333 responses to “The Divine-Dimensionality of God”

1. 

   ac

   October 10, 2015 at 10:16 am

   
   

   This should remind all those pew warmers and holier than thou worshippers
   Not all who say Lord!Lord!shall enter the kingdom of heaven

   Loading…
2. 

   Georgie Porgie

   October 10, 2015 at 2:26 pm

   
   

   NOTES ON JeSUS GOD AND MAN by SERIOUS THOLOGIANS rather than Bajan Bible illiterates part 1
   Who would you prefer to follow

   BUT EMPTIED HIMSELF: alla heauton ekenosen (3SAAI): (Ps 22:6; Isa 49:7; 50:5,6; 52:14; 53:2,3; Da 9:26; Zec 9:9; Mk 9:12; Ro 15:3; 2Co 8:9; Heb 2:9-18;12:2; 13:3)
   The old King James is still a beautiful and poignant rendering…
   But made Himself of no reputation…

   Regarding the pronoun “himself” the KJV Bible Commentary notes that…
   Himself is accusative in Greek. He did not empty something from Himself, but He emptied Himself from something, i.e., the form of God. The figure presented is similar to pouring water from a pitcher into a glass. The form is different, but the substance remains the same. “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever” (Heb 13:8). Christ emptied Himself of His divine glory (Jn 17:3), but not of His divine nature. He emptied Himself of the self-manifestation of His divine essence.
   “He was not unable to assert equality with God. He was able not to assert it” (M. R.

   Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament. p. 433).
   He stripped Himself of His expression of deity, but not His possession of deity. He restricted the outward manifestation of His deity. In His incarnation, He clothed Himself with humanity. He was like a king temporarily clothing himself in the garb of a peasant while still remaining king, even though it was not apparent.

   When Christ became incarnate, He was one person with two natures, divine and human, “each in its completeness and integrity, and that these two natures are organically and indissolubly united, yet so that no third nature is formed thereby. In brief, to use the antiquated dictum, orthodox doctrine forbids us either to divide the person or to confound the natures” (A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, p. 673). Christ emptied Himself in order that He might fill us (2Cor 5:21; 8:9). (Dobson, E G, Charles Feinberg, E Hindson, Woodrow Kroll, H L. Wilmington: KJV Bible Commentary: Nelson)

   Emptied (2758) (kenoo from kenos = empty) means to completely eliminate elements of high status or rank by eliminating all privileges or prerogatives associated with such status or rank. Emptied does not mean that Jesus gave up divine attributes. In short, Jesus did not surrender His deity! But He did veil His glory.

   Marvin Vincent explains that emptied is
   Not used or intended here in a metaphysical sense to define the limitations of Christ’s incarnate state, but as a strong and graphic expression of the completeness of his self-renunciation. It includes all the details of humiliation which follow, and is defined by these. Further definition belongs to speculative theology. not intended in a metaphysical sense (i.e., that he gave up divine attributes), but is a “graphic expression of the completeness of his self-renunciation” (M. R. Vincent, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon, p. 59 ).

   Kenoo was used of removing things from a container, until the container is empty; of pouring something out, until there is nothing left. So of what did He empty Himself? To reemphasize, He did not empty Himself of His divine nature for that would be impossible. He continued to be the Son of God.

   There is controversy concerning the precise meaning of the “kenosis”, some theologians of liberal persuasion suggest that Jesus became human in the sense that He was fallible, possibly even sinful. Conservative theologians interpret this passage to mean that Jesus took on the limitations of humanity. This involved aveiling of His preincarnate glory (Jn 17:5) and the voluntary nonuse of some of His divine prerogatives during the time He was on earth (Mt 24:36).

   John Walvoord…
   The Greek expression ekenosen, meaning to empty, is a strong word speaking of the dramatic act of incarnation. It must be interpreted, however, by its context. Christ did not empty Himself of deity, but of its outward manifestation. He emptied Himself by taking the form of a servant (Greek labon, meaning taking, an aorist participle indicating simultaneous action). The incarnation did not change the person and attributes of Christ in His divine nature, but added to it a complete human nature. To achieve the divine purpose of becoming the Savior, the divine glory needed to be veiled. Christ voluntarily, moment by moment, submitted to human limitations apart from sin. The humiliation was temporary. The incarnation was everlasting. (Philippians 2 At the Name of Jesus Every Knee Should Bow)

   For an excellent discussion of Philippians 2:6-11 from a thoroughly conservative and Scripturally based perspective John

   Loading…
3. 

   Georgie Porgie

   October 10, 2015 at 2:28 pm

   
   

   NOTES ON JeSUS GOD AND MAN by SERIOUS THOLOGIANS rather than Bajan Bible illiterates part 2
   Who would you prefer to follow

   Phillipians2:7 In verse seven Paul describes the first of two successive actions of Christ in His humiliation. The first action is explained by the verb evke,nwsen “made himself nothing.” The verb evke,nwsen literally means “he emptied himself.” Some scholars have argued that this term means that Christ emptied Himself of His divine nature. However, New Testament Greek scholar A. T. Robertson argues, “That was impossible. He continued to be the Son of God” (Robertson, 444). Instead, Robertson argues “Christ gave up his environment of glory. . . . He took upon himself limitations of place (space) and of knowledge and of power” (Robertson, 444). 6 In fact, the text tells us exactly what Paul means by evke,nwsen. The text goes on to explain that Christ was morfh.n dou,lou labw,n “taking the from of a servant” and was evn o`moiw,mati avnqrw,pwn geno ,menoj “becoming in likeness of a man.” Therefore, Christ’s “emptying” of Himself is simply His assumption of human flesh with all of its limitations without ceasing to be God.

   Loading…
4. 

   Georgie Porgie

   October 10, 2015 at 2:29 pm

   
   

   NOTES ON JeSUS GOD AND MAN by SERIOUS THOLOGIANS rather than Bajan Bible illiterates part 3

   FB MEYER
   FIRST, HE WAS IN THE FORM OF GOD.

