Posted on 03/30/2002 7:53:37 PM PST by malakhi
Coming around? I've believed for a long time now that we were created for purposes on earth. Whether now, or for the messianic kingdom, or for a new EARTH. Humans were created for earth.
You got me confused dude. Everytime, in the past, I've mentioned the Messiah returning you've given me a stern rebuke. You must automatically assume that everytime somebody mentions Yeshua returning they mean the same thing.
Nate,If God doesn't spell it out for me in scripture then I don't expand on what he "probably meant" too much. It keeps me out of trouble. Since my favorite verse (John 3:16) doesn't state if you don't believe when this will happen, then you aren't saved can we agree to respectfully disagree? I had never heard of this doctrine before though and I would like to know if you are with an affiliation that believes this or if it is from Nate 4 one, if you don't mind.
Becky, you around? I have to tell you about the preacher visit yesterday.grrrrrrr
That's a good point. I'm terrible at remembering verses and what not. The best I can do is remember that it's in there somewhere. I really should invest in a good bible...i presently have a cheapo 5 buck New Kings James.
If John wrote Revelations around 100AD, this would have been 30 years after your supposed return of Christ.
If he didn't mention the return of Christ, it was because it hadn't happened. If he didn't mention the destruction of Jerusalem, it was 30 years earlier and with all the Jews gone, he was now preaching to the Gentile church, and the history of Jerusalem was pretty well forgotten.
In the text of John's letters to these Gentiles, how would the destruction of Jerusalem have been segued into his letters? Where in them would it have been appropriate to have talked about it?
It would have been strangely out of place anywhere in the three letters and Revelations also.
And how do you get around 1-2-and 3 John, that from all accounts I've read, they were written between 90 and 100AD? Do you argue with these dates also, or the author of the letters?
JH
Yes I did Big Mac, and thanks for the advice and the complement also. :-)
I found out that if you buy the Memory Foam Mattress, you must also buy the special foundation with it. $350. extra.
Also, the foam mattress is only guaranteed for from 3 to 10 years, and its on a pro rated warranty at that, which tells me you may as well figure on replacing it every 3 to 5 years since the foam looses it’s memory.
That’s all I need, a mattress that’s as forgetful as I am. hehehehe
We are probably going with the Select Comfort,(air) but are trying to decide on whether to trust makes that sound just as good, but are 3 or $400. less.
Did you buy the Select Comfort, or a knock off?
JH
I love your bedside manner Mack. Heh heh heh
JH :-)
Hey Mack, good to see you tonight. I have some thoughts I've been pondering, and they do even relate to your question.
Okay. I can understand why Jesus's followers believed that he was the messiah, and I can even understand why they continued to believe this after his death. I understand their belief in his resurrection (whatever its nature) and his future return.
From the other angle, I can understand how Jesus was seen a Tzaddik or righteous man. I will agree that there is some precedence in Judaism for the suffering of a tzaddik as a means of healing and reconciliation with God. I will further agree that, to the extent that a tzaddik unites his will with God's, he can be said to be incarnating God.
In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. (John 14:20)
What I cannot get my mind around is the orthodox conception of Jesus being one in being with the Father, the second person of a trinitarian God. Instead of trinitarianism, what makes more sense to me is the alternative doctrine of dynamic monarchianism, which holds that Jesus was a man, and that he was "adopted" as God's Son at his baptism.
In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.
And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens opened and the Spirit descending upon him like a dove;
and a voice came from heaven, "Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased." (Mark 1:9-11)
In this scenario, it is a unity of spirit rather than a unity of being. In like manner, others can become adopted sons of God.
For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. (Romans 8:14)
To me, this better explains the passages of the gospels that are difficult for trinitarianism to explain. It also fits the teaching about becoming sons of God as taught by the Essene Jews. Based upon the historical research I have done, this seems to be closer to what the Nazarenes actually believed -- as opposed to the formal doctrine of the trinity set down hundreds of years later by the Emperor Contantine's Council of Nicea.
To make a long story longer, and specifically to answer your question, then, I don't think my beliefs about Jesus would pass muster as you understand it.
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.