What kind of “being” is Jesus now?
April 4th, 2010 by Brian Keating
Happy Resurrection Sunday everyone! Today, most Christians commemorate the resurrection of Jesus – and as we know, that resurrection is the basis of our faith. (See 1 Cor 15:1-5.)
Since the resurrection is such an important concept, I’d like to explore one item about it in more detail. Basically, when God resurrected Jesus, what kind of “being” did Jesus become? In other words, is Jesus currently a human being, or is he a spirit being?
There are a number of verses that are used to support both views. However, here are the two most explicit verses that I have found, which appear to address this question:
1 Timothy 2:5 (ESV):
5For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1 Corinthians 15:45 (ESV):
45Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
The first verse definitely appears to state that Jesus is currently a human being – because Paul wrote that verse after Jesus had been resurrected. However, the second verse – which was also written by Paul – definitely appears to state that Jesus is currently a spirit being.
So, it appears that Scripture “contradicts” itself here. Of course, I do not believe that Scripture ever contradicts itself. So, the question is, is there some way that we can “reconcile” this apparent contradiction?
Here is the way that I reconcile the above two verses. (Of course, I could be wrong.)
First off, Paul tells us that there are two “types” of bodies – “natural” bodies, and “spiritual” bodies:
1 Corinthians 15:42-44 (ESV):
42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. 43It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. 44It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
Paul also tells us that when Jesus returns, he will transform our “lowly” bodies, so that that become like his “glorious” body:
Philippians 3:20-21 (ESV):
20But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself.
I understand several points from the above passages:
- “natural” bodies and “lowly” bodies are synonyms;
- “spiritual” bodies and “glorious” bodies are synonyms;
- When Jesus returns, he will transform our “lowly” (or “natural”) bodies, to become like his “glorious” (or “spiritual”) body.
The above points tell me that Jesus currently has a spiritual body - and when he returns, he will give us spiritual bodies as well.
The reason why this is important is because it appears to “resolve” the apparent contradiction I listed above. Basically, from this information, I have come to the following conclusion:
“When Jesus was originally born on the earth, he was a man who had a natural body. When God resurrected Jesus, Jesus became a man who has a spiritual body.”
In my mind, the above conclusion appears to reconcile 1 Timothy 2:5 and 1 Corinthians 15:45. Basically, 1 Timothy 2:5 states that Jesus is a man – which he is. 1 Corinthians 15:45 states that Jesus became a life-giving spirit – which refers to the fact that Jesus currently has a spiritual body.
Does this make any sense to any of you? I would be interested to hear if any of you have alternate ideas about how to reconcile 1 Timothy 2:5 and 1 Corinthians 15:45.
Hi Brian
Absolutely spot-on. You put it much better and clearer than I could have done, thanks
Fiona
Fiona
Nice try, difficult subject since Jesus is said to do things in the Gospels that we can only attribute to apparitions or “ghosts” [in the traditionalist sense].
Key thing to note though in Paul’s explanation of our resurrected bodies with that of our present “earthly bodies” is v. 46:
Something that over time has been made to say: “the spiritual came first, the natural is just a shell”.
Brian,
by saying that “Jesus, Jesus became a man who has a spiritual body”, you are stating something that neither of the two epistles say.
You probably dismissed from the start the possibility that the two verses may not agree with each other at all. Here a few reasons why I think they don’t.
First question to ask is are we really dealing here with the same writer? Incidentally, 1 Tim’s Pauline authorship is disputed; among the reasons for this is the fact that the issues dealt with in it appear to reflect the situation of the later church, after Paul’s time in the fifties. This epistle deals with the office of the bishops, but looking at Paul’s churches reveals no such arrangement. In Corinthians there are no church leaders, no hierarchical structure, and those wanting to elevate others to such or similar positions are admonished by Paul (ch 3; 4:6). This church was led by the spirit (ch. 12-14), not by human leaders.
Because the Corinthian church had no leaders, predictably, things were not exactly going smoothly in the church, but rather chaotic. People were divided by allegiance to different perceived leaders (ch 3), members were frequenting prostitutes (ch. 6) and one of them even had intercourse with his step mother (ch 5). They were suing each other in worldly courts (ch 6), at the lord’s supper there were frictions between people eating and drinking copiously and those who didn’t, disorder regarding the fruits of the spirit (some thought the speaking in tongues was the real sign of genuine discipleship, there was no translation, etc). For Paul, who held apocalyptical views, Jesus’ return was imminent and so no long-term arrangements like church structure and leadership were really needed.
As a result of this disorder, as time passed, as Paul passed, and Jesus didn’t return, later churches had no choice but make changes towards a church structure, appointing bishops. So somebody took the initiative to write 1,2 Tim, Tit in the name of Paul, to give this new direction apostolic authenticity. These times were not Paul’s time. As one can notice, Paul doesn’t write to Corinthian bishops (as is the case of the three pastoral epistles), instructing them on how to establish order and discipline. His epistle is directed to the whole church.
There are also some echoes in this epistle that hint of post-Pauline times. One of them is 1 Tim 2:4, where God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth”. This seems to function as a push-back against late 1st century – 2nd century gnostic Christians, who were saying God chose only a few select people to save, and this saving was accomplished by God providing them with secret knowledge. They also denied Jesus’ mediatorship, his sacrificial ransom and its effects, something the writer of 1 Tim stresses in the next verse (“For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time”).
Another echo of later times is the statement that in the last times some will adopt demonic teachings, and these people “forbid marriage” (1 Tim 4:3). We know that 2nd century Christianity struggled with members who were heavily emphasizing virginity, to the point where they taught even against marriage. All kinds of “romance” novels appear in this period, whose best known story is that of St. Tecla, who wanted to be St. Paul’s disciple (who preaches sexual renunciation!) When her family made arrangements for her to marry her fiance, she refused for the sake of Christ and runs away following Paul. Tecla was ultimately a huge influence, pilgrims flocking to her shrines all over the place (I remember Sean’s video from his visit to Turkey, where he entered a church in a cave, with Tecla present on a wall). Her story was well-known and she was held in high regard as a true martyr for her stance on virginity. The push for virginity was very popular.
So no wonder somebody is writing in Paul’s name that people who forbid marriage have succumbed to demonic teachings. What better antidote for the Paul of the aforementioned story, who preaches against marriage!
Then there is the passage where the writer forbids women to speak in the congregation (2:11,12), and the questionable logic he employs on why women are inferior: they sinned first! They were also created second, so, logic dictates that women have to shut up. This is a far cry from Paul statement that “there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).
And then there’s the vocabulary. Over a third of the words in the pastoral letters are not employed at all in Paul’s letters. But they appear in the writings of 2nd century church fathers. That’s cool.
So I personally see no reason why 1 Tim should agree with 1 Cor. For Paul, this spiritual body is a “dwelling from heaven” made by God and given in exchange for the earthly body (2 Co 5:1-4), for “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Co 15:50). This tradition is preserved in the Gospels where Jesus says the resurrected will be like angels (Mark 12:25 and parallels), in 1 Pe 3:18 where Jesus was made alive in the spirit, and in 1 John 3:2 where “what we shall be has not yet been revealed. We do know that when it is revealed we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.”, and this despite the fact that the writer is surely familiar with the visible apparitions of the resurrected Jesus.
