A Body Hast Thou Prepared Me

[keypurr]

Too late; you already tossed out the implied accusation that those who disagree with your understanding are antichrist(s). Besides, Philippians was the lesser of the multiple problems concerning all that was said. Now you have seen Luke 3:22 in this same context which you apparently had not thought about, but at the same time you should easily understand what Paul likewise means when he uses the same word, (somatiko, it only means corporeal and physical). You can ignore the facts and definitions all you want but it only means that you will be engaging in selection bias when it comes to formulating your doctrine. Essentially that means that if you go down the road of ignoring what Luke 3:22 plainly states then you effectually do not believe what the scripture says; for if truly you did believe it, then you would rework your doctrine accordingly, like most of us who love the Word are doing. There really is no other way to truly grow in the knowledge of Messiah; albeit you did however bite off a rather large chunk when you mistakenly made your accusation.

Hi daqq, he does not understand that Christ was a spirit being before he went into Jesus.

 

[daqq]

Hi daqq, he does not understand that Christ was a spirit being before he went into Jesus.

Hi Keypurr,

Selection bias is a real and gigantic underlying problem. Most who claim to accept all of the scripture actually do not do so with true mental assent when it comes to what they actually accept into their doctrines and what they decide not to incorporate. Generally the same will use other scripture passages to nullify what they do not wish to accept, (pitting scripture against itself to nullify what they do not like). The usage and meaning of somatiko in Luke 3:22 is a perfect example as it is, for the most part, ignored in mainstream theology. At the same time most of the same like minded people, who so often accuse others of "spirtualizing" scripture, do the same themselves but only choose to do so when a particular passage or statement refutes their own doctrines. Thus the "virgin birth" of a baby Jesus God-Man cannot be allegorical language in their natural minds but the corporeal bodily descent of the Dove must be understood as allegorical or "spiritual language" for them to maintain their dogma. So they trade off what they do not wish to accept and their deeds are even worse than those whom they accuse because most of those they accuse are actually trying to incorporate all of what is written while they themselves are not actually willing to accept all that is written in their own doctrines. For the same reason the argument always devolves into church dogma and why you are a "gnostic" or heretic for not believing church dogma like they do. Church dogma becomes the only tangible argument they have left when all of the scripture is used in arguments concerning doctrine.

Good to see you friend.

 

[keypurr]

Hi Keypurr,

Selection bias is a real and gigantic underlying problem. Most who claim to accept all of the scripture actually do not do so with true mental assent when it comes to what they actually accept into their doctrines and what they decide not to incorporate. Generally the same will use other scripture passages to nullify what they do not wish to accept, (pitting scripture against itself to nullify what they do not like). The usage and meaning of somatiko in Luke 3:22 is a perfect example as it is, for the most part, ignored in mainstream theology. At the same time most of the same like minded people, who so often accuse others of "spirtualizing" scripture, do the same themselves but only choose to do so when a particular passage or statement refutes their own doctrines. Thus the "virgin birth" of a baby Jesus God-Man cannot be allegorical language in their natural minds but the corporeal bodily descent of the Dove must be understood as allegorical or "spiritual language" for them to maintain their dogma. So they trade off what they do not wish to accept and their deeds are even worse than those whom they accuse because most of those they accuse are actually trying to incorporate all of what is written while they themselves are not actually willing to accept all that is written in their own doctrines. For the same reason the argument always devolves into church dogma and why you are a "gnostic" or heretic for not believing church dogma like they do. Church dogma becomes the only tangible argument they have left when all of the scripture is used in arguments concerning doctrine.

Good to see you friend.

You are a wise person friend, I pray that someday I will be given such knowledge that you have. Your post here is great, I envy your way with words, You certainly have been blessed in many ways.

Good to be back.

 

[steko]

:chuckle:

 

[keypurr]

Heb 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
Heb 10:6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
Heb 10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

Who is the "I" in verse 7?

Who sent the "I"?

Who is the only God?

Questions we all need to find answers to.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Hi daqq, he does not understand that Christ was a spirit being before he went into Jesus.

Is that not almost the Trinitarian view?

