Why does John's Jesus say that Jesus is the only way to the Father?
a)-Is it because, as many claim, that Jesus sacrifice is God's only provision for the forgiveness of sin?
b)-Is it because Jesus teachings are completely unique and he alone teaches the true path?
c)-Is it because Jesus sacrifice opens the door to Heaven for all who seek God, whether they realize it or not?
d)-Is it because John was reacting to Christians being expelled from the Synagoge by putting a claim on Jesus lips that (in effect) was saying "we don't need you anyway, we have Jesus"?
e) other, or a combination of the above.
Also, why do you personally believe John 14.6, (assuming that you do)
1) Have you actually tried other ways, other religous paths in an attempt to find God?
2) Because "the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it"?
3) Or is it because the claim seems logical, reasonable or intuitively true to you?
Jesus the only way? (John 14.6)
Moderator: Moderators
-
Elijah John
- Savant
- Posts: 12235
- Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
- Location: New England
- Has thanked: 11 times
- Been thanked: 16 times
Jesus the only way? (John 14.6)
Post #1 My theological positions:
-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.
I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.
-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.
I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.
Post #21
You're very welcome. Thanks for the conversation.JehovahsWitness wrote: [Replying to post 18 by steveb1]
Interesting, since there are so called "christians" that openly adopt your view for the gospel of John, its no surprise to me that there are non Christians that do so for all four gospels in their entirely.
Thanks for sharing,
JEHOVAH'S WITNESS
Post #22
"We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.[/i] [/color] 2Peter 1:16-18tam wrote: Peace again to you steve (and to you all),
From one of the epistles (which you say do not mention the events recorded in the gospels):
We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord [Jesus] Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying,
"This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."
We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain. 2Peter 1:16-18
This is a direct reference back to the transfiguration as recorded in the gospels, and a direct quote of the words they heard God speak from the clouds about His Son, who was standing there with some of His apostles, including Peter.
And there is this:
Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God-- the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures, regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David,... Romans 1:1-3
Paul is clearly aware that Christ had an earthly life.
These are in addition to Paul's direct reference to the night Christ was betrayed. It does not matter from whom he received that information - from men and/or from Christ - he is directly referring back to an event that occurred on the night Christ was betrayed, as recorded in the gospels.
**
The gospels record the events and words of Christ from His ministry on the earth (and some record things about his birth and genealogy as well). The letters (epistles) are written to specific people or congregations concerning matters or teachings that were pertinent to them as they continued to come and/or grow in the faith. Then Revelation is something that WAS given (to John, to share with others) by the Spirit (Christ, as the Spirit) But you will note that John (of Patmos) clearly identifies this AS a revelation he received in the spirit. The gospels are not identified as anything other than what others witnessed.
The gospel attributed to "John" claims to be an eyewitness account. Luke claims to have written according to what eyewitnesses passed down. Some of the epistles refer to those who were eyewitnesses of these things; including when describing the transfiguration, above, by Peter. He clearly states that they were NOT following cleverly devised stories but were in fact eyewitnesses of these things.And none of the Gospels are, or claim to be, eyewitness accounts.
Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy
This is a direct reference back to the transfiguration as recorded in the gospels, and a direct quote of the words they heard God speak from the clouds about His Son, who was standing there with some of His apostles, including Peter."
Except that "Peter" is a late forgery which, unlike most Epistles, was written after, not before, the Gospels, and was trying to legitimize itself to Christians who had already read and believed the Gospels.
"Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God-- the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures, regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David,... [/color]Romans 1:1-3
"Paul is clearly aware that Christ had an earthly life."
No, because as I explained before, Paul and the Epistles thought that the heavens were a real, more perfect duplicate of earth, where real people, gods and heroes could live, suffer, die, and rise again and even be incarnated, born, impaled and crucified, and where cities, buildings, temples, gardens and soil (where Adam was thought to be buried) existed in a more perfect form than on our dirt earth.
For Paul, Jesus's "earthly" life took place in the real but non-material heavenly realm, where, as the book of Hebrews says, there existed cities and buildings wherein Christ, as high priest, ascended to the heavenly city of the heavenly Jerusalem where he entered into the heavenly temple.
