AntiChrist Wants To Spiritualize everything...I John pt 17

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.( I John 4:1-3)

Through a good many popular ministries on television, radio and the internet, the Spirit of AntiChrist is in the world today, teaching many unwary in the church and of course out of it, redefining the knowledge of God, seducing and deceiving if possible, even the very elect of God.

The denial of the deity of Christ, the validity of scripture, final judgment, heaven, hell, original sin have become routine now, for the very foundations of the Christ6ian revelation are under assault as the scripture predicted of the very last days.

The core of the teaching of Antichrist is revealed here in the writing of the apostle John; AntiChris would deny in some fashion, the ongoing incarnation of Messiah. The malevolent spirit of this Age would spiritualize Christ, either denying the original coming into this world of flesh the God man, or asserting that since the resurrection, Jesus Christ is no longer in a physical body.

The Roman Church does this by insisting that through the priestcraft, the wafer is turned into an incarnation, that Christ is offered over and over again as a sacrifice for our sins. The “once and for”” nature of atonement is denied, the mass is a continual re-presentation of Jesus dying for us.

Jehovah’s Witnesses say that Jesus was not God, and that he arose from the dead in spirit and not physically.Other cults assert that Jesus is constantly “coming back” to his church not bodily, but in the form of “new anointings” through the ministries of restored “apostles and Prophets”.

There are many other ways the Incarnation is denied and Jesus is spiritualized. One of the heresies afflicting the early church was called “docetism”. Jesus was not really flesh and blood, but only ‘seemed’ to be. He didn’t really suffer on the cross, he only seemed to, for God who is Spirit cannot suffer.

Much of Islam is based upon the heresy of Docetism, because Mohammed was influenced by Docetic heretics. Jesus didn’t really suffer and die on the cross, he allowed Judas to go in his place, he stood afar off from the suffering and shame of the cross, and laughed at Judas as He hung there.

One variation of this was called “adoptionism”, which taught that Jesus was an ordinary human being, a pious worshipper of God, who was “Christed” at the age of 30, when the Holy Spirit descended upon him and he was adopted of God, at his baptism. This empowered him until he went to the cross, and the Holy Spirit lifted from Him, and he became an ordinary man again, and died.

Kenneth Copeland teaches something very similar to adoptionism, when He asserted that He could have died on the cross, if he had had the same amount of “revelation knowledge” that Jesus had. To Copeland and the other Gnostics such as Bill Johnson, Jesus’ miracles and power were a manner of “Revelation knowledge” which Jesus had acquired.

The Spirit of God spoke to me and He said, “Son, realize this. Now follow me in this and don’t let your tradition trip you up.” He said, “Think this way — a twice-born man whipped Satan in his own domain.” And I threw my Bible down… like that. I said, “What?” He said, “A born-again man defeated Satan, the firstborn of many brethren defeated him.” He said, “You are the very image, the very copy of that one.” I said, “Goodness, gracious sakes alive!” And I began to see what had gone on in there, and I said, “Well now you don’t mean, you couldn’t dare mean, that I could have done the same thing?” He said, “Oh yeah, if you’d had the knowledge of the Word of God that He did, you could have done the same thing, ’cause you’re a reborn man too.”

Kenneth Copeland (Substitution and Identification, 1989, tape #00-0202, side 2)

Christ is not Jesus’ last name. The word Christ means “Anointed One” or “Messiah.” It [Christ] is a title that points to an experience [Spirit resting upon Him after baptism in the Jordan]. It was not sufficient that Jesus be sent from heaven to earth with a title [Christ]. He had to receive the anointing[“Christ anointing” resulting in Christ title] in an experience [Spirit resting upon Him] to accomplish what the Father desired. The word anointing means “to smear.” The Holy Spirit is the oil of God that was smeared all over Jesus at His water baptism. The name Jesus Christ implies that Jesus is the One smeared with the Holy Spirit [after water baptism in the Jordan].(Bill Johnson, Johnson, Heaven Invades, p 79. Underscore added; other emphasis in original)

One of the marks of AntiChrist is the separation of “Christ” from “Jesus”. “Christ” , which means ‘anointed’ is a possibility for anyone, according to the Gnostics.It is a spiritual condition. Jesus was a believer who ‘became Christ’ at the age of thirty , according to the false doctrine of ‘adoptionism’, and he remained ‘anointed’ until he died on the cross. He,Jesus was the Christ for three years, but ceased being anointed when he died on the cross.

Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.(I John 5:5-6)

Jesus was already the Christ of God when he went into the waters at his baptism, and remained the Christ when he shed his blood on the cross, He never became the Christ nor did he ever cease being the Christ. Jesus is the only Christ of God, the seed of the woman and Savior of the world, from eternity to eternity!

It is not true that had any born again believer acquired the same ‘revelation knowledge ‘ as Jesus , He too would have been “Christed” and able to do the works of Jesus. It is in the name of Jesus Christ that “greater works ” are done in this world by believers.

Why does the AntiChrist want to “spiritualize ” Christ, and in some way deny that He came in the flesh? “Spiritualizing” Jesus Christ allows the Spirit of AntiChrist to make Jesus just another believer, and to elevate any spiritual experience at all in the minds of men, as being “Christ”.

Remember that all of the accounts of the resurrection are very Physical; Jesus ate with the apostles, and you couldn’t see the fish he ate through his esophagus, because he wasn’t “see through”, Jesus has come and remained in the flesh! Peter had to stoop to enter the tomb, if the stone over the face of the tomb had rolled overPeter’s foot it would have broken it, the cross would have left splinter had you rubbed your hands over it, and We have always confessed that Jesus was “Crucified under Pontius Pilate…”, there was a real governor and a calendar date when Jesus died for us! Jesus is real!

When Jesus comes back (very soon) we won’t need Rick Joyner to interpret it for us, for “Every eye will see Him…and they will look upon him whom they have pierced and mourn for him as for an only son…”. Jesus Christ has come (and remains) in the flesh!

The core of the teaching of Antichrist is revealed here in the writing of the apostle John; AntiChris would deny in some fashion, the ongoing incarnation of Messiah. The malevolent spirit of this Age would spiritualize Christ, either denying the original coming into this world of flesh the God man, or asserting that since the resurrection, Jesus Christ is no longer in a physical body.

Jesus Christ came in the flesh. The god part got added in, spiritualizing him into a god man. Trump trumped the Establishment because he walked right past the established wisdom. With the political parable playing out as it is, right now, the Divine trumping of the religious establishment is clearly at the doors. Not much time left to get that message out.

For anybody still reading,

The Messiah is the most unassuming, gracious, loving, compassionate, generous, selfless, merciful and kind soul God ever put on this earth. A real sweetheart. Children make his eyes light up. The little ones will recognize him at least, and ironically, from those children's books portraying the gentle, smiling shepherd with the familiar Gentile features. You know, the guy "everyone knows" isn't the guy. Their parents are likely to yank them right back... and after reading those books to them no less, har.

The second the kids hear his voice, though, they'll make the match to the images. How so? Kids - they focus on the pictures. Noise is grating. It is tuned out. His voice will match the pictures:

Isaiah 9:6 ‘For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom;’
This child which is born is called El-Gibbor, which as I’m sure you know is ‘Mighty God’ and is never used of a man. Avi-Ad is literally ‘Father of Eternity’ and could never describe a mere man. Some quotes for you…

In the Targum of Isaiah we read: “His name has been called from old, Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, He who lives forever, the Anointed One (Messiah), in whose days peace shall increase upon us.”

Midrash Mishle, S. Buber edition: The Messiah is called by eight names: Yinnon, Tzemah, Pele [”Miracle”], Yo’etz [”Counselor”], Mashiah [”Messiah”], El [”God”], Gibbor [”Hero”], and Avi ‘Ad Shalom [”Eternal Father of Peace”]

The great rabbi Ibn Ezra said: There are some interpreters who say that ‘wonderful, counselor, mighty God, everlasting Father’ are the names of God, and that only ‘prince of peace’ is the name of the child. But according to my view, the right interpretation is that they are all the names of the child. (Walter Riggans, Yeshua Ben David [Wowborough, East Sussex; MARC, 1995], p. 370)

Clearly, if this was the only verse, it shows that this child is called God. The Rabbis called the Messiah by the name ‘God’.
2. Jeremiah 23:5-6 ‘The days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will raise up to David a righteous Branch, a King who will reign wisely
and do what is just and right in the land. In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety. This is the name by which he will be called: The LORD Our Righteousness.

