Question for Discussion

[EphremHagos]

Question for Discussion

If guidance by the Holy Spirit is a compulsory condition for knowing who Jesus Christ is (John 3: 1-8; 16: 8-15; 1 Cor. 12:3), how is it possible to know that Jesus is the “I Am Who I Am”, or the self-sufficient source of life, the LORD God in person (Ex. 3: 1-15), at His death on the cross, i.e., 50 days before the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2)?

[popaface]

The Holy Spirit directs towards Jesus in Christian theology, being confronted with the Holy Spirit is being confronted with the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Experiencing these events first hand means that the Holy Spirit is there in the Christ event, though as yet not outpoured in the Pentecost. Christian theology states that God is Triune - this means that in the life of Jesus one experiences God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Though, I'd imagine that there are other ways of looking at it... I'll look into it myself soon.

[UrbanMonk]

Question for Discussion

If guidance by the Holy Spirit is a compulsory condition for knowing who Jesus Christ is (John 3: 1-8; 16: 8-15; 1 Cor. 12:3), how is it possible to know that Jesus is the “I Am Who I Am”, or the self-sufficient source of life, the LORD God in person (Ex. 3: 1-15), at His death on the cross, i.e., 50 days before the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2)?

Good point. Personally, I think the story of what happened to Peter on Pentecost is...a story...misleading at worst...metaphorical at best. Based on the content of Peter's speech, it is more likely that he was overtaken by the unholy spirit.

Both the unholy spirit and the Holy Spirit have been with the prodigal Son since his self-exile from the "Kingdom of God". It is the unholy spirit which drives the prodigal Son away from what is Holy...away from his very Self. The Self of the prodigal Son is "Christ"...which is a Holy Spirit. "The" Holy Spirit brings the prodigal back to his senses. The Holy Spirit is the "inheritance" the prodigal Son took with him on his journey. Therefore, there was never a time when any aspect of the prodigal Son was without his inheritance. What Jesus gave us is the way to become aware of our inheritance...reversing eons of neglect and ignorance (ignoring). If we follow Jesus' instructions, we will be able to "hear" the Holy Spirit clearly, as he heard clearly. If not, we will continue to hear dimly, if at all. And yet, even as we hear dimly, we can be gradually guided to become aware of a Holy Self which is "Christ"...the "Son of God".

The Pentecost scenario would subvert this truth and have us believe that the reception of the Holy Spirit is contingent upon a "deal" we can make with God. But the Holy Spirit is not to be bargained for. The Holy Spirit is a gift given to all regardless of antithetical (prodigal) belief systems. The Holy Spirit is the guarantee that we will find our way back home, despite eons of wandering a labyrinth within our own mind. The day that we truly begin to hear the Holy Spirit clearly is a day to celebrate. This is the only possible meaning of Pentecost that has any meaning whatsoever. We must all learn to hear clearly if we would find our way back. And from what I gather from Peter's speech, he was not hearing the Holy Spirit clearly...for he was clearly advocating the concept of sacrifice...and not mercy.

It is through the Holy Spirit that Jesus came to understand that he was the "I am that I am"...the glorious Son of God who precedes time and who stands at the end of time. Unless we are being guided to the same understanding, we are not listening to the Holy Spirit. To be a "son of man" is to be a prodigal Son who denies his Father fatherhood...and substitutes an evil step-father instead. And this is to "sacrifice" the "glory" given the Son of God. Therefore, "mercy" is the reverse of sacrifice, and the restoration of the Son of God to his former glory.

[Bernie]

Question for Discussion

If guidance by the Holy Spirit is a compulsory condition for knowing who Jesus Christ is (John 3: 1-8; 16: 8-15; 1 Cor. 12:3), how is it possible to know that Jesus is the “I Am Who I Am”, or the self-sufficient source of life, the LORD God in person (Ex. 3: 1-15), at His death on the cross, i.e., 50 days before the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2)?
Your question presupposes the popular idea in Christianity that before Christ's death there was no Holy Spirit available to humans. I've never understood this teaching. If God's Spirit is the source of all good, it seems to follow that all good found in the minds and acts of humans is direct evidence of the union of each human spirit with God's Spirit.

On Pentecost there was an unusually strong outpouring of Spirit upon believers. This kick-started the church and got it off in the right direction. How the notion came about that the Holy Spirit did not operate before this time is unknown to me.

This same pattern--the powerful inner "flash" of God's Spirit imputing information to the human intellect in an epiphenomenal experience which then fades with time, leaving behind the most relevant informational aspects--is in the testimony of a number of people who claimed to experience God very powerfully, and also mirrors an experience of my own. This phenomena was, interestingly, portrayed (admirably imo) by Richard Dreyfuss in Close Encounters of the Third Kind, albeit the Holy Spirit as grantor was replaced by aliens from outer space.

[UrbanMonk]

This same pattern--the powerful inner "flash" of God's Spirit imputing information to the human intellect in an epiphenomenal experience which then fades with time, leaving behind the most relevant informational aspects--is in the testimony of a number of people who claimed to experience God very powerfully, and also mirrors an experience of my own. This phenomena was, interestingly, portrayed (admirably imo) by Richard Dreyfuss in Close Encounters of the Third Kind, albeit the Holy Spirit as grantor was replaced by aliens from outer space.

Let us not presume that this phenomenon is of the Holy Spirit. It could easily be of the unholy spirit...the spirit which rules all form and the intellects of men. The unholy spirit is able to download the entire bible into a man's mind in a flash. And this is because man's mind belongs to the unholy spirit. Likewise, the unholy spirit could have downloaded dirty doctrine into P(s)aul's mind, who later boasted that he did not get his doctrine from the apostles, but by a more direct path. There isn't anything about what happened in the story of this Pentecost to indicate that it got the church off to a right start.

[Bernie]

Let us not presume that this phenomenon is of the Holy Spirit. It could easily be of the unholy spirit...the spirit which rules all form and the intellects of men. The unholy spirit is able to download the entire bible into a man's mind in a flash. And this is because man's mind belongs to the unholy spirit. Likewise, the unholy spirit could have downloaded dirty doctrine into P(s)aul's mind, who later boasted that he did not get his doctrine from the apostles, but by a more direct path. There isn't anything about what happened in the story of this Pentecost to indicate that it got the church off to a right start.
If evil isn't real, where did the "unholy spirit" come from? I find it unlikely that an unholy spirit would download the Bible into a human mind, unless you suppose the Bible to be composed of unholy falsehoods.