   Christ in the Form of God. The Greek word translated “form” means a great deal more than the external appearance; it stands for the essence of God’s nature, so that we may say that Jesus Christ possessed the essence of the Divine quality and nature from all eternity. This exactly agrees with other words of Scripture, as when we are told, He is “the image of the invisible God.” Again, “Being the effulgence of His glory,” i.e. He was the outshining beam of the Father’s glory; “and the very image of His substance,” i.e. He corresponded to the Divine Nature, as a seal to the die. Again, “The Word was with God, and the Word was God. …. All things were made by Him.” And then, as we overhear that marvellous communion between the Son and the Father, in John 17, we notice His reference to the glory He had with the Father before the worlds were made, and with which He asks the Father to glorify Him in His human nature again. All these deep words prove that whatever God was in the uncreated eternity of the past, the infinite, the incomprehensible, the all-holy, and the all-blessed,–that was Jesus Christ, who was absolutely one with Him, as spirit and soul are one in the organisation of our nature.

   SECONDLY, THERE WAS NO ROBBERY WHEN HE CLAIMED EQUALITY WITH GOD.

   It was not Robbery. Indeed, as R.V. puts it, it was not a thing to be grasped, because He was so sure of it. It was conceded to Him universally; He counted it no robbery; He thought it detracted nothing from the Father’s infinite glory when He stood on an equality with Him; and it is remarkable to notice how in the four courts of earthly life He prosecuted His claim. There are four courts for us all.

   Four Courts. In the court of His intimates. On the highway to Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples whom men took Him to be; and Peter cried, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” This could not have meant that the Lord Jesus was the Son as we are sons. That would have been a meaningless response. There was something more than that. And Jesus took it to be more, because He said, “Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven.” In those words He took to Himself the prerogative of equality with God. You remember how He said afterwards: “Ye believe in God,”–give Me the same faith, “believe also in Me.” He thought it not robbery to receive the faith that man gives to God. He said significantly: “My Father and I,”–“We will come and make our abode with him.” He thought it not robbery to enter the human soul and to share its occupancy with the Father. With His intimates He always spoke of Himself as One with the Father, in an incomprehensible, mysterious, but essential oneness.

   So also in the court of public opinion. He said, “I and my Father are One,” with an emphasis that made the Jews catch up stones to cast at Him, because, being a man, He claimed to be God. And He also told them that all men were to honour the Son even as they honour the Father. He thought it not robbing God to accept the honour men gave to Him.

   So also in the court of justice. We know how the priests challenged Him, and asked Him to declare His essential nature, and said, “Art Thou the Son of the living God?”–using the word son in the sense the Jews always did use it, as intimating essential Deity; and He said, “Thou sayest that I am: and hereafter ye shall see the Son of man coming in the glory of God,” for He did not think it robbery to share God’s prerogative and place.

   Finally, in the court of death. When death came, and He hung upon that cross of agony, He did not for a moment retract all that He had said, but opened the gate to the dying thief, and assured him that he would be that day with Him in Paradise,–for He did not think it robbing God to assume the right of opening the gates of forgiveness and life.

   All through His earthly life He insisted upon it that He was God’s equal, God’s fellow, and that He was One with the Father.

   THIRDLY, HE EMPTIED HIMSELF.

   He Emptied Himself. This was evidently by His free will and choice. He emptied Himself of His glory. As Moses veiled the glory that shone upon his face, so Emmanuel veiled the glory that irradiated from His Person. We are told they need no sun in heaven, because His Presence is sun. What an effulgence of light must have streamed from Jesus, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, in those uncreated ages! But when He stepped down to earth He veiled it,–the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us, the Shekinah nature was shrouded, so that it was not able to penetrate, save on the Mount of Transfiguration, when, for a moment, the voluntary act by which Christ hid His intrinsic splendour was laid aside, and it welled out in cascades and torrents of blinding light.

   But probably we are specially here taught that He emptied Himself of the use of His divine attributes. This is a profound truth which it is necessary to understand if you would read rightly the lesson of our Saviour’s life. Men have been accustomed to think that the miracles of Jesus Christ were wrought by the putting forth of His intrinsic and original power as God: that when He hushed the storm, and the waves crouched like whelps to His feet, that when He raised the dead, and Lazarus sheeted with grave-clothes came forth, that when He touched the sight of the blind, and gave eyeballs to those that had been born without their optics, that all this was done by the forthputting of His own original, uncreated, and divine power; whereas a truer understanding of His nature, specially as disclosed in the Gospel by St. John, shows that He did nothing of Himself, but what He saw the Father doing; that the words He spoke were not His own words, but as He heard God speaking He spoke; that the works He did were not his own, but the Father’s who sent Him, for when they said on one occasion “Show us the Father,” He replied, “He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father; the words! speak to you I speak not from Myself, but the Father that dwelleth in Me, He doeth His works.” His human life was one of faith, even as ours should be: “As the living Father hath sent Me, and I live by the Father, even so he that eateth Me shall live by Me.” Frequently He paralleled our experience with His own; and no doubt the story of the Vine in which He depicts our dependence upon Himself, had long been in His thought as an emblem of His own dependence upon the Father. He chose to live like this. He voluntarily laid aside the exercise of His omnipotence, that He might receive power from God; absolutely and voluntarily forwent the use of attributes that lay all around Him, like tools within the reach of the skilled mechanic, that He might live a truly human life, weeping our tears, and receiving the plenitude of His Father’s power.

   FOURTHLY, HE TOOK UPON HIM THE FORM OF A SERVANT.

   Christ in the Form of a Servant. The infinite God, with whom He was One, desired to achieve certain purposes in our world; and the blessed Christ, the Second Person in the Trinity, undertook to be the medium and vehicle through which the Father might express Himself: and just as the words that issue from our mouth are impressed with our intelligence–the liquid air around us yielding itself to the movements of the larynx, so that what is in our mind is communicated and conveyed to others as they listen–so Jesus Christ became the Word of God, impressed with the thought, mind, and intention of God, so that the Father was able, through the yielded nature of the Son, to do, say, and be everything He desired. Christ was the perfect expression of the Being of Him whom no man hath seen, or can see.

