Does Jesus Have a God?

Jesus Has Two Natures?

Trinitarians and Modalism claim that Christ has two natures and thus claim that Christ is “both fully God and fully man at the same time.” When Christ was on the cross he cried out, “"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matt. 27:46), both Trinitarianism and Modalism will explain it by saying, “That was the human part of Jesus crying out. And when Christ died on the cross, it wasn't God that died, but it was the human body of Christ that died.”

All is a very imaginative, irrational and an absurd claim to try and support a false theory, for there are no passages of scripture that declares or implies that Christ had or has a “dual nature.” All this is nothing but pure philosophy and it's this kind of philosophy we have been warned about. 

"See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ."  Col. 2:8 

Nothing in this world has two natures. If Jesus had both a human nature and a God nature then he must simultaneously have perfect knowledge and limited knowledge. This is an impossible and contradictory position. This is not to mention that to speak of anything as having a nature is a contradiction of terms. For instance, people will talk about “sinful nature” and that we are born with it. To say one has a 'sinful nature' really means nothing. If one has a ‘sinful nature,’ where is it? Is it in your mind? Is it in your body? If you could take that ‘sinful nature’ out, would you still have a nature?

"Nature” is a singular concept “Nature” is defined as: "The essence, essential qualities or attributes of a thing, which constitute it what it is…”

“Nature” is similar to the word “definition.” We can look at material things and define it. But where is the definition? Where would we find it?

One cannot be fully one thing and fully another. Jesus was/is fully a living breathing human being, and is still a man who is now immortal, for God raised him from the dead.

To say that Christ has two natures, i.e., that he is God Almighty and a human being, that would make Christ two beings! One being cannot consist of two beings.

God Robed in a Body of Flesh?

Modalist and Trinitarians claim that God dwells within Christ and therefore is God Himself, and "Christ" ends up simply as "God robed in a body of flesh."

The scriptures speak of the special abiding presence within the anointed one, the Messiah, the Son of God.  Nowhere does it say Christ is God Himself or that Christ is God in a particular form, such as "robed in a body of flesh."

Because Christ was filled with the fullness of God does not make him God Himself no more than it would make us God who are "filled with all the fullness of God" (Eph. 3:19).  Since Christ is a "living human being" like us, in whom God dwells, that does not make Christ or us God.  If Christ were God, that would make TWO beings who are God.

And if Trinitarians and Oneness Pentecostals want to say "Christ" was simply "God in a body of flesh," or "robed in flesh," then "Christ" is not a being but a "THING."  If "Christ" is a "Thing" (simply a body, not a person) in whom God dwells, then he, or rather "IT," is not a living being.

The scriptures show Christ with all the characteristics of a living human being, who was just that, a living human being!

The Son of God Came Into Existence at His Begetting in Mary's Womb

PRE-HUMAN EXISTENCE CONTRADICTS LUKE

 Luke makes it very clear that “the Son of God” was brought into existence in Mary’s womb when Gabriel told her:

 “…for that reason (Gk dio kai) [the creative miracle in Mary] what is born (aorist of gennao = “brought into existence”) will be called holy, God’s Son” (Luke 1:35).

The Greek dio kai means “precisely for that reason.”’ It does not mean ‘for that reason also’ as mistakenly entered in the NWT and KJV. Protestant theologian Wolfhart Pannenburg states that:

In Luke the divine Sonship is established by the almighty activity of the divine Spirit upon Mary (Luke 1:35)… Jesus’ divine Sonship is explicitly established by his miraculous birth…Jesus’ virgin birth stands in an irreconcilable contradiction to the christology of the incarnation of a pre- existent Son of God.   Jesus God and Man (pp. 120, 143).

In volume 1, (p. 105) of his History of Dogma Professor Adolf Harnack also notes that: “The miraculous genesis of Christ in the virgin and a real pre-existence of Christ are of course mutually exclusive.” 

THE EXISTENCE OF THE SON OF GOD WAS CAUSED BY HOLY SPIRIT

Holy spirit at Jesus’ conception was the cause of his becoming God’s Son. Therefore Jesus was never God’s Son at any time prior to his birth. Because Jesus came into existence as the Son of God when he was conceived in Mary’s womb he could not have already been in existence as the Son of God! As Gabriel states:

“This one will be great and will be called Son of the Most High” (Luke 1:32). 