[UrbanMonk]

If evil isn't real, where did the "unholy spirit" come from? I find it unlikely that an unholy spirit would download the Bible into a human mind, unless you suppose the Bible to be composed of unholy falsehoods.

I would not insist that the unholy spirit is real. It's whatever is behind the making of "the world"...which I also don't consider to be real. Another way to think of the unholy spirit is the desire to be seperate. This is what drives this world and manifests the separate beings/things that make it up. And yes, it would be in the best interests of the unholy spirit to download the bible into a man's mind. Some people say that there is truth in the bible. So be it. However, within the context of so many false, misleading, and/or confusing statements, it must be categorized as a book of unholy falsehoods. It is not a "holy" book. It could only be made holy if the "Holy Spirit" (re)interpreted it. This has already been done for the "new testament" and is available (ie. @ Amazon).

[FredFlanders]

Question for Discussion

If guidance by the Holy Spirit is a compulsory condition for knowing who Jesus Christ is (John 3: 1-8; 16: 8-15; 1 Cor. 12:3), how is it possible to know that Jesus is the I Am Who I Am, or the self-sufficient source of life, the LORD God in person (Ex. 3: 1-15), at His death on the cross, i.e., 50 days before the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2)?Christ was known by the works He did when He was with us. The Holy Spirit is known by the same works today. You willl truly know the Holy Spirit today, as you will be able to do the same works as Christ as we see in 1 Cor 12.

[EphremHagos]

The Holy Spirit directs towards Jesus in Christian theology, being confronted with the Holy Spirit is being confronted with the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Experiencing these events first hand means that the Holy Spirit is there in the Christ event, though as yet not outpoured in the Pentecost. Christian theology states that God is Triune - this means that in the life of Jesus one experiences God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Though, I'd imagine that there are other ways of looking at it... I'll look into it myself soon.

Perhaps I did not ask the question clearly. So, here it is again. Of the following two days, which is the FIRST DAY for the public outpouring of the Holy Spirit and consequent disclosure of the divinity of Jesus Christ?

a) The day of His death on the cross, i.e., “Good Friday” (John 3: 14-21; 8: 21-28; 14: 15-21; 16: 5-15; 19: 30-37) or
b) The Day of Pentecost (Acts 2)

[EphremHagos]

Good point. Personally, I think the story of what happened to Peter on Pentecost is...a story...misleading at worst...metaphorical at best. Based on the content of Peter's speech, it is more likely that he was overtaken by the unholy spirit.

Both the unholy spirit and the Holy Spirit have been with the prodigal Son since his self-exile from the "Kingdom of God". It is the unholy spirit which drives the prodigal Son away from what is Holy...away from his very Self. The Self of the prodigal Son is "Christ"...which is a Holy Spirit. "The" Holy Spirit brings the prodigal back to his senses. The Holy Spirit is the "inheritance" the prodigal Son took with him on his journey. Therefore, there was never a time when any aspect of the prodigal Son was without his inheritance. What Jesus gave us is the way to become aware of our inheritance...reversing eons of neglect and ignorance (ignoring). If we follow Jesus' instructions, we will be able to "hear" the Holy Spirit clearly, as he heard clearly. If not, we will continue to hear dimly, if at all. And yet, even as we hear dimly, we can be gradually guided to become aware of a Holy Self which is "Christ"...the "Son of God".

The Pentecost scenario would subvert this truth and have us believe that the reception of the Holy Spirit is contingent upon a "deal" we can make with God. But the Holy Spirit is not to be bargained for. The Holy Spirit is a gift given to all regardless of antithetical (prodigal) belief systems. The Holy Spirit is the guarantee that we will find our way back home, despite eons of wandering a labyrinth within our own mind. The day that we truly begin to hear the Holy Spirit clearly is a day to celebrate. This is the only possible meaning of Pentecost that has any meaning whatsoever. We must all learn to hear clearly if we would find our way back. And from what I gather from Peter's speech, he was not hearing the Holy Spirit clearly...for he was clearly advocating the concept of sacrifice...and not mercy.

It is through the Holy Spirit that Jesus came to understand that he was the "I am that I am"...the glorious Son of God who precedes time and who stands at the end of time. Unless we are being guided to the same understanding, we are not listening to the Holy Spirit. To be a "son of man" is to be a prodigal Son who denies his Father fatherhood...and substitutes an evil step-father instead. And this is to "sacrifice" the "glory" given the Son of God. Therefore, "mercy" is the reverse of sacrifice, and the restoration of the Son of God to his former glory.

One should not be too hasty in labeling as “unholy” what one does not yet understand in Peter’s speech (Acts 2: 14-40).

[EphremHagos]

Your question presupposes the popular idea in Christianity that before Christ's death there was no Holy Spirit available to humans. I've never understood this teaching. If God's Spirit is the source of all good, it seems to follow that all good found in the minds and acts of humans is direct evidence of the union of each human spirit with God's Spirit.

On Pentecost there was an unusually strong outpouring of Spirit upon believers. This kick-started the church and got it off in the right direction. How the notion came about that the Holy Spirit did not operate before this time is unknown to me.

This same pattern--the powerful inner "flash" of God's Spirit imputing information to the human intellect in an epiphenomenal experience which then fades with time, leaving behind the most relevant informational aspects--is in the testimony of a number of people who claimed to experience God very powerfully, and also mirrors an experience of my own. This phenomena was, interestingly, portrayed (admirably imo) by Richard Dreyfuss in Close Encounters of the Third Kind, albeit the Holy Spirit as grantor was replaced by aliens from outer space.

The question assumes no such presupposition at all!

[EphremHagos]

Christ was known by the works He did when He was with us. The Holy Spirit is known by the same works today. You willl truly know the Holy Spirit today, as you will be able to do the same works as Christ as we see in 1 Cor 12.

The Holy Spirit is one who will speak on the authority of Jesus Christ not his own (John 16: 13-14)

[UrbanMonk]

One should not be too hasty in labeling as “unholy” what one does not yet understand in Peter’s speech (Acts 2: 14-40).