   It is absurd, therefore, to divorce Jesus from the Father. Preachers have made an awful mistake when they have spoken of the Atonement as though Jesus intervened to appease the Father, to satisfy something in God that needed satisfaction before He could love. On the contrary, the whole Bible substantiates the belief that God was in Christ; and that what Christ did, God did through Him, and that the death on the cross was the act of the entire Deity. What wonder, then, that the Father said, “Behold My Servant whom I have chosen, Mine elect, in whom My soul is well pleased. I will put My Spirit upon Him, and He shall show judgment to the Gentiles.”

   FIFTHLY, HE WAS MADE IN THE LIKENESS OF MEN.

   In the Likeness of Men. He must know what the experiences of a human body are, what childhood and boyhood, and what it is to pass through the various stages of manhood. It was needful that He should be as perfectly united with man as He was perfectly united with God, so that He might be made a merciful and faithful High Priest, to make intercession for our sins–for all these reasons—He did not abhor the Virgin’s womb, but was made man. Let us not fear too much the mystery and burden of human life. Our Lord and Master has gone this way before us, and has left a track behind, as they who traverse the Australian bush break twigs or branches along their route, to serve as a guide to those who follow. It is good to be born, that we may have a share in the nature He has worn.

   Loading…
5. 

   Georgie Porgie

   October 10, 2015 at 2:31 pm

   
   

   AND BEING MADE IN THE LIKENESS OF MEN: en homoiomati anthropon genomenos (AMPMSN): (Jn 1:14; Ro 1:3; 8:3; Gal 4:4; Heb 2:14, 15, 16, 17;4:15)
   After explaining that Christ always existed, Paul explains that He came into the world in the likeness of men, meaning “as a real Man.” The humanity of the Lord is as real as His deity. He is true God and true Man which is a mystery that no created mind can fully comprehend!
   Being made (1096) (ginomai) means to cause to be (“gen”-erate) become. It describes Jesus definite entrance in time into humanity. He “invaded” humanity
   “when the fulness of the time came, (when) God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law” (Gal 4:4) (The divine Son was fully human)
   Jesus was no mere phantom humanity as the Docetic Gnostics (see Docetism) held. Christ was born here below that we might be born from above.
   The verbs emptied, taking, being made are all aorist tense. Specifically they are all what is known as punctiliar aorist, where punctiliar denotes action that occurs instantaneously or at a point in time, as opposed to action that is progressive or ongoing.

   He came into existence as a man, John writing that…
   “the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.” (Jn 1:14) (This is the great verse of the incarnation, when the eternal Word took on human flesh. Since this verse and the following verses unequivocally refer to “Jesus Christ” John 1:17, there is no legitimate escape from the great truth that Jesus was the great God and Creator, as well as perfect Man and redeeming Savior. Furthermore, He has assumed human flesh forever, while still remaining fully God. He is not part man and part God, or sometimes man and sometimes God but is now and eternally the God-Man. He is always true God and perfect Man–man as God created and intended man to be)
   In Romans Paul explains that…
   concerning His (God’s) Son, (He) was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh” (Ro 1:3-note) (Paul describes the incarnation of God in human flesh, in the person of His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. He was a true man, “made of the seed of David,” as foretold by the prophets; His birth was completely natural from the point of conception, but His conception was altogether miraculous. He had no human father although Joseph was his legal, adoptive father, conveying the legal right to David’s throne and His mother remained a virgin until after He was born. Since Mary herself was a descendant of David, and since He grew in her womb for nine months, He was indeed “made” of one who was of the seed of David. Nevertheless, He could have had no genetic connection to either Mary or Joseph. Otherwise, there could have been no natural way in which “that holy thing” Luke 1:35 could have been kept from inherited sin or inherited mutational defects. Thus, His conception necessarily involved the special creation of the cell placed by the Holy Spirit in Mary’s womb. “A body hast thou prepared me” (Heb 10:5). Just as the body of the first Adam was specially created by God, without genetic connection to human parents, so was that of “the last Adam” (1Co 15:45). Yet, He was no less fully human than the first Adam, the father of all other humans. Furthermore, His growing body was “made” through natural nourishment in Mary’s womb as He grew, and Mary was “of the seed of David.” Thus He was, indeed, “made of the seed of David according to the flesh,” although the specifications for the “making” of His body were contained in the DNA code programmed by God in the created cell. Morris, Henry: Defenders Study Bible. World Publishing)
   Later in Romans Paul adds that…
   “what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness (homoioma = “likeness” is crucial, for it indicates that Jesus was a true man but not a sinful man) of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh (Ro 8:3-note)
   How important is this doctrinal truth? John explains that…
   By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; (1John 4:2)
   In this passage, John is stating that the supreme test of the demonic spirits, and the false teachers they influence is their teaching concerning the nature of Jesus Christ. If, in any way, they try to separate Jesus from “the Christ,” denying either the full deity or perfect humanity of the Lord Jesus Christ, they are not from God. Some attempt to make Jesus a mere man upon whom “the Christ-spirit” came. Some argue that everyone can be “a Christ” in the same sense Jesus was. Many deny His miraculous conception, bodily resurrection or both. Unless Jesus Christ was perfect man, He could not die for our sins. Unless He was God, He could not defeat death and thus could never save us. Any doctrine less than that of Jesus Christ as the God-Man, God and Man perfectly, united in the hypostatic union, is deadly heresy.

   Hebrews also emphasizes the truth of Jesus the God-Man, writing that…
   Since then the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil and might deliver those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives. (Heb 2:14,15)
   Likeness (3667) (homoioma from homoioo = to make like) refers to shape, similitude (= a visible likeness, a thing or sometimes a person that is like or the counterpart of another) or a resemblance.