The Messiah is God. God became a man , God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself...

I understand that this is the fixed doctrine core belief of Christianity. What happened, is that it has made people dependent upon a continuous 'feed' of wisdom from the establishment. That is because

Most everything is interpreted from this base point, which is why the web is tangled and mysterious and has grown over and engulfed the churches like kudzu.

It is a replay of the religious status quo double-down culture that is documented in the NT. A lot of folks in the churches see the Pharisees and scribes as blind Jews, when they should be seeing themselves in the mirror.

The Messianic Light is going to destroy people with the brightness of its coming precisely because it is so shockingly bright (obvious). Lowly pun level obvious. Either people are going to laugh, or be offended to death. Christians and Jews alike.

And therein lies the key to how the family breech is repaired. Nobody is going to be able to say to other side, "I told you so." Those who can laugh can all laugh together and start fresh. The rest will be relegated to the outer darkness of their safe spaces.

There are so many details of how the family trees work themselves together, why Rachel saw this and did that, why David "came out of" Moab, and was born where Rachel died, why the place names mean what they mean, on and on. And none of it gets noticed because the doctrines have people believing that Joseph wasn't Jesus' father, that the human DNA to create a human was spiritualized to be God's. :(

It's just not that hard. Joseph's DNA personally selected by God. Humans have been causing conception [of humans] outside the marital act for almost 40 years now, but God couldn't have done that in a kosher way 2000 years ago... yet way earlier, he did something internally to repair Sarah to allow Isaac to be born.

Radical, shocking, heretical ideas. "Everybody knows" it couldn't have been done that way. Besides, people would have to rewrite all the books on what is not only possible, but is the only option for true understanding and success. Reminds me of this election cycle, heh. :)

The voice matching the images of the loving, sweet soul in the children's books. That right there might burn people up!

Many Christians place great importance in holding to a literal interpretation of the Bible. Thanks great, except that the Book is literal to the point of abject absurdity, and that's going to really frost people. "Now that's taking it too far!"

You might want to be a bit cautious in your own reference to foolishness. I have no idea about how much effort you have invested in the methodology of interpretation, but the literal, grammatical, syntactical, contextual, historical, cultural method of determining what the Holy Ghost has to say clearly through the style of the writer He has chosen to deliver His message. That is the form He uses to communicate so very exactly that we can't claim that onr fails to reach the shores of Heaven because the directions were not abundant and plainly stated, but couched in mystical ways not understood by the ordinary person.

That is the reason we ought to use a literal hermeneutic, and there is no excuse not to. Apparently you do not seem to accept that literal interpretation is both basic and normal, and that it is comprised both plain literal language and by figurative-literal language.

Figurative and/or allegorical interpretation is NOT normal. It places a meaning on the communication of a literal message that the author did not intend, and thus brings division and argumentation to something that has a plain sense. The meaning becomes blurred, if not an outright lie, when contrasted to the literally-interpreted Scripture which has but one meaning, and cannot lie.

Every Scripture has only one sense. When at the supper before his execution Jesus said of the bread, "Take, eat; this is my body"; either the bread suddenly became human flesh in the plain literal sense (which it could not have) and the eating disciples engaged in cannibalism, or the bread was to be condidered in the figurative-literal sense as a symbol of Jesus' offering the bread to them as a symbol of His body in a ritual memorial of the atoning sacrifice which it was to be subjected to only a few hours later. It cannot be both, and it could be the first only if by misplaced fideism one abandons sanity and denies the reality that the bread did not become human flesh in any way, but was still just bread, and leavened bread at that, when they ate it. However, either case, correct or not, would be a literal interpretation, not an allegorical use of language.