If you print it here, I'll point out what is unholy about it. For one, it posits the concept of sacrifice as a method of salvation...and the idea that life can come from death. Holiness sacrifices nothing. Rather, salvation is for the merciful...those who would not sacrifice anymore. Holiness is WHOLENESS...an unlimited totality. The human condition is a limited condition...a sacrifice of a WHOLE. Therefore, it is not of a WHOLE SPIRIT...but of an unholy (limited, fragmented, unwhole, separate, different) spirit.

[Bernie]

Perhaps I did not ask the question clearly. So, here it is again. Of the following two days, which is the FIRST DAY for the public outpouring of the Holy Spirit and consequent disclosure of the divinity of Jesus Christ?

a) The day of His death on the cross, i.e., “Good Friday” (John 3: 14-21; 8: 21-28; 14: 15-21; 16: 5-15; 19: 30-37) or
b) The Day of Pentecost (Acts 2)
By this do you mean an "outpouring" which visibly affected a number or group of people? I believe there has always been an "outpouring" of God's Spirit--which outpouring has specific kinds of effects associated with it, e.g., intellectual illumination of certain prescriptive truths (epiphany), revelation of extranormal information such as future events, etc.--on individuals since recorded history.

It seems to me that the disclosure of Jesus' divinity as understood by the professing church was not necessarily in or as a result of any particular event, but was disclosed by the aggregation of both individual and public spiritual(inner) and historical(outer) events which cumulatively imparted this information to the saved.

[Bernie]

If you print it here, I'll point out what is unholy about it. For one, it posits the concept of sacrifice as a method of salvation...and the idea that life can come from death. Holiness sacrifices nothing. Rather, salvation is for the merciful...those who would not sacrifice anymore. Holiness is WHOLENESS...an unlimited totality. The human condition is a limited condition...a sacrifice of a WHOLE. Therefore, it is not of a WHOLE SPIRIT...but of an unholy (limited, fragmented, unwhole, separate, different) spirit.
But after denying the need of a sacrifice for sin for salvation and the notion of life arising from death (both foundational to Christian theology), you reveal precisely why these things are necessary in your description of a fragmentally falsified human spirit.

Granted that Holiness (God) is a Whole; He is perfectly True. We are fragmentally true and false and need to be made true (perfect) again. This dualism is inescapable, hard as you try to avoid it, UM.

[UrbanMonk]

This dualism is inescapable, hard as you try to avoid it, UM.

Excuse me but the whole point of salvation is to escape dualism...the combination of opposite attributes into another world in competition with the World of God.

But after denying the need of a sacrifice for sin for salvation and the notion of life arising from death (both foundational to Christian theology), you reveal precisely why these things are necessary in your description of a fragmentally falsified human spirit.

Why is that? Is it because I say we must abandon the competition of the dual world? To abandon the dual world althogether? Do you consider that to be a sacrifice? Well, it's not to those who can see it for what it is, and no longer value it at all. This is not a sacrifice at all. It is the exchange of nothing for everything.

Granted that Holiness (God) is a Whole; He is perfectly True. We are fragmentally true and false and need to be made true (perfect) again.

This is just one example of how a dual world tempts us to fix it. We can't fix a dual world. It is perfectly expressed as it is. There isn't anything true about the "truth" in a "true and false" world! Niether are true. The "truth" in a true-and-false world is a substitute for the Truth. I understand this is hard to comprehend. But then, that is a function of a dual world in competition with a non-dual (Whole) World of God...to confuse our minds! Confusion and "darkness" are synonymous. Duality must be abandoned in order to return to our Perfection, which was perfect before the concept of mixing opposite attributes ever tempted us.

[Bosco]

Question for Discussion

If guidance by the Holy Spirit is a compulsory condition for knowing who Jesus Christ is (John 3: 1-8; 16: 8-15; 1 Cor. 12:3), how is it possible to know that Jesus is the “I Am Who I Am”, or the self-sufficient source of life, the LORD God in person (Ex. 3: 1-15), at His death on the cross, i.e., 50 days before the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2)?


In my view, it is not possible unless you have not saught God for an answer to that question. Scripture is PLAIN that the Father raised the Son from the grave. Yet, Yehoshua said that, "in three days I WILL RAISE it," (Speaking of his body) How can he raise it while the Father did? We have scripture that says the Father sends the HS, we have a verse that has the Son sending the Spirit... then we have a verse where the Son says that he will not leave us comfortless, that he would come to us. Lastly, I can show you verses about the Spirit in us being: the Spirit of the Son, the Spirit of Messiah or Christ, the Spirit of the Father speaking in you, the Spirit of Truth, the Spirit of Life, etc. Many spirits or one under many names?

I believe personally that they knew God was with them. The one eternal Spirit in the form of man, humbling himself in the fashion of a man, made lower than the angels, "for the suffering of death." This is why the disciples worshipped Yehoshua and he did not rebuke them for doing so.

Peace.
Ken

[EphremHagos]

If you print it here, I'll point out what is unholy about it. For one, it posits the concept of sacrifice as a method of salvation...and the idea that life can come from death. Holiness sacrifices nothing. Rather, salvation is for the merciful...those who would not sacrifice anymore. Holiness is WHOLENESS...an unlimited totality. The human condition is a limited condition...a sacrifice of a WHOLE. Therefore, it is not of a WHOLE SPIRIT...but of an unholy (limited, fragmented, unwhole, separate, different) spirit.

Suppose the true worth or demonstrable, Biblical meaning of the sacrifice in question, i.e., the “death of Jesus Christ on the cross”, is infinitely greater than its conventional face value?

[EphremHagos]

By this do you mean an "outpouring" which visibly affected a number or group of people? I believe there has always been an "outpouring" of God's Spirit--which outpouring has specific kinds of effects associated with it, e.g., intellectual illumination of certain prescriptive truths (epiphany), revelation of extranormal information such as future events, etc.--on individuals since recorded history.

It seems to me that the disclosure of Jesus' divinity as understood by the professing church was not necessarily in or as a result of any particular event, but was disclosed by the aggregation of both individual and public spiritual(inner) and historical(outer) events which cumulatively imparted this information to the saved.

I am referring to the Biblical Terms of Reference for the universal “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit for the ultimate purpose of disclosing the divinity of Jesus Christ once and for all!