Xavier,
Indeed. This is what I’ve said previously about the “glorified” body of the resurrected Jesus:
And of course, the whole problem of the natural human needs still remains. If Jesus is human, and he is in heaven, where does he get his oxygen from up there? Does he still get hungry and thirsty? What does he eat and drink? And if he doesn’t eat, drink, or breath, can he still be said to be human? What kind of human doesn’t need to do that? Isn’t Adam the model of sinless humans?
True. Brown thinks that the secessionist of the Johannine community evolved towards full-blown Gnosticism this way: first there was the idea that Jesus came from heaven, having preexisted as an incorporeal being. Then this was later applied to everybody as well: we come from heaven, having preexisted as spirits, and we need to find our way back.
JohnE
You are obviously reading to much into the “physical” aspects of the glorified, resurrected body we will all have come the rapture. Remember the key aspect of the present spiritual state of Messiah’s body. But then again, these questions are reserved for philosophical specualtions since the bible doesn;t give us anymore info.
Xavier,
If I am reading too much into the “physical” aspects of the resurrected body then so do the gospel writers, I am merely following them. They present Jesus as a breathing, eating and supposedly drinking person after his resurrection, one who is getting hungry. Hence my observations.
But if we agree natural human needs do not apply to the resurrected Jesus, then Jesus has merely put on a show while presenting himself as hungry and eating, for the benefit of his disciples, so that they would be able to believe he really lives and is the Jesus the disciples knew. He didn’t really need to eat. This logical conclusion is not something people here accept though, AFAIK.
The point still remains. A hypothetical being who does not breath, eat or drink, who is able to see God and initiate interaction with spiritual beings in the spiritual domain, is not human. Hence the first Adam is the one who’s human, the second Adam is a spirit.
JohnE
Text doesn’t actually say Jesus was hungry, he ate as proof that he wasn’t some apparition.
Yes, Jesus is not human like our current flesh and blood state, he is the “spiritual man, second Adam [human being]“. ANd like the first Adam, he is able now to interact with God personally.
I think you said it well Brian.
The glory Jesus partakes in now causes me to wonder if he has any limits.
When I think of these things, I consider some of the things we read of about of the glory of God, and wonder if they all apply now to Jesus as well.
Psalm 46:7
The Lord of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our refuge. Selah.
John E (msg. 3)
You said, “Then there is the passage where the writer forbids women to speak in the congregation (1 Tim 2:11,12) and the questionable logic he employs on why women are inferior: They sinned first!”
I also noticed (1st. Corinthians 14:33-35) “As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a women to speak in church.”
Contrast this with what it says in (Acts 2:16-18) “But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel: ‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men will see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; even on my male servants and my female servants in those days I will pour out my spirit, and they shall prophesy.’ ”
As usual what Paul says seems to contradict what other parts of the bible are saying. If Paul and his followers believed they were living in the last days then, Why didn’t they let their daughters (women) prophesy (speak) in the church??
Whenever I read the bible I read a few pages then stop and contemplate what I have just read and try to digest it. I just can’t seem to digest a lot of what Paul is saying. It either contradicts what Jesus says or contradicts other parts of the bible like what the prophet Joel says. A lot of what he says just doesn’t feel right to me…
JohnE
Your not the only one bro…
Xavier
Some of us agree with the biblical scholars that say that 2nd. Peter wasn’t actually written by Peter.
Thomas
I think i help you with why you see Paul preached a different gospel than Jesus.
In the First 2 verses we see that Jesus’ mission was just to preach to lost sheep of Israel. Physical and those joined to them
Matthew 10:6
But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Matthew 15:24
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
But when we get to Paul we see he preaches to both the lost sheep and gentiles as you see in last 3 verses
To the lost sheep is preached the Kingdom of God salvation and to the gentile the New Heaven and Earth salvation.
For the New Heaven and Earth salvation there is no need to join yourself to Israel or Follow the laws required to be an Israelite but you will be judged by the matters of the heart.
To understand Paul you need to separate these 2 Gospels.
salvation is to the Jew first(kingdom of God) and also to the gentile(New Heaven and Earth)
Both will be in the New heaven and Earth where they will become one people.
other apostle’s churches were more the lost sheep ,thats why you see there gospel matching Jesus’ gospel more.
you have to understand Jesus was here just for a short time to just preach the kingdom gospel, But knew after his death the gentiles would receive their gospel through the apostles.
Romans 1:16
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Romans 2:9
Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
Romans 2:10
But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
Robert
Thanks for trying to explain it to me. I am currently reading 1st. Corinthians. Like I said I only read a few pages then I stop and contemplate what it is that I have read and try to digest it (match it with my existing knowledge of the rest of the bible).
I’ve always found it hard to reconcile Paul with the rest of the bible, but I am trying to keep an open mind…
Xavier,
You are right, the text doesn’t say he ate because he was hungry. The text does not say Jesus needed the food, as opposed to how he is presented before resurrection, as a human being, who gets hungry.
Yes, Jesus is not human like our current flesh and blood state, he is the “spiritual man, second Adam [human being]”.
Jesus is not human in all ways, as far as post-resurrection accounts go. As for your quote that Jesus is “spiritual man, second Adam [human being]”, I’m not sure where you got that from, cause it isn’t from 1 Co 15:45. Paul does not say Jesus is a “spiritual man” there, he says Jesus was made a life-giving spirit.
He delineates the two characters clearly: while he calls Adam a “man” (“the first man Adam”, anthropos, not the “first Adam”), he doesn’t continue saying about Jesus “the second man”, the second anthropos; Jesus is rather the second Adam (it’s only in vs. 47 that Jesus is “the second man”, and this “man”, who is also “a spirit”, is “from heaven”).
Sure enough, in the Hebrew OT “Adam” sometimes means “man”, but not in the OT Corinthians and Paul were using, the LXX. Virtually every instance of “Adam” with the sense of “man” in the Hebrew OT, is translated by the LXX with the regular Greek noun designating humans: anthropos. So for Paul and the Corinthians, a “second Adam” means exactly that, a “second Adam”, not a “second man” (and btw, the name Adam doesn’t come from “man”, but from the Hebrew “adamah” – ground, dust).
It’s also worth noting that there’s no precedent in the NT for substituting “man” for “Adam”. Every time somebody says “Adam”, he refers to the person of Adam, not to “man” in general. This is, again, because the scripture of the church was the Greek Septuagint, who uses the correct Greek word, “anthropos” wherever the Hebrew OT says “Adam” in the sense of “man”. So in Christian-speak, Adam is not “man” in general, or “humankind”, but literally Adam himself.
