Gifts of the Spirit.

CharismaticLady

Active member
Like I said you just proved I’m correct that you are KENOSIS. Thanks for admitting your a heretic by you’re above confession.

hope this helps !!!
There are more powers than the glories that still made Jesus God. And after He died as a man, He received back the glories.

BTW, you didn't answer my questions. Nor have you told us honestly what gifts you have. You claimed them all. Does that make you an apostle? (Joke) But why no fruit? (That's not a joke)
 
Last edited:

civic

Well-known member
There are more powers than the glories that still made Jesus God. And after He died as a man, He received back the glories.

BTW, you didn't answer my questions. Nor have you told us honestly what gifts you have. You claimed them all. Does that make you an apostle? (Joke) But why no fruit? (That's not a joke)
If Christ lacked any single divine attribute at any time it makes Him not God.

You are not a trinitarian but a KENOSIS which is heresy and a false god and christ.
 

rhomphaeam

Robert Chisholm
There are more powers than the glories that still made Jesus God. And after He died as a man, He received back the glories.

BTW, you didn't answer my questions. Nor have you told us honestly what gifts you have. You claimed them all. Does that make you an apostle? (Joke) But why no fruit? (That's not a joke)

Care is a good thing - but it is also a deep water that quietly hides death - unlike a tumult of waters that declare it.

You cite
 

Manfred

Active member
@Beloved Daughter and @preacher4truth

Can you show me an example of Jesus being omnipresent?

Is this Omniscient? Mark 13:32 "32 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
50 “Go,” Jesus replied, “your son will live.”

The man took Jesus at his word and departed. 51 While he was still on the way, his servants met him with the news that his boy was living. 52 When he inquired as to the time when his son got better, they said to him, “Yesterday, at one in the afternoon, the fever left him.”

53 Then the father realized that this was the exact time at which Jesus had said to him, “Your son will live.” So he and his whole household(G) believed.

Do you even understand the nature of Christ? Fully God and fully man.
Read the scripture you posted with understanding.

Do you think Jesus was caught by surprise about His friend Lazarus' death.
Why do you think Jesus tarried two days before going there?

Your idea about Jesus not being omnipotent nor omnipresent is wrong.

Our faith is Spiritual and not from the flesh.
 

tbeachhead

Active member
Thanks for the lesson. I'm thinking you fashion yourself as a teacher...I am a teacher too...but It wasn't really a lecture I was looking for, but answers to the simple questions I asked...so...in the context of your lucid and cogent reply, I'll rephrase my questions and let you wrestle with the implications of your doctrine. Thanks in advance.
The Hypostatic Union addresses everything regarding the 2 Natures in Christ, the Trinity and Immutability. I put this together back on the old CARM forums for those who denied Christ was fully God and kenosis false teachers, unitarians, JW's etc......

1. Jesus is a person. (1 Tim 2:5)
Given. And we accept Him as One person of the Trinity...which is Three.

2. Jesus, the Person, has two natures- Divine and human (John 1:1, 14, 1 Timothy 3:16): Divine and human. This is the Hypostatic Union.( Col 2:9, Heb 1:3,2:16)
OK...He was an expression of the Divine nature, the visible expression of the invisible God, and died to make us partakers with HIm in the divine nature expressed by the life He lived. Your doctrine is not just a statement...it's a promise to us.

