[glorydaz]

Originally Posted by Cross Reference

. . . . pure ignorance__ more willfully now than I suspected.

Oh wow...you one-upped me. "Ignorance" is so much more godly than "nonsense."

[Cross Reference]

Originally Posted by glorydaz

Pure nonsense. Throw in a "spirit image" and you'll be all set.

What part?

Originally Posted by Cross Reference View Post
This __The Word took on a permanent identity in human flesh?

Or this__We know the Word and God were equals before incarnating Jesus. Therefore, obedience could never be an issue between them?

Maybe this part__ Submission could have been had it not been for the union between them, set in the eternal purpose for creation, to arrive at the ultimate intention of that divine plan?

Certainly not this part__Enter Jesus by the virgin Mary__ and the account given us?

Ah, it must be this you have failed to pick up on in your studies__In speaking of submission, it must not be overlooked submission between the Word and God existed now between the Word submitting to Jesus. "First the natural then the Spiritual" with the Word doing the submitting but Jesus obeying. We read of that obedience from His words when He says He only does what He sees His Father doing. The Word submitting to Jesus and Him having to obey as mere man was for one reason__Jesus had to prove His allegiance to the Father as mere man, His allegiance being that which would win over the devil. His allegiance of Love.?

You do know how this piece of scripture can be rightly applied, right?__"First the natural then the Spiritual", which also speaks of the responsibility placed upon Jesus to protect that which has been given Him from above.

Whatta think? Where did I go wrong __or is a pride issue now that you blinds you?

[oatmeal]

Originally Posted by Colossians

Oatmeal,

Jesus Christ did not demonstrate the entirety of God, but only those things that God showed him to do.
The quantity of things is irrelevant. It is the quality of demonstration which proves Christ to be equal with the Father.

So nice try, but simplistic.




One obvious thing Jesus Christ did not do is be the Father.
Er...why obvious?

What was obvious about any difference between the Father and the Son?

And of course there is nothing obvious.

Which is why Jesus said: "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father".

So in fact the obviousness is the other way around: it was obvious He was equivalent to the Father.

Thus: "in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead". Seeing then that all the fulness of the Godhead must dwell only in God, we understand that Christ is God.

The quantity of things is irrelevant. It is the quality of demonstration which proves Christ to be equal with the Father.

If they are "equal" why does Philippians 2:6 teach us other wise?

If Jesus Christ is God, why would Jesus have to even consider the possibility that he is not equal to God?

Are you equal to yourself? Yes, you are your only equal. Do you ever ask yourself, "Am I up to being me?" No matter what you say or do, it is you, no one else. Who you are is your choice, no one else. are you equal to what God called you to do?

Are you equal to God?

I am equal to God's calling, whether I like it or not.

Philippians 2:5-11 is about Jesus Christ rising up to God's calling, not the calling of society or the latest trends in Judaism or what his parents thought of him.

Jesus Christ proved himself equal to God's calling.

A calling of humble, loving, freewill obedience to his God and our God, his Father and our Father.

We are fully capable of serving God as well, we can make ourselves of no reputation and live in the form of a servant even though we too are sons of God. I John 3:1-2

Philippians 2:5-11 makes perfectly clear that Jesus is not God, but a man, the son of God, who by his choice served God only.

You never read John 5:19-20,30?

Now would be a good time.

"Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me."

Jesus Christ recognized that his spiritual power was from God, not of himself.

He recognized that the only reason he could the works that he did was because God empowered himself to do so.

The only reason we can do the same works as Jesus Christ and greater works than Jesus Christ is because God empowers us to do so.

John 14:12

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father."

That should knock your socks off!

Acts 1:4-5,8

"And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

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."

The reason the first century church had such power is because they used it. They did the same works as Jesus Christ and greater works because they believed what Jesus Christ taught them.

So nice try, but simplistic.

Get a life. Believe what is written.

One obvious thing Jesus Christ did not do is be the Father.
Er...why obvious?

What was obvious about any difference between the Father and the Son?

And of course there is nothing obvious.

Which is why Jesus said: "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father".

So in fact the obviousness is the other way around: it was obvious He was equivalent to the Father.

Thus: "in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead". Seeing then that all the fulness of the Godhead must dwell only in God, we understand that Christ is God.

You need to stop and really think about the implications of your foolishness.

Did God father himself by impregnating his own mother?

Yet, that is what the trinity implies.

That is a difference between the Father and the son.