   Thomas Constable is careful to point out that…
   “Likeness” (homoioma) does not mean exactness (eikon – 5104). Even though Jesus had a fully human nature, that nature was not sinful. Every other human being has a sinful human nature. Moreover Jesus had a divine nature as well as a human nature.” (Tom Constable’s Expository Notes on the Bible)

   TAKING THE FORM OF A BONDSERVANT: morphe doulou labon (AAPMSN): (Isa 42:1; 49:3,6; 52:13; 53:11; Ezek 34:23,24; Zec 3:8; Mt 12:18; Mt 20:28;Mk 10:44,45; Lk 22:27; Jn 13:3-14; Ro 15:8)
   The passage denotes the special or characteristic form or feature of a person or thing. Morphe is the essential form which never alters; schema is the outward form which changes from time to time and from circumstance to circumstance.

   Taking (2983) (lambano) is an instrumental participle in the Greek, indicating the means by which the action in the main verb is accomplished. Our Lord set Himself aside by taking upon Himself the form of a servant. The word “form” (morphe) has the same content of meaning as the word “form” in Php2:6. “Taking” does not imply an exchange but adding something and so Paul teaches that the Lord did not lay aside the form of God and did not cease to be God, but He added the “form” of man.

   Form (3444) (morphe) as discussed above (note) refers to the nature or character of something and emphasizes both the internal and external form. In other words morphe refers to the outward display of the inner reality or the essential form of something which never alters. Jesus, the same divine Person Who existed always in the form of God took on Himself the form of a bondservant. He Who was the Sovereign manifested Himself as a lowly bondservant. When Christ did this, His Person did not change, only the mode (= way in which something occurs) of His expression. Paul clearly refutes any assertion of liberalism that the Lord Jesus Christ emptied Himself of His deity!

   Bondservant (1401) (doulos [word study]) is one who has surrendered their rights to the will of another. Jesus surrendered His rights to the will of His Father. He did this for you and for me beloved. Shall not the such love constrain us out of love to live a life of surrender.

   Christ Jesus changed His mode of expression from that of the glory of Deity to that of the humiliation of a bondservant, and in doing that, He set His legitimate desire of being glorified aside, thus setting self aside to express Himself as a bondservant, receiving instead of the worship of the angels, the curses and hatred of mankind. It was the Lord of Glory at the Passover feast (read John 13) who laid aside His outer garments to wrap a towel about Himself and perform the duties of a slave. That towel, symbol of His position as a bondservant, speaks of the humility with which He clothed Himself. One had to be laid aside if the other was to be taken up. While He was kneeling on the floor washing the disciples’ feet, He was still the Lord of Glory although He looked like a bondservant.

   Loading…
6. 

   Georgie Porgie

   October 10, 2015 at 2:34 pm

   
   

   BOB DEFFINBAUGH ON THE KENOSIS AND EPISTATIC UNION

   Who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped (Phil. 2:6).
   The word “form” used in verse 6 does not merely mean to be God-like. Dr. B. B. Warfield has captured the essence of this expression:
   . . . the phraseology which Paul here employs was the popular usage of his day . . . and . . . was accordingly the most natural language for strongly asserting the deity of Christ which could suggest itself to him. . . . “Form” is that body of qualities which constitute Him God, and without which He would not be God. What Paul asserts then, when he says that Christ Jesus existed in the “form of God,” is that He had all those characterizing qualities which make God God, the presence of which constitutes God, and in the absence of which God does not exist. He who is “in the form of God,” is God.22
   Paul is therefore stating that prior to His incarnation our Lord was fully God, possessing all of the attributes of God. This claim is consistent with the teaching of the New Testament:

   In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (John 1:1).
   And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power (Heb. 1:3a).
   Rightly, then, can Paul also say in verse 6 that He was equal with God.23

   We learn, then, that our Lord our Lord pre-existed His incarnation (John 1:1-5; 8:58; 17:18, 24; II Cor. 8:9; Col. 1:16-17). In this state, He was fully equal with God the Father so far as His deity was concerned (cf. Isa. 9:6; John 1:1; 10:30, 33).

   Our text indicates that at the time of His incarnation, something changed. This change is referred to by the word “emptied.” The Greek word which the translators of the NASB rendered “emptied” is transliterated Kenosis. This term is translated “made Himself of no reputation” in the King James Version. The NIV renders it “made himself nothing,” in my estimation the worst of the three versions. The critical issue for us is what is meant by the term here? What did our Lord “empty” Himself of? What changed when He was “made in the likeness of men” (v. 7)?

   Until the last century, there was little question what was meant. It was agreed by Christians that Paul meant the Second Person of the Trinity had added perfect humanity without in any way diminishing His deity. Jesus was no less God (as though He could be), but was now man as well.

   From the gospels we can see that our Lord did possess all of the attributes of deity, even though He did, at times, choose not to make use of them. Jesus claimed to be divine (John 8, 10), and His disciples regarded Him as such (Luke 9:20; John 6:69; 20:28). Our Lord demonstrated His omniscience when He revealed the condition of Nathaniel’s heart and what he was doing before they met (John 1:47-48). He knew the sordid details of the life of the woman at the well (John 4:17ff.). He knew that Lazarus was dead before they arrived at his home town (John 11:11-13). He also knew the unspoken thoughts of His critics (Mark 2:6-8).

   If our Lord did not empty (the word kenosis) Himself of His divine attributes, of what did He empty Himself?

   Loading…
7. 

   Georgie Porgie

   October 10, 2015 at 2:39 pm

   
   

   ADAM CLARKE
   Verse 7
   But made himself of no reputation – Ἑαυτον εκενωσε· He emptied himself – did not appear in his glory, for he assumed the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of man. And his being made in the likeness of man, and assuming the form of a servant, was a proof that he had emptied himself – laid aside the effulgence of his glory.

   Verse 8
   And being found in fashion as a man – Και σχηματι εὑρεθεις ὡς ανθρωπος . This clause should be joined to the preceding, and thus translated: Being made in the likeness of man, and was found in fashion as a man.