Matthew 5:9 and Luke 6:35 demonstrate that “will be called sons of God” means exactly the same as “will be sons of the Most High.” In Luke 6:35 Christians “will be sons of the Most High” and yet they did not pre-exist. Furthermore, this one was going to be great. This means that if he had pre- existed his birth he certainly would not have been great. That goes completely against the idea of him having previously been an archangel or “a god.”

PRE-HUMAN EXISTENCE CONTRADICTS MATTHEW

1.  The Kingdom Interlinear Translation (KIT), under its Greek text of Matthew chapter one, makes it clear that Jesus' very beginning or origin was when he was begotten by God in Mary's womb.  This is right at that beginning of Matthew's description:

“The book of the history (“origin” in KIT. Gk geneseoos from genesis) of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham” (Matt. 1:1).

"...the birth ("origin" in KIT. Gk. geneseoos) of Jesus Christ was...Mary...was found to be pregnant by holy spirit" (Matt. 1:18)

In his detailed birth narrative Matthew uses the word genesis in 1:1 and 1:18. In Bauer’s Greek- English Lexicon genesis is defined as: “One’s coming into being at a specific moment, birth."  Also "state of being - existence" and "of ancestry as point of origin."

However, one’s actual origin — one’s genesis — implies the event of one’s coming into existence and so refers to the time of one’s conception in the womb and not to the event of one’s birth. According to all Greek-English lexicons the usual Greek word for “birth” is gennesis and not genesis, although this can also mean “birth.” However, “birth” is not the right meaning in the context of Matthew 1:18 because the next thing stated in verse 18 of Matthew’s account is that “Mary…was found to be pregnant by holy spirit.” So the word genesis, as used in 1:18, does not concern Jesus’ birth but his begetting i.e. his point of coming into existence — his beginning. So because the Greek of Matthew 1:18 has the word genesis and not gennesis it should never have been translated as “…the birth of Jesus Christ was ...” but as: “The origin of Jesus Christ was…” or “The beginning of Jesus Christ was…” Also Matthew 1:1 is best translated as “The book of the origin” of Jesus Christ…” or “The book of the beginning of Jesus Christ…” This shows that Jesus ‘originated’ in a line from Abraham, and so Darby’s translation reads: “Book of the generation of Jesus Christ.” In fact, Associate Professor of Religious Studies Dr. Bart Ehrman states that: “the earliest and best manuscripts agree in introducing the passage with the words: ‘The beginning of Jesus Christ happened this way.’ The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, p. 75.

Also Dr Hagner in the Word Biblical Commentary understands that Matthew 1:18: “Picks up the genesoos, ‘origin’ of 1:1 and suggests that the Biblos genesoos, ‘record of origin,’ now reaches its goal.” So although Matthew 1:1 involves Jesus’ ancestry — his origin because of his line of descent from Abraham through David, yet logically it “reaches its goal” when Jesus comes into actual existence at the end of that line i.e. his begetting as stated in verse 20.

2.  Furthermore, the Kingdom Interlinear Translation makes it clear that Jesus - the Son of God by his begetting by holy spirit in Mary's womb according to Luke 1:35 - did not come into existence until he was 'fathered,' 'generated,' or 'begotten' by God in Mary.

 “… for that which has been begotten (“generated” in KIT. Gk gennethen from gennao) in her is by holy spirit” (Matt. 1:20). 

This Greek word egennesen (from gennao) meaning “fathered,” “was begotten,” “generated,” or “brought into existence” is used for the more than 40 individuals in Matthew’s genealogical list of Jesus’ ancestors who were ‘fathered’ i.e. brought into existence at conception. The rather dated word “begat,” as used in the KJV etc., gives the accurate meaning of gennethen but the New Jerusalem Bible expresses it accurately in modern terms as, for instance: “Abraham fathered Isaac.” Yet none of these 40 individuals had a pre-human existence. So also with reference to Jesus, the word gennethen does not allow for any pre-human existence for him i.e. he did not exist as a person prior to his begetting in Mary’s womb. Matthew’s account in chapter one alone demonstrates that Jesus was not in existence at any time prior to his begetting by holy spirit.