The son did not impregnate his mother with himself.

That I even have to point this out to you????

The Father fathered the son. Hence the title "Father" that name is not just an empty title.

God gave you a brain, why not use it?.

oatmeal

[glorydaz]

Originally Posted by oatmeal

If they are "equal" why does Philippians 2:6 teach us other wise?

If Jesus Christ is God, why would Jesus have to even consider the possibility that he is not equal to God?

Are you equal to yourself? Yes, you are your only equal. Do you ever ask yourself, "Am I up to being me?" No matter what you say or do, it is you, no one else. Who you are is your choice, no one else. are you equal to what God called you to do?

Are you equal to God?

I am equal to God's calling, whether I like it or not.

Philippians 2:5-11 is about Jesus Christ rising up to God's calling, not the calling of society or the latest trends in Judaism or what his parents thought of him.

Jesus Christ proved himself equal to God's calling.

A calling of humble, loving, freewill obedience to his God and our God, his Father and our Father.

We are fully capable of serving God as well, we can make ourselves of no reputation and live in the form of a servant even though we too are sons of God. I John 3:1-2

Philippians 2:5-11 makes perfectly clear that Jesus is not God, but a man, the son of God, who by his choice served God only.

You never read John 5:19-20,30?

Now would be a good time.

"Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me."

Jesus Christ recognized that his spiritual power was from God, not of himself.

He recognized that the only reason he could the works that he did was because God empowered himself to do so.

The only reason we can do the same works as Jesus Christ and greater works than Jesus Christ is because God empowers us to do so.

John 14:12

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father."

That should knock your socks off!

Acts 1:4-5,8

"And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

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."

The reason the first century church had such power is because they used it. They did the same works as Jesus Christ and greater works because they believed what Jesus Christ taught them.



Get a life. Believe what is written.



You need to stop and really think about the implications of your foolishness.

Did God father himself by impregnating his own mother?

Yet, that is what the trinity implies.

That is a difference between the Father and the son.

The son did not impregnate his mother with himself.

That I even have to point this out to you????

The Father fathered the son. Hence the title "Father" that name is not just an empty title.

God gave you a brain, why not use it?.

oatmeal

1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

[glorydaz]

Originally Posted by Cross Reference

What part?



You do know how this piece of scripture can be rightly applied, right?__"First the natural then the Spiritual", which also speaks of the responsibility placed upon Jesus to protect that which has been given Him from above.

Whatta think? Where did I go wrong __or is a pride issue now that you blinds you?

Well, I do get a little blinded when I witness pride.

Jesus didn't have to protect that which was given Him from above....He was that which was from above.

John 6:51
I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.


You also stated, "...submission between the Word and God existed now between the Word submitting to Jesus.."

The Word is God...thus there is no "submission between" them. The Word didn't "submit" to Jesus, either. That is all some strange conjecture not in accord with what is written.

[Cross Reference]

Originally Posted by glorydaz

Well, I do get a little blinded when I witness pride.

Jesus didn't have to protect that which was given Him from above....He was that which was from above.

So you say however, run that out to see where it leads by asking yourself the question: "Could Jesus, like Adam, have sinned"? If not, then why the temptations? Was nothing at stake?

[glorydaz]

Originally Posted by Cross Reference

So you say however, run that out to see where it leads by asking yourself the question: "Could Jesus, like Adam, have sinned"? If not, then why the temptations? Was nothing at stake?

Jesus was dead to sin as we are to consider ourselves to be. His desires were to do only the Will of God. Being God, He knew what that Will was. Sin comes from the desires of one's heart...His desires were to do only the will of God.

Romans 6:11
Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

What was at stake if God, coming to earth as a man, sinned? Does that question make sense to you? God's plan for man's salvation was a perfect one, because He knew sin does NOT have dominion over man. Thus, Jesus was tempted in the same way God was tempted, and with the same result.

Psalm 95:9
When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my work.

[Cross Reference]

Originally Posted by glorydaz

Jesus was dead to sin as we are to consider ourselves to be. His desires were to do only the Will of God.
Being God, He knew what that Will was.

. . . . We are not God and still should know His will but, you speak as being God is necessary to know His will.

Sin comes from the desires of one's heart...His desires were to do only the will of God.

Sin is a relationship. Jesus' relationship was with His Father, as ours should be if we consider ourselves born again.

Romans 6:11
Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

I think that verse just agreed we me.