3. The Communicatio Idiomatum (Communication of the Properties) states that the attributes of His Divine nature and human nature are both ascribed to the one Person of Jesus. So Jesus can exhibit attributes of Divinity (Omnipresence, Omniscience, Omnipotence, . John 2:23, 3:13, 8:58, He was prayed to in Acts 7:59, John 14:13, He was is worshiped Matt 2:2:11, Rev 5:13-14) and at the same time exhibit attributes of His humanity (He was tempted, ate, prayed, wept, grew in wisdom and stature, was anointed, was baptized, the Father was greater, didn’t know the day or the hour of His Return, He cried My God my God why has Thou forsaken Me, He died etc.). The communicatio idiomatum does not mean that any part of the Divine nature was communicated to the human nature.
Latin is an admirable language, but I'm not much for obfuscating discussions with Latin terminology. You realize that you're regurgitating the interpretation of doctors who preceded you here...none of this is inspired, and some is debatable. Correct? For instance, Jesus was never omniscient. He, like the church of Acts, exhibited Gifts of the Holy Spirit, like words of Knowledge, Words of Wisdom and prophecy as did the prophets before Him. He drew upon the Spirit Who breathed in Him. And despite those moments of epiphany, there was much He did not know. He was never omnipresent...He was not in Nazareth and in Jerusalem at the same time. He was as omnipotent as anyone who can boast that he can do all things through Christ...He was limited to doing those things He saw the Father do, and saying those things He heard the Father say...Our contention is this, that Jesus lived His life on Earth as Adam should have, in relationship with the Father, and drawing all resources from His relationship with Him. This is why He met with Him in the cool of the morning. This is why Moses and Elijah came to Him to show Him what lay ahead, and of His end. He received as we received in those hours we spend with Him in prayer. To give Jesus superpowers of which we can avail ourselves nothing defeats the purpose of His victory over satan the usurper, who stole what authority he boasted of in Luke from Adam in the garden. Jesus as the Word gave Adam dominion over the whole Earth. Jesus as redeemer, restored that dominion to Adam's sons, which is why it is essential HIs position as Son of Adam be recognized and was announced by Him. Look again in the gospels at the authority He ascribes to Himself "because He is the Son of Man/Adam." Please do not deny ignorantly the fact that, while the Hebrew version calls Ezekiel Ben Adam, the LXX calls Ezekiel huios anthropou...,Son of Man...and that traces Ezekiel's lineage, just as the Son of David would. Lineage was the source of authority in Hebrew understanding, and linked the bearer to land and power. There is absolutely no accident or misunderstanding in the establishment of Jesus authority in every way, to heal, to forgive sins...in short to rule...because Adam had been delegated all authority over all.

4.The Man(anthropos) Jesus is what we perceive (if we were there 2000 years ago in Israel) and through the Man we encounter the Divine nature (Jesus knowing all things, is on earth while in heaven, answers prayer, forgiving sins, etc.).
Again...he did not know all things, and admitted as much. He knew and expressed what He was given to know and express while He lived in the body. He accepted man's limitations, and lived by the faith he then passed on to us. We are saved by the faith of Jesus Christ.

5. The Person of Jesus will always be both Divine and human. (John 1:1,14,20:28, 1 John 5:20, 1 Timothy 2:5) Those who deny this fact are the spirit of antichrist. (1 John 4:1-4,2 John 7)
You are extrapolating. John told us that those who deny that Jesus came in the flesh are the spirit of antichrist...They don't have to even acknowledge the permutations of your Latin corollaries. Jesus will always be Jesus, Who is, Who was and Who is to come...the same.

6. The Divine Nature is within the Trinity.(Father, Son and Holy Spirit)
In that each is He...One. OK...and, of that divine nature, through His precious and numerous promises, we have been made partakers, by His divine Will.

7.Since the Person of Jesus claims the attributes of Divinity(John 3:13,8:58,Matthew 9:2,12:8), then the Person of Jesus is a member of the Trinity.( John 14-16, Math 28:19)
I think you're being redundant...I want to give you a clue...and this is just me, I never memorized the Bible chapter and verse...when an author slings one hundred references to chapter and verse without direct quotes, I've been duped by non-scholars like John MacArthur to know that they defeat their own purposes, because those references are more distraction than support. I do not look up your references. If it's important enough, quote the verse. Note above, where you extrapolated, if you do not understand what I mean. Specifically, John never said "Those who deny 'the person of Jesus will always be both Divine and human' are the spirit of antichrist." That's your dubious interpretation. He said what I quoted Him as saying.

Anything said of either of Christ's two natures applies to the one Person of Christ, so that is how it is said that Christ died on the cross. The term "hypostatic union" refers to the two natures united in the one Person, so anything said of those two natures in the one Person applies to the whole Person. So we see that the Person of Christ is both God and man. The phrase hypostatic union was adopted by the fifth general council at Constantinople, 533 AD. That council declared that the union of two natures is real (against Arius), not a mere indwelling of God in a man (against Nestorius), with a rational soul (against Apollinaris), and that in Christ’s Divine nature remains unchanged (against Eutyches).
That council was established in the onset of the Jesus wars that pitted Rome against Alexandria, Ephesus against Antioch and Constantinople, and made a mockery of all Christendom to the foretold extinguishing of a lampstand,, and the end of our reputation as a church. Their decrees were neither canon, nor inspired. You do know that, I hope.
hope this helps !!!
It helps me get to know you. Now please answer these questions: Do you believe Jesus died? Do you believe he "gave up the Spirit?" Do you believe He commended His Spirit to the Father, as He said on the cross...or was he being strangely symbolic. You see...It was as Jesus Son of Adam that His soul could be made a sin offering, that He could proceed to Sheol, and do what Peter describes in his epistle. God doesn't die and yet He did...opening the way for our own Resurrection. When He emptied Himself...he even gave His own Life for ours, that we should be partakers in His.
 