It is clear (to me at least) that Paul speaks here of the archetype/prototype these two persons represent. Adam is the prototype (“the first of its kind”) of humans, and Jesus is the prototype of the resurrected ones. Christ is first fruits of those who are asleep. As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. Just as they have borne the image of the earthy, they will also bear the image of the heavenly. The point of all this, Paul explains, is that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God”. Flesh and blood, the hallmark of Adam, cannot “inherit” the kingdom, is not like the “heavenly”; Paul and the Corinthians will all be “changed” (according to the natural flow of text, from “flesh and blood” to “spiritual body”). So if Jesus is to be called “man”, to Paul he is only in name so, if Paul believes human characteristics include flesh and blood and a “physical” body.
Except for the fact that Adam, in agreement with Hebrew theology, could not see God. Jesus can and does. Neither was this sinless man able to go into the spiritual realm and interact with the angels/demons. But Jesus can. This resurrected “man”, is “man” only in name. Now wonder high Christology and preexistence developed so smoothly.
Thomas,
Not if you dig around a little bit. The verses you quoted, 1st. Corinthians 14:33-35, are thought by some scholars to have not been part of Paul’s writing. I won’t go into details, but there are some manuscript indications in that direction, plus ones pertaining to how the text (wrongly) flows in that area. It’s all in Ehrman’s “The Orthodox Corruption of the Scripture”, which I believe Xavier has also in digital form, maybe he could post the relevant portions here.
John E.
Thanks. Now that would make sense then. It just didn’t seem right that women would be given a second class position in the church…
Doubting
Are you a scholar or a NT believing Christian? The whole of the NT canon that is and not just some of it.
JohnE
Yes your right, its implied in the phrase “life-giving spirit”. But the phrase as such, “spiritual man [person]” is a Pauline term that he actually uses to describe believers [2Cor 2.15; 3.1; 14.37; Gal 6.1], who are supposed to have within them the same spirit that glorified Jesus with a new body. The goal of the Christian person.
The terms “adam” and “man” are synonymous why the distinction when you seem to agree that Jesus was [pre-resurrection state] and is [post] a human being?
Although the evidence is scant to say the least regarding the “dos and donts” of the state of things in the Garden of Eden pre-fall, there is enough there to suggest that the first human beings personally interacted with God the Father Himself and angels [the snake which becomes Satan in the NT].
Furthermore, it appears that even “sinful man” is able to enter “the spiritual realm” as per the writer of the book of Revelation.
Xavier
You said, “Are you a scholar or a NT believing Christian? The whole of the NT canon that is and not just some of it.”
I am certainly not a scholar and have never claimed such a title. Like I said before, I am a student of Christ exploring my beliefs with others and listening to the feedback.
What I don’t understand is that you seem to have no problem with someone saying they disagree with the early church fathers on the Trinity but the opinions of some of the early church fathers in regards to which gospels should be included in the NT canon or not are sacrosanct and beyond debate and discussion.
I might not be a scholar but at least I’m consistent in my beliefs that we should “Test everything and retain what is good.”
Doubting
The NT canon as it has come down to us is beyond dispute regarding its historicity and tradition. Whilst its true that some early “Church Fathers” questioned the authenticity of some of the books, they nonetheless are part of the canon as we know them. If you want to be in the minority of those “students” [and scholars] who continue to question them, knock yourself out. I personally do not see any merit in it.
You are right we are supposed to “test the spirits to see whether they are from God”. But as a Christian, what would you merit from questioning those NT books that history and the majority of the christian world has accepted as authentic? I mean what is next?
And how can that help build up your faith at all?
Xavier
Your view that those who question the authenticity of the greek MSS as lacking the means to build true faith parallels the view of the trinitarians toward the unitarians.
Personally my faith is not built on the Authenticity of them its built on my understanding of them using common sense,OT and the view point of several written histories. Histories that back them and Histories that dont. From these Histories we can find unbias evidence and motives for early corruptions like earlier MSS that show the greek Mss were just translations from the original language they were written in. Some of these Histories show massive corruptions when MSS was translated to greek.
there are several scholars who feel most of the NT was writing in Hebrew first who discovered this not out of motive but of just plain observation. Yes there are many that dispute that but everyone of them have motives to do so.
So see nothing wrong with testing every word of the NT or even the OT especially in light of later translations and do not feel that by doing that is questioning One’s faith.
We have so much more today to judge these books by then they had when they were accepted
Robert
You said, “Personally my faith is not built on the Authenticity of them but it’s built on my understanding of them using common sense, OT and the view point of several written histories.”
My faith also doesn’t rely on whether they happened to choose the correct 66 books and letters that eventually made up the Bible. My faith is totally dependent on God and his Son, the Messiah, the Teacher. Jesus said, (Mathew 23:8-10) “But you are not to be called Rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no man your Father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ.”
From what I have read about how the New Testament Cannon was put together there was a lot of horse trading being done between the Eastern and Western Churches. One of the most controversial books to be allowed into the cannon was Revelations. From what I understand the only reason it was allowed in was because it was accompanied by two epistles that were considered authentic so it was finally agreed to include the book (also written by John) into the New Testament cannon (but there was still a great dispute about it mainly because it was used by the Gnostics).
Mark C. has even said to me that most scholars don’t believe that Paul wrote Hebrews. I believe Jesus is our instructor and teacher not Paul or anyone else. Whenever anyone (including Paul) says something that appears to contradict what Jesus said this raises huge red flags for me. I have complete faith and trust that everything Jesus said and taught came directly from his Father and our Father (God).
I am trying to read and study Paul with an open mind but I have my doubts about some of things that he taught. This is my nature and has been since I was a young man hence the blogging name Doubting Thomas. I try not to accept anything without first investigating and making sure it seems right and feels right.
I believe God knew what he was doing when he gave me my heart and my ability to reason (I have never claimed to be a scholar or a teacher)…
Thomas
I was speaking of my faith that is based from the written word, there are many things that have bearing on my faith. even without the bible i would know there was a creator. the bible just tells me who the CREATOR IS. there is no way the universe can evolved with such perfection on its own
Robert
You said, “Even without the bible I would know there was a creator. The bible just tells me who the CREATOR IS.”
I agree. After almost 20 years as a staunch Atheist I finally said to myself – “Maybe there is a God?” Something that I would not have admitted as being true since the age of around 14 years old or so. I had convinced myself that there was NO WAY that God could have possibly existed.
This simple statement that “Maybe there is a God?” led me onto a journey (that is still continuing) and within a year I came to believe that there was a God (based mainly on the same things you mentioned above). But I was not yet a Christian. I first delved into Buddhism and went to several Buddhist meetings. I then investigated Islam and read most of the Koran (a beautifully written book by the way).
After several years of investigating I came to the conclusion that what Jesus said and taught made the most sense to me and I then started going to various churches exploring what it was that they believed. I looked at more than just what they said they believed, I was even more interested in their behavior. To me actions speak louder than words.
That’s the thing that impresses me the most about this site. Even people like me (with unorthodox) beliefs are not turned away or shunned. Everyone seems to be kind and patient and willing to listen to how other people are struggling with what they should or should not believe. Like I said actions always speak louder than words…
Xavier,
I fail to see how “spiritual man” is implied in “life-giving spirit”, if that’s what you mean. I see no such thing.