[popaface]

Perhaps I did not ask the question clearly. So, here it is again. Of the following two days, which is the FIRST DAY for the public outpouring of the Holy Spirit and consequent disclosure of the divinity of Jesus Christ?

a) The day of His death on the cross, i.e., “Good Friday” (John 3: 14-21; 8: 21-28; 14: 15-21; 16: 5-15; 19: 30-37) or
b) The Day of Pentecost (Acts 2)

Good observation.

Scholars call (a) the Johannine Pentecost because it is a similar story with a similar theology/pneumatology to that of Acts. However there are some nuanced differences, particularly the parallels in Johannine pneumatology to the DSS/Qumran angelomorphic pneumatology (cf. 1QS 3:18-4:26 with the Johannine Paraclete), the "Spirit of Truth" is held in against the "Angel of Darkness" in the DSS pneumatology. I'd imagine that these beliefs make much more sense when we imagine the Holy Spirit in the same sense as an angelic presence in the communities of Christians, yet imagined diversely within these various groups.

Allan

[EphremHagos]

In my view, it is not possible unless you have not saught God for an answer to that question. Scripture is PLAIN that the Father raised the Son from the grave. Yet, Yehoshua said that, "in three days I WILL RAISE it," (Speaking of his body) How can he raise it while the Father did? We have scripture that says the Father sends the HS, we have a verse that has the Son sending the Spirit... then we have a verse where the Son says that he will not leave us comfortless, that he would come to us. Lastly, I can show you verses about the Spirit in us being: the Spirit of the Son, the Spirit of Messiah or Christ, the Spirit of the Father speaking in you, the Spirit of Truth, the Spirit of Life, etc. Many spirits or one under many names?

I believe personally that they knew God was with them. The one eternal Spirit in the form of man, humbling himself in the fashion of a man, made lower than the angels, "for the suffering of death." This is why the disciples worshipped Yehoshua and he did not rebuke them for doing so.

Peace.
Ken

Even if the question is admittedly begging for an answer to prayer, I propose that we focus on the following two points in our prayers:

1/ Based on the promise of uninterrupted “experience of the power of his resurrection”, one should make prayerful use of the given resources for knowing Christ firsthand and personally as “witness to the resurrection” defined, first, theoretically in terms of seeing Jesus Christ “going back up to the place where he was before” (John 6: 62-63; Matt. 26: 63-64) and, secondly, in practice as personal presence when Jesus was “ taken from us up to heaven” (Acts 1: 21-22). Both the hypothesis and infallible proof refer to the time of Christ’s diacritical death on the cross (or test of immortality) strictly “according to the Scriptures” (John 8: 21-28; Luke 24: 25-27; John 20:9; Acts 1:3; Phil. 3: 10-11).

2/ I suggest that the differences between the conflicting sources of authority for raising Jesus from the dead, viz.: the Father or the Son, can be explained by the use of altruistic language necessarily associated with the demerits of the witness of claims about oneself the merits of the witness of works (John 5: 31-36; 10: 17-18, 37-38) with the great advantages of validity and reliability for posterity.

Blessings!

[UrbanMonk]

Suppose the true worth or demonstrable, Biblical meaning of the sacrifice in question, i.e., the “death of Jesus Christ on the cross”, is infinitely greater than its conventional face value?

As a metaphor, it is much more than what the average, closed mind, has guessed. A correct understanding of this metaphor is salvific...sets us on the right path home. It's the understanding of the "cross" that saves us...not the blood dripping from his hands.

Metaphorically speaking, the death of Jesus is a parody for the death of the Truth (Christ). Christ is a universal truth comprising all of reality. In other words, if is is not Christ, it is an illusion...something "anti-christ"...something antithetical to the Truth. The death of the truth is the beginning of the "lie". The "lie" "lives" as the truth "dies". So, the sacrifice of the truth is salvation...for a lie! Conversely, the restoration of the truth is the death of the lie. Seen as a parody of the beginning and the end of the world, the cross and resurrection are a metaphor for the genesis of a lie, and the exodus from a lie. The tomb become a metaphor for time which is antithetical to the Eternal Truth in which eternal life IS THE UNIVERSAL TRUTH of GOD. Time, then, is a metaphor for a "dead Truth"...as if the ETERNAL can CHANGE and come to an END. Impossible! The rise of Jesus is a parody of the impossibility of the death of Truth on a cosmic scale. Meaning, "the world" is a "dead" Truth...a contradiction to the truth...anti-thetical to the truth..."anti-christ".

This is a basic understanding of the cross and resurrection parody/metaphor. This is the kind of interpretation one must accept if one would be saved.

[Bosco]

Even if the question is admittedly begging for an answer to prayer, I propose that we focus on the following two points in our prayers:

1/ Based on the promise of uninterrupted “experience of the power of his resurrection”, one should make prayerful use of the given resources for knowing Christ firsthand and personally as “witness to the resurrection” defined, first, theoretically in terms of seeing Jesus Christ “going back up to the place where he was before” (John 6: 62-63; Matt. 26: 63-64) and, secondly, in practice as personal presence when Jesus was “ taken from us up to heaven” (Acts 1: 21-22). Both the hypothesis and infallible proof refer to the time of Christ’s diacritical death on the cross (or test of immortality) strictly “according to the Scriptures” (John 8: 21-28; Luke 24: 25-27; John 20:9; Acts 1:3; Phil. 3: 10-11).

2/ I suggest that the differences between the conflicting sources of authority for raising Jesus from the dead, viz.: the Father or the Son, can be explained by the use of altruistic language necessarily associated with the demerits of the witness of claims about oneself the merits of the witness of works (John 5: 31-36; 10: 17-18, 37-38) with the great advantages of validity and reliability for posterity.

Blessings!

I do not see conflicting authority UM, I see a mystery which needs spirirtual guidance to be understood. I have many I discuss scripture with that see Yehoshua purely as a man. To do so, they have to explain away 30-40 OT passages which clearly point to the coming of "God." In addition, they have to devise a doctrine that makes God's appearance with Abraham, or even his appearance in the burning bush, become a representative of God, and not God himself. The trouble with those instances is two fold. First, that representative is called by name, YHWH, and there is NEVER a rebuke for that error (if it were an error). Second, the scripture has in those cases, God speaking for himself with no hint of a middle man involved.