LA

 

[Lazy afternoon]

double

 

[daqq]

Is that not almost the Trinitarian view?

LA

It is closer to what is known as the adoptionist view and is certainly more ancient that the Trinitarian view, (by several hundred years). The adoptionist view says that Yeshua did not become a true son of Elohim until his immersion when the Son of Elohim descended in the somatiko-corporeal-bodily form of the Dove. The same Dove is known as Ruach Elohim which "brooded" over the waters in the opening lines of the Genesis creation account. If you look at Genesis 1:2 in the Septuagint you will read simply "Pneuma Theou", (πνευμα θεου), which is in the same form found in Matthew 3:16. It is significant that the article is not found in the W/H text of that passage. Paul uses the same rare form in Romans 8:9.

Genesis 1:2 LXX-Septuagint
2 η δε γη ην αορατος και ακατασκευαστος και σκοτος επανω της αβυσσου και πνευμα θεου [M/T=Ruach Elohim] επεφερετο επανω του υδατος

Matthew 3:16 W/H
16 βαπτισθεις δε ο ιησους ευθυς ανεβη απο του υδατος και ιδου ηνεωχθησαν οι ουρανοι και ειδεν πνευμα θεου καταβαινον ωσει περιστεραν ερχομενον επ αυτον

Romans 8:9
9 But you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that Ruach Elohim [πνευμα θεου] dwells in you: but if any have not Ruach Meshiah, [πνευμα χριστου] the same is not of him.

Paul here equates Ruach Elohim with Ruach Meshiah and perhaps that is why Messiah Yeshua says this:

Matthew 23:37
37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that kills the prophets and stones them that are sent to her: how often would I have gathered your children together, even as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not.

It is not the man Yeshua who speaks in the above but rather it is Ruach Elohim who speaks through the man.

"The Spirit of YHWH is upon me", (Luke 4:18a quoting Isaiah 61:1a).

 

[Lazy afternoon]

It is closer to what is known as the adoptionist view and is certainly more ancient that the Trinitarian view, (by several hundred years). The adoptionist view says that Yeshua did not become a true son of Elohim until his immersion when the Son of Elohim descended in the somatiko-corporeal-bodily form of the Dove. The same Dove is known as Ruach Elohim which "brooded" over the waters in the opening lines of the Genesis creation account.

Yet Jesus said it was the Father who was in Him, not that a son has entered into Him.

LA

 

[daqq]

Yet Jesus said it was the Father who was in Him, not that a son has entered into Him.

LA

Pick which ever you prefer because it does not matter which one you prefer:

John 1:18
18 No one has seen Elohim at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, that one has declared him.
18 No one has seen Elohim at any time; the only begotten Elohim, who is in the bosom of the Father, that one has declared him.

No one has ever seen The Son because The Son of YHWH Elohim is Elohim.

 

[keypurr]

Pick which ever you prefer because it does not matter which one you prefer:

John 1:18
18 No one has seen Elohim at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, that one has declared him.
18 No one has seen Elohim at any time; the only begotten Elohim, who is in the bosom of the Father, that one has declared him.

No one has ever seen The Son because The Son of YHWH Elohim is Elohim.

From the Aramaic English New Testament.

Yochanan 1:18
Man has not ever seen Elohim. The only Begotten of Elohim, he is in the bosom of his Father, he has declared him.

The son is not declared as Elohim.

 

[keypurr]

It is closer to what is known as the adoptionist view and is certainly more ancient that the Trinitarian view, (by several hundred years). The adoptionist view says that Yeshua did not become a true son of Elohim until his immersion when the Son of Elohim descended in the somatiko-corporeal-bodily form of the Dove. The same Dove is known as Ruach Elohim which "brooded" over the waters in the opening lines of the Genesis creation account.

Yet Jesus said it was the Father who was in Him, not that a son has entered into Him.

LA

God sent his son, his express image, to save us, not himself. Content of scripture tell us that his son had the fullness of the Father, yet was in subjection to him.

 

[ClimateSanity]

God sent his son, his express image, to save us, not himself. Content of scripture tell us that his son had the fullness of the Father, yet was in subjection to him.