But we weren’t debating on whether the phrase “spiritual man” is Pauline or not. Of course it is. The only problem is that it simply isn’t used here, therefore it should not be introduced in the discussion. Not only because of its absence, but because of opposite meanings. This is about what Christ became as a result of his resurrection. He became a spirit. I’m sure you’re not suggesting he wasn’t a spiritual man before? Cause in Pauline thought, a man who is not spiritual is obviously carnal. Remember, the whole discussion contained in vs. 35-54 is a response to the question “what body will the resurrected have?”. The body is spiritual here, not the person as is the case in the other verses you mentioned.
In Christian speak, as far as we know, they are not synonymous, and I showed this in the previous post.
But personal interaction is not the issue here. Even Moses interacted personally with God. I am talking about seeing God (or Satan), while Judaism (and Christianity for that matter) says no man can see God. John himself says this in his prologue. John also suggests Jesus has seen God. Therefore Jesus is not human. Because the only kind of persons who are said to see God are the ones spiritual in nature (angels, Satan, etc).
That’s not a valid comparison. The Revelation is a vision. Nobody would claim the author has really seen God. Remember, “man cannot see Me and live”.
Actually, John says, “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him” (John 1:18).
JohnE
Perhaps we’re talking past each other here so let me ask straight out. So are you saying that Jesus went from being a human [corporeal] being to a spiritual [incorporeal] being? My position is that to Jesus’ human body was given a new spiritual body, but he is still a human being, albeit obviously a glorified one. Now as to the “mechanics” or physics of what he can or cannot do etc., who knows.
Yes I agreed with you that it is not specifically used here but it is implied, since believers will “partake” of Jesus’ current glorified form, since we will all partake of the “Divine Nature” [cp. John 17.11, 21; 1Cor 6.17; 2Pe 1.4].
Moses is said to have known God “face to face” [Ex 33.11; Num 12.8; Deu 34.10] as did Jacob [Gen 32.30]. I fail to see how this has nothing to do with “personal interaction”!
Yes, no human being [flesh and blood=fallen state] can see God and live. It says nothing about the first human beings, pre-fall, not being able to perosnally interact with the Deity. If anything, there is enough Jewish extra-biblical literature which states otherwise [see Revelation [Apocalypse] of Adam].
Lastly, “seeing” throughout Johannine language is synonymous with “understanding”. But that is not to deny that Jesus had unique “access” to his heavenly Father in a way that no other since had. As the eschatological “Son of Man”, “one-of-a-kind” Son, and prophetized Messiah, Jesus is the supreme human [which all those titles mean] representative of the only invisible, immortal God.
Mark,
I’m not sure why you begin by saying “Actually”. You mean that I said “John also suggests Jesus has seen God”, but actually John only said in 1:18 that Jesus only declared God, not seen God? I didn’t say John suggests Jesus saw God in 1:18. He does that elsewhere:
John 5:37 “And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form.
John 6:46-47 “Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father. “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.
John 8:38 “I speak the things which I have seen with My Father; therefore you also do the things which you heard from your father.”
Xavier,
Could be
I personally do not think that. I am talking about what Paul believed. For Paul, Jesus became a spirit.
He “knew” God face to face, not that he’s seen God. He knows God in such way because has spoken with God “face to face”. When Moses asks to see him, God says he can’t, because no man can.
Again, as I said already a few times, I’m talking about interacting with God while seeing God (or angels, demons). Since he Jesus is said in the NT to sit at the right hand of God in heaven, these NT writers obviously believe Jesus interacts with God while him. Peter also says Jesus took the initiative and preached to the “spirits in prison” – presumably disobedient angels. Jesus is presented to do what no human was or is able to do: interact with God and other spirits while having entered the spiritual domain, which is obviously inaccessible to humans.
Flesh AND blood do not equal “fallen state”. The “blood” ruins the whole equation. It simply means “human nature” here. Plus, all the relevant texts mentioning the impossibility of seeing God mention nothing about fallen state, they just say “man”, or “nobody”. “No man can see me”. “No one has seen God”.
Can you please quote? If there is such a text, then it should stand in contradiction with the Pentateuch. John does not obviously, he’s in agreement here.
I’m not sure I agree with that. But anyway, do you think “to see” here means “to understand”?:
John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
John 1:32 John testified saying, “I have seen the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and He remained upon Him.
John 1:34 “I myself have seen, and have testified that this is the Son of God.”
John 3:11 “Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know and testify of what we have seen, and you do not accept our testimony.
John 3:32 “What He has seen and heard, of that He testifies; and no one receives His testimony.
John 4:45 So when He came to Galilee, the Galileans received Him, having seen all the things that He did in Jerusalem at the feast; for they themselves also went to the feast.
John 5:37 And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form.
John 6:36 “But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe.
John 6:46 “Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father.
John 8:38 “I speak the things which I have seen with My Father; therefore you also do the things which you heard from your father.”
John 8:57 So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?”
John 9:37 Jesus said to him, “You have both seen Him, and He is the one who is talking with you.”
John 14:7 “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.”
John 14:9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father ‘?
John 15:24 “If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin; but now they have both seen and hated Me and My Father as well.
John 19:35 And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe.
John 20:18 Mary Magdalene came, announcing to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord,” and that He had said these things to her.
John 20:25 So the other disciples were saying to him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.”
John 20:29 Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.”
1 John 1:1 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life–
1 John 1:2 and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us–
1 John 1:3 what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.
1 John 3:6 No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him.
1 John 4:12 No one has seen God at any time; if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us.
1 John 4:14 We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world.
1 John 4:20 If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen.
3 John 1:11 Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. The one who does good is of God; the one who does evil has not seen God. (this one is such a vs.)
JohnE
Then why does he keep referring to him as a human being [anthropos, 1Tim 2.5]?
Does this mean you hold to the Gnostic [dualist] concept of corporeal human = evil, spirit = good?
Some of the verses you cite are clearly figurative in their meaning. Again, Jesus may or may not have literally seen and heard God. If he did, I wouldn’t be surprised since he was a miraculously created human being who did not “partake of the sinful nature” that everyone else is born into.
In anycase, is Jesus an immortalized human being now or isn’r he?
Xavier,
Please see above about 1 Tim. I don’t believe Paul is the author.
Not that it matters, but no, I don’t believe that. I am interested in what Paul (and 1st Christians) believed. He didn’t believe that either, but he did believe Jesus became a spirit (as odd as that might sound to 21st century minds).
Again, “all the relevant texts mentioning the impossibility of seeing God mention nothing about fallen state, they just say “man”, or “nobody”. “No man can see me”. “No one has seen God””. They are not about man in the fallen state, only about man period.
JohnE
So let me get this straight, your interested in what Paul believes but you do not believe some of the letters attributed to him?
Your right bro, it doesn’t matter what you believe.
Xavier
I believe John E is saying that he doesn’t believe some of the letters attributed to him were actually written by him. This has nothing to do with whether he is interested in what Paul believed or not.