This is why Paul says that Jesus merely found himself "in the FORM" of a man and took on "the FORM" of a man when he emptied himself. Paul's "incarnating" Jesus was not a man of the earth, he was a man of-and-from heaven. He merely appeared / in the likeness of / in the form of / a human being.
(And note that in the passage you cited, Paul never makes one mention of having been commissioned by a historical Jesus.)
"These are in addition to Paul's direct reference to the night Christ was betrayed. It does not matter from whom he received that information - from men and/or from Christ - he is directly referring back to an event that occurred on the night Christ was betrayed, as recorded in the gospels"
No, because as I already explained, Paul made the story up. He said the Lord specially revealed it to Paul alone. Paul did not get it from apostolic teaching. Nor did he get it from the Gospels, which were not yet written. On the contrary, the Paul-influenced Gospels took it from Paul and superimposed it into their "last night of Jesus" narratives.
"The gospels are not identified as anything other than what others witnessed."
Except of course that that "identification" was and is a misidentication. The Gospels have nothing but their own word to support them, which means they are historically unsupportable. Moreover, no Gospel states, claims, or pretends to be an eyewitness account.
Not even John's Gospel - which refers back to an anonymous witness, but to which the same principle applies - "John" is claiming an earlier "witness" in a historical vacuum - and on a rumor or a memory in "John's" mind - and has no outside contemporary sources to validate the claim.
"The gospel attributed to "John" claims to be an eyewitness account."
No, because as I explained, "John" does the opposite of claiming to be an eyewitness. The best he can do is invoke - from his imagination, his memory, or a rumor - an anonymous, purportedly original eyewitness ... precisely because "John" himself was not an eyewitness. And his claim is still historically unsupported and undocumented.
I have come to the end of my tether having to repeat arguments over and over again. Therefore, this will be my last communication with you in this thread, unless and until you can reasonably explain a historical Jesus's absence from the Epistles.
If you really think that most of Paul and the Epistles are rooted in testimonies and memories of an earthly historical Jesus who had a ministry, recruited disciples, founded an earthly institution, I am going to set you an easy task which you must address or I will leave this conversation. The easy task is easy because if the Epistles are based on a historical Jesus, they should be peppered throughout with multiple references to his example, work, and teaching.
Your task, your burden of proof, is to find multiple Epistle references to a historical - to "the Gospel" - Jesus, references including but not limited to examples of Jesus's earthly life, such as:
his Nativity
his baptism by John
his wilderness temptation
his recruiting disciples
his exorcisms and cures
his raising of dead people including Lazarus
his parables
his teaching on the Kingdom
his teaching on the Law, Torah, Prophets, Kosher and the Temple
his conflicts with his own family, Pharisees, priests, and scribes
his walking on water
his calming of the storm
his turning water into wine
his teaching on baptism and the Spirit
his interactions with various levels of society - wealthy women, lepers, pagans, soldiers, rich young men seeking the Kingdom, etc.
his ministry in Galilee and in Judea
his triumphal entry into Jerusalem
his "I am" statements
his prophecies about the End Times'
his final discourse
Post #23
[Replying to tammy]
" 'We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.' 2Peter 1:16-18
"This is a direct reference back to the transfiguration as recorded in the gospels, and a direct quote of the words they heard God speak from the clouds about His Son, who was standing there with some of His apostles, including Peter."
Except that "Peter" is a late forgery which, unlike most Epistles, was written after, not before, the Gospels, and was trying to legitimize itself to Christians who had already read and believed the Gospels - just like in Timothy's case where he inserts a reference to Jesus having made "a good confession before Pilate".
" 'Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God-- the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures, regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David' Romans 1:1-3
"Paul is clearly aware that Christ had an earthly life."
No, because as I explained before, Paul and the Epistles thought that the heavens were a real, more perfect duplicate of earth, where real people, gods and heroes could live, suffer, die, and rise again and even be incarnated, born, impaled and crucified, and where cities, buildings, temples, gardens and soil (where Adam was thought to be buried) existed in a more perfect form than on our dirt earth.
