Scripture!

[bbyrd009]

Seriously dude if you're going to answer any part of my post at least do it in the same post, not several. I don't have the time or energy to chase your answers across multiple posts.

um, what? what answers? i have asked questions, and got no answers, wadr. Seriously, bro?

In any case, this

God is the Head of Christ

is not what I asked you. I asked you to define who Christ is to you.

um, a Son of Man, Whom i am called to spiritually immerse myself in, completely, and pick up my cross and follow?

[Byblos]

Seriously dude if you're going to answer any part of my post at least do it in the same post, not several. I don't have the time or energy to chase your answers across multiple posts.

um, what? what answers? i have asked questions, and got no answers, wadr. Seriously, bro?

In any case, this

God is the Head of Christ

is not what I asked you. I asked you to define who Christ is to you.

um, a Son of Man, Whom i am called to spiritually immerse myself in, completely, and pick up my cross and follow?

Okay, that's a start. So now tell me, what was this son of man's mission and was he successful at it?

[bbyrd009]

Seriously dude if you're going to answer any part of my post at least do it in the same post, not several. I don't have the time or energy to chase your answers across multiple posts.

um, what? what answers? i have asked questions, and got no answers, wadr. Seriously, bro?

are not many led to pray to Christ, in your model?

are you suggesting that you hold a doctrine that bears no fruit?

if one cannot reflect upon some argument that they've never seen before, then how can they change their minds?

In any case, this

God is the Head of Christ

is not what I asked you. I asked you to define who Christ is to you.

um, a Son of Man, Whom i am called to spiritually immerse myself in, completely, and pick up my cross and follow?

Okay, that's a start. So now tell me, what was this son of man's mission and was he successful at it?

ha. Wadr how bout you answer my questions, and then i will reply to this one, being as how your answers will predicate mine? ty

[Byblos]

In any case, this

God is the Head of Christ

is not what I asked you. I asked you to define who Christ is to you.

um, a Son of Man, Whom i am called to spiritually immerse myself in, completely, and pick up my cross and follow?

Okay, that's a start. So now tell me, what was this son of man's mission and was he successful at it?

ha. Wadr how bout you answer my questions, and then i will reply to this one, being as how your answers will predicate mine? ty

With all due respect, that's not the way it works. I asked you a question, your answer should not depend on my answer to some question you may or not have asked me, relevant or not. Now stop evading and answering the question. What was the man Jesus' mission and was he successful? Thank you.

[abelcainsbrother]

28Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock that the Holy Spirit has appointed you to as overseers, to shepherd the church of God, which He purchased with His own blood.

2. Whether Christ is called God must be determined from John 1:1; John 20:28; 1 John 5:20; Romans 9:5; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8f, etc.; the matter is still in dispute among theologians

and i doubt we are going to resolve anything today, ok, but my response would be that, chiefly, one shuts themselves off from understanding the verses that i would bring up next, after answering this, and i know from experience that no one would answer, because there is no answer.

So, those verses are, essentially, unavailable to you, you literally read over them, and cannot use them, you have thrown them out, because you hold that Christ is God-

-which does bear fruit for you, don't get me wrong, it bears a very specific fruit, that i notice no one here has spoken-

-when i could easily argue that by this reading, Joan of Arc is also God, having purchased the church, also, just as you are called to do, @ "pick up your cross, and follow Me."

now, here is where i would normally list ten or so verses disputing this view, but as that has never worked yet, in 20 years, and as i am coming to believe all things, slowly but surely, i think i'll stay with my present course, which is to seek the fruit, and stay with my Scripturally bullet~proof understanding, which is not disputed--even by Muslims--that being "God is the Head of Christ," and allow other people, you, to hold whatever beliefs seem right to you.