It’s no different than Mark C. saying that most biblical scholars believe that Hebrews was not actually written by Paul. Does this mean that Mark C. is not interested in what Paul said either??
Doubting
I guess you know better than what other people are saying.
Point of fact is I don’t even know what JohnE is arguing about since he says his personal beliefs are for naught.
One thing is not knowing with 100% certainty who wrote what, another is believing what is written. This is what baffles me about Muslims when they claim to believe that NT and what it says about Jesus. But they do not believe what it says regarding his supernatural conception and resurrection.
Xavier,
Exactly, I’m interested in what Paul and other 1st century Christians believed, but what has that to do with the other? I’m interested in what he wrote, not in what others wrote in his name. After all, even you don’t believe some of the letters attributed to him.
Thomas,
You nailed it
And like you I suppose, I don’t believe they weren’t written by him because I just feel like not believing that, I have investigated these things, weighed the evidence, decided.
JohnE
Just to clarify, I believe what most Christians and scholars alike believe and that is the entire Pauline corpus. Like I previously stated, when we started doubting the authencity of any NT book is a recipe for disaster. I mean, what is next? Then again, unlike people like Ehrman and others, I am not a fundamentalist Christian. I believe all of the NT scriptures as we have them were written by fallible people who were nonetheless divinely inspired to put to ink what we have. Whereas the fundamentalist mindset is similar to the Muslim one where they believe God actually dictated the scriptures to people.
In any case, why this whole argument if at the end of the day it doesn’t matter what you believe or don’t believe?
Why the whole argument, because to argue is human. While what I personally believe about the resurrection is not important, what Paul did is. It’s always fascinating to see to what lengths people would go to argue away what Paul for example believed, just to preserve their theological view, and to maintain that it is in harmony with what Paul (or John, etc) preached.
In this particular case, the Unitarian position might be in harmony with 1 Tim and others, but is not in harmony with what Paul believed. I think it is informative for Unitarians to also hear and know the counter arguments on this or any other subject.
JohnE
Its not informative to hear from people who pick and choose what their going to believe is authentic or not. Then try to work out arguments that at the end of the day do not get us anywhere.
Xavier, it is informative (you just probably don’t know what “informative” means) whether you like the information or not. On the front page, this blog tellls visitors says “feel free to disagree”, so I guess these people – cause this is not your blog – don’t just want to hear themselves talking in agreement here.
As for “picking and choosing”, you make it sound like it’s a bad thing
Incidentally, that is something apostle Paul has recommended, as Thomas has already pointed out to you. If you don’t have an open mind in certain respects and are not willing to question your axioms, that’s simply your own decision and nothing more. Yours is not a better standard, it’s only your standard.
And as for getting you anywhere, there are plenty of debates that don’t get most people anywhere, like debates on Trinity. Most trinitarians/unitarians will absolutely not change their minds after such debates; so what? Will you stop debating? I don’t see debates as vehicles to get us anywhere. It’s more like “I think you are wrong and I’m gonna show you why”. They are also a method of verification for me, I want to know where or if my arguments don’t work. Maybe I don’t have all the information, maybe I didn’t consider this and that, etc. I expect to be challenged. Interaction of diverse ideas leads to having a better and complete view than just safely surrounding yourself with people who say what you want to hear.
“They are also a method of verification for me, I want to know where or if my arguments don’t work. Maybe I don’t have all the information, maybe I didn’t consider this and that, etc. I expect to be challenged. Interaction of diverse ideas leads to having a better and complete view than just safely surrounding yourself with people who say what you want to hear.”
John
you have nailed down the purpose of any discussion blog, Plus you have shown why this blog is one of the best.
Who wants to have a discussion with someone who doesnt challenge your views. It is that challenge that drives someone to seek the best understanding of what they see. It also test that view. whe cant enter a discussion with the only reason being to convert, it should be a method to perfect our faith not continue in blind faith.
JohnE
As long as its instructive and edifying to the Christian community. But it sure sounds like your one of those few who is out on its fringes. Your arguments regarding the Pauline corpus are clearly in the minority bro.
Whatever “standard” you set for yourself as a Bible believing Christian is just that, to believe in the whole of the scriptures and not just some of them.
For me its more about persuading people to the sound doctrine of our lord Jesus Christ [1Pe 3.15] “in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth” [2Tim 2.25].
But I must confess, sometimes I am still willing to reason orthodox teachings such as the Trinity. It is still hard for me to accept how so many people can still hold erroneous teachings. But alas, I just cannot bring myself to deny what the scriptures so clearly teach.
Xavier
You said to John E, “Your arguments regarding the Pauline corpus are clearly in the minority bro.”
What if 500 years ago Lelio Sozzini had just listened to all his Trinitarian friends who said that his arguments were clearly in the minority??
The bible says “Test everything, retain what is good.”
If we are all testing different things that we believe might be true, than this is bound to lead to a disagreement (or debate) in one form or another. As long as this is done respectfully I don’t see this as being a problem. People who want to follow the discussion can choose to agree or disagree with whatever is being said.
My beliefs are not set in stone and are flexible. If someone provides me with convincing explanations then I am willing to change and try to accommodate these explanations into my own beliefs.
God seems to have created us in such a way as that no two people have exactly the same beliefs. I have confidence that God knew what he was doing and that he did this for a reason…
It seems to me that the Lord’s soul is a life giving spirit.
Xavier,
Disagreements are rarely instructive and edifying for the Christian community, why should my disagreements be different? And of course, this is what you yourself have added to those words, there’s no such thing in there – for the obvious reasons I already mentioned. I’m sure Trinitarians would not see your disagreements on their blog as “instructive and edifying”. This simply doesn’t make sense.
It really doesn’t matter and I think you know it. Hey, the pot calls the kettle black!
You surely know you are on the fringe too, hundreds of millions of Christians disagree with your religious ideas, right?
I remember you also said something similar to the above:
When you say they “believe the entire Pauline corpus” I believe you mean they believe its ascribed authorship – cause I didn’t say I don’t believe the entire Pauline corpus, I certainly believe its writers believed what they wrote and that it represents their position; I was contesting the authorship of some of the epistles, namely the pastorals.
Most Christians (there are hundreds of millions, remember) simply believe what they’re told. As for the scholars, you are certainly wrong. Ehrman for instance, says about the pastorals that “among critical scholars teaching in North America, the UK, and Western Europe – the leading areas of biblical research – the consensus of opinion for many years has been that Paul did not write these books”.
You do realize that “Bible believing Christian” is a modern concept? Yours is simply an anachronistic view. There was no such Christian when Christianity came into existence – which I see as the true Christianity, I don’t care too much about these newer versions.
Well, welcome to the club. Every apologist says the same.
Robert,
Glad you agree. That’s exactly what I meant to say.
Doubting
What if the Marcionites were right? Or the Adoptionists, Docetists etc? Not all so-called heresies are right bro, someone must be wrong.
Yea but the scriptures are. Once we start to question their authenticity and reliability how can any type of faith be build upon them?