Therefore, at no time do the Matthew or Luke accounts indicate that Jesus was only coming into existence as a human, as though he was first alive and then merely passed through Mary rather than originating in her as Matthew 1:20 states. If these two accounts given by Luke and Matthew under inspiration are taken seriously, they negate all attempts to give Jesus an origin before his conception, which is why Matthew and Luke appear first in the Christian Greek Scriptures. They state that God ‘fathered’ or “brought Jesus into existence’ by miracle at that time and therefore that must, in all logic, be when Jesus became the Son of God as is stated by Luke. In fact, a person is what he is according to his origin and does not change from one species to another — not from angel or any spirit creature to human.  

By By Raymond C. Faircloth

For full detail click here

Jesus Went To Hell?

In the Old Testament we find the word “Sheol,” and in the New Testament we find the equivalent word “hades.” These words are related to the word “death,” “grave” or “gravedom.” We will find them translated as “grave,” “pit,” or “hell.” These two words (Sheol and Hades) have nothing to do with the supposed endless torture in a raging hell-fire, but with “gravedom.”

When Peter made his confession of who Jesus is, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the GATES OF HELL shall not prevail against it.” (Mat 16:17-18)

There are many who think that when Christ died, that he suffered and burned in hell, but God didn’t let him stay there to suffer like that. This is incorrect.

The “hell” mentioned in Matt.16 has nothing to do with hell-fire. Most translations have “hades.” This simply has to do with “death,” “grave” or “gravedom.”

Jesus abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel (2 Tim. 1:10) Jesus was not talking about “hell” as in hell-fire, but about death. Jesus is building a church where DEATH HAS NO POWER. The CEV translation states:

“So I will call you Peter, which means ‘a rock’. On this rock I will build my church, and DEATH ITSELF will not have any power over it.”

What is that rock? The revelation of knowing who Christ is (v.16), believing the gospel he preached.  Jesus didn't go to hell, but to the grave and three days later God raised him from the dead!  Death had no power.

So what Jesus said had nothing to do with the gates of hell as in hell-fire, (which there will be where everything and evil doers will be destroyed), but about death.  He certainly knew about the "gates of death."

“Have the gates of death been revealed to you, or have you seen the gates of deep darkness?” Job 38:17

“Be gracious to me, O LORD! See my affliction from those who hate me, O you who lift me up from the gates of death…” Ps. 9:13

“…they loathed any kind of food, and they drew near to the gates of death. Ps. 107:18

Literal Preexistence and Incarnation Doctrine are Pagan Concepts, Not Biblical Concepts.

Nowhere does the bible speak of "incarnation," and thus a "literal pre-existing spirit being."  A lot of heresies have crept into the faith that is not the “faith that was once delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3).

The whole idea of preexistence and incarnation is built on the premise of an "immortal soul."  The teaching of an immortal soul is heresy.  The pagan doctrine is that the “soul” is a part of a person, an entity, that never dies.  Of course Satan started this lie back in the Garden where he tells Eve, “You shall not surely die” (Genesis 3:4).

This pagan concept that the soul never dies means that the “real you” cannot die, it is only your “flesh” that dies!  They do this with Jesus; he didn't really die, it was his flesh that died and he continued to live a conscious life.  In the same way, this same false teaching is applied to us, that we really don’t die.  Paganism surely has its foothold in pseudo-Christendom besides the world at large.  They confuse the concept of “soul” and “spirit.”  It is taught that man’s “soul” is his “spirit” and this "spirit" continues to live.  This is not true.

(Lifeless Body) + (Breath from God) = (Living Soul)

'And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man BECAME a living soul. ` Gen 2:7

On that ground is a corpse.  Nothing is functioning.  It isn’t until God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life” (air: ruach/spirit) that Adam BECAME a living soul.  He IS a soul, not that he has a soul.  Animals are souls as well.

Conversely, when that breath leaves us, the living soul ends up a dead soul.  There is nothing about that person living in a disembodied state after he dies.  If a soul or spirit is eternal then it can only mean that it existed before it dwelt in a body of flesh and must continue to live after the body dies.  No matter how we slice or dice this concept, if our body which is temporal, and the spirit is eternal, as we are taught, it all boils down to “pre-existence.”  The supposed immortal spirit, the real you, returns to God who gave it.

The spirit [ruach-breath] of man returns to the LORD God who gave it and the same fate concerns the beasts as well.   This has nothing to do with an “immortal soul” or the “spirit” being a separate entity within a person no matter what the commentaries say. 

Now people will say that when a person dies, that his spirit goes back to God as though this ‘spirit’ is a separate entity that is still conscious and the actual person themselves continues to live outside the body in eternal bliss with Jesus in heaven based on Ecc. 12:7:

"and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it."