Last edited:

Beloved Daughter

Well-known member
We already went over them on another post about faith. I said there

Romans 12 - gifts for the Father for mankind.
1 Corinthians 12 - gifts of ministry for the Church for the profit of all
Epheshians 4 - gifts of offices for the Church from Jesus

Should add:
Mark 16:16-18 - gifts for individual Christians to use privately

Nonsense! Paul wrote Romans, Ephesians and Corinthians. Since you are posting it here, even you agree that it's not off-topic.

Mark 16:9-20 is not considered scripture. But if you want to drink deadly poison who am I to stop you from such foolishness?

Was Mark 16:9–20 Originally Part of Mark’s Gospel? (thegospelcoalition.org)
 

tbeachhead

Active member
Mark 16:9-20 is not considered scripture. But if you want to drink deadly poison who am I to stop you from such foolishness?

Was Mark 16:9–20 Originally Part of Mark’s Gospel? (thegospelcoalition.org)
I just picked up on this...one of the most dangerous claims Christians who claim to believe the Bible have been duped into parroting. Even the article you are implying is more inspired than scripture itself says, "Christians have known for centuries that Mark 16:9–20 might not have originally been part of Mark’s Gospel."

Did you even notice? Christians have KNOWN for centuries that Mark MIGHT NOT BE....How do you know something that cannot be known.

Let me give you the reason that I know this author is clueless: I believe that the canon is inspired. I do not believe, given the first tenet of my faith, that I have a smorgasbord spread before me...Mark 16 was the end of the gospel when the book of Mark was placed in the canon. The dispute began when two codices were discovered in the late nineteenth century, the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus. The latter ends abruptly...an anomaly in the manuscript, suggesting that the copyist knew there was more...and stopped copying. And the former likewise ending, with the ending loosely included, but offering other spurious endings as well. What I used to call "the NIV argument", (the most authoritative manuscripts do not contain these verses) defies all principles of textual criticism, which ascribes authority to the majority text, not to antiquity. Only biblical textual critics have abandoned millennial old principles to grant any authority to anomalous manuscripts that have no corroborating copies anywhere.

Mark 16 is canon. You are stuck deciding that our scripture is indeed authoritative, or you are...and you get to choose what to believe or what not to believe.

So...let's talk about snakes and poisoned beverage, shall we? When Jesus gave us the authority to tread on snakes and scorpions, how many of the 70 (or 72 according to the Sinaiticus) went out to handle snakes? Hmmm?

When Jesus said rivers of living water flow from our innermost being...how much water flowed?

You claim I'm "spiritualizing" what Jesus said? I don't need to. His Words are spirit and they're life. A snake can kill the body and cannot kill the soul, but the viper's brood that Jesus handled was seeking to destroy the soul of Israel.

Simple as that. The doctrine that scripture should be disregarded is poisonous. You've swallowed it. Do not let it harm you in any way.
 

Beloved Daughter

Well-known member
I just picked up on this...one of the most dangerous claims Christians who claim to believe the Bible have been duped into parroting. Even the article you are implying is more inspired than scripture itself says, "Christians have known for centuries that Mark 16:9–20 might not have originally been part of Mark’s Gospel."

Did you even notice? Christians have KNOWN for centuries that Mark MIGHT NOT BE....How do you know something that cannot be known.

Let me give you the reason that I know this author is clueless: I believe that the canon is inspired. I do not believe, given the first tenet of my faith, that I have a smorgasbord spread before me...Mark 16 was the end of the gospel when the book of Mark was placed in the canon. The dispute began when two codices were discovered in the late nineteenth century, the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus. The latter ends abruptly...an anomaly in the manuscript, suggesting that the copyist knew there was more...and stopped copying. And the former likewise ending, with the ending loosely included, but offering other spurious endings as well. What I used to call "the NIV argument", (the most authoritative manuscripts do not contain these verses) defies all principles of textual criticism, which ascribes authority to the majority text, not to antiquity. Only biblical textual critics have abandoned millennial old principles to grant any authority to anomalous manuscripts that have no corroborating copies anywhere.

Mark 16 is canon. You are stuck deciding that our scripture is indeed authoritative, or you are...and you get to choose what to believe or what not to believe.

So...let's talk about snakes and poisoned beverage, shall we? When Jesus gave us the authority to tread on snakes and scorpions, how many of the 70 (or 72 according to the Sinaiticus) went out to handle snakes? Hmmm?