Most nominal Christians do not have a clue when it comes to the theological debates concerning the Godhead or Christology. I have found that many are in their heart of hearts unitarians. The probloem is trying to get them to have the courage to leave tradition and familial ties to whatever church they might belong to.
JohnE
There are different types of debates and disagreements. Those that might be fruitful and instructive for some and those that are just flat out a waste of time and fruitless. I do not see how denying the authenticity and reliability of the scriptures from the get go can ever be helpful to any Christian, regardless of denomination.
Xavier
You said, “Not all so-called heresies are right bro, someone must be wrong.”
That is of course true. I’m glad I live in the 21st. century where I can express my opinions without the threat of being burned alive at the stake like Michael Servetus.
Even 150 or 200 years ago if I were to have said that I believe certain books or letters shouldn’t be included in the bible they would certainly have had me thrown in jail at the very least. Most Canadians and Americans don’t realize that there are still old heresy laws on the books. (Of course they are not enforced anymore).
You also said, “Yea but the scriptures are (set in stone). Once we start to question their authenticity and reliability how can any type of faith be built upon them??”
I don’t believe the people that put together the 27 books and letters that comprise the NT cannon were infallible. Maybe it’s my doubting nature but I can’t just accept them if they don’t seem to fit in properly with the other books and letters.
One of my biggest problems with the writings of Paul and John is that they seem to say things that are found nowhere else. Like the following.
John 3:13 “No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.”
John 3:30-32 John the Baptists says, “He must increase but I must decrease. He who comes from above is above all. He who is of the earth belongs to the earth and speaks in an earthly way. He who comes from heaven is above all. He bears witness to what he has seen and heard, yet no one receives his testimony.”
John 6:33 “For the bread of God is he that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
John 6:38 “For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.”
John 6:51 “I am the living bread that came down from heaven.”
John 6:57 “As the living Father sent me”
I’ve also noticed in the writings of Paul he often talks about Jesus returning to heaven (implying that Jesus originated in heaven and not on earth in Bethlehem).
All these verses saying that Jesus originally came from heaven seem to either support the Trinitarian view or seem to support the view of the Arians about Jesus pre-existing. The books and letters that I study don’t even hint at Jesus coming from heaven or returning to heaven (implying that this is where he came from).
If you get rid of the writings of John and Paul the Trinitarians and the Arians wouldn’t have a single scripture to stand on. Why is it that the books and letters that I study are so clear about the relationship between God and his son Jesus the Messiah and these other writings are all muddled like they are??
To me this is evidence that I am on the right track. But I am trying to keep an open mind and I am again reading the writings of Paul and trying to digest them (match them with my understanding of the rest of the bible). I refuse to close my mind to any possibilities that anyone points out to me. Maybe I am wrong, but maybe I am right.
I know that one day I will know the truth as will everyone else…
Doubting
Yeah, we’re also free to go and form more Christian offshoots where you can establiush yourself as Messiah and starting collecting a harem of young virgins for your awaited pickup by a spaceship.
Neither were the people who wrote the Bible infallible. But apart from dating back to the Apostolic age, the books that were finally canonized had a long historical, oral and authentic source. Even the nascent Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches couldn’t deny that.
Its interesting to note that unlike the censorship and enforcement via force of other Christian apocryphal works, the Eastern Orthodox churches were much more liberal and proliferated with other Christian works that did not make it into the canon simply because everyone knew they were not authentic or traced back to the Apostolic age.
Bro I am sure you will find the same “problems” with other NT books like the Gospels. For instance, in Mat 27.52-53 there is a “resurrection of the saints” that appears nowhere else in the NT, let alone in the scriptures as such. How about the Mattean “trinitarian baptismal formula” of Mat 28.19?
Xavier
You said, “Yeah, were also free to go and form more Christian offshoots where you can establish yourself as Messiah and start collecting a harem of young virgins for your awaited pickup by a spaceship..:)”
Yes. Ron Hubbard is an excellent example of the religious freedoms we now possess that have never existed before throughout history. Most people don’t realize that Ron Hubbard was actually a science fiction writer and his first non science fiction book written in the 1950′s was about how you could get rich by starting your own religion.
We know at the end of his life he traveled the world living on a huge yacht staffed with young and loyal scientologists who waited on his every whim. From what I understand he was always surrounded by 3 young devotees, one would hold his ashtray, one to hold his drink, and the third to hold his cigarettes.
There are (unconfirmed) stories that he was known to throw the occasional devotee off his yacht in the middle of the ocean or where ever he happened to be if they made him angry or upset about something. There is no doubt that within a few decades of it coming into existence it has become one of the most wealthy and powerful (and feared) organizations in the world.
Xavier
Right on! I’m with you all the way!!!
Doubting
How about approaching this from a different angle? Here is my suggestion. Read the whole Bible, beginning to end, as if you have never heard of it, of the authors of it’s various books, or even it’s God(s). Read it with a totally “innocent” mind- like that of the children who Jesus so loved. Now, when you’re finished, go back over your “problem” scriptures- without thinking about who wrote them. If you read with faith (Heb11: 1,6), and prayerfully consider why these scriptures may seem at odds to the rest, I believe your problem will be resolved. You must, however, first have the faith that ” ALL scripture is inspired by God, and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” 2Tim 3:16,17. If your faith is not sufficient, pray for more faith.
Fiona
Doubting
So you didn’t answer my question concerning those Matthean accounts. Are you going to discount them as well?
Fiona
You said, “How about approaching this from a different angle? ….. Read it with a totally “innocent” mind – like that of the children who Jesus so loved. Now, when you’re finished, go back over your “problem” scriptures – without thinking about who wrote them.”
That is sort of what I am doing right now with Paul. I’m marking each of his teachings that don’t seem right and when I’m finished I plan on going back and reviewing them, to see if I can reconcile them somehow with my understanding of what the rest of the bible says.
In post #14 above John E. helped me to reconcile 1st. Corinthians 14:33-35 with Acts 2:16-18. Maybe in time I will be able to reconcile all the scriptures that I consider to be questionable. I don’t know where God is going to lead me in my beliefs but I’m sure that he will lead me as long as I remember to stay humble and open minded like a child.
You quoted 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Mark C./Xavier and others seem to think we should just ignore Mathew 28:19 not because it is definately contradicting other scripture but because it doesn’t seem to fit their beliefs regarding baptism. I know I am a minority but I still have my doubts about the wisdom of ignoring Mat. 28:19 especially since it seems to be confirmed by other early Christian writings like the Didache.
Each of us have slightly different beliefs from one another but one thing that seems to be consistent is that we all eventually have to decide whether to put more weight behind one scripture or another and like in the case of Mat. 28:19 most of us end up just ignoring certain scriptures that don’t seem to fit (or feel right).
I do the same thing the only difference between me and most other Christians is that I weigh entire books and letters and even different authors writings against one another and end up just ignoring certain books, letters and even certain authors writings.