For Paul, Jesus's "earthly" life took place in the real but non-material heavenly realm, where, as the book of Hebrews says, there existed cities and buildings wherein Christ, as high priest, ascended to the heavenly city of the heavenly Jerusalem where he entered into the heavenly temple.
This is why Paul says that Jesus merely found himself "in the FORM" of a man and took on "the FORM" of a man when he emptied himself. Paul's "incarnating" Jesus was not a man of the earth, he was a man of-and-from heaven. He merely appeared / in the likeness of / in the form of / a human being.
(And note that in the passage you cited, Paul never makes one mention of having been commissioned by a historical Jesus.)
"These are in addition to Paul's direct reference to the night Christ was betrayed. It does not matter from whom he received that information - from men and/or from Christ - he is directly referring back to an event that occurred on the night Christ was betrayed, as recorded in the gospels"
No, because as I already explained, Paul made the story up. He said the Lord specially revealed it to Paul alone. Paul did not get it from apostolic teaching. Nor did he get it from the Gospels, which were not yet written. On the contrary, the Paul-influenced Gospels took it from Paul and superimposed it into their "last night of Jesus" narratives.
"The gospels are not identified as anything other than what others witnessed."
Except of course that this "identification" was and is a misidentication. The Gospels have nothing but their own word to support them, which means they are historically unsupportable. Moreover, no Gospel states, claims, or pretends to be an eyewitness account.
Not even John's Gospel - which refers back to an anonymous witness, but to which the same principle applies - "John" is claiming an earlier "witness" in a historical vacuum - and on a rumor or a memory in "John's" mind - and has no outside contemporary sources to validate the claim.
"The gospel attributed to "John" claims to be an eyewitness account."
No, because as I explained, "John" does the opposite of claiming to be an eyewitness. The best he can do is invoke - from his imagination, his memory, or a rumor - an anonymous, purportedly original eyewitness ... precisely because "John" himself was not an eyewitness. And his claim is still historically unsupported and undocumented.
I have come to the end of my tether having to repeat arguments over and over again. Therefore, this will be my last communication with you in this thread - unless and until you can reasonably explain a historical Jesus's absence from the Epistles.
If you really think that most of Paul and the Epistles are rooted in testimonies and memories of an earthly historical Jesus who had a ministry, recruited disciples, founded an earthly institution, I want to set you an easy task which you must address or I will leave this conversation. The easy task is easy because if the Epistles are based on a historical Jesus, they should be peppered throughout with multiple references to his example, work, and teaching.
Your task, your burden of proof, is to provide multiple Epistle references to a historical - to "the Gospel" - Jesus, references including but not limited to examples of Jesus's earthly life, such as:
his Nativity
his baptism by John
his wilderness temptation
his recruiting disciples
his exorcisms and cures
his raising of dead people including Lazarus
his parables
his teaching on the Kingdom
his teaching on the Law, Torah, Prophets, Kosher and the Temple
his conflicts with his own family, Pharisees, priests, and scribes
his walking on water
his calming of the storm
his turning water into wine
his teaching on baptism and the Spirit
his discourse to the Samaritan woman at the well
his healing the woman with the hemorrhaging disease
his interactions with various levels of society - his own mother and brothers, wealthy women supporters, lepers, pagans, soldiers, rich young men seeking the Kingdom, etc.
his ministry in Galilee and in Judea
his triumphal entry into Jerusalem
his "I am" statements
his prophecies about the End Times
his final discourse,
etc., etc.
As I said, this should be an easy task for anyone who insists that Paul and the Epistles are rooted in memories of a biological/historical Jesus.
And as I said, unless you can find multiple explicit Epistle references ot a historical Jesus - of the kind listed above - my conversation with you in this thread will cease. I've typed far too many words already.