Look, for John to say regarding the Word that all things were made by him and that nothing was made that wasn't made by him... this is straight talk and not metaphor. In no way can Messiah have ANYTHING to do with creation because God himself said he created the world "alone and by myself." Nobody else was there, period.

Let me give you a few QUICK examples to consider regarding what I have stated to be a mystery, ok? First, the OT is NOT ENOUGH to understand the Father completely.

Mat 11:27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

While I believe Yehoshua and YHWH are one and the same, the "Son" was not made manifest until 2000 years ago. And it is the Son who must reveal the Father.

Joh 16:25 These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father.

[Bosco]

Even if the question is admittedly begging for an answer to prayer, I propose that we focus on the following two points in our prayers:

1/ Based on the promise of uninterrupted “experience of the power of his resurrection”, one should make prayerful use of the given resources for knowing Christ firsthand and personally as “witness to the resurrection” defined, first, theoretically in terms of seeing Jesus Christ “going back up to the place where he was before” (John 6: 62-63; Matt. 26: 63-64) and, secondly, in practice as personal presence when Jesus was “ taken from us up to heaven” (Acts 1: 21-22). Both the hypothesis and infallible proof refer to the time of Christ’s diacritical death on the cross (or test of immortality) strictly “according to the Scriptures” (John 8: 21-28; Luke 24: 25-27; John 20:9; Acts 1:3; Phil. 3: 10-11).

2/ I suggest that the differences between the conflicting sources of authority for raising Jesus from the dead, viz.: the Father or the Son, can be explained by the use of altruistic language necessarily associated with the demerits of the witness of claims about oneself the merits of the witness of works (John 5: 31-36; 10: 17-18, 37-38) with the great advantages of validity and reliability for posterity.

Blessings!

I do not see conflicting authority UM, I see a mystery which needs spirirtual guidance to be understood. I have many I discuss scripture with that see Yehoshua purely as a man. To do so, they have to explain away 30-40 OT passages which clearly point to the coming of "God." In addition, they have to devise a doctrine that makes God's appearance with Abraham, or even his appearance in the burning bush, become a representative of God, and not God himself. The trouble with those instances is two fold. First, that representative is called by name, YHWH, and there is NEVER a rebuke for that error (if it were an error). Second, the scripture has in those cases, God speaking for himself with no hint of a middle man involved.

Look, for John to say regarding the Word that all things were made by him and that nothing was made that wasn't made by him... this is straight talk and not metaphor. In no way can Messiah have ANYTHING to do with creation because God himself said he created the world "alone and by myself." Nobody else was there, period.

Let me give you a few QUICK examples to consider regarding what I have stated to be a mystery, ok? First, the OT is NOT ENOUGH to understand the Father completely.

Mat 11:27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

While I believe Yehoshua and YHWH are one and the same, the "Son" was not made manifest until 2000 years ago. And it is the Son who must reveal the Father.

Joh 16:25 These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father.

Even close to the time of his death, near the end of John's gospel, Yehoshua states that he had been speaking about the Father in proverbs...parables...metaphors. Yet we have a Christian world full of experts regarding the makeup of the Father.

Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

[Bosco]

Even if the question is admittedly begging for an answer to prayer, I propose that we focus on the following two points in our prayers:

1/ Based on the promise of uninterrupted “experience of the power of his resurrection”, one should make prayerful use of the given resources for knowing Christ firsthand and personally as “witness to the resurrection” defined, first, theoretically in terms of seeing Jesus Christ “going back up to the place where he was before” (John 6: 62-63; Matt. 26: 63-64) and, secondly, in practice as personal presence when Jesus was “ taken from us up to heaven” (Acts 1: 21-22). Both the hypothesis and infallible proof refer to the time of Christ’s diacritical death on the cross (or test of immortality) strictly “according to the Scriptures” (John 8: 21-28; Luke 24: 25-27; John 20:9; Acts 1:3; Phil. 3: 10-11).

2/ I suggest that the differences between the conflicting sources of authority for raising Jesus from the dead, viz.: the Father or the Son, can be explained by the use of altruistic language necessarily associated with the demerits of the witness of claims about oneself the merits of the witness of works (John 5: 31-36; 10: 17-18, 37-38) with the great advantages of validity and reliability for posterity.

Blessings!

I do not see conflicting authority EH, I see a mystery which needs spirirtual guidance to be understood. I have many I discuss scripture with that see Yehoshua purely as a man. To do so, they have to explain away 30-40 OT passages which clearly point to the coming of "God." In addition, they have to devise a doctrine that makes God's appearance with Abraham, or even his appearance in the burning bush, become a representative of God, and not God himself. The trouble with those instances is two fold. First, that representative is called by name, YHWH, and there is NEVER a rebuke for that error (if it were an error). Second, the scripture has in those cases, God speaking for himself with no hint of a middle man involved.

Look, for John to say regarding the Word that all things were made by him and that nothing was made that wasn't made by him... this is straight talk and not metaphor. In no way can Messiah have ANYTHING to do with creation because God himself said he created the world "alone and by myself." Nobody else was there, period. (Unless Yehoshua was the speaker in Genesis 1)

Let me give you a few QUICK examples to consider regarding what I have stated to be a mystery, ok? First, the OT is NOT ENOUGH to understand the Father completely.

Mat 11:27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

While I believe Yehoshua and YHWH are one and the same, the "Son" was not made manifest until 2000 years ago. And it is the Son who must reveal the Father.

Joh 16:25 These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father.

Even close to the time of his death, near the end of John's gospel, Yehoshua states that he had been speaking about the Father in proverbs...parables...metaphors. Yet we have a Christian world full of experts regarding the makeup of the Father.

Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Who sent the angel to testify to John? God, right? One God and Father of all?

Rev 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Is this contradiction, or is this revelation?

Peace.
Ken

[EphremHagos]

I do not see conflicting authority EH, I see a mystery which needs spirirtual guidance to be understood. I have many I discuss scripture with that see Yehoshua purely as a man. To do so, they have to explain away 30-40 OT passages which clearly point to the coming of "God." In addition, they have to devise a doctrine that makes God's appearance with Abraham, or even his appearance in the burning bush, become a representative of God, and not God himself. The trouble with those instances is two fold. First, that representative is called by name, YHWH, and there is NEVER a rebuke for that error (if it were an error). Second, the scripture has in those cases, God speaking for himself with no hint of a middle man involved.