Outside of the writings of Paul and John I get a very clear Unitarian (Socinian) message with no ambiguities which helps me in my faith that I am believing the right thing.
Of course that doesn’t mean I have closed my mind. I’m sure my beliefs are just like everyone else’s and will eventually change over time as God reveals things to me. We all mature in our faith over time (God willing)…
Doubting
I was not suggesting we should just “ignore” Mat 28.19 but putting it as an example, along with your arguments regarding Johannine and Pauline corpus, of things that belong only in one book and not the others.
Xavier
You said, “You didn’t answer my question concerning those Mathean accounts.”
I’m sorry. I thought you were just stating your beliefs. As I explained to Fiona above I’m not so sure it is wise for us to be just ignoring Mat. 28:19 as this belief seems to be widespread and appears in other early Christian writings.
As for your quote from Mat. 27:52-53 this is a continuing discussion I also have with my son. He says he can’t believe that all these people were raised from their graves appearing to so many. It’s funny how different people have problems believing different things. I have no problem believing Mat. 27:52-53 but I guess to many other people this seems to be unbelievable.
I have no problem with something unique being found in one book or letter. My problem is when there are certain messages continuously repeated over and over in some books and letters that are not found anywhere else.
It is obvious from the writings of John and Paul that John wanted to emphasize that Jesus came from heaven and Paul wanted to emphasize that Jesus returned to heaven hence these messages are repeated over and over throughout their writings. These messages that are repeated over and over again in their writings are not found anywhere else.
There is an old Shakespeare line that says, “Thou dost protest too much.” It would have been sufficient for either John or Paul to mention these messages once or twice. The fact that they felt the need to repeat these same messages that are found nowhere else over and over again shows us something about their frame of mind (at least it could anywaze)…
Doubting
How about those “repeated messages” alluding to believers preexisting their birth via God’s “foreknowledge, predestination” of them [Eph 1.5, 11; Rom 8.29-30; 11.2]?
Xavier
It is interesting that this predestination thing only seems to be found in Paul’s writings (at least as far as I can remember). I know there was an article (I think it was written by Brian) about whether God chooses us (or calls us) or we choose him. The article and the posts were very interesting.
I don’t know if I was predestined to love God or not. But I’m sure God is happy that I turned away from my Atheist beliefs and am now looking toward him and his Messiah (Jesus) for guidance, comfort and knowledge. Jesus said that when 2 or more of you are gathered in my name I will be there among you (guiding you). I believe this works over long distances via the internet as well.
I believe God can speak to me in many different ways. Through music, through friends and family, through experiences, and of course through my Christian friends that I have found here on this site. Thanks again for not just dismissing me as a heretic like so many others would have.
I wasn’t suggesting we ignore Matt. 28:19. I said that it describes what they were to be baptized into, but was not necessarily meant to be a “formula” for baptism. Some people started using it as one, as witnessed in the Didache, but in the Bible itself it wasn’t. The “formula” for baptism was what we see in Acts – baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.
Mark C.
You said, “I wasn’t suggesting we ignore Matt. 28:19. I said that it describes what they were baptized into, but was not necessarily meant to be a “formula” for baptism.”
I apologize if I misunderstood what you were saying. The point I was trying to make is that at some point in our studies we all have to give certain scriptures more weight over others that seem to contradict it. I’ve often seen it described as Jesus was speaking figuratively in these passages but was speaking literally in these other passages.
The difference between which scriptures you decide to interpret as figurative and which scriptures you decide to interpret literally can make the difference between being an Arian or a Socininan or a Trinitarian or a Unitarian.
But like I pointed instead of interpreting certain verses as being figurative you can get the same effect by simply eliminating the writings of Paul of John. Without Paul and John the Arians/Trinitarians wouldn’t have a scripture to stand on and we would no longer need to interpret some scriptures as just being figurative (at least in my opinion anywaze)…
Understanding figurative language is not giving more weight to one passage over another. It’s understanding both in a way that does not contradict. Some people think “figuratively” just means “it doesn’t really mean that,” especially the way we use language haphazardly in today’s culture. But figures of speech are used in the Bible with more precision than what we use today.
When we understand both seemingly contradictory passages in a way that is no longer contradictory, that’s a good sign that we have the right understanding of both. But simply eliminating one or the other is not coming to a better understanding. For one thing, what standard would we use to decide which passage to keep and which to ignore? I believe God has had His hand on His Word since it was written and has made it possible to get the intended understanding without eliminating or ignoring parts of it. If that weren’t the case, He wouldn’t have done a very good job of communicating His heart to us.
Mark C.
You said, “For one thing, what standard would we use to decide which passage to keep and which to ignore?”
The standard I have been using for many years now is looking at who wrote it. Like I said if you eliminated all the writings of just two of the bibles authors you immediately eliminate 99% of the contradictions and are left with a very clear unambiguous Unitarian (Socinian) view of God and his Son Jesus the Messiah.
You also said, “I believe God has had His hand on His Word since it was written and has made it possible to get the intended understanding without eliminating or ignoring parts of it.”
I understand that. I realize that I am a minority view of one at this point. But I have read about references to other people who have rejected Paul and have accepted Jesus giving me hope that there are others out their with similar beliefs to mine.
You also said, “If that weren’t the case, He wouldn’t have done a very good job of communicating His heart to us.”
I don’t believe that we can conclude that God has not done a very good job of doing something just based on just our 5 primitive senses (6 if you include our intellect and ability to reason).
From studying the bible it seems apparent that God was never concerned with doctrine (however the Pharisees and high priests and others were obsessed with doctrine) God was always concerned with behavior. Like Jesus said, “Man’s logic is foolishness to God.”
Take Cornelius for example or the other Centurian who Jesus says about, “That he has not seen such faith in all of Israel.” And that “Many from the East and the West will be reclining at the table with Jacob and Issac in the kingdom of heaven before the children of Abraham.”
They weren’t saved because of their doctrines. They were saved because of their strong faith and the resulting change in their behavior. The doctrines that they may or may not have believed would seem to have had to take a back seat and apparently were not that important.
Faith and the resulting change in one’s behavior would seem to be the key to entering the Kingdom of Heaven. According to the Roman Catholic church and others (based mainly on Paul’s writings) it’s your doctrine that will save you and not your behavior lest no man brag…
The apostle Paul tells us often in the Bible about how we are saved by grace through faith. Nowhere does he say that man is saved by his doctrine.
Jesus taught that those who hear the word are not always those
who enter the kingdom, for they often hear but do not understand,
or their faith fails because of the troubles they encounter for the kingdom’s sake, or the cares of this world take them from the things of God.
Paul also taught us of these things, warning us and reminding us of the same things Jesus taught.
Being someone other than Jesus, Paul naturally sounds somewhat
different, though the substance is from heaven, just as the words of Christ are.
Paul would never agree with someone who thought they could be saved by their doctrine, for a man’s doctrine is not his faith. Right doctrine is good instruction and can bring a man to believing in Jesus. Right doctrine may bring a man to saving faith. Such faith produces the fruit of the kingdom and is a witness of a new life in Jesus Christ.