When Jesus said rivers of living water flow from our innermost being...how much water flowed?

You claim I'm "spiritualizing" what Jesus said? I don't need to. His Words are spirit and they're life. A snake can kill the body and cannot kill the soul, but the viper's brood that Jesus handled was seeking to destroy the soul of Israel.

Simple as that. The doctrine that scripture should be disregarded is poisonous. You've swallowed it. Do not let it harm you in any way.

Put up your proof. I don't drink deadly poison and I don't pick up serpents. But if you believe you can do this without deadly consequence, you should reconsider.

More Bible manuscripts are discovered and the evidence is, these verses are not original.

Home - CSNTM

Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts - Wikipedia

Authentic or not, there is no great harm to the believer who believes it, except for people who actually follow it literally. This has caused a great many deaths.

You and I will never agree. I abhor the prosperity gospel, the idea that Jesus wants everyone to be healthy and wealthy when the record of the Apostles shows a stream of martyred saints.

 

tbeachhead

Active member
Put up your proof. I don't drink deadly poison and I don't pick up serpents. But if you believe you can do this without deadly consequence, you should reconsider.
Your answer shows me you did not understand, and still do not.

I'm not trying to fan animus into controversy...Jesus is talking neither of snakes nor poison in Mark...Everything he has given us in the form of spiritual arms addresses spiritual warfare. Snakes and vipers brood have again forced the doctrines of Christ into conformity with their traditions...and their doctrines are as poisonous as doubt to the faith of a believer. Mix doubt with faith and you get unbelief, by which no one is ever saved.

More Bible manuscripts are discovered and the evidence is, these verses are not original.
Traditional textual criticism taught that the majority text is the authoritative one, not the anomalous one, despite its antiquity. A manuscript on the ash heap is no more authoritative than the latest counterfeit, or the latest entry in Wikipedia...and biblical textual critics have abandoned their own science in the excitement of a delightful century and a half old discovery.

That's why the KJ controversy has weight...not because of the language of Shakespeare. The received text is received for a reason.

Authentic or not, there is no great harm to the believer who believes it, except for people who actually follow it literally. This has caused a great many deaths.
This is why we won't agree...If it is indeed authentic, it is the Word of God, and worthy of all faith.

If not...then it is poison, and absolutely to be rejected. I have found no alternative to believing God. Parenthetically, the folks who put God to the test in Tennessee stir no interest in me...snakes have entered into assemblies where I have pastored, and I've had to learn from God how to handle them, before they dragged away many to their own false doctrines. Do you know that "a spirit of divination" in Greek is a python (Πύθωνα)...Paul handled it in Philippi. Acts 16.

You and I will never agree. I abhor the prosperity gospel, the idea that Jesus wants everyone to be healthy and wealthy when the record of the Apostles shows a stream of martyred saints.
It would seem. I might ascribe that statement of your faith to your confidence that the prosperity message of WoF is of the flesh, and not a matter of spiritual stewardship, having been confused and confounded by the riches of a Copeland jet, but misunderstanding altogether the riches of a Pauline confession. Copeland, according to Jesus, has had his reward. He's not ignored in the gospels, and will face his judge.

To deny that God brought health is to ignore Jesus altogether, in the NT, to ascribe each healing to an act of magic, and not an act of compassion...or...worse yet, to claim that unbelief alone is for today, and God's compassion was for another day.

Hebrews 11 is a list of folks who had unwavering faith in the prosperity message, who walked not by sight, and therefore had the greater testimony...and received their reward and their place in the hall of faith. I will lay my hands on the sick...knowing God's will in the matter, and I will gladly hear God say, "Oh you of little faith..." when my prayers are not immediately answered...knowing that it is His joy to answer my prayers, and my promise to grow in faith and in the knowledge of my God.

Let's find some things on which we can agree...shall we?
 
Last edited:

tbeachhead

Active member
Put up your proof.
A couple more thoughts...the canon is the proof...uncontested until some agnostics changed the rules of textual criticism in the nineteenth century...think of that, the days of Joseph Smith and Charles Taze Russel.

I don't drink deadly poison and I don't pick up serpents. But if you believe you can do this without deadly consequence, you should reconsider.
When you accept the lie you drink the poison. When you listen to the liar, you're handling the snake, for better or for worse...

These are the snakes and the poisons of which we have been forewarned...I'm not condemning, I'm just keenly aware of satan's wiles and his zeal to divide us any way he can.
 
Top