Look, for John to say regarding the Word that all things were made by him and that nothing was made that wasn't made by him... this is straight talk and not metaphor. In no way can Messiah have ANYTHING to do with creation because God himself said he created the world "alone and by myself." Nobody else was there, period. (Unless Yehoshua was the speaker in Genesis 1)

Let me give you a few QUICK examples to consider regarding what I have stated to be a mystery, ok? First, the OT is NOT ENOUGH to understand the Father completely.

Mat 11:27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

While I believe Yehoshua and YHWH are one and the same, the "Son" was not made manifest until 2000 years ago. And it is the Son who must reveal the Father.

Joh 16:25 These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father.

Even close to the time of his death, near the end of John's gospel, Yehoshua states that he had been speaking about the Father in proverbs...parables...metaphors. Yet we have a Christian world full of experts regarding the makeup of the Father.

Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Who sent the angel to testify to John? God, right? One God and Father of all?

Rev 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Is this contradiction, or is this revelation?

Peace.
Ken

Luke 12
2. “Whatever is covered up will be uncovered, and every secret will be made known.
3. So then, whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in a broad daylight, and whatever you have whispered in private in a closed room will be shouted from the housetops.
5. I will show you whom to fear: fear God, who, after killing, has the authority to throw into hell. Believe me, he is the one you must fear!
8. I assure you that whoever declares publicly that he belongs to me, the Son of Man will do the same for him before the angels of God.
9. But whoever rejects me publicly, the Son of Man will also reject him before the angels of God.

The time is “finished”! (John 19:30) The “Son” has revealed himself, as “the Father” or the “I Am Who I Am”, at his death on the cross, i.e., as the “God who after killing” (himself) had “the authority to throw the Devil into hell” (Heb. 2: 14-15).

Therefore, with the open vision for all, there is no more mystery! THANKS BE TO GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Bosco]

Luke 12
2. “Whatever is covered up will be uncovered, and every secret will be made known.
3. So then, whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in a broad daylight, and whatever you have whispered in private in a closed room will be shouted from the housetops.
5. I will show you whom to fear: fear God, who, after killing, has the authority to throw into hell. Believe me, he is the one you must fear!
8. I assure you that whoever declares publicly that he belongs to me, the Son of Man will do the same for him before the angels of God.
9. But whoever rejects me publicly, the Son of Man will also reject him before the angels of God.

The time is “finished”! (John 19:30) The “Son” has revealed himself, as “the Father” or the “I Am Who I Am”, at his death on the cross, i.e., as the “God who after killing” (himself) had “the authority to throw the Devil into hell” (Heb. 2: 14-15).

Therefore, with the open vision for all, there is no more mystery! THANKS BE TO GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!

Respectfully, I do not agree. There are many mysteries that have not been made clear yet, and if that were not true, there would be no doctrinal differences amongst the people of God.

Peace to you.
Ken

[EphremHagos]

Respectfully, I do not agree. There are many mysteries that have not been made clear yet, and if that were not true, there would be no doctrinal differences amongst the people of God.

Peace to you.
Ken

I also respectfully disagree.

The doctrinal differences amongst the self-styled “people of God” are the consequence of not having “the key that opens all the hidden treasures of God’s wisdom and knowledge" or firsthand and personal knowledge of Jesus Christ, who is the personification of “God’s secret” (Col. 2: 2-3).

It is the total neglect of knowledge of God in Jesus Christ, as provided for, that is the real cause of the doctrinal differences (Jer. 31: 31-34; Matt. 26: 26-29 ff). This is also reiterated by John’s detailed vision of the discrepancy between “what must happen very soon” and “the truth revealed by Jesus Christ” which broke him down into “bitter tears” (Rev. 1: 1-2; 5).

May the LORD bless you!

[EphremHagos]

Good observation.

Scholars call (a) the Johannine Pentecost because it is a similar story with a similar theology/pneumatology to that of Acts. However there are some nuanced differences, particularly the parallels in Johannine pneumatology to the DSS/Qumran angelomorphic pneumatology (cf. 1QS 3:18-4:26 with the Johannine Paraclete), the "Spirit of Truth" is held in against the "Angel of Darkness" in the DSS pneumatology. I'd imagine that these beliefs make much more sense when we imagine the Holy Spirit in the same sense as an angelic presence in the communities of Christians, yet imagined diversely within these various groups.

Allan

In principle and practice, the momentum indicator in the making of the Gospel of Jesus Christ shows (b) the DAY OF PENTECOST in Acts 2 to be the first large-scale application of (a) "God's powerful weapons" intrinsic to the DEATH OF JESUS CHRIST ON THE CROSS according to the Scriptures after an intensive 40-day recapitulation followed byh a few more days of preparation for the benefit of the the majority of unbelieving disciples (Acts 1 and 2).

By the way, when have scholars done any better when it concerns the mysteries of the Kingdom of God? We have surely missed entirely the soul of the Gospel! God help us.

Ephrem

[John Goddard]

Question for Discussion

If guidance by the Holy Spirit is a compulsory condition for knowing who Jesus Christ is (John 3: 1-8; 16: 8-15; 1 Cor. 12:3), how is it possible to know that Jesus is the “I Am Who I Am”, or the self-sufficient source of life, the LORD God in person (Ex. 3: 1-15), at His death on the cross, i.e., 50 days before the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2)?

Initially the mantle was passed from Elijah > John > Jesus:

Matthew 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

Then it was passed from Jesus > Disciples (man) > Church (woman):

1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Before Pentecost, disciples received some measure of power from Jesus to heal and perceive mysteries, Matthew 10:1, Matthew 13:11. But after he was gone, Jesus passed on his mantle to them, and then they to the church.

[bling]

Question for Discussion

If guidance by the Holy Spirit is a compulsory condition for knowing who Jesus Christ is (John 3: 1-8; 16: 8-15; 1 Cor. 12:3), how is it possible to know that Jesus is the “I Am Who I Am”, or the self-sufficient source of life, the LORD God in person (Ex. 3: 1-15), at His death on the cross, i.e., 50 days before the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2)?

The truth was there if someone was smart enough without the help of the indwelling Holy Spirit to put it together. I do not see any of the disciples we are following being able to put it together from their comments. In their defence i think they were taught wrong by their former teachers and parents and freinds.