   He humbled himself – Laid himself as low as possible:

   In emptying himself – laying aside the effulgence of his glory.
   In being incarnate – taking upon him the human form.
   In becoming a servant – assuming the lowest innocent character, that of being the servant of all.
   In condescending to die, to which he was not naturally liable, as having never sinned, and therefore had a right in his human nature to immortality, without passing under the empire of death.
   In condescending, not only to death, but to the lowest and most ignominious kind of death, the death of the cross; the punishment of the meanest of slaves and worst of felons.
   What must sin have been in the sight of God, when it required such abasement in Jesus Christ to make an atonement for it, and undo its influence and malignity!

   Loading…
8. 

   Georgie Porgie

   October 10, 2015 at 2:52 pm

   
   

   having read the distinguished Bible Scholars…..let us now hear from a Bajan Bible illiterate who TINKS THEY KNOW

   For me, as has been reported by one fellow her on BU what I think about Bible is a function of what I have read here and there ……..I am not capable of thinking for myself

   all the Medicine I know is a function of what I have read here and there

   and the likkle Economics I know I read in Samuelson when I did elemnts of economics at Cave Hill in 73-74

   AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE INFO I HAVE POSTED ON ONLY ONE PASSaGE THeRE ARE MANY OTHERS BeSIDE ZOE AND I THAT GOT PHILLIPpIANS 2:6-7 WRONG LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

   the names of all these men are to be found in the Bibliography of so many publications
   but in 45 years I have not seen the name of ——————————–anywhere LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

   NEXT I WILL TRY TO SHARE WHAT TH EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THIS AND OTHER RELATED AND RELEVANT PASSAGES

   watch now watch

   Loading…
9. 

   ac

   October 10, 2015 at 2:55 pm

   
   

   All subject to man’s interpretation . However I do not begrudge any one using “the Faith of conviction” However I question when the intelligence by knoweldge affordedto man is conviently excluded to justify an unknown concept or theory.

   Loading…
10. 

    Georgie Porgie

    October 10, 2015 at 3:06 pm

    
    

    The New Testament writers clearly agree with John in affirming that the MAN Jesus of the Gospels, the Jesus whom the church worships as Savior and Lord, was not only a sinless man, but also perfect and undiminished deity I.E GOD

    THE TEACHING OF JOHN’S GOSPEL IS CLEARLY THAT JOHN IS SAYING THE MAN JESUS-MY COUSIN- IS REALLY GOD!

    john GIVES * SIGNS TO PROVE THIS AND A NUMBER OF “I AM” STATEMENTS

    Can any Bajan Bible illiterate explain why Jesus would use the I AM title so often if while being a MAN was not also GOD
    Was he a liar or impostor
    How could such a one die for anyone’s sins?

    Help me understand. I think I will give up my commentaries and online tools and learn from Bajan Bible illiterate lol lol lol

    Loading…
11. 

    Georgie Porgie

    October 10, 2015 at 3:16 pm

    
    

    STEDMAN ON THE MEANING OF THE TERM SON OF GOD

    A great deal is made of this term, “Son of God” today, as though there were a distinction to be made between God and the Son of God, but no Hebrew would ever understand it that way. To the Hebrews to call someone a “son” of something was to say he is identified with, identical with, that thing or person.

    Barnabas was named the “Son of Consolation.” That is the meaning of the name Barnabas. Why? Because he was that kind of man — an encouraging, consoling kind of fellow. His nickname meant that he was the very epitome of consolation. He was the expression of it.

    To the Hebrews the use of this term, the Son of God, meant, “This one is God.” That is why invariably, when our Lord used that term of himself, he was challenged by the unbelieving scribes and Pharisees, saying, “who are you? What do you make yourself out to be? Why, you make yourself to be equal with God.” Of course he did. That is what the title means.

    READ THROUGH JOHN”S GOSPEL AND SEE THAT EVERYTIME JESUS USED THIS TERM THE JEWS GOT ANGRY

    Loading…
12. 

    Georgie Porgie

    October 10, 2015 at 3:24 pm

    
    

    Why is Jesus called “Son of Man”?

    AS YOU KNOW THIS WAS HIS FAVORITE TITL FOR HIMSELF
    Let me give a common understanding and then a more sophisticated historical understanding.

    The common understanding is that “Son of God” implies his deity—which it does—and that “Son of Man” implies his humanity, which it does too.

    He was a son of man, that is, a human being. And he is the Son of God, in that he has always existed as the Eternally Begotten One who comes forth from the Father forever. He always has, and he always will. He is the Second Person of the Trinity with all of the divine nature fully in him.

    He was conceived of the Holy Spirit in the virgin Mary. Thus he is human—fully human. The Bible wants to emphasize that he is fully human.
    So that’s the common understanding: he is both divine and he is human—two natures, one person.

    The more sophisticated and important historical insight is that the term “Son of Man” doesn’t merely align him with humanity. It is taken from Daniel 7. And if you read that chapter you’ll see that the Son of Man is a very exalted figure: not just a human figure but an exalted figure. It was Jesus’ favorite self-designation.

    If you do a study of the term “Son of Man” in the Gospels you’ll see that he didn’t refer to himself most often as Son of God but as Son of Man. He said things like, in Mark 10:45, “The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many.” So he calls himself Son of Man very often.

    I think the reason he did so is because, on the face of it, Son of Man is an ordinary phrase for “human being.” He was born of a man. And there’s no offense there: who isn’t a son of man? But those with ears to hear could hear Daniel 7, in which he was claiming a very exalted role in the history of redemption. And he meant to do it.

    Jesus was very subtle in that he was always opening his identity to those with eyes to see, but he wasn’t opening it so blatantly that everybody would come and make him king. He had to steer a very narrow course in disclosing his identity, not just openly saying, “I’m the Messiah, I’m the King of the World. Come and acknowledge me as King.” He didn’t talk like that.

    He was quiet. He was subtle. And he would make claims that were explicit in certain settings and implicit in others. And only when the time was right—mainly when he was on trial for his life, and they said, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the living God?”—did he say, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man coming with great power and glory.” So he confessed his open deity right at the point where he knew he would be crucified for it.
    I hope that helps. “Son of Man” has the double meaning of human being and, according to Daniel 7, exalted heavenly one. And Jesus means to communicate both of those.