So, briefly, i do not believe that Christ is God, in one sense, insert appropriate verse here, and i have no problem accepting anyone who does believe that Christ is God, even if it is in that same sense, while yet recognizing the fruit of that.

meaning that as soon as i start getting more specific, and asking you to justify how you can hold that Christ is God the Father, you are going to start...walking right toward me, anyway, aren't you? With your mouth, at least? When it is what is in your heart that matters, anyway, and all i can suggest, and caution, is that the fruit should be witnessed.

Which, it has not been.

So you are just gonna ignore Acts 20:28 that clearly tells us God purchased the church with his own blood. It was not God the father but Jesus that died on the cross purchasing it with his own blood. You're ignoring this in order to believe what you choose to believe,and yet talking about fruit? You overlook that the trinity is true. God the Father,the Son/Word and the Holy Ghost and these three are one. You are choosing to ignore the evidence to believe what you want to believe because you claim theologians are in dispute? Why not just believe what Acts 20:28 says instead of believing what man says? You claim that in John 20:28 when Thomas calls Jesus God that it is not clear if it is referring to YHWH but overlook when Jesus said before Moses I AM and they took up stones to stone him because he is making himself out to be YHWH/God,because they thought it was blasphemy.So you are not right. The only way to dispute this you imply that the bible contradicts itself and that Dr Luke was wrong.

[bbyrd009]

In any case, this

God is the Head of Christ

is not what I asked you. I asked you to define who Christ is to you.

um, a Son of Man, Whom i am called to spiritually immerse myself in, completely, and pick up my cross and follow?

Okay, that's a start. So now tell me, what was this son of man's mission and was he successful at it?

ha. Wadr how bout you answer my questions, and then i will reply to this one, being as how your answers will predicate mine? ty

With all due respect, that's not the way it works. I asked you a question, your answer should not depend on my answer to some question you may or not have asked me, relevant or not. Now stop evading and answering the question. What was the man Jesus' mission and was he successful? Thank you.

so, you are evading my questions, because yours are more important. Ok, i understand. My answer is that if you believe life is better now than it ever has been, by any measure you might care to name, then yes; and if you believe that life was better at some past date, then no, and that regardless, all things work for good, and we get there step by step, so yes.

[bbyrd009]

28Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock that the Holy Spirit has appointed you to as overseers, to shepherd the church of God, which He purchased with His own blood.

2. Whether Christ is called God must be determined from John 1:1; John 20:28; 1 John 5:20; Romans 9:5; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8f, etc.; the matter is still in dispute among theologians

and i doubt we are going to resolve anything today, ok, but my response would be that, chiefly, one shuts themselves off from understanding the verses that i would bring up next, after answering this, and i know from experience that no one would answer, because there is no answer.

So, those verses are, essentially, unavailable to you, you literally read over them, and cannot use them, you have thrown them out, because you hold that Christ is God-

-which does bear fruit for you, don't get me wrong, it bears a very specific fruit, that i notice no one here has spoken-

-when i could easily argue that by this reading, Joan of Arc is also God, having purchased the church, also, just as you are called to do, @ "pick up your cross, and follow Me."

now, here is where i would normally list ten or so verses disputing this view, but as that has never worked yet, in 20 years, and as i am coming to believe all things, slowly but surely, i think i'll stay with my present course, which is to seek the fruit, and stay with my Scripturally bullet~proof understanding, which is not disputed--even by Muslims--that being "God is the Head of Christ," and allow other people, you, to hold whatever beliefs seem right to you.

So, briefly, i do not believe that Christ is God, in one sense, insert appropriate verse here, and i have no problem accepting anyone who does believe that Christ is God, even if it is in that same sense, while yet recognizing the fruit of that.

meaning that as soon as i start getting more specific, and asking you to justify how you can hold that Christ is God the Father, you are going to start...walking right toward me, anyway, aren't you? With your mouth, at least? When it is what is in your heart that matters, anyway, and all i can suggest, and caution, is that the fruit should be witnessed.

Which, it has not been.