What was at stake if God, coming to earth as a man, sinned? Does that question make sense to you? God's plan for man's salvation was a perfect one, because He knew sin does NOT have dominion over man. Thus, Jesus was tempted in the same way God was tempted, and with the same result.

Sure it makes sense and if you would pick up on it your bible would read better. Was Jesus as a man not tempted in all ways as man and yet without sin? You would have that He didn't because He was God without considering that the Word of Himself laid aside His divine attributes that Jesus could perform totally as a man and then die as one. Ergo, God cannot be tempted and He cannot die.

Psalm 95:9
When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my work.[/quote]

God was never tempted nor could He be, as you would have it be understood by using that verse. Jesus was tempted many times. Why you submitted it baffles me except you still have unanswered questions concerning Jesus.


"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man"
James 1:13 (KJV)

[glorydaz]

Originally Posted by Cross Reference

. . . . We are not God and still should know His will but, you speak as being God is necessary to know His will.



Sin is a relationship. Jesus' relationship was with His Father, as ours should be if we consider ourselves born again.



I think that verse just agreed we me.



Sure it makes sense and if you would pick up on it your bible would read better. Was Jesus as a man not tempted in all ways as man and yet without sin? You would have that He didn't because He was God without considering that the Word of Himself laid aside His divine attributes that Jesus could perform totally as a man and then die as one. Ergo, God cannot be tempted and He cannot die.


God was never tempted nor could He be, as you would have it be understood by using that verse. Jesus was tempted many times. Why you submitted it baffles me except you still have unanswered questions concerning Jesus.


"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man"
James 1:13 (KJV)

My Bible reads perfectly, thank you.

Sin is a relationship? I don't see it that way.



When the Scripture says Jesus was tempted, you seem to think He had the same desires we have. Temptation can come without any desire. Add verse 14 to what you posted, and it should be made clear.

James 1:13-14
Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed.

Being God, Jesus "took part of the same" as those of us with flesh and blood. He was tempted "like as we are." He did not take any of man's sinful desires. That would go against His divine nature.

Hebrews 2:14
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

I put forth this verse to show you why the Holy Spirit led Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted (tested). It was to "prove" and show His works. Same God...same reason.

Psalm 95:9
When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my work.

[Cross Reference]

Originally Posted by glorydaz

My Bible reads perfectly, thank you.

Sin is a relationship? I don't see it that way.

That is your shortcoming, not mine.

When the Scripture says Jesus was tempted, you seem to think He had the same desires we have.

You have no reason to believe otherwise so why do you? Do you believe He merely sympathizes without experience or that He came to identify with us, take upon Himself the sin issues of our life and put them to death?

Temptation can come without any desire. Add verse 14 to what you posted, and it should be made clear.

I did and it contradicts you. Here:

James 1:13-14
Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed.

Being God, Jesus "took part of the same" as those of us with flesh and blood. He was tempted "like as we are." He did not take any of man's sinful desires. That would go against His divine nature.

Then Jesus being tempted would have been out of the question.__and He could never have been called the "second Adam". Do you understand that?? I'm not makin' it up.

Hebrews 2:14
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

I put forth this verse to show you why the Holy Spirit led Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted (tested). It was to "prove" and show His works. Same God...same reason

.

And I would submit the same verse to prove my point[s]. Thank you for doing it for me. . . .

Psalm 95:9
When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my work.

In this instance the word tempted=Prove Me:

"Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it." Malachi 3:10 (KJV)

Ergo, not the same as the definition used for Jesus' temptations though He was "proved" faithful in His allegiance as a man to His Father.

[oatmeal]

Originally Posted by glorydaz

1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

So that's why you don't get it!

Get saved. Romans 10:9-10 and start renewing your mind. Romans 12:1-3

oatmeal

[Bright Raven]

[Colossians]

Oatmeal,.

If they are "equal" why does Philippians 2:6 teach us other wise?
It doesn't.

So it is back to Remedial English 101 for you.

[Cross Reference]

Originally Posted by Colossians

Oatmeal,.

If they are "equal" why does Philippians 2:6 teach us other wise?
It doesn't.

So it is back to Remedial English 101 for you.

What it teaches us, you both will no doubt argue against, is the relationship between a "consummate man" and God, short of glorification.

What made Jesus perfect was ALL that also "made Him" unique, separate from all other men. His death and resurrection opened the door for us to "follow" in His steps that "union" with Him; in God, be a possibility. The new birth affords us that opportunity.