Keypurr. What are the qualifications an intelligent existence must have in order to be considered a god in your mind?

 

[northwye]

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6. Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7. But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8.And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." Philippians 2: 5-8

ος εν μορφη θεου υ - μορφη, morphe, shape, nature, form. Christ had the nature of God before he took on the flesh of man.

I Corinthians 10: 1-4: Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
3. And did all eat the same spiritual meat.
4. And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ."

I John 5: 7-8: King James Version: "For there are three that bear
record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these
three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the
spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

I John 5: 7-8: Textus Receptus Greek: oti treis eisin oi marturountes
en to ourano o pater o logo kai to agion pneuma kai outoi oi trei en
eisin 8 kai treis eisin oi marturountes en te ge to pneuma kai to udor
kai to aima kai oi treis ei to en eisin

I John 5: 7-8: Westcott-Hort Greek: oti treis eisin oi marturountes
8 to pneuma kai to udor kai to aima kai oi treis ei to en eisin

And so the NIV says "The NIV says "For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water
and the blood: and the three are in agreement."

The Word in the King James Version is said to be Christ in John 1: 1-18.

The Westcott-Hort is not clear about who the blood and the water are.

I John 5: 7-8 is not the only statement on the Trinity in the New
Testament. Matthew 28: 19: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing
them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost."

John 15: 26: "But when the Comforter (the Holy Spirit) is come, whom
I (Jesus) will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of
truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me."

For John 3: 13 the King James says "And no man hath ascended up to
heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which
is in heaven."

John 3: 13: Textus Receptus: kai oudeis anabebeken eis ton ouranon ei
me o ek tou ouranou katabas o uios tou anthropou o on en to ourano

John 3: 13: Westcott-Hort: kai oudei anabebhken eis ton ouranon
ei me o ek tou ouranou katabas o uios tou anthropou.

The Westcott-Hort Greek text - the Wrecking Machine - leaves out "o on en to ourano," "who is in heaven."

http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/gnostic.html#oldest

says that the Alexandrinus, Byzantine texts, most of the Old
Latin texts, the Latin Vulgage, the Peshitta Syraic the Harclean
Syraic, some Coptic texts and several others have the wording "who is
in heaven."

The texts that do not have "who is in heaven" are the Sinaiticus,
Vaticanus, papyrus p66, papyrus p75, and some Coptic texts.

The Westcott-Hort or Alexandrian omission of "who is in heaven" from
John 3: 13 takes out of this verse the important statement that Jesus Christ was and is present in heaven.

Gnostic teachings said that while the Christ as the saviour was in the
evil material world, he was completely separated from the Eternal
Father in the spiritual world. The omission of "who is in heaven" is
consistent with Gnostic theology. This is evidence that the Alexandrian Greek texts are more consistent with Gnostic teachings than is the Textus Receptus, which represents
the Byzantine Greek texts.

 

[daqq]

From the Aramaic English New Testament.

Yochanan 1:18
Man has not ever seen Elohim. The only Begotten of Elohim, he is in the bosom of his Father, he has declared him.

The son is not declared as Elohim.

We probably just do not see elohim the same way.
There are various classes of elohim throughout the scripture.
These are the main:

1) YHWH Elohim - the Father
2) Elohim - the only begotten Elohim Son
3) ha-Elohim - Angels and Messengers (the Elohim)
4) elohim - holy ones and "saints" - those to whom the Logos of Elohim has come (John 10:34-35)
5) elohim - gods of the heathen

There is no mention of Kurios (YHWH) in the following passage:

John 1:1-2
1 In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with the Elohim, and the Logos was Elohim:
2 the same was in the beginning with the Elohim.

 

[keypurr]

We probably just do not see elohim the same way.
There are various classes of elohim throughout the scripture.
These are the main:

1) YHWH Elohim - the Father
2) Elohim - the only begotten Elohim Son
3) ha-Elohim - Angels and Messengers (the Elohim)
4) elohim - holy ones and "saints" - those to whom the Logos of Elohim has come (John 10:34-35)
5) elohim - gods of the heathen

There is no mention of Kurios (YHWH) in the following passage:

John 1:1-2
1 In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with the Elohim, and the Logos was Elohim:
2 the same was in the beginning with the Elohim.