PLEASE NOTE:
Please do not invoke the weak attempt to elude the question by saying, "Well, the Epistles weren't meant to be biographies anyway, so we shouldn't expect them to say a lot about Jesus". That's not the point. The point is that they say NOTHING about a historical Jesus. Big difference. It's as silly as a book about Scientology never once mentioning founder L. Ron Hubbard, a book about the Mormons never once mentioning Joseph Smith, or a book about the Gettysburg Address never once mentioning Abraham Lincoln. The idea is inherently simply ludicrous and grotesque.
" 'We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.' 2Peter 1:16-18
"This is a direct reference back to the transfiguration as recorded in the gospels, and a direct quote of the words they heard God speak from the clouds about His Son, who was standing there with some of His apostles, including Peter."
Except that "Peter" is a late forgery which, unlike most Epistles, was written after, not before, the Gospels, and was trying to legitimize itself to Christians who had already read and believed the Gospels - just like in Timothy's case where he inserts a reference to Jesus having made "a good confession before Pilate".
" 'Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God-- the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures, regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David' Romans 1:1-3
"Paul is clearly aware that Christ had an earthly life."
No, because as I explained before, Paul and the Epistles thought that the heavens were a real, more perfect duplicate of earth, where real people, gods and heroes could live, suffer, die, and rise again and even be incarnated, born, impaled and crucified, and where cities, buildings, temples, gardens and soil (where Adam was thought to be buried) existed in a more perfect form than on our dirt earth.
For Paul, Jesus's "earthly" life took place in the real but non-material heavenly realm, where, as the book of Hebrews says, there existed cities and buildings wherein Christ, as high priest, ascended to the heavenly city of the heavenly Jerusalem where he entered into the heavenly temple.
This is why Paul says that Jesus merely found himself "in the FORM" of a man and took on "the FORM" of a man when he emptied himself. Paul's "incarnating" Jesus was not a man of the earth, he was a man of-and-from heaven. He merely appeared / in the likeness of / in the form of / a human being.
(And note that in the passage you cited, Paul never makes one mention of having been commissioned by a historical Jesus.)
"These are in addition to Paul's direct reference to the night Christ was betrayed. It does not matter from whom he received that information - from men and/or from Christ - he is directly referring back to an event that occurred on the night Christ was betrayed, as recorded in the gospels"
No, because as I already explained, Paul made the story up. He said the Lord specially revealed it to Paul alone. Paul did not get it from apostolic teaching. Nor did he get it from the Gospels, which were not yet written. On the contrary, the Paul-influenced Gospels took it from Paul and superimposed it into their "last night of Jesus" narratives.
"The gospels are not identified as anything other than what others witnessed."
Except of course that this "identification" was and is a misidentication. The Gospels have nothing but their own word to support them, which means they are historically unsupportable. Moreover, no Gospel states, claims, or pretends to be an eyewitness account.
Not even John's Gospel - which refers back to an anonymous witness, but to which the same principle applies - "John" is claiming an earlier "witness" in a historical vacuum - and on a rumor or a memory in "John's" mind - and has no outside contemporary sources to validate the claim.
"The gospel attributed to "John" claims to be an eyewitness account."
No, because as I explained, "John" does the opposite of claiming to be an eyewitness. The best he can do is invoke - from his imagination, his memory, or a rumor - an anonymous, purportedly original eyewitness ... precisely because "John" himself was not an eyewitness. And his claim is still historically unsupported and undocumented.
I have come to the end of my tether having to repeat arguments over and over again. Therefore, this will be my last communication with you in this thread - unless and until you can reasonably explain a historical Jesus's absence from the Epistles.
If you really think that most of Paul and the Epistles are rooted in testimonies and memories of an earthly historical Jesus who had a ministry, recruited disciples, founded an earthly institution, I want to set you an easy task which you must address or I will leave this conversation. The easy task is easy because if the Epistles are based on a historical Jesus, they should be peppered throughout with multiple references to his example, work, and teaching.