  One commentary (JFB) says:  “spirit — surviving the body; implying its immortality.”

Barnes says: “The Spirit - The doctrine of life after death is implied here…”

  

The only reason why they say it is “implied” is because they have been influenced by Greek Platonic concepts which is simply philosophy that Paul warned us about (Col. 2:8).  It was Plato who lived about 300-400 years before Jesus who gave his philosophical false belief that man is innately immortal. 

Concerning Ecc. 12:7, I believe the CEV translation has it correctly translated:

"So our bodies return to the earth, and the life-giving breath returns to God."

Let’s also think about this for a moment.  If people want to teach that a person's "spirit" has returned to God and continues to live a conscious life after death, then they would have to admit that the crimes of the most vile EVIL DOERS (such as Hitler) are with God this very moment.  Of course this is preposterous.   

The other problem with this false preexistence pagan program is that it fits well with the belief of incarnation. The pagan teaching of “incarnation” is a spirit being possessing a body of flesh.  What we have is not only incarnation, but reincarnation – a repeat process where a spirit being possesses one body until that body dies and moves on to another body until it dies and so on.  No one slipped into a body of flesh, including Jesus.

Jesus was never alive, living a conscious life as a "spirit being" nor as the "son of God," immortal, who had to leave his abode in the heavens to inhabit a body of flesh on this earth.  This is preaching “another christ.”  Nor are we immortal inhabiting a body of flesh, and yet this teaching persists to this day in many churches and in Hollywood (the movie "Ghost" for example and other numerous movies).

The bible says God alone has immortality (1 Tim. 6:16), which means He is never subject to death, and we seek immortality (Rom. 2:7), and like Jesus, one day we will put on immortality, never subject to death again (1Cor. 15:54).

If Jesus came into this world immortal, then Jesus never really died!  If we come into this world immortal, we never die, and this is clearly wrong according to scripture.  It is simply a lie of the devil that has so many convinced it is true.

There are many who insist that it was just Jesus’ flesh - his body- that died on the cross, and the real Jesus (the spirit) kept on living.  Folks, this is embracing the teachings of Gnosticism.  If one does not die, he does not need to be resurrected and therefore Jesus never really resurrected from the dead.  People are hung up on the "body."   If we do a little digging, we will not find one phrase that says “the resurrection of the body!”  We have such phrases as “the resurrection,” “the resurrection of Jesus Christ,” “the resurrection of or from the dead,” or "resurrection of the just," but never the "resurrection of the body."  (Matt. 22:23; 28, 30, 31; Matthew 27:53; Mark 12:18, 23; Luke 14:14, 20:27, 33, 35, 36; John 5:29, 11:24, 25; Acts 1:22, 2:31, 4:2, 33, 17:18, 32, 23:6, 8, 24:15, 21; Romans 1:4, 6:5; 1 Cor. 15:12, 13, 21, 42; Phil. 3:10, 11, 2 Tim. 2:18; Heb. 6:2, 11:35; 1 Peter 1:3, 3:21; Rev. 20:5, 6).   The resurrection concerns the whole individual.

The spirit (peneuma /breath) is a vital principle or animating force within living beings.  Jesus said, 

"Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!”  

this means that Jesus breathed his last life-breath. Jesus called out with a loud voice, 

"Father, into your hands I commit my spirit [pneuma]." When he had said this, he breathed his last.  -Luke 23:46

When Jesus said, “Into your hands I commit my spirit,” he was not talking about giving up a separate entity of himself to leave his body that continues to consciously exist outside the body.  He simply gave up his “breath,” his life, into the hands of his Father.  It is the breath that returns to God, not a personal, conscious entity. James says in 2:26 "...the body without the spirit (pneuma/breath) is dead." 

People assume a literal preexistence and the incarnation of Jesus.  This is a premise with no foundation in scripture.  We build on sinking sand when we base things on a premise.  No matter how logical something may sound, if the premise is wrong, everything else will be also. 

The idea that Jesus was really alive and conscious before his birth in Bethlehem is ludicrous.  Jesus is and has always been authentically a human being like us, not an “angel” who became man, or some "spirit being” who became a man, nor an “eternal Son of God” who became a man.  There was no preexistence and incarnation.  In the incarnation, Mary would have “received” a spirit being rather than “conceive a baby.”  Rather, the Messiah was always in the mind and plan of God.  The Messiah was promised.  The Messiah came into existence at the begetting in Mary's womb. 