    DONT TAKE MY WORD FOR IT
    READ THE SCRIPTURES FOR YOUR SELF…………and study what it says

    Loading…
13. 

    Georgie Porgie

    October 10, 2015 at 3:32 pm

    
    

    Why is Jesus called “Son of Man”?

    AS YOU KNOW THIS WAS HIS FAVORITE TITL FOR HIMSELF

    It Is A Messianic Designation
    The title “Son of Man” was a designation for the Messiah. The Book of Daniel predicted that the Son of Man would inherit God’s everlasting kingdom.

    And behold, one like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought him near before him. Then to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed (Daniel 7:13,14).

    Jesus Employed The Designation At His Trial
    When THE MAN Jesus was on trial and was asked if He were the Messiah, He referred to this prediction:

    It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of the power, and coming on the clouds of heaven (Matthew 26:64).
    This statement infuriated the religious rulers. They accused Him of blasphemy for claiming equal authority with God.

    It was clear to them that Jesus referred to Daniel’s prophecy and hence was claiming to be GOD.

    At His trial THE MAN Jesus acknowledged that He indeed was the Son of Man – the one who would bring in God’s everlasting kingdom. When the religious leaders heard this they accused Him of blasphemy – claiming to be GOD.
    WHY WOULD THE MAN JESUS SAY HE WAS GOD IF H WAS NOT?
    WHY WOULD THE MAN JSUS SAY HE WAS GOD IF HE WAS ONLY A MERE MAN?

    Loading…
14. 

    Georgie Porgie

    October 10, 2015 at 7:54 pm

    
    

    Zoe and David and AC and Donna et alliter
    I trying to be humble and seeking to learn

    Christ taught Paul right?

    But who did Paul say are to teach belivers today?

    Is it not written in Ephesians 4;11 ?
    And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and TEACHERS…………………………………………………………… like these guys listed below?

    You tink any of the guys below would qualify? Or you think we should defer to bajan brimblers whose teaching is PELUCID? or more accurately PUTRID

    The Hebrew Greek Key Study Bible ( KJV), Edited by Spiros Zodhiates, AMG
    Publishers Chattanooga TN Revised 1991

    The Visualized Bible (KJV), by H.L Wilmington, Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. Wheaton Illinois.
    The New Scofield Reference Bible (KJV), Edited by C. I. Scofield, 1967, New York. Oxford University Press.

    Vine, W. E., Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words
    Merrill F. Unger, William White, Jr., Nelson Publishers

    Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance Of The Bible. Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995.

    Barclay, William. New Testament Words, SCM PRESSLTD, London, 1964
    Baugham, Ray. Bible History Visualized, C-ingBIble History. Moody Press 1963.

    Cohen,G.G and Kirban,S. Revelation Visualized. Future Events Publications.1971
    Chafer, Louis Sperry .GRACE . Zondervan Publishing, Grand Rapids, MI
    Cousen, Cecil. The Curse of The Law. Torbay Publishing, Devon,1987.
    Frank, Harry Thomas. Discovering The Biblical World. Maplewood, Hammond, 1988.
    Geisler, Norman.L, A Popular Survey of The Old Testament. Baker Book House,1977.
    Gray, J. Christian Workers Commentary On The Whole Bible. (lost pages with data)
    Graves, Paul. F. Christ In The Old Testament. Faith Overseas Mission Inc./
    Gundry, Robert H. A Survey Of The New Testament. Zondervan, 1970
    Hodgkin, A. M .Christ in All The Scriptures (1907) Baker Book House 1976 under special arrangement with Pickering & Inglis.
    Hoyt, Herman A, An Exposition of the book of Revelation. Brethren Missionary Herald Company, 1966.
    Jensen, Irving. L. Jensen’s Survey Of The Old Testament. Moody Press 1978
    Kaiser, Walter C. Jr., Toward an Old Testament Theology. Zondervan Publishing,
    Grand Rapids, MI
    Keller, Werner. The Bible As History. Bantam Books, NY, NY, 1996
    Lee, R.G. The Outlined Bible. Pickering & Inglis Ltd, .ND
    MacArthur,John.F,Jr. Galatians- Liberated for Life. ( A Bible Commentary for
    Laymen).Regal Books 1960.
    McGee, J.Vernon Thru The Bible Books 1975

    Mears Henrietta, What The New Testament is All About Regal Books.1966.
    Morris, Henry. M. The Genesis Record- A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on The
    Book Of Beginnings. Baker Book House, 1976
    Newell, William, Romans, Verse by Verse .Moody Press

    Ryrie, Charles. Basic Theology Moody Press, Chicago, IL
    Ryrie, Charles. Biblical Theology of the New Testament. Moody Press,1959
    Ryrie, Charles. Dispensationalism. Moody Press, Chicago, IL
    Smith, Hamilton, The Epistle to The Hebrews-An Expository Outline Edinburg ND
    Thiessen, Henry. C. Lectures in Systematic Theology Erdmans. 1979.
    Towns, Elmer. What The New Testament is All About. Liberty University 1979
    Unger, Merrill F. Archaeology of The Old Testament. Zondervan Press, Grand Rapids, MI
    Unger, Merrill F. Archaeology of The New Testament Zondervan Press, Grand Rapids, MI
    Vos, Howard. F, Everyman’s Bible Commentary- Genesis, Moody Press, 1982.
    Vos Howard.F. Survey of The New Testament for the Layman, Zondrvan 1957
    West Earle H, Survey of The New Testament
    Wiersbe, Warren, Be Alert (Bible Study on 2 Peter, 2,3 John & Jude) Victor Books 1984
    Wierbse,W.Warren. Be Confident, How to Keep Your Balance In the Day We Live-Hebrews, Victor Books.1982
    Wildish, Harold F, The School of Faith, Good News Publishers, Westchester , Illinois 60153.
    Wilmington H. L. A Pictorial Journey Thru The Old Testament. Liberty Home Bible Institute. 1979

    Loading…
15. 

    ac

    October 10, 2015 at 9:41 pm

    
    

    religion is big business and at the core of its sale pitch is Jesus and his history, Now if that history is change in any form shape or fashion the sales cease.
    Then what would one expect from all these authors, i do not believe it would be the Truth,
    No! reason being that the very existence and daily bread of these authors are dependent on every word in the bible
    So why kick a gift horse in the mouth

    Loading…
16. 

    ac

    October 10, 2015 at 9:51 pm

    
    

    GP but sorry i will have to depend on the bajan bumblers , They are speaking from the heart, these authors have a vested interest in selling their books it is all about money therefore truth and logic becomes non existent,

    Loading…
17. 

    pieceuhderockyeahright

    October 10, 2015 at 10:32 pm

    
    

    @ Georgie Porgie

    Why do I think you are a poor theologist?