So you are just gonna ignore Acts 20:28 that clearly tells us God purchased the church with his own blood. It was not God the father but Jesus that died on the cross purchasing it with his own blood. You're ignoring this in order to believe what you choose to believe,and yet talking about fruit?

yet Joan of Arc, many other martyrs, also purchased their churches, in their time, yes? The point being that you choose to read this one way, to prove your point, while it may have other valid interpretations. Theos is not YHWH, or Elohim, or even Adonai.

You overlook that the trinity is true.

i did not; in fact i openly and repeatedly, now, have stated that i accept anyone holding a Trinitarian view as "accepted." Iow it is not the doctrine that i dispute, but the fruit of that doctrine, the doctrine as practiced. Iow i accept that "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" practically encompass the nature of God for us, humans, here on eretz; but the Trinitarian doctrine does not stop there.

God the Father,the Son/Word and the Holy Ghost and these three are one. You are choosing to ignore the evidence to believe what you want to believe because you claim theologians are in dispute?

ah, that was a commentary, from Strong's, not me; i included it because it is self-evident.

Why not just believe what Acts 20:28 says instead of believing what man says? You claim that in John 20:28 when Thomas calls Jesus God that it is not clear if it is referring to YHWH

ah, no, i think it is abundantly clear, that it is not referring to YHWH, and a different intent is meant, and also, one might reflect on this singular statement--no Witness, iow--coming from Thomas, the Doubter. Which does not imo make your pov irrelevant, but should nonetheless be considered for the color it adds.

...but overlook when Jesus said before Moses I AM

which might also be widely misinterpreted, also; after all, Jesus WAS, at that moment; Christ IS, at this moment (unless one is waiting for Him, i guess; then He is not, spiritually speaking), i AM, right now; meaning that AM is emphatic, not a title, wherein "Am" would do fine.

and they took up stones to stone him because he is making himself out to be YHWH/God,because they thought it was blasphemy.So you are not right. The only way to dispute this you imply that the bible contradicts itself and that Dr Luke was wrong.

well, the penalty for blasphemy is stoning; why then was Christ crucified, having been charged with blasphemy? Obviously because the relevant people thought some irrelevant things. Too.

And of course the Bible directly contradicts Itself, in many places, on purpose; not that these apparent contradictions cannot resolve. So, wadr, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good, except the Father" is all the contradiction that i need, at least until it is addressed, which it never has been, by a Trinny, not in 20 years +, although i have several Witnesses waiting in the wings, which i used to list them all, but to what end, when one suffices

[Byblos]

With all due respect, that's not the way it works. I asked you a question, your answer should not depend on my answer to some question you may or not have asked me, relevant or not. Now stop evading and answering the question. What was the man Jesus' mission and was he successful? Thank you.

so, you are evading my questions, because yours are more important. Ok, i understand.

Na uh, you. see? I too can play this childish game but let's move on, shall we?

My answer is that if you believe life is better now than it ever has been, by any measure you might care to name, then yes; and if you believe that life was better at some past date, then no, and that regardless, all things work for good, and we get there step by step, so yes.

So the answer to the most important question in human history, whether or not Christ, whomever we believe him to be, was successful in his mission is a subjective answer, dependent on how each of us views life, better or worse? Is that your claim?

And I note again, you did not answer the first part of the question, i.e. who is Christ to you, what exactly was his mission?

[bbyrd009]

So the answer to the most important question in human history, whether or not Christ, whomever we believe him to be, was successful in his mission is a subjective answer, dependent on how each of us views life, better or worse? Is that your claim?

hmm. i would not have put it that way, but the eye is the lamp of the body, after all. So, i would guess that there is a sense in which that is correct, yes. An individual either manifests Christ, or they do not, and a little leaven leavens the whole lump, and every knee will bow. We see, and do not see, for example how as a Christian we can be Cain, how can we associate ourselves with Cain, we aren't Cain anymore, right; but a Christian can still ask a pre-schooler what their remedy to a human ill would be for a laugh, and not for serious consideration.