[Bosco]

I also respectfully disagree.

The doctrinal differences amongst the self-styled “people of God” are the consequence of not having “the key that opens all the hidden treasures of God’s wisdom and knowledge" or firsthand and personal knowledge of Jesus Christ, who is the personification of “God’s secret” (Col. 2: 2-3).

It is the total neglect of knowledge of God in Jesus Christ, as provided for, that is the real cause of the doctrinal differences (Jer. 31: 31-34; Matt. 26: 26-29 ff). This is also reiterated by John’s detailed vision of the discrepancy between “what must happen very soon” and “the truth revealed by Jesus Christ” which broke him down into “bitter tears” (Rev. 1: 1-2; 5).

May the LORD bless you!

I don't disagree, I believe understanding who he is is indeed the key to understanding. But I also don't believe it ends there, we still have work to do, study to do. When he returns we are changed, before which time we are error prone and corruptible. There are many things I have come to understand since starting to look at scripture more Hebraically, and this began many years after coming to an understanding of who Yehoshua is. For example, Hillel's influence on Paul is apparent in many ways, one of which is the use of "light and heavy" or "how much more." Without having taken some time to understand that style of teaching of Hillel, I had no way to understand the depths of which some of Paul's writing speak. But you know what, you are talking about mysteries and I am speaking about general scriptural knowledge... so maybe we are both correct. Though, seeing no man knows the day nor hour of Messiah's return, there are still some mysteries which we are not privy to.

Peace.
Ken

[EphremHagos]

Initially the mantle was passed from Elijah > John > Jesus:

Matthew 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

Then it was passed from Jesus > Disciples (man) > Church (woman):

1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Before Pentecost, disciples received some measure of power from Jesus to heal and perceive mysteries, Matthew 10:1, Matthew 13:11. But after he was gone, Jesus passed on his mantle to them, and then they to the church.

Sorry, I do not see the relevance of the suggestions of two lines of transferred positions to the topic at hand. The lines are also laden with serious flaws --chief of which is the depreciation of the role of Jesus Christ who is the exclusive and ultimate source of authority in either case!

[EphremHagos]

The truth was there if someone was smart enough without the help of the indwelling Holy Spirit to put it together. I do not see any of the disciples we are following being able to put it together from their comments. In their defence i think they were taught wrong by their former teachers and parents and freinds.

The truth was surely there! Nevertheless, no one was, nor will ever “smart enough to put it together” without the help of the Holy Spirit either in foretaste or indwelling. No one can know who Jesus Christ is unless he is born again of the Spirit (John 3:3).

Accordingly, there were a limited number of known fore tasters of baptism in the Holy Spirit by Jesus Christ in Scriptures (both Old and New) including surprising and precious few breakthroughs or removal of barriers to progress on the typically hard way to the narrow gate of life (Matt. 7: 13-14). Examples of the latter include James and John (Matt. 20: 20-28; Mark 10: 35-45) and Mary of Bethany (John 12: 1-8).

[John Goddard]

Sorry, I do not see the relevance of the suggestions of two lines of transferred positions to the topic at hand. The lines are also laden with serious flaws --chief of which is the depreciation of the role of Jesus Christ who is the exclusive and ultimate source of authority in either case!

Point being that revelation of truths from God happened prior to Pentecost, Matthew 16:16-17 for example.

While picking up the mantle of anointing others followed the chain I described in the two lines, from Elijah to John to Jesus at his baptism:

Matthew 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

Then from Jesus to Disciples:

Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Acts 2:3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.

Then from Disciples to the Church:

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Not sure what you mean about depreciating the role of Jesus, since the chain of anointing is self-explanatory in the verses provided.

[EphremHagos]

I don't disagree, I believe understanding who he is is indeed the key to understanding. But I also don't believe it ends there, we still have work to do, study to do. When he returns we are changed, before which time we are error prone and corruptible. There are many things I have come to understand since starting to look at scripture more Hebraically, and this began many years after coming to an understanding of who Yehoshua is. For example, Hillel's influence on Paul is apparent in many ways, one of which is the use of "light and heavy" or "how much more." Without having taken some time to understand that style of teaching of Hillel, I had no way to understand the depths of which some of Paul's writing speak. But you know what, you are talking about mysteries and I am speaking about general scriptural knowledge... so maybe we are both correct. Though, seeing no man knows the day nor hour of Messiah's return, there are still some mysteries which we are not privy to.

Peace.
Ken

Please allow me the say the following.

If you find the standard, Scriptural, vision-based, life-transforming, firsthand and personal knowledge of Jesus Christ –the “I Am Who I Am”, i.e., self-sufficient source of abundant life and complete happiness (Ex. 3: 1-15; John 8: 21-28; 10:10; 17:3; 19: 30-37); or “the first”, i.e., Alpha and “the last”, i.e., Omega (Rev. 1: 17-18), at His diacritical death on the cross, less than all-sufficient in every respect, you had better re-examine the validity and reliability of your own source of knowledge as compared to the detailed road map in Scriptures.

Blessings!

[Bosco]

Please allow me the say the following.

If you find the standard, Scriptural, vision-based, life-transforming, firsthand and personal knowledge of Jesus Christ –the “I Am Who I Am”, i.e., self-sufficient source of abundant life and complete happiness (Ex. 3: 1-15; John 8: 21-28; 10:10; 17:3; 19: 30-37); or “the first”, i.e., Alpha and “the last”, i.e., Omega (Rev. 1: 17-18), at His diacritical death on the cross, less than all-sufficient in every respect, you had better re-examine the validity and reliability of your own source of knowledge as compared to the detailed road map in Scriptures.

Blessings!

Are you suggesting that if at anytime I see Yehoshua as only a man then I need to reexamine my sources for reliability?

Peace.
Ken

[EphremHagos]

Point being that revelation of truths from God happened prior to Pentecost, Matthew 16:16-17 for example.

While picking up the mantle of anointing others followed the chain I described in the two lines, from Elijah to John to Jesus at his baptism:

Matthew 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

Then from Jesus to Disciples:

Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Acts 2:3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.

Then from Disciples to the Church:

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Not sure what you mean about depreciating the role of Jesus, since the chain of anointing is self-explanatory in the verses provided.

The stakes are infinitely higher than what is accepted in conventional Christianity (and you). Here is the reason for the “serious flaws” I referred to.

