Then He included a prayer for "those that would believe in Jesus through the apostle's message." That is through "hearing" the Gospel. It promises no visions. The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation, not visions.

“Where there is no vision, the people perish” (Prov. 29:18) is a forerunner of the modus operandi of “HOW THE JUDGMENT WORKS”, viz.:

This is terrible exegesis! The CONTEXT is not about having "visions". It is speaking of "revelation" or "guidance from God" versus living "lawlessly".

the modus operandi of “HOW THE JUDGMENT WORKS”, viz:

“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

No problem.

Finally, the promise of knowing Jesus Christ, as the “I Am Who I Am”, i.e., God Almighty or “the Father” (Ex. 3: 1-15) at his death on the cross (John 8: 21-28) is fulfilled by “People will look at him whom they pierced.” John 19:37 and vision of “A Lamb standing in the centre of the throne … appeared to have been killed … having the seven Spirits of God sent throughout the whole earth … with power, wealth, wisdom and strength, honor, glory and praise!” Rev. 5: 6 ff
AMEN! Or ?

Why do you have to make it so complicated? Why not say something like, "We know Jesus is God, He died for our sins and rose from the grave, and He is now seated on His throne at the right hand of the Father in Heaven." You don't have to have a vision to believe this, all you have to do is hear it declared and believe.

I know it doesn't have the pizzazz of the way you put it, but it's not confusing.

If you would replace "vision" with "revelation" or "guidance of the Holy Spirit", I believe most people would get off your back on this point. Language can simplify or it can confuse.

Jesus spoke in parables to the hard-hearted. When He spoke to His disciples He explained everything. When He sent His disciples to preach the Gospel, He did not tell them to speak in parables. Look at how the Epistles are written. They wanted to clarify the Gospel, not code it.

You seem very passionate about Jesus, but you are fighting the way God layed out for the church to work.

You seem to imply that you don't need teachers or anybody's help. That totally goes against the Scriptures as layed out in Ephesians 4:11-15, which is written under the context of the New Covenant.

11 It was he (Jesus) who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12 to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.
14 Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. 15 Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ.

There are many good Bible teachers out there. There are some guys on TWEB that I respect very much. Listen to them. Glean from them. Submit your beliefs to somebody. Even Paul did that. If you don't you may very well run your race in vain.

Thank you for your advice!

For the privilege of seeing the vision and knowing Jesus Christ, firsthand and personally, as promised (Jer. 31: 31-34), prescribed (John 8: 21-28) and given (Ibid, 19: 30-37), I have found a perfectly matching cross to His for carrying as I follow Him at any cost.

Is there any other kind of cross for the cause of Christ?

[37818]

Diacritical
DIACRITICAL, a. [Gr., to separate.] That separates or distinguishes; distinctive; as a diacritical point or mark.

The short vowel is never signified by any diacritical mark.
______________________________________________

Chirst's death did separate Him from all others. And was distictive in nature. (John 19:30.) Seeing Christ died physically of His own volition (John 10:18.) Having already completed the task of paying for our sins (John 19:28, 30) before He physcially died. And as evidence that He was the Son of God (Romans 1:4), He rose from the dead, being the firstborn of many brethern (Romans 8:29} being the firstborn from the dead (Colossians 1:18.)

[NormATive]

"A diacritical mark or diacritic, sometimes called an accent mark, is a mark added to a letter to alter a word's pronunciation (ie. vowel marks) or to distinguish between similar words. The word derives from the Greek word διακριτικός (diakritikos, distinguishing). Note that diacritic is a noun and diacritical is the corresponding adjective."Actually, when you consider the broader definition of the word diacritical, and apply it as Ephrem has, well; it works for me!

Good lord, do you know how many words Shakespeare created?

Here's the short list:

accommodation
aerial
amazement
apostrophe
assassination
auspicious
baseless
bloody
bump
castigate
changeful
clangor
control (noun)
countless
courtship
critic
critical
dexterously
dishearten
dislocate
dwindle
eventful
exposure
fitful
frugal
generous
gloomy
gnarled
hurry
impartial
inauspicious
indistinguishable
invulnerable
lapse
laughable
lonely
majestic
misplaced
monumental
multitudinous
obscene
palmy
perusal
pious
premeditated
radiance
reliance
road
sanctimonious
seamy
sportive
submerge
suspicious


Have you ever used the word "chortle" to describe a small laugh? Lewis Carroll invented that word by combining chuckle and snort in the book Through the Looking Glass. We also get the words burbled and galumphing from TTLG.

It's quite possible that Mr. Hagos is smarter than you want to admit! He's at least creative.

BTW, it is really amusing reading through this thread where one wacky interpretation of the messy compilation that is the Bible is posited as superior to someone else's wacky interpretation of the Bible.

And to the notion that G-d doesn't reveal itself through visions and revelation:

Damascus Road, anyone?

Don't let the bastards bring you down, Eprhem!

NORM

[NormATive]

(to Eprhem):

Why do you have to make it so complicated? Why not say something like...

...I know it doesn't have the pizzazz of the way you put it, but it's not confusing.

If you would replace "vision" with "revelation" or "guidance of the Holy Spirit", I believe most people would get off your back on this point.
Language can simplify or it can confuse.

Or, language can be used to force people to conform to ideas that aren't in your particular head.

Why are you so threatened by the way Eprhem phrases things? In my estimation, he is carving his words carefully and with purpose.

NORM

[bc1980]

Or, language can be used to force people to conform to ideas that aren't in your particular head.

Why are you so threatened by the way Eprhem phrases things? In my estimation, he is carving his words carefully and with purpose.

NORM

No, he is distorting the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That, sir, is worth fighting over.

[headheart]

Anyone ever heard the term..... Theosophical Mucous

[NormATive]

No, he is distorting the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That, sir, is worth fighting over.

Yes, and we have the stacks of dead bodies over the centuries to prove it.

He is only distorting YOUR VERSION of the Gospel. There are at least 150 different varieties to choose from, not to mention countless numbers of totally divergent faith expressions not related to Christianity.

But, alas; yours is the "correct" one, right?

*sigh*

And, so it goes...

NORM

[headheart]

Anyone need a little light ?

[NormATive]

They don't allow smoking in here.

NORM

[EphremHagos]

Actually, when you consider the broader definition of the word diacritical, and apply it as Ephrem has, well; it works for me!

Good lord, do you know how many words Shakespeare created?

Here's the short list:

accommodation
aerial
amazement
apostrophe
assassination
auspicious
baseless
bloody
bump
castigate
changeful
clangor
control (noun)
countless
courtship
critic
critical
dexterously
dishearten
dislocate
dwindle
eventful
exposure
fitful
frugal
generous
gloomy
gnarled
hurry
impartial
inauspicious
indistinguishable
invulnerable
lapse
laughable
lonely
majestic
misplaced
monumental
multitudinous
obscene
palmy
perusal
pious
premeditated
radiance
reliance
road
sanctimonious
seamy
sportive
submerge
suspicious


Have you ever used the word "chortle" to describe a small laugh? Lewis Carroll invented that word by combining chuckle and snort in the book Through the Looking Glass. We also get the words burbled and galumphing from TTLG.

It's quite possible that Mr. Hagos is smarter than you want to admit! He's at least creative.

BTW, it is really amusing reading through this thread where one wacky interpretation of the messy compilation that is the Bible is posited as superior to someone else's wacky interpretation of the Bible.

And to the notion that G-d doesn't reveal itself through visions and revelation:

Damascus Road, anyone?

Don't let the bastards bring you down, Eprhem!

NORM


If you find me "smarter and more creative" than your friends admit, I give all the praise to God without any reservation (Psalms 119: 97-104). PRAISE THE LORD!

I also testify, under oath, that Jesus Christ has literally been my private instructor, not as an exception but part of the new, general rule (John 6: 45-46), ever since my personal introduction to him 35 years ago in a deeply mysterious and life-transforming vision of his indescribable glory at his diacritical death on the cross!

Diacritical death is the litmus test of immortality. Let us remember that the glory of Christ, as the foundation of Biblical faith, (John 1: 47-51) is contextualized in the link between his ultimate death and resurrection, without any intervening time, according to the Scriptures of Moses, the Psalms and the writings of the prophets (Luke 24: 25-49).

Therefore, if Jesus’ words, viz.: “Whoever (with reason) believes in me will live even though he dies (or will never die)”— work for us, how much infinitely more at the source, i.e., “the resurrection and the life” (John 11: 25-26).

God Bless you!

[EphremHagos]

Try answering post #37. Try paying attention to guys that have debated you over and over. You ignore the clear passages that contradict what you say and reinterpret definitions of words to make them fit your poor theology.

We are waiting for you to do "serious debate" instead of throwing out your doctrinal confession and ignoring the serious amount of evidence against them.

The solution (key) to the major differences in our perceptions of “the truth” lies in sharing a common, firsthand and personal knowledge of the divine identity behind the name of Jesus, i.e., “I Am Who I Am”, as revealed once and for all at his death on the cross, but at present sorely lacking (John 3: 1-21; 8: 21-28; 14: 15-21; 19: 30-37; Col. 2:3). That is why our differences will not only persist but they will also increase over time with the most disastrous of consequences to one party (Matt. 13: 10-17; John 3: 1-21; Rev. 5).
The divine rejection, “I never knew you. Get away from me, you wicked people!” befalls upon those who claim, in His name, to have spoken God’s message and driven out many demons and performed many miracles without the mutual knowledge of Jesus Christ as he is (Matt. 7: 21-23). In other words, they were victims of deceit! (Matt. 24)

In short, “To know or not to know Jesus Christ”, as first born from the dead, is the question of destiny or a matter of life or death particularly to those more privileged than others!

[bc1980]

18 Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, Colossians 2:18

Enjoy yourself.

[EphremHagos]

18 Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, Colossians 2:18

Enjoy yourself.

I shall gladly admit to have been completely wrong on the one condition that you produce the hard evidence of your own “connection with the Head”, i.e., the Christ (Col. 2: 17, 19) by producing your personal testimony of your firsthand and personal knowledge of Jesus Christ based wholly on the Scriptures.

[bc1980]

I shall gladly admit to have been completely wrong on the one condition that you produce the hard evidence of your own “connection with the Head”, i.e., the Christ (Col. 2: 17, 19) by producing your personal testimony of your firsthand and personal knowledge of Jesus Christ based wholly on the Scriptures.

I responded (believed) to the Gospel that Jesus is Lord, He was crucified for sin and was raised from the dead. My prayer was, "God, if you want me, you've got to take me, my problems, my whole life, I'm tired of dealing with it". He took me.

God change not only my life, He changed me.

“I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their (the apostles) word, John 17:20

28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” John 20:28-29

30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. John 20:30-31

But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Acts 8:12

To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.” Acts 10:43

And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” Acts 16:31

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. Romans 1:16

because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Romans 10:9

This is the short list. Do I need to continue?

Anytime you add to the Gospel you make it a counterfeit gospel.

[EphremHagos]

I responded (believed) to the Gospel that Jesus is Lord, He was crucified for sin and was raised from the dead. My prayer was, "God, if you want me, you've got to take me, my problems, my whole life, I'm tired of dealing with it". He took me.

God change not only my life, He changed me.

“I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their (the apostles) word, John 17:20

28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” John 20:28-29

30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. John 20:30-31

But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Acts 8:12

To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.” Acts 10:43

And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” Acts 16:31

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. Romans 1:16

because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Romans 10:9

This is the short list. Do I need to continue?

Anytime you add to the Gospel you make it a counterfeit gospel.

Deep resistance to change is always the reason for man's refusal to understand and to obey the most basic teaching. From the very beginning, Jesus surely taught that faith based on HEARSAY (even divine), rather than on firsthand and personal VISION of his divine identity and authority, is questionable (John 1: 47-51)! The latter was presented as “finished” on the cross (Ibid, 19: 30-37).

Jesus proved absolutely right! Of the twelve disciples, to quote a known sample, precious few (only one or two) were faithful to the cause of Christ’s cross (Ibid, 19: 26-27). It took 40 days of repeated rehearsal for the others to follow (Acts 1, 2).

You are second-guessing Jesus and trying, in vain, to beat the odds!

[bc1980]

Jesus proved absolutely right! Of the twelve disciples, to quote a known sample, precious few (only one or two) were faithful to the cause of Christ’s cross (Ibid, 19: 26-27). It took 40 days of repeated rehearsal for the others to follow (Acts 1, 2).

Now you have stepped into the realm of full heresy. You are claiming to know the gospel message better than the apostles whom Jesus commissioned.

[EphremHagos]

Jesus proved absolutely right! Of the twelve disciples, to quote a known sample, precious few (only one or two) were faithful to the cause of Christ’s cross (Ibid, 19: 26-27). It took 40 days of repeated rehearsal for the others to follow (Acts 1, 2).

Now you have stepped into the realm of full heresy. You are claiming to know the gospel message better than the apostles whom Jesus commissioned.

Without ever "claiming to know the gospel message better than the apostles, whom Jesus commissioned", I present the following three non-negotiable points in descending order of importance:

1. There is only one absolute standard of truth revealed by Jesus, i.e., His self-sufficient life based on works (not words). Those who hold to the truth that Jesus continues to reveal know that all things, past and future, ultimately point to or look back to the death and resurrection of Christ (the source of life). Perfect fulfillment and revelation come from Him whom they pierced on the cross. This is the testimony of all the apostles.

2. The commissioning of the disciples/apostles by Jesus, by the hard way and narrow gate to life, was not in any sense easier for the first batch than it is today. Even if the apostles are not our standards, we have the full advantage of learning from their strengths and weaknesses!

3. All the apostles are our fellow servants in the common cause of the cross of Christ –the emblem of absolute power, wealth, wisdom, honor, glory, and praise! Far be it from me to claim knowledge of this truth better than the apostles!

In a win-win case such as this, we had better stick to the merits of the main issue at hand which is the essence of the gospel, viz.: FIRSTHAND AND PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF JESUS CHRIST as “first-born from the dead”.

Being fallibles, of course, we should all be prepared to be corrected, in due time, if we are wrong!

Blessings!

[savedbygrace57]

Without any precedent in kind whatsoever, “the first born (raised) from the dead” (Col. 1:15, 18; Rev. 1:5) is the literal and most fitting description of the divine identity of Jesus Christ, that is to say: deeply mysterious, exceedingly powerful and life-transforming vision (“light to come to"), as made publicly known at his diacritical death on the cross for people to look at whom they pierced, call his name and be saved! (John 3: 1-21; 8: 21-28; 12: 20-36; 19: 30-37; Joel 2:32 quoted in Acts 2:21)

Jesus christ in His Humanity, was the first one ever generated or created . col 1:

15Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

rev 3:

14And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

His being the Firstborn from the dead, merely manifested that He was the firstborn of every creature pre creation..

[EphremHagos]

Jesus christ in His Humanity, was the first one ever generated or created . col 1:

15Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

rev 3:

14And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

His being the Firstborn from the dead, merely manifested that He was the firstborn of every creature pre creation..

The conclusion is not at all justified by the two arguments. Here are the reasons why:

1) Col. 1:15 defines Christ as the "visible likeness of the invisible God:" not at all in "Christ in the flesh" sense but God in his mysterious but powerful self-revelation, once and for all, as "first-born Son" or one "raised on the spot from death by own will and power". Parenthetically, this is the significance of diacritical death which we debated inconclusively elsewhere!

2) Rev. 3:14 defines "the Amen: as the faithful and true witness" of God's self-revelation as sketched in 1) above. Note also that this verse uses the three names: "Amen", "Christ" and "God" as absolutely identical in their works and responsibilities!

Therefore, "the first-born from the dead", as our TOP PRIORITY precedent, is the defining moment of the very essence of transferable divinity or "image of God" as our SECOND CHANCE or reopening of the way to "the tree of life" in Paradise (Luke 23:43).

See you all in the Garden of Eden!