    Because of your flawed reasoning skills

    Time does not allow me to find your recent submission and interpretation regarding your erroneous end time prophecy re Samaria etc

    But de ole man would ask you this

    How many translations has the Bible gone through?

    Of the cities named , both in the Old Testament and the New Testament which ones are definitively the same geographical location as those referenced in the Bible?

    With these multiple translations, by what ecclesiastical authority can you say that a city called “X” which the a Holy Text says is so called “to this day”, was not renamed, or destroyed utterly, during the past like the eternal libraries at Athens, and someplace else given that name at the whim of some believer?

    Stay with the old man yet a little longer

    How comes it then, when in other ages, at the height of other wars, some of which were global, wars where strangely similar holocausts engulfed similarly portentous Holy Cities, what makes your interpretation of this conflagration in the Middle East so theosophically accurate?

    Why are you no the seer absolu, as opposed to similar doomsday predictions of another observer in 1914 or more specifically in 1942 when Mussolini and Hitler were right on the doorstep of the Holy See?

    Incredibly the Antichrist AC rightfully pointed out that some uh we does tek de written word of udder menses as gospel and does espouse it as absolute truth because we can cut and paste it now at will…drunk as we are in the Rum Shop…

    Loading…
18. 

    ac

    October 10, 2015 at 11:09 pm

    
    

    In other WORDS GP

    it,s rhe MONEY ! stupid.

    i will bet you there are as many religious authors combined world wide as there are religious organizations and yhat does not include the other big gospel artist ,
    Now what if when Jesus returns he dawns a three piece suit and just for the hell of it hires a jewish lawyer to investigate these religious organizations !artist! Holy land depictions and all things religious connected to his name, THe Royalties( and not praise and worship) that Jesus would be entitled would be enough to build his own kingdom on earth and also a fiery furnace large enough to burn the con artist who had no shame in using his name for self gain.
    As for the bajan bumblers they will be safe,

    Loading…
19. 

    pieceuhderockyeahright

    October 10, 2015 at 11:18 pm

    
    

    Let the other one post nuh woman!!

    Whuloss man, one common sense posting den forty three balls uh jobby….

    Hants, Bush Tea and de Blogmaster I apologize

    I did was jes agreeing wid de on wif a likkle sense and look whu happen

    Loading…
20. 

    ac

    October 11, 2015 at 6:42 am

    
    

    what a jerk ‘who is the udder one” clown.?. you seem to have demonic voices at work in tour head instructing you to speak of ac as plurals, have you gone stark fking mad
    the above comment was meant to be a joke with a fort right expression speaking of religious organization to be in need of a cleansing of its mind soul and body before the return of Jesus
    However for one in need to “show off” your intellectual prowess you decided to print your version of jobby to insult one of the many so called “udder persons ” living somewhere in your demented head,
    What a jerk,

    Loading…
21. 

    ac

    October 11, 2015 at 7:03 am

    
    

    GP

    The title “Son of Man” was a designation for the Messiah. The Book of Daniel predicted that the Son of Man would inherit God’s everlasting kingdom.

    And behold, one like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought him near before him. Then to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed (Daniel 7:13,14).

    a logical interpretation of the “Son of Man” Would plainly indicate that a Son would be referenced to be the child of a parent, in which Jesus on many occasion did refer to GOD as his Father,
    In the verse in which Daniel prophesied about the coming of a Messiah by all indications Daniel Says the SON clearly using words to differentiate between the Almighty God head and his SON Jesus,

    Loading…
22. 

    Zoe

    October 11, 2015 at 8:05 am

    
    

    THE NAME OF GOD, is one of the most wonderful and remarkable themes in the Word of God, the Holy Bible. It is a theme which flows through the entire Book, beginning in Genesis ( the Book of Beginnings), and consummating in Revelation ( the Book of Ultimates).

    The study of THE NAME OF GOD is inseparable from the study of THE PERSON OF GOD, for the Name or the Names of God reveal God in all His Glory, Attributes, and Power. The Names of God are a revelation of His very Nature and Being.

    The Psalmist tells us that God has magnified HIS WORD even above ALL HIS NAME, Psalm 138:2. And this is rightly so; apart from the Word of God, there can be NO revelation of the Name of God. It is the WORD of God that unveils, unfolds and REVEALS the glories of the Name of God in all its wonder, glory, beauty and MAJESTY.

    The WORD OF GOD, and the NAME OF GOD, are absolutely inseparably in the Plan and Purpose of God in His REDEMPTIVE manifestation and revelation to His creatures.

    Loading…
23. 

    ac

    October 11, 2015 at 8:32 am

    
    

    GP

    The title “Son of Man” was a designation for the Messiah. The Book of Daniel predicted that the Son of Man would inherit God’s everlasting kingdom.

    ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

    it seems that Todays bible scholars version of inheritance missed a basic rule of thumb that the one inheriting is usually the next of kin

    therefore it is plausible to assume that Jesus was the Son of GOD and not GOD and an inheritor to Gods Kingdom

    Further more God being the creator of ALL things is the rightful owner of what was created in his Name and would not need to inherit what he owns,

    Loading…
24. 