Your task, your burden of proof, is to provide multiple Epistle references to a historical - to "the Gospel" - Jesus, references including but not limited to examples of Jesus's earthly life, such as:
his Nativity
his baptism by John
his wilderness temptation
his recruiting disciples
his exorcisms and cures
his raising of dead people including Lazarus
his parables
his teaching on the Kingdom
his teaching on the Law, Torah, Prophets, Kosher and the Temple
his conflicts with his own family, Pharisees, priests, and scribes
his walking on water
his calming of the storm
his turning water into wine
his teaching on baptism and the Spirit
his discourse to the Samaritan woman at the well
his healing the woman with the hemorrhaging disease
his interactions with various levels of society - his own mother and brothers, wealthy women supporters, lepers, pagans, soldiers, rich young men seeking the Kingdom, etc.
his ministry in Galilee and in Judea
his triumphal entry into Jerusalem
his "I am" statements
his prophecies about the End Times
his final discourse,
etc., etc.
As I said, this should be an easy task for anyone who insists that Paul and the Epistles are rooted in memories of a biological/historical Jesus.
And as I said, unless you can find multiple explicit Epistle references ot a historical Jesus - of the kind listed above - my conversation with you in this thread will cease. I've typed far too many words already.
PLEASE NOTE:
Please do not invoke the weak attempt to elude the question by saying, "Well, the Epistles weren't meant to be biographies anyway, so we shouldn't expect them to say a lot about Jesus". That's not the point. The point is that they say NOTHING about a historical Jesus. Big difference. It's as silly as a book about Scientology never once mentioning founder L. Ron Hubbard, a book about the Mormons never once mentioning Joseph Smith, or a book about the Gettysburg Address never once mentioning Abraham Lincoln. The idea is inherently simply ludicrous and grotesque.
-
dianaiad
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 10220
- Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 12:30 pm
- Location: Southern California
Post #24
JehovahsWitness wrote: [Replying to post 18 by steveb1]
Interesting, since there are so called "christians" that openly adopt your view for the gospel of John, its no surprise to me that there are non Christians that do so for all four gospels in their entirely.
Thanks for sharing,
JEHOVAH'S WITNESS
Moderator WarningPlease pay attention to rule 15 which reads:
It is not permitted to say another person or group is not a Christian or call them a cult if the person or group identifies as Christian (this includes Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, or any group that claims to be Christian).
Please review our Rules.
______________
Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
-
Elijah John
- Savant
- Posts: 12235
- Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
- Location: New England
- Has thanked: 11 times
- Been thanked: 16 times
Re: Jesus the only way? (John 14.6)
Post #25We have had some interesting discussions aside from the questions of the OP. Anyone care to address them? Either the lettered, or numbered questions quoted above for your convenience?Elijah John wrote: Why does John's Jesus say that Jesus is the only way to the Father?
a)-Is it because, as many claim, that Jesus sacrifice is God's only provision for the forgiveness of sin?
b)-Is it because Jesus teachings are completely unique and he alone teaches the true path?
c)-Is it because Jesus sacrifice opens the door to Heaven for all who seek God, whether they realize it or not?
d)-Is it because John was reacting to Christians being expelled from the Synagoge by putting a claim on Jesus lips that (in effect) was saying "we don't need you anyway, we have Jesus"?
e) other, or a combination of the above.
Also, why do you personally believe John 14.6, (assuming that you do)
1) Have you actually tried other ways, other religous paths in an attempt to find God?
2) Because "the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it"?
3) Or is it because the claim seems logical, reasonable or intuitively true to you?
My theological positions:
-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.
I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.
-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.
I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.
-
JehovahsWitness
- Savant
- Posts: 21109
- Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
- Has thanked: 792 times
- Been thanked: 1122 times
- Contact:
Re: Jesus the only way? (John 14.6)
Post #26[Replying to post 24 by Elijah John]
Most nominal Christians take this to mean Jesus is instrumental to everlastining life in some way (although I recognize that there are some nominal Christians that reject the notion of eternal life in any form as well as the idea of him providing a blood sacrifice in for the atonement of sin).
I have conversed jn the course of my ministry with some that identify themselves as Christians that read this to mean that Jesus is instrumental to being a good person and nothing more, although I admit I do not have any official government studied to say what percentage of Christendom this would represent and is a personal view based on my personal experiences.