And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.  And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.  -Luke 1:30-31 

 “Literal preexistence” and “Incarnation" is not a biblical concept, it is simply pagan.

The Dead Still Living?

Scripture teaches us the facts about the dead:

• Psalms 6:3-5 My soul is also sore vexed: but thou, O LORD, how long? Return, O LORD, deliver my soul: oh save me for thy mercies' sake. For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks?

• Psalms 115:17 The dead praise not the LORD, neither any that go down into silence.
• Psalms 146:4 His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish
• Ecclesiastes 9:5,6  For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.

• Isaiah 38:18-19, "For the grave cannot praise thee, death can not celebrate thee: they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth. The living, the living, he shall praise thee, as I do this day: the father to the children shall make known thy truth."

Jesus the Angel of the Lord?

When one gets rid of all the "fluff" surrounded by pet texts of scripture to try and box then in to fit the “Trinitarian doctrine,” it actually displays the loss of reasoning skills among its advocates because this doctrine so blinds people from the whole truth. I was one of them!

Let me give an example. Annika Bjork writes concerning the “THE angel of the Lord,” to try and prove this “angel” is really God; however, this angel who is supposed to be God is really the supposed “preincarnate” form of Jesus who she says IS God and “could explain” why no one died when they looked at God!

God said, “No man can see Me and live” (Ex. 33:20). No matter how we slice and dice this, IF Jesus IS GOD, how much of himself did he have to diminish so that whoever looked upon him would not die? Where did God give the exception to Ex. 33:20? Did He say, "Unless you see THE angel of the Lord, which is really me or we?"

She says:

“We must determine from context whether the word refers to the office of the sent one or to the nature of angels. We must also check if it says ”AN angel of the Lord or ”THE angel of the Lord” to determine whether there is a particular angel spoken about. The angel of the Lord seems to be a preincarnate form of Jesus (who is God and part of the trinity), and that could explain why people have in fact seen God without dying.”

Note the words “seems” and “could explain,” which really means, “I don’t know for sure.”

If “THE angel of the Lord” is the supposed “preincarnate” form of Jesus (who she says is God), then who is THE angel of the Lord in the following verses??

Examples …

(Mat 1:20-21) "But while he thought on these things, behold, THE angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins."

Is THE angel of the Lord (who she says is Jesus and God) forming in the womb of Mary and talking with Joseph at the same time?

(Luke 2:9-11) "And, lo, THE angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

If Jesus is “THE angel of the Lord,” is this angel announcing his own birth? Is he really in two places at the same time – with the shepherds in the field - and in the city of David wrapped in swaddling clothes in a manger??

(Mat 2:13) "And when they were departed, behold, THE angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him."

THE angel of the Lord appears to Joseph in a dream and yet at the same time THE angel of the Lord (Jesus) is a child? How can that be? Please explain.

(Mat 2:19-20) "But when Herod was dead, behold, AN angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child’s life."

Is there really a difference here between AN angel of the Lord and THE angel of the Lord? Why? What determines the difference? What we still have is an "angel." period. Are we really to believe that Jesus was an "angel?"

(Mat 28:2-7) "And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for THE angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. … And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for he is risen … And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you."

If “THE angel of the Lord” is Jesus, how can this angel say “he is not here" when he is right there talking with the women at the grave? He is at the grave and at the same time heading to Galilee?

Where does it ever say Jesus was "an angel" or even "THE angel" of the Lord?

Logic and Common Sense (Trinitarian and Oneness Doctrine)

The bible says in Matthew 12:32:

“Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven. But whoever speaks against the holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.”

Trinitarian and Oneness doctrine says that Jesus is God and the holy Spirit is God (though their explanation varies). If Jesus is God and the holy Spirit is God, why is speaking against Jesus, who they say is God, a sin that can be forgiven, but speaking against the holy Spirit, who they say is God, is a sin that can never be forgiven?

If we are to believe the Trinity and Oneness teaching, it actually should read, “If we blaspheme God it is a forgivable sin, but if we blaspheme God is not forgivable.”

The way Oneness and Trinitarians explain their doctrine - that if this were to be explained to the average person on the street - they would say these people are ripe for the insane asylum. Only when conversing about “theology” do people get away with talking like they are insane, with “nonsensical language” that defies what God has given us – that is - the capability to exercise logic and reasoning that most professed Christians hope we would abandon!