    Zoe

    October 11, 2015 at 8:53 am

    
    

    All of the great Doctrines in the Bible, clearly seen and defined for us in the New Testament, have been shadowed forth in the Old Testament. Truths were hidden, veiled and concealed in types and shadows, signs and symbols, figures and allegory, prophetic places, persons, events and structures. The Old Testament was indeed “The Age of the Shadow,” and as we follow the Shadow, we eventually come to THE PERSON whose shadow it WAS, even the Person of our LORD JESUS CHRIST.

    However, it is in the New Testament that we are given the fullest, clearest, richest, and most comprehensive revelation of THE NAME OF GOD. No words of man can adequately explain or express the Glory of God and His Name.

    Jesus Himself said to His Disciples, “And ye shall be HATED of all Nations for My NAME’s sake.” (Matthew 24:9).

    “To the LAW and the Testimony: If they speak NOT according to this WORD, it is because there is NO LIGHT in them” (Isaiah 8:20) Emphasis added.

    This subject matter, THE NAME OF GOD, is an extensive and intensive study in itself.

    However, “The Name of the Lord Jesus Christ” reveals that the interpretation of this TRIUNE Name, shows IT be indeed the greatest COMPOUND REDEMPTIVE Name of GOD ever to be revealed. For, it IS* a NAME which is ABOVE every name, not only in this world, but also in that world which is to come! (Ephesians 1:21)

    Loading…
25. 

    ac

    October 11, 2015 at 9:11 am

    
    

    Loo i am not trying to throw cold water on any ones beliefs but trying to resolve basic Truth through tested and proven fact findings that is logical in forming conclusion

    How does one explain the SON GOD (if he is GOD) now sitting at the right hand of GOD

    Loading…
26. 

    Zoe

    October 11, 2015 at 12:36 pm

    
    

    The God of historic divine Revelation, as found in His Word, the Bible, is revealed as TRIUNE in Nature and Being. From genesis to revelation, whether it be by type or symbol, pattern or created things, shadows or theophanic revelation and manifestation, or wheter it be by clear declaration, Scriptures SHOW that God is always revealed as One in Three and Three in One — That is, TRI-UNITY!

    Father, Son and Holy Spirit IS* the Bible definition of God.

    “Baptizing them IN* THE NAME of the Father, and of THE Son, and of THE Holy spitit” (Matthew 28:19) Emphasis added.

    Loading…
27. 

    Zoe

    October 11, 2015 at 12:38 pm

    
    

    This Union in DEITY, is defined by the word “Godhead.” as already noted. Refer again to these Scriptures. Rom. 1:20; Col. 2:9; Acts 17:29

    Loading…
28. 

    Zoe

    October 11, 2015 at 12:51 pm

    
    

    Within man’s Nature and Being there are Three Centers of Consciousness spoken of as Spirit, Soul and Body.

    Man is One. Man is Three. Man is Triune. Man is a Tri-Unity. (1 Thess.5:23)

    Spirit — The God-conscious part of man.
    Soul — The Self-conscious part of man.
    Body — The Sense of World-conscious part of man.

    Thus, within man, in his very Nature and Being, that which makes man a man, there are three centers of consciousness, Spirit, Soul, and Body. Man is the union of Three in One, and One in Three. This is the image of God that man was made in, which man – as creature, dimly reflects.

    All Pagan religions and false religions, masquerading under the banner of Christendom clamor for a numerical or number One God, rejecting the Deity of the Blessed Son of God, and rejection of the Person (personality) of the Holy Spirit!

    Loading…
29. 

    Zoe

    October 11, 2015 at 2:23 pm

    
    

    The New Testament NAME OF GOD – THE TRIUNE NAME.

    As in all truth, the New Testament is the fullness of the fragmentary truth given in the Old Testament. The old Testament pointed to and made way for the New Testament.

    It is impossible to read the New Testament without coming to a recognition of the fact, that THE NAME which is stamped upon its pages is THE NAME of THE LORD – JESUS- CHRIST.

    This TRIUNE NAME, either in part or the whole, is used hundreds of times in the New Testament. Whereas, the Name which was impressed upon the Old Testament was ” THE LORD GOD,” the Name which is impressed upon the New Testament IS* “The LORD JESUS CHRIST.”

    A cursory glance over the Gospels, the Acts, and the Epistles shows that the Name of the “Lord,” “Lord Jesus,” “Jesus Christ,” “Christ Jesus,” or “Lord Jesus Christ” is dominant throughout.

    It is obvious and very clear, that when THE TRIUNE NAME of the LORD JESUS CHRIST is correctly interpreted, THE PERSON ( or The Persons) involved in that Name is ( are) revealed. The Name is a revelation of The Nature.

    By using the Law of Interpretation of Names, it will be discovered that this Name involves the ETERNAL GODHEAD, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. More than that, it should be seen that the Triune Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, IS* the Triune Name of the Triune God. It IS the Godhead Name.

    Therefore, of ALL the Jehovahistic Compound Redemptive Names ever to be revealed, the Triune Name of THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, IS* the greatest, both in this world, and in the world to come. Ephesians 1:21.

    Loading…
30. 

    ac

    October 11, 2015 at 3:01 pm

    
    

    I think the truine needs to be rid of and repaced with the more logical concept of One GOD a cocept and theory all can identity

    Speaking of Trinity , this concept too can be attributed to the old testament religious practices/custom where GOD was referenced as the GOD of Abraham Jacob and Isaac a form of divine status given to man
    Hence it was duplicated giving Jesus the highest form of divinity as one of God,
    in both instances this form of divinity given to man was not unusual ,However theologians and intrepretators of the Word has twisted and imply with unreasonable irrationality in an act which is illogically hard to understand

    Loading…
31. 

    Donna

    October 12, 2015 at 9:44 am

    
    

    GP,

    And with that final barb at me long after I believed all that to be over, you have proven that all your KNOWLEDGE has been USELESS to you. In short there is NOTHING that I can learn from you at this point. I shall no longer engage you.

    Loading…
32. 

    Donna

    October 12, 2015 at 9:45 am

    
    

    GP is now in the AC file.

    Loading…
33. 

    dreamstarworld

    October 12, 2015 at 4:33 pm

    
    

    Loading…