Remember what you thought life was going to be like when you were a little kid? What you thought the world would be like? That is "the New Jerusalem." And a little child shall lead them. So, there is a "deception" that goes on in Scripture, because the faith in an "eternal existence" is implanted in us--we know that there is eternal life. But we see this through a "veil," very dimly, and we define it according to our desires; Mansions in the sky and whatnot, we naturally think of our own skin first, our own "temples," so my preoccupation iow is with "Mark Whittington, where is he going to spend his "eternal" life, meaning where am "I," who is "Mark W," going to be after i die, not absorbing that i will have "a new name," see, totally identifying with the Mark W part, the "Separate" part, and of course scared to death of the implications of the truth, which is that i am only Mark W now, and Mark W is the guy who asks pre-schoolers what they would do to solve a problem for laughs, and has assumed that he "knows where he is going" now, that he is going to some "place" when he dies, to be with Jesus, not grasping, perhaps, that the flesh profits nothing, and Christ is here in Eretz, "the physical plane" (because "singular," there is only one physical plane), Body and Spirit, and of course He isn't going anywhere, because He is already in the Kingdom, right now, in Soul, Body, and Spirit, right here in Eretz, "This is the maximum level of being with Me," "Understand I AM," and so it is possible, very possible, only too easy, to seek Christ, and yet find what you really seek, an answer that suited Mark W, who wants a Lamborghini or a hot wife or control or pride, or a Mansion in the Sky in some future Disney Land, my girl wants to partyallthe time partyallthe time partyallthe time, lol.

Sorry, don't know if that answered your Q or not, i did my best to use English, but it just goes all funny like that by itself, because the truth is not palatable with our expectations, not saying i am laying down any truth here at all at the moment; that comes out in the gap, in between your observations and mine imo

And I note again, you did not answer the first part of the question, i.e. who is Christ to you, what exactly was his mission?

well dang, i did try. Ok, here's the thing see, is the words that i would use to explain that are going to be the same words that have been appropriated by religious people, and so while i would agree with most any Apostate explanation of the concept, "Christ and His mission," my symbology has just changed, is changing, will change, "change your mind."

So, to me, today, Christ is the Master of Eretz, through Whom everything was made, the entire physical plane, Who brought the Kingdom, to manifest it here, on earth (as it is in Heaven), and to marry a Bride, when the Bride is Prepared, and the sticks are rejoined.

[Byblos]

The rest is indecipherable so I will only comment on what I perceive to be the answer to my question.

So the answer to the most important question in human history, whether or not Christ, whomever we believe him to be, was successful in his mission is a subjective answer, dependent on how each of us views life, better or worse? Is that your claim?

hmm. i would not have put it that way, but the eye is the lamp of the body, after all. So, i would guess that there is a sense in which that is correct, yes.

Let me ask you this then, was Christ God's plan B (actually more like plan N where N - 1 are many minor prophets and a few major ones)? Did God play the dice with our fate, let's try a few prophets and see what happens and if all else fails I will send Christ? Or was it that Christ was THE plan from the beginning?

[bbyrd009]

The rest is indecipherable so I will only comment on what I perceive to be the answer to my question.

So the answer to the most important question in human history, whether or not Christ, whomever we believe him to be, was successful in his mission is a subjective answer, dependent on how each of us views life, better or worse? Is that your claim?

hmm. i would not have put it that way, but the eye is the lamp of the body, after all. So, i would guess that there is a sense in which that is correct, yes.