Thank you friend, I see that I have much more to consider.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[keypurr]

Keypurr. What are the qualifications an intelligent existence must have in order to be considered a god in your mind?

To me, God is the highest of ALL and "a" god is one who has received power from the only true God. I see the spirit son Christ as the first of all of God's creation, for God created all through him/it. The son was given the fullness of his creator. But that only makes him a form of God. Jesus, the man, is the body spoken of in Heb 10:5, the body prepared to hold the true son that came down from heaven, the only Son that has seen the Father.

I hope you can understand my thoughts. I am not good with words.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[jamie]

I see the spirit son Christ as the first of all of God's creation...

You see that in spite of scripture saying no one has seen the Father except his only begotten Son conceived by the Holy Spirit.

 

[keypurr]

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6. Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7. But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8.And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." Philippians 2: 5-8

ος εν μορφη θεου υ - μορφη, morphe, shape, nature, form. Christ had the nature of God before he took on the flesh of man.

I Corinthians 10: 1-4: Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
3. And did all eat the same spiritual meat.
4. And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ."

I John 5: 7-8: King James Version: "For there are three that bear
record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these
three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the
spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

I John 5: 7-8: Textus Receptus Greek: oti treis eisin oi marturountes
en to ourano o pater o logo kai to agion pneuma kai outoi oi trei en
eisin 8 kai treis eisin oi marturountes en te ge to pneuma kai to udor
kai to aima kai oi treis ei to en eisin

I John 5: 7-8: Westcott-Hort Greek: oti treis eisin oi marturountes
8 to pneuma kai to udor kai to aima kai oi treis ei to en eisin

And so the NIV says "The NIV says "For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water
and the blood: and the three are in agreement."

The Word in the King James Version is said to be Christ in John 1: 1-18.

The Westcott-Hort is not clear about who the blood and the water are.

I John 5: 7-8 is not the only statement on the Trinity in the New
Testament. Matthew 28: 19: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing
them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost."

John 15: 26: "But when the Comforter (the Holy Spirit) is come, whom
I (Jesus) will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of
truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me."

For John 3: 13 the King James says "And no man hath ascended up to
heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which
is in heaven."

John 3: 13: Textus Receptus: kai oudeis anabebeken eis ton ouranon ei
me o ek tou ouranou katabas o uios tou anthropou o on en to ourano

John 3: 13: Westcott-Hort: kai oudei anabebhken eis ton ouranon
ei me o ek tou ouranou katabas o uios tou anthropou.

The Westcott-Hort Greek text - the Wrecking Machine - leaves out "o on en to ourano," "who is in heaven."

http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/gnostic.html#oldest

says that the Alexandrinus, Byzantine texts, most of the Old
Latin texts, the Latin Vulgage, the Peshitta Syraic the Harclean
Syraic, some Coptic texts and several others have the wording "who is
in heaven."

The texts that do not have "who is in heaven" are the Sinaiticus,
Vaticanus, papyrus p66, papyrus p75, and some Coptic texts.

The Westcott-Hort or Alexandrian omission of "who is in heaven" from
John 3: 13 takes out of this verse the important statement that Jesus Christ was and is present in heaven.

Gnostic teachings said that while the Christ as the saviour was in the
evil material world, he was completely separated from the Eternal
Father in the spiritual world. The omission of "who is in heaven" is
consistent with Gnostic theology. This is evidence that the Alexandrian Greek texts are more consistent with Gnostic teachings than is the Textus Receptus, which represents
the Byzantine Greek texts.

Very informative post friend, thank you.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Ben Masada]

That's right Northwye, A body has Thou prepared me. The Lord Almighty has indeed prepared a body to all of us. Since the reference of the post above is to Jesus, no problem; the Lord has indeed prepared a body for Jesus too, but not to be used as a sacrifice. That could never be true because the Lord never commanded that sacrifices be part of the religion of Israel. (Jeremiah 7:22)