Far from being a climax, “Pentecost” (Acts 2) is a retroactive and propagative application of the final, exceedingly powerful and all-time self-revelation of God (in the all-round “resurrection” proper) right at Jesus Christ’s death on the cross strictly “according to the Scriptures”, i.e., the culmination of the trend in the books of Moses and the writings of the prophets, without which faith will prove spurious (John 1: 47-51). An excellent benchmark is God’s self-revelation to Moses in the flame coming from the middle of a bush on fire but not burning up signifying self-sufficient life (“I Am Who I Am”) with a parallel promise for posterity actually kept alive and fulfilled in the “new covenant” (Ex. 3: 1-15; John 8: 21-28; 19: 30-37) --source of firsthand knowledge of God. Herein is the true significance; and unique and convincing evidence for the resurrection applied successfully by Jesus Christ (Luke 24: 25-27; Acts 1: 1-5) and referred to by the writer of the fourth Gospel as the cause for the unbelief of the majority of the disciples (John 20:9).

For personal and experiential reasons, I maintain strongly that Jesus Christ is much more than a link, viz.: “the first and the last” (Rev. 1:17) in the “mantle of anointing”!

[EphremHagos]

Are you suggesting that if at anytime I see Yehoshua as only a man then I need to reexamine my sources for reliability?

Peace.
Ken

I am in good company to answer in the affirmative (2 Cor. 5:16).

[John Goddard]

For personal and experiential reasons, I maintain strongly that Jesus Christ is much more than a link, viz.: “the first and the last” (Rev. 1:17) in the “mantle of anointing”!

He's the mediator of anointing now, I guess that's a link of sorts.

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Here, first and last means you don't get to God except through Jesus.

[EphremHagos]

He's the mediator of anointing now, I guess that's a link of sorts.

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Here, first and last means you don't get to God except through Jesus.

Wouldn't complete confusion and loss follow the absence of knowledge of the points of departure (Jesus Christ) and arrival (God)?

[John Goddard]

Wouldn't complete confusion and loss follow the absence of knowledge of the points of departure (Jesus Christ) and arrival (God)?

I think see what you're saying. As an analogy, instead of passing by Jesus holding the door open for us to enter the Temple with God inside, Jesus is the Temple with God within him.

A link of sorts, but not an isolated point from A to B for example.

If that sounds more agreeable...?

[Bosco]

I am in good company to answer in the affirmative (2 Cor. 5:16).

All that says is that we know him in Spirit now, and not in the flesh. One of us took the other wrong it seems, because I have no idea what you are saying. I believe Yehoshua is God, that he came as a man for the suffering of death, to reconcile the world unto himself, and now sits at the right hand (metaphoric or symbolic for the seat of power and authority) of the Father.

Peace.
ken

[EphremHagos]

I think see what you're saying. As an analogy, instead of passing by Jesus holding the door open for us to enter the Temple with God inside, Jesus is the Temple with God within him.
A link of sorts, but not an isolated point from A to B for example.

If that sounds more agreeable...?

Of course! You now sound more agreeable with the claims by Jesus Christ about himself and by others (including me) about him which, according to Jesus, are not all that valid and reliable anyway (John 5: 31-35).

The established and verifiable option is to see for oneself the witness of Jesus’ supernatural works in action, in real time, by participating in the “baptism of the Holy Spirit into union with his death” on the cross (Ibid, 5: 36; 10: 37-38; Rom. 6: 3-5). This is, indeed, the hard lesson learned by the disciples, after three years, final denial (Judas and Peter), desertion (8 disciples), 40-day recap, a few more days of preparation and prayer and final application on the day of Pentecost resulting in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit to reveal the truth about Jesus, viz.: his full divinity as “I am Who I Am” or the “Father” , i.e., self-sufficient source of life as demonstrated in death (John 8: 21-28, 19: 30-37). That is why it pays to look at him whom they pierced!

By the grace of God, I have personally seen the deeply mysterious and life-transforming vision of the sovereign authority of Jesus over death and life (John 1:51; Matt. 28: 18-20) more than 34 years ago and lived thereafter to make sense of it for my understanding and assurance, through confirming its Scriptural validity, and to share my testimony. The second half of my life by far outshines the first!
PRAISE THE LORD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[EphremHagos]

All that says is that we know him in Spirit now, and not in the flesh. One of us took the other wrong it seems, because I have no idea what you are saying. I believe Yehoshua is God, that he came as a man for the suffering of death, to reconcile the world unto himself, and now sits at the right hand (metaphoric or symbolic for the seat of power and authority) of the Father.

Peace.
ken

“No longer, then, do we judge anyone by human standards! Even if at one time we judged Christ, according to human standards, we no longer do so.” 2 Cor. 5:16

As our role model, Paul is setting an empirical basis for forming “before” and “after” opinion of Jesus Christ WITH or WITHOUT weighing the evidence, correspondingly. I hope you agree.

Blessings!

[John Goddard]

Of course! You now sound more agreeable with the claims by Jesus Christ about himself and by others (including me) about him which, according to Jesus, are not all that valid and reliable anyway (John 5: 31-35).

The established and verifiable option is to see for oneself the witness of Jesus’ supernatural works in action, in real time, by participating in the “baptism of the Holy Spirit into union with his death” on the cross (Ibid, 5: 36; 10: 37-38; Rom. 6: 3-5). This is, indeed, the hard lesson learned by the disciples, after three years, final denial (Judas and Peter), desertion (8 disciples), 40-day recap, a few more days of preparation and prayer and final application on the day of Pentecost resulting in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit to reveal the truth about Jesus, viz.: his full divinity as “I am Who I Am” or the “Father” , i.e., self-sufficient source of life as demonstrated in death (John 8: 21-28, 19: 30-37). That is why it pays to look at him whom they pierced!

By the grace of God, I have personally seen the deeply mysterious and life-transforming vision of the sovereign authority of Jesus over death and life (John 1:51; Matt. 28: 18-20) more than 34 years ago and lived thereafter to make sense of it for my understanding and assurance, through confirming its Scriptural validity, and to share my testimony. The second half of my life by far outshines the first!
PRAISE THE LORD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cool, glad to find some common ground.

[EphremHagos]

Cool, glad to find some common ground.

Finding a first "common ground" is surely worthy of praise to God. AMEN!