Let me ask you this then, was Christ God's plan B (actually more like plan N where N - 1 are many minor prophets and a few major ones)? Did God play the dice with our fate, let's try a few prophets and see what happens and if all else fails I will send Christ? Or was it that Christ was THE plan from the beginning?

well, imo Christ was the author, and the plan, from the beginning. (the prophet must die)("I am not in your fire"). So, no to the plan B. God was not surprised, and did not have to change His plans, when A&E "ate the apple," iow. Making gods is hard. Integrating Free Will with Law is tough. Iow it does no good to present baby with the Law, ie "if you put your hand in the fire, you will get burned," because the baby has free will, and does not have a conception of "burned," so you can patiently explain to them "hurt, bad" etc, all you like; but if it's your second kid, you already know that you may as well have some burn cream ready, for when the kid "marries" his free will to the law, the first time he encounters a fire. So iow "Original Sin" is posited as "bad," when it is what is necessary to make gods out of children. And God is posited as "omniscient," meaning "knows everything, before it even happens," which we take to mean that God, as a parent, knows the exact second when the baby is going to put its hand in the fire, which of course is not true, and we even have passages that suggest this apparent lack of "omniscience" in Scripture, using anthropomorphism, because of course God is not "sorry," or "repentant," like we are, but rather rolls with the punches, manifests, fully expecting to have to prune later.

So, was sticking the hand in the fire a "Sin?" Well, it sure hurt like one, huh. You prolly won't be doing it again, any time soon. And also, it is pointless to now go around talking about not putting your hand in a fire, all day long, recalling the lesson, over and over, to anyone who will hear; laying the foundation again, over and over. Better to talk about how you learned that you can manipulate the fire with a stick, maybe, or how the fire hardens a stick when you do that, or any one of the countless things that comes from doing it right, some way i didn't think of, rather than a rehash of how not to do it wrong. So to speak.

So, Christ is counterfeit, in a sense, represented as a remedy for "evil," imo because humans who are grasping Free Will, or trying to, are struggling with the judgement that having Free Will engenders, when God does not judge His creation like this. God manifests life, and prunes off death. Conversely, we are advised to "die daily," to kill something that is a part of "me" every day, in order to find this life. Because on my own, i am going to take Free Will and run with it, and manifest death, even with good intentions. I would have gladly accepted the earthly crown, iow. I know better than God how to manifest life, here in my domain. Just shoot the evil-doers, i say. After all, i have faith in God, so if you don't agree with me, you just don't understand, here let me help you. Only not like a servant, exactly, lol. Or rather, obviously a servant of something, and the fruit will tell anyone with eyes what.

[Byblos]

The rest is indecipherable so I will only comment on what I perceive to be the answer to my question.

So the answer to the most important question in human history, whether or not Christ, whomever we believe him to be, was successful in his mission is a subjective answer, dependent on how each of us views life, better or worse? Is that your claim?

hmm. i would not have put it that way, but the eye is the lamp of the body, after all. So, i would guess that there is a sense in which that is correct, yes.

Let me ask you this then, was Christ God's plan B (actually more like plan N where N - 1 are many minor prophets and a few major ones)? Did God play the dice with our fate, let's try a few prophets and see what happens and if all else fails I will send Christ? Or was it that Christ was THE plan from the beginning?

well, imo Christ was the author, and the plan, from the beginning.

Okay, we're getting somewhere. My next question is, if Christ was the plan all along, then why the long charade of ineffectual prophets that came before him? From our perspective, why is it that all other prophets failed while Christ succeeded? What is it that set him apart from all the rest in the redemptive process?

[bbyrd009]

The rest is indecipherable so I will only comment on what I perceive to be the answer to my question.

So the answer to the most important question in human history, whether or not Christ, whomever we believe him to be, was successful in his mission is a subjective answer, dependent on how each of us views life, better or worse? Is that your claim?

hmm. i would not have put it that way, but the eye is the lamp of the body, after all. So, i would guess that there is a sense in which that is correct, yes.

Let me ask you this then, was Christ God's plan B (actually more like plan N where N - 1 are many minor prophets and a few major ones)? Did God play the dice with our fate, let's try a few prophets and see what happens and if all else fails I will send Christ? Or was it that Christ was THE plan from the beginning?

well, imo Christ was the author, and the plan, from the beginning.