We can not enter heaven by showing Jesus a Bible and saying “This is what I believe. This is my doctrine.”
Our faith will be tested. Our faith will be examined. Faith will produce a testimony. If our faith is of God, and we have it, we will produce a good testimony as evidence of our faith in God. Our works which we have done will also be a witness of our faith in God as were the saints of old.
Our works do not make us righteous. A righteous man will do right works by the grace of God through faith. If and when he falls, God is able to get him up again, but the wicked don’t know how or when they fall. They seem to know nothing at all.
Paul said that he does not suffer a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence, for Adam was first formed, then Eve, and Adam was not deceived, but the woman being decieved was in the transgression. (I Timothy 2:12-14)
Genesis tells us of how Adam was made first before the woman, and how the woman first fell into sin through the deception of Satan.
Paul had every right to do as he did, just as I have every right to
not cross a busy street if the roads are icy even if the “walk” signal is on. That’s a right and a liberty I have in Christ though you won’t find it specifically made mention of in the Bible.
I do not believe Paul was telling Timothy that what Paul did was what Timothy was required to do, not by law or under any spirit, any more than I can legaly (before God) require anyone to not cross a street if the roads are icy even if the “walk” signal is on,
unless of course such a one is under my authority and God should allow me to do so.
A father might tell that to his son, for example.
He might do something entirely different, such as make it a suggestion, or tell his son what he decides to do in such a situation as well as the reasons why that his son might learn to think things through when all traffic begins to move in chaos because of the weather conditions.
It seems to me that God did work some of his greatest works through men first of all, as the men were willing and obedient.
If men are not what he’s looking for, he certainly can work through the women, just as Israel was first chosen, but through their fall, God became of great benefit to the Gentiles, thus provoking many of the Jews to seek God and the grace that is in Jesus, for all that are of Christ are part of his body and he may use that which is esteemed of men the least in order to raise up that part which in some way has been behind, just as a man might comb his hair if it is a mess, or trim his beard, or clip his nails if they are long, or clean his hands if they are dirty from his work. (I Cor 12:23-26)
So what kind of “being” is Jesus now?
being kind, honest, good, faithful..etc.
Ray
You said, “Paul would never agree with someone who thought that they could be save by their doctrine, for a man’s doctrine is not his faith.”
I agree, but apparently there are some people who interpret some of Paul’s teachings that way. There is this widespread belief among Christians that if you can get someone on their deathbed to confess that Jesus is their savior and died for there sins that they can instantly be saved if they really believe it.
From what I have read from the bible this belief seems to come from what Paul taught about if you believe certain things then through grace you can attain salvation. I agree that faith is key but I have my doubts about the effectiveness of these death bed conversions.
Why should anyone even bother to try to walk the life of a Christian when the logical (easiest) way to attain salvation is to just wait until shortly before you die and make a short confession of faith??
It reminds me of the tradition in the early Roman Catholic church not to baptize someone until just before they died. It was thought that if you baptized someone earlier and they sinned before they die than they would lose the salvation they had gained through the baptism.
Most people don’t know that Constantine’s father was baptized as an Arian Christian just before his death. Unfortunately Constantine disagreed with his father’s Arian beliefs and was a firm Trinitarian who also waited to just before his death to be baptized.
I think Mark C. was right in his article. Although faith is key it must be followed by repentance and a change in behavior. Of course only God can see into our hearts and know what our true nature is…
I trust that many people have been saved by faith in the last minutes of their life here on this earth.
I know that God will not deny those who come to Christ when they do it his way and that for some it might come very near to their end of days on this earth.
When I was young I didn’t seem to take life very seriously. I seemed to think that nothing could end my days, short of some kind of crazy accident. I seemed to think I was indestructable.
Life for me seemed like it was forever, even though I knew it was not, at least on this earth, but as I got older I began to think more seriously about the end of an earthly life.
It was simply a lot of vain confidence in the flesh I walked in when I was young, strong, full of life, and growing stronger by the days.
So what tends to happen when the flesh begins to fade in it’s glory? I suppose we tend to turn to God.
Ray
You said, “So what tends to happen when the flesh begins to fade in it’s glory? I suppose we tend to turn to God.”
I agree. There are lot’s of gray haired people in church…
Doubting & Ray
In that day YHWH will defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the one who is feeble among them in that day will be like David, and the house of David will be like God, like the angel of YHWH before them. Zech 12.8
Thomas and everyone
If for some reason i am banned from posting here than you can reach me thru email rkl1963@gmail.com
Zecharian 12:8 is an interesting verse.
It seems to say among many things, that the angel of the Lord is as God. Also the house of David will be as God.
If a man at this time saw the house of David in it’s glory as this verse describes , can he then say that he “saw God”?
I suppose he could say, “I saw God in the house of David.”
This reminds me of this from Genesis 48:
15. And he blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day,
16. The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.
So was Jacob saying that the Angel that redeemed him from all evil was “God”, or is he saying that “The God” which fed him all his life long unto that day was the Angel, or was he saying that both God and that Angel will bless the lads?
I think Jacob was saying that both God and the Angel he was talking about would bless the lads, and it seems to me that Zech 12:8 is telling us that the house of David in that day will be as both God and the angel of God.
This (the Genesis verses about Jacob and God, and Jacob and the Angel) came up when I visited a blog that was in defence of the Trinity.
Ray
You said, “So was Jacob saying that the Angel that redeemed him from all evil was ‘God’ or is he saying that ‘The God’ which fed him all his life long unto that day was the Angel, or was he saying that both God and that Angel will bless the lads?”
I think it was God that redeemed him and it was God which fed him and will bless the lads. I believe the Angel was just an agent but that the redemption the feeding and blessing all came from God. Jesus said something about all these little one’s having angels that are before God (or something like that, I don’t remember the exact quote).
I had never heard of this idea of agency before coming to this website but it certainly makes a lot of sense to me…
When the house of David is like God (Zech 12:8) and like the angel of God, then we can see God represented, whether it be here or there. Then it will be seen that God is experienced by the assembly of saints and that they judge (deliver) the world.
I Cor 5,6 seems to go along these lines. There we see the church
having the power of God. When they met together, even though Paul was not present in body, he was present in the spirit.
In the spirit, Paul was represented at the meeting. His decision had authority at the meeting by the spirit of God. This was here upon earth.
Sometimes I wonder what the saints in Christ are doing in heaven.
Are they not a part of judging the world? Doesn’t Christ deliberate
with them on matters that pertain to this world?
I’m quite certain that Christ is being the judge of God, or delivering judge in matters that pertain to this world, for he is mediating for us. What other work he’s doing, I don’t understand clearly, but it does seem to me that he is deliberating with the saints that were
human beings on this earth.
Guys
Who or what is “the house of David” from Zech 12.8?
Xavier
I just had time to read Zechariah Chapters 12 and 13. I don’t understand if this is talking about a future event or not. I’m not sure who or what the “the house of David” is. Chapter 13 talks about someone being pierced so it’s making me think it might be Jesus…