The reason your comments so far in this thread are foolish lies is that:

(1) You have been caught in making up presumptions that cannot be truthful when one boils down the details ("I will say this and that to Jesus when I meet Him, and He will do thus and thus when He hears me").
(2) What you have said is not logical.
(3) The Bible does not make sense nor agree withitself when you offer your interpretation.
(4) Because your interpretation is not normal, it is impossible to communicate.
(5) Experience does not bear out the implications of your explanations.
(6) The Lord Jesus Christ did not interpret Scripture as you have.
(7) None of the Scripture interprets itself the way that you say, especially regarding the teaching of the doctrines which rests on those Scriptures as eplained by Bro. Bill.
(8) You think you can deny a workman-like exegesis and application of the passages which are in view.

The god part got added in, spiritualizing him into a god man. Trump trumped the Establishment because he walked right past the established wisdom.

Right here your words show that you "up-thread" are attempting to confute, then refute what PBR has just discussed, showing plainly that your tack is deliberately anti-christian, the slant of the Anti-savior of the Unholy Trinity, a position that rejects solid expository preaching.

Your motive is clear and unabashed. It is oppositional to the purpose of the Bibles for informing the human race of their rescue by the substitutionary object of God's righteous wrath.

With the political parable playing out as it is, right now, the Divine trumping of the religious establishment is clearly at the doors. Not much time left to get that message out.

In one sentence, the plain intimation is that you have tried to equate Donald Trump with Deity (Our Blessed Redeemer); the Clintonistas with organized religion (of all kinds, right or wrong, Christian or not, American or foreign); and the inauguration of Trump's Presidency as presaging the Second Coming of Christ The King to set up His earthly Kingdom of Righteousness and Peace.

Do you see how inane and insane your ill-matched comparison is? And how irrelevant to the discussion of the God-Man issue it is? What are you trying to achieve here? Misdirection? Confusion?

Stick to the point employing a credible argument, or stop wasting bandwidth.

I could quote this to him, and he would smile.

Personally, I doubt it massively. When you actually do meet Him (and you will), this is what I think you'll be doing:

"That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth,
and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Php. 2:10; cf Is. 45:23 & Rom. 14:11 to see that this is the Jehovah God who robed Himself in human flesh, and was born of a woman as are all infant, so far). Anything else is pure braggadocio.

God couldn't have done that in a kosher way 2000 years ago

Oh? Was Adam conceived by the impregnation of a female's oozoa by a male human spermatozoa? Was Eve conceived in a similar fashion, and where did the Y-chromosome go when she was fashioned? Two thousand years ago God could do exactly what He wahted in the creation activity, just as at the beginning. having omnipotence as one of his characteristics.

But typically employed as refuting Holy Scripture, your thoughts are at least prompted by the Evil One, if I am not mistaken. And Scripture says I'm not, if I believe as Bro. Bill has discussed in the article above (and I do), which is relevant to your motivation.

The fact is, my Bible declares that we have a Man in Heaven representing the human race as an advocate before The Father, prasying for each of us.

Let me invite you to give up your view of what the purpose and nature of God's Word is, and accept PBR's summary of this matter.

(Note: some of the material from HERE'S HOW THE BIBLE CAN MAKE SENSE TO YOU TODAY!!, obtained from Happy Heralds, Inc. literature site.)

(1) You have been caught in making up presumptions that cannot be truthful when one boils down the details ("I will say this and that to Jesus when I meet Him, and He will do thus and thus when He hears me").

I wouldn't know how a stranger might react, but the Messiah is not a stranger. Besides, is this CNN? Arrg. I made a sincere comment about what if the Redeemer is an Elvis or Ricky Nelson fan, because he'd appreciate my saying those words of the song to him. "Fools rush in where wise men never go, but wise men never fall in love, so how are they to know? When we met, I felt my life begin, so open up your heart and let this fool rush in."

Nothing wrong with telling him that; those words really cut to the chase! Now that I've been scolded for my presumed presumption, I'll surely have to tell him. :-) He'll know there's no guile, because there isn't any guile. His awesomeness is rather intimidating, but that kind of fear of him is reverence, not the same as being scared to death of him. Although, anyone intent on jerking him around *should* be deathly afraid of him.

My posts can be laughed off if people want, no biggie. Or people can pick up something useful for a study idea that they had not previously considered. With the sheer volume of religious wisdom that teaches the same thing so everybody knows what to think, noone should find my posts any threat. It's not like I am attacking people or even being rude or demanding that they fall in line with me. Or being crafty. My posts are too absurd to be taken seriously by most.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.