Okay, we're getting somewhere. My next question is, if Christ was the plan all along, then why the long charade of ineffectual prophets that came before him? From our perspective, why is it that all other prophets failed while Christ succeeded? What is it that set him apart from all the rest in the redemptive process?

well, these prior prophets are characterized as "ineffectual" and "failed," when in another light there are acknowledged Types of Christ, even in Scripture, so it might be seen that another way to put that question is perhaps "why did the Law fail?" because after all, the Law came from God, did God change His mind there, etc.

So then, Jesus in the Flesh is presented as the Pinnacle to us, in our culture, and it is this concept that might be (mistakenly) worshipped as Supreme, when Christ is a Spirit, embodied in concepts like "Love your neighbor," and "works unto rebound" (repentance), and "Judge by the fruit," and "Pick up your cross, and follow Me."

And this is prolly the lesson of the parable of the Two Sons (whether someone convinces you that that is only about Jews and Gentiles, or not); if i refuse the accepted list of Laws to be performed to be considered "accepted" by some group, iow say "no, i will not go," but if i then go and work in the vineyard anyway, as opposed to my peer who said "yes, i will go," and do all those things, tick all those boxes, make a Public Confession, and get a ritual Water Baptism, and make sure he is holding his mouth right when he baptizes me, and then do...whatever Spirit baptism ritual is the preferred one, among Us, but then i don't go to the vineyard and work, don't manifest any works unto rebound, while insisting that i "know," prolly, and even getting some paper that assures others that i know, and seeking to convince others that i know, which has now become the proxy for me of "working in the vineyard," perhaps, but of course you can't fool all of the people, all of the time, and it is left up to witnesses to comment upon "who did his father's will?"

So iow Jesus can be set apart, or Christ can, and there is a counterfeit way to worship, that appeals to the ego, and necessarily, always, posits an "us" and a "them," so that "we" can be "us," and then we can (necessarily) "take steps" against "them." With, of course, much Scriptural imprimatur, should one allow the blind to lead there.

And i don't want to be misunderstood; Christ is Lord, and every knee will bow. Now, whether that is perceived as happening right now, all of the time, HereNow, maybe over there a little later, NotNow, or it is perceived as some Eretz-shattering, mind-bending, miraculous single event, in some undetermined future, wherein Christ physically returns, bodily--leaving the actual Body of Christ in somewhat of a bind, it seems to me--and disregarding that "the flesh profits nothing," then, well, that is up to the individual, to see what they will see.

[bbyrd009]

The rest is indecipherable so I will only comment on what I perceive to be the answer to my question.

i would ask what is "indecipherable," could you quote the indecipherable part, we might get some interpretation of it, perhaps. ty.

[bbyrd009]

From our perspective, why is it that all other prophets failed while Christ succeeded?

an unkind perspective would be that this is so Jesus could be made into God, so that those who put Jesus in the streets could justify being the True Keepers of the Flame--which has quite the poetic Freudian thing going on there, in a sense--and all others could be diminished as anti-Christs, which don't get me wrong, they very well might be, but it is easy to tell, not hard.

Are they practicing works unto rebound? (can they say they are sorry, iow, do they evince humility, and a conscience, and sensitivity to when they might be hurting others?) check. Are they quickening? Is this quickening manifesting a letdown, or fruit? Because no one complains about fruit--well, except those who would profit from the sale of something other than fruit, of course. Little children, do not be deceived. Manifesting fruit is always win-win. Sure, someone is going to want to kill you for it, because after all you are hurting sales of whatever it was they were selling, which no one will want anymore, once they taste the fruit.

Job abandoned his former perception of God, which was inadequate, even while we cannot point to a "sin" per se in Job; Job nonetheless lost all that he had "fathered," or created, all his works were burned up, iow, by holding his pov of God as Someone to be Appeased, and not a "Father," to have a relationship with, as we can see that he repents of there in the end, in chap 42, i think it is. Of course this requires abandoning the notion that God is just capricious, in order to see Job's "sin," or in fact to even recognize the brief passage as "repentance," even though he says it twice, in vv...3, and then again in 5, if i have that right.