“God is not the author of confusion…” (1 Cor. 14:33).

Let me give one more of MANY examples.  In Acts 10:38 it says:

"God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the holy Spirit and with power, and because God was with him, he went around doing good and healing everyone who was oppressed by the devil."

Oneness and Trinitarians would have:

• God anointing himself, 
• by himself, 
• who is himself!

In other words, have "faith" in the Trinitarian and Oneness advocates and never mind using our common sense!

I just has a brother (Frank Licary) write to me saying:

In fact, the Athanasian [Creed] paradox that one is three, and three but one, is so incomprehensible to the human mind, that no candid man can say he has any idea of it, and how can he believe what presents no idea? He who thinks he does, only deceives himself. He proves, also, that man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities… With such persons gullibility (which they call faith) takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck.

 I believe that was quoting Thomas Jefferson.  And what is interesting is why go through all the headache of trying to explain something they call "incomprehensible," trying to get people to "understand" what they say no human mind can comprehend? Like Frank says, one must "surrender his reason" and just accept what they say is true, something they can't even comprehend themselves and yet try to explain it??

What is the Law of Christ?

Paul told the Christians in Galatia to carry each other's burdens, and in doing so they would fulfill the law of Christ. (Gal. 6:2)

In Acts 3:22 Peter told the people concerning Jesus the Messiah and what Moses said:

 "For Moses said, 'The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he tells you."  (See Duet. 18:15, 18)

What is the law of Christ? 

The Future as Jesus Saw It in Matthew 24, Mark 13

From Focus on the Kingdom
Vol. 12 No. 12 Anthony Buzzard, editor September, 2010

Many people are rightly concerned with the future, theirs and that of society. The internet is teeming with attempts to tell us what Jesus foretells for the future of our world. Matthew 24, the long Olivet Discourse, is properly the center of attention, since in that marvelous, if alarming, chapter the Lord Messiah answered the crucial question posed by his devoted students.

Supposing you, the reader, to be one such dedicated student of Jesus, you will want to present at that momentous teaching session. We can all chime in with their initial inquiry: “When will these things be and what will be the sign of your coming and the end of the age?”

The disciples were not fools! They had been well instructed, and they asked the right question. Jesus had just spoken of desolation in the temple building. Because the disciples and Jesus knew the book of Daniel well, they assume that trouble in the temple will be connected directly with the “coming” (Parousia) of the Messiah and “the end of the age” (misleadingly mistranslated in the KJV as “end of the world”).

Preterism: The Doctrine of Hymeneus

If there is one thing I dislike, are people who hold to a false doctrine such as Preteristism (which means “past fulfillment”), who claim the magic year everything fulfilled was in 70 A.D., which wipes out dozens of prophecies that were not yet fulfilled.

They want you to prove from scripture that what they believe is false.  The request to “discuss scripture” may sound sincere, but the tactic ends up with spiritualizing many passages of scripture and having to redefine theological terms and accept their redefinitions.  They come up with scripture that seems to be persuasive to their position, and if you decide not to engage in the conversation, then you are considered, “not on board,” because you refuse to take their bait.

Are Abraham, Isaac and Jacob Alive or Dead?

Question: "How can you say the dead are not really alive? Jesus says that God is not the God of the dead but of the living."

Answer: The Sadducees, who were opposed to a resurrection, asked Jesus a question. (See Luke 20:27-33)

Jesus went on to answer:

And answering, Jesus said to them, The sons of this world marry and are given in marriage. But those counted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage. For they are not able to die any more; they are equal to angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. But that the dead are raised, even Moses pointed out at the Bush, when he calls the Lord "the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. But He is not God of the dead, but of the living, for all live to Him. (Luke 20:34-38)

Look at it this way. God is not the God of the dead, but "of the resurrected.” Look at the context. Even though "living" is present participle, it does not necessarily indicate present time. The participle is used as a noun. It’s not saying they are living now or living in the future, or lived in the past. "The living" simply names a class of people. We have to determine from the context to know when they are living. The context is “in the resurrection.”

"...and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage."

The context does take us to a time in the future… Jesus is talking about "in the resurrection."

It Wasn't Just Jesus' Body That Was Dead

We can thank Plato for the unbiblical idea that when a person dies, the “soul” would still survive, thus immortal soul.  We have been programmed to think that the body is distinct