JEHOVAH'S WITNESS
Most nominal Christians take this to mean Jesus is instrumental to everlastining life in some way (although I recognize that there are some nominal Christians that reject the notion of eternal life in any form as well as the idea of him providing a blood sacrifice in for the atonement of sin).
I have conversed jn the course of my ministry with some that identify themselves as Christians that read this to mean that Jesus is instrumental to being a good person and nothing more, although I admit I do not have any official government studied to say what percentage of Christendom this would represent and is a personal view based on my personal experiences.
JEHOVAH'S WITNESS
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
-
tam
- Savant
- Posts: 6443
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
- Has thanked: 353 times
- Been thanked: 324 times
- Contact:
Post #27
Peace again to you steve,
Couple of questions then.
Why did Paul say earthly instead of simply saying heavenly then?
Are you aware that most translations state "according to the flesh" instead of earthly (because fleshly is what the word means)? How does that change your explanation?
"... concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh..."
http://biblehub.com/romans/1-3.htm
(and the meaning of the word sarx: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... 4561&t=KJV
So an additional question if I may? How exactly did Christ descend from David according to the flesh if they were in the heavenly realm? Did Paul believe that David was also in the 'heavenly realm'?
Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy
[Replying to post 22 by steveb1]No, because as I explained before, Paul and the Epistles thought that the heavens were a real, more perfect duplicate of earth, where real people, gods and heroes could live, suffer, die, and rise again and even be incarnated, born, impaled and crucified, and where cities, buildings, temples, gardens and soil (where Adam was thought to be buried) existed in a more perfect form than on our dirt earth." 'Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God-- the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures, regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David' Romans 1:1-3
"Paul is clearly aware that Christ had an earthly life."
For Paul, Jesus's "earthly" life took place in the real but non-material heavenly realm, where, as the book of Hebrews says, there existed cities and buildings wherein Christ, as high priest, ascended to the heavenly city of the heavenly Jerusalem where he entered into the heavenly temple.
Couple of questions then.
Why did Paul say earthly instead of simply saying heavenly then?
Are you aware that most translations state "according to the flesh" instead of earthly (because fleshly is what the word means)? How does that change your explanation?
"... concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh..."
http://biblehub.com/romans/1-3.htm
(and the meaning of the word sarx: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... 4561&t=KJV
So an additional question if I may? How exactly did Christ descend from David according to the flesh if they were in the heavenly realm? Did Paul believe that David was also in the 'heavenly realm'?
Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy
Post #28
Sorry, Tammy. I said I would not converse with you again unless you found multiple examples of a historical Jesus from the list I provided for that purpose. You ignored the challenge. Not surprising, because nothing on that historical list is found in the Epistles, but you seem to have snipped it from my post without comment. As promised, because you did not address the list provided, I am hanging up on this end. Goodbye.tam wrote: Peace again to you steve,
[Replying to post 22 by steveb1]No, because as I explained before, Paul and the Epistles thought that the heavens were a real, more perfect duplicate of earth, where real people, gods and heroes could live, suffer, die, and rise again and even be incarnated, born, impaled and crucified, and where cities, buildings, temples, gardens and soil (where Adam was thought to be buried) existed in a more perfect form than on our dirt earth." 'Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God-- the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures, regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David' Romans 1:1-3
"Paul is clearly aware that Christ had an earthly life."
For Paul, Jesus's "earthly" life took place in the real but non-material heavenly realm, where, as the book of Hebrews says, there existed cities and buildings wherein Christ, as high priest, ascended to the heavenly city of the heavenly Jerusalem where he entered into the heavenly temple.
Couple of questions then.
Why did Paul say earthly instead of simply saying heavenly then?
Are you aware that most translations state "according to the flesh" instead of earthly (because fleshly is what the word means)? How does that change your explanation?
"... concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh..."
http://biblehub.com/romans/1-3.htm
(and the meaning of the word sarx: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... 4561&t=KJV
So an additional question if I may? How exactly did Christ descend from David according to the flesh if they were in the heavenly realm? Did Paul believe that David was also in the 'heavenly realm'?
Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy
