Jesus is 100% God and 100% man at the same time

[Brighten04]

Pedrito, flesh and blood dies. Those people who died , their bodies are in the grave to this day.Jesus had the power to lay His life down and He had the power to take it up again. He IS the resurrection and the life.
John 11:25Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

Revelation 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

 

[user1234]

I understand Pedritos point, as he was being very exacting on the wording.
And of course, the challenges are always there..... 'If Jesus is God, how could He die?' Why didn't He know the day and the hour of His return...?' etc. etc. They're often repeated.

But you have it right, Brighten04, Jesus was fully man and fully God, and Jesus was flesh and blood, and He died on the cross. He also rose bodily from the grave, and is coming again in like manner.
And yes, Pedrito, Jesus even said, 'Greater love has no one than this, that a man lays down his life for his friends'.
So not only do ppl lay down there own lives, but many are called to it by the Lord Himself.

But no one besides Jesus has the power, authority, and control over life and death.
You could drink poison to commit suicide, but it's God who will determine if and when you'll die.
When Jesus said no man takes His life from Him, but He lays it down of His own accord, He continued by saying He has the power to lay it down, AND THE POWER TO TAKE IT UP AGAIN. He was claiming His authority over ALL life, and He claimed to be given this power and authority, not just from 'God', but from His FATHER!

As God, He was, and is, in complete control over all creation, including His own death, burial, and resurrection.
No other man can (honestly in truth) make that claim. Jesus said it and did it, all in fulfillment of God's prophetic Word.
There is no one like our God and Saviour. There is no one like Jesus. :wave:

 

[Brighten04]

Excellent is the name of Jesus.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nqb0oWMT6oA

 

[Rens]

atpollard in Post #346 on Page 35, stated:


And here was Pedrito labouring under the long-term misapprehension that history was awash with people who had laid down their lives voluntarily.

A person who pushes his or her loved one out of the way, knowing they will be killed themselves. A presidential guard who jumps in front of a threatened President. A soldier who dives onto a grenade to save his comrades. A suicide bomber who sacrifices himself or herself in order to kill many. The list goes on...

Besides, if Pedrito has it right, the First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chapter One, states that God is eternal – i.e. He cannot die. Did the RCC get that wrong?

He cannot die. Jesus' Spirit never died. Only His body and fleshly part of His soul. A seed dies to bring forth fuit. The seed doesn't die, only the outside.

 

[user1234]

Right.
On the cross, for reasons I can't even seem to understand, He took the full weight of God's wrath, for us, so that we wouldn't have to.
On the cross, He gave up the Ghost, and on the cross, He died.
His body was just as dead as could be. Even though it's the wages of sin that brings forth death, He never sinned, so it would seem that He died unjustly.
But this is more proof that He took our sin away, Hallelujah!
He took our sin, and in His own body, nailed it to the cross.
In the greatest act of love that could ever be known,
He died for our sin.

But He also said to the thief on the cross, today you'll be with me in paradise.
And He led captivity captive, and He preached the Good News. And then He rose from the grave, and rolled the stone away, not to let Himself out, but so that we could see in.
Yep...He died, and He rose again, never to die again, He's alive forevermore, and because He lives, we shall live also. Let this be the reason we unite, and rejoice together! Love. Our Saviour. Our God. King of kings, Lord of lords. Jesus. Love. Amen.

 

[Pedrito]

In Post #346 on Page 35, it was stated:

Jesus takes his life (that he laid down) back up again ... He has that power ... Jesus only chose to die (lay down his life) so that Jesus could chose to live again (take it).
You want to talk about his crucifixion proving he was not omnipotent, on the contrary. Nothing says I AM GOD like claiming that I will allow myself to die so that I can raise myself back to life ... and then doing it!

Seeing that all other pertinent scriptures (unless Pedrito is mistaken) state that God raised Jesus from the dead and that God then raised Jesus to a position above all other life forms (except God's-self, that is), maybe we should look more closely at the translation of the verse being referred to.

The word normally translated "power" or "authority" in John 10:18 also means "privilege" or "right". And the word normally translated "to take/to take up/to take back" also means "to receive". Also, the word translated "commandment" is "precept" elsewhere. If we substitute those valid meanings, John 10:18 then becomes:

No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have privilege to lay it down, and I have privilege to receive it again. This precept have I received of my Father.

Does that not tie in with other Scripture, and especially explain that Jesus knew about the priviledge that God had promised Him on the successful completion of His (Jesus') special mission? Wasn't that privilege described as "the joy that was set before him", and did that not include being "set down at the right hand of the throne of God," also stated as being "at" (or "on" or "by") "the right hand of God"?

(See Hebrews 12:2 ; Mark 16:19; Acts 2:33; Acts 7:55; Acts 7:56; Romans 8:34; Colossians 3:1; Hebrews 10:12; 1 Peter 3:22)

==============================================================================================

Pedrito suggests that it is always good to bear in mind that translators, given a choice of meanings, will almost universally choose a meaning that bolsters their particular doctrinal bias. That goes for groups of translators too – if they share particular biases.

If a verse sticks out as incongruous (in the sense that it seems at variance with the majority of related statements in Scripture), and if the substitution of valid alternative words restores the harmony (as in this case), then Pedrito suggests that the alternative translation has demonstrable credence.

If that be so, then the statements in Post #346 would seem to be somewhat misguided.

 

[user1234]

quote lifted from #366 ---

Pedrito suggests that it is always good to bear in mind that translators, given a choice of meanings, will almost universally choose a meaning that bolsters their particular doctrinal bias. That goes for groups of translators too – if they share particular biases.

Are you suggesting that the translators of the KJV had, and shared, a particular doctrinal bias? (And if so, do you see this as a bad thing?)

For the record, imho, I believe they had integrity and were determined to get it right, despite IF they had their own individual doctrinal bias, I think they kept each other accountable, and rather than having a 'group-think' bias, they probably disagreed on some things. But that proved even further that this wasn't man's work, but God's Word they were so carefully handling, and they all knew they were accountable to Him, and they knew He was overseeing them. This was no trifling matter, and I believe they got it right because God got it right, and I have full confidence when I read His Word that I'm actually reading His Word, and the only doctrinal bias I'm getting is HIS.

Btw, I'm not pre-judging your evaluation of it, just wondering what your opinion is on perceived doctrinal bias re: the KJV writers as a group.
There are those that even question the integrity of writers all the way back to Paul, and as a result, cause themselves and others to trash large portions of God's Word.
It often only takes a little trickle of doubt to creep in before the floodgates of unbelief are wide open, and the enemy knows that all too well. Of course, we're not supposed to check our brains at the door and be blind lemmings, ..... We're to be Bereans, but faithful ones. GBU

 

[atpollard]

atpollard in Post #346 on Page 35, stated:
And here was Pedrito labouring under the long-term misapprehension that history was awash with people who had laid down their lives voluntarily.

A person who pushes his or her loved one out of the way, knowing they will be killed themselves. A presidential guard who jumps in front of a threatened President. A soldier who dives onto a grenade to save his comrades. A suicide bomber who sacrifices himself or herself in order to kill many. The list goes on...

Besides, if Pedrito has it right, the First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chapter One, states that God is eternal – i.e. He cannot die. Did the RCC get that wrong?

1. How many of those other people who sacrificed themselves, had the power to take their life up again afterwards? Is history awash with that as well, or could that be where the omnipotence comes into play?

2. I have not read the First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith (any chapter), so I am not really qualified to answer. What I do know from Scripture is that Jesus was God Incarnate and that He did die and that He rose from the dead. That is sort of the whole point of Christianity. If the RCC disagrees, then they have gotten it wrong, but I do not believe that the RCC denies any of the early creeds which affirm this basic fact.

 

[MoreCoffee]

What does Pedrito make of John 1:1?

John 1:1 In the beginning was the one who is called the Word. The Word was with God and was truly God.

 

[atpollard]

Pedrito suggests that it is always good to bear in mind that translators, given a choice of meanings, will almost universally choose a meaning that bolsters their particular doctrinal bias. That goes for groups of translators too – if they share particular biases.

If a verse sticks out as incongruous (in the sense that it seems at variance with the majority of related statements in Scripture), and if the substitution of valid alternative words restores the harmony (as in this case), then Pedrito suggests that the alternative translation has demonstrable credence.

If that be so, then the statements in Post #346 would seem to be somewhat misguided.

Does Pedrito read Kioine Greek? Atpollard does not, so he trusts the translations of multiple teams of translators spread throughout time and denominations to provide him with the range of meanings that a reasonable expert might draw from the original text. Atpollard relies on the wisdom of Proverbs 24:6.

John 10:18
[KJV] No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

[NKJV] “No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.”

[NLT] "No one can take my life from me. I sacrifice it voluntarily. For I have the authority to lay it down when I want to and also to take it up again. For this is what my Father has commanded.”

[NIV] "No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”

[ESV] "No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.”

[HCSB] "No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down on My own. I have the right to lay it down, and I have the right to take it up again. I have received this command from My Father.”

[RVR60] "Nadie me la quita, sino que yo de mí mismo la pongo. Tengo poder para ponerla, y tengo poder para volverla a tomar. Este mandamiento recibí de mi Padre."

[NASB] "No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.”

[NET] "No one takes it away from me, but I lay it down of my own free will. I have the authority to lay it down, and I have the authority to take it back again. This commandment I received from my Father."

[RSV] "No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father."

[ASV] "No one taketh it away from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment received I from my Father."

[YLT] "no one doth take it from me, but I lay it down of myself; authority I have to lay it down, and authority I have again to take it; this command I received from my Father."

[DBY] "No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have authority to lay it down and I have authority to take it again. I have received this commandment of my Father."

[WEB] "No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received from my Father."


So "power" or "authority" and "charge" or "command", all of the translations that I could locate seem to emphasize that it is Jesus who is in command of the events surrounding his death and Resurection ... as befitting one who is both fully God and fully man.

 

[Pedrito]

==============================================================================================

(I thought it was about time I cleaned up the backlog of penned posts that have been patiently awaiting submission.)

==============================================================================================
::
:: I wrote the words above in March 2017. Over two years thereafter, this Post is finally seeing the light of day (as it were).
:: I recently stated in the Senior Members Lounge that I would be submitting posts penned some time ago.
:: This is the first of such. It is fairly innocuous. Other Posts may be somewhat more pointed.
::
==============================================================================================

MoreCoffee asked an interesting question in Post #350 on Page 35:

If I write a complicated post in this thread will it make me immortal?

The Hebrew word translated "forever" (עוֹלָם `owlam) also means a period of time, the end of which cannot be perceived at the present moment.

In the light of that, if MoreCoffee does write a complicated post (as opposed to the long quotes from selected literature he has posted at times in the past), we can assume his immortality (in name) will be assured as long as this website and its component forums remain extant.

==============================================================================================

 

[pinacled]

==============================================================================================

(I thought it was about time I cleaned up the backlog of penned posts that have been patiently awaiting submission.)

==============================================================================================
::
:: I wrote the words above in March 2017. Over two years thereafter, this Post is finally seeing the light of day (as it were).
:: I recently stated in the Senior Members Lounge that I would be submitting posts penned some time ago.
:: This is the first of such. It is fairly innocuous. Other Posts may be somewhat more pointed.
::
==============================================================================================

MoreCoffee asked an interesting question in Post #350 on Page 35:


The Hebrew word translated "forever" (עוֹלָם `owlam) also means a period of time, the end of which cannot be perceived at the present moment.

In the light of that, if MoreCoffee does write a complicated post (as opposed to the long quotes from selected literature he has posted at times in the past), we can assume his immortality (in name) will be assured as long as this website and its component forums remain extant.

==============================================================================================

Ever tasted the Water of Life?

 

[Pedrito]

==============================================================================================

In Post #372, pinacled asked:

Ever tasted the Water of Life?

That was (and is) an interesting question. But I can’t help wondering why it was asked here.

==============================================================================================

I have found four references that seem pertinent to the question – three direct and one indirect. (I am open to being made aware of other references I might have missed.)

The first, the indirect one is found in John 4:13,14:
13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:
14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

We can glean from other Scripture, that Jesus is referring to a time period at some point after His death and resurrection. But no other clarifying information is given. We may have to look elsewhere for that.

==============================================================================================

Continued…

 

[psalms 91]

I would also suggest that being baptized into the spirit might also fit

 

[Pedrito]

...Continued

==============================================================================================

In Post #372, pinacled asked:

Ever tasted the Water of Life?

In response to that question, a review of references pertaining to the Water of Life was commenced.

In Post #373, we looked at the Jesus’ words to “the woman at the well” in Samaria. That was an indirect reference – the term “Water of Life” was not used.

==============================================================================================

The three direct references I uncovered, are found in the book of Revelation – Revelation 21:6; Revelation 22:1-2; Revelation 22:17.

I tend not to refer to the book of Revelation that much. It is a book of symbols. Unfortunately, some churches and some individuals have chosen to proclaim selected symbols to be literal – when it suits them that is, to bolster doctrines that they hold dear.

However, in this case we have been led to these verses by pinacled. So the door has been opened for us to consider them carefully, to see what light can be shed by them.

==============================================================================================

Revelation 21:6: And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.

The time context appears to be when the New Jerusalem, the tabernacle of God, has descended to the Earth. Not the current “dispensation” (“Gospel age”). (See Revelation 21:1-3.)

Revelation 22:1-2:
1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

This also points to an age which lies beyond the one we currently find ourselves in.

Revelation 22:17: And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

In the light of Revelation 22:16, this refers to the age we are currently immersed in.

==============================================================================================

So, we learn two things from the Revelation passages:
- The water of life will be available to individuals during the age following ours – often termed “the Millennium”;
- The water of life is available to individuals during our age – to all who respond openly to the message broadcast by the Spirit, by the bride, and by impressed hearers who have yet to drink.

Pinacled: Ever tasted the Water of Life? Yes. But I would suggest, in a way that only those who accept the Simple, Original Apostolic Gospel, can understand and experience.

==============================================================================================

 

[MoreCoffee]

Is 100% God and 100% man bad arithmetic?

 

[atpollard]

Is 100% God and 100% man bad arithmetic?

Yup, but so is "I and the Father are one." [John 10:30] ... that still doesn’t prevent it from being true.

 

[Pedrito]

==============================================================================================

MoreCoffee (Post #376): “Is 100% God and 100% man bad arithmetic?”

atpollard (Post #377): “Yup, but so is "I and the Father are one." [John 10:30] ... that still doesn’t prevent it from being true.”


==============================================================================================

Maybe that arithmetic is not so bad, after all.

Could there be even worse?

John 17:22: And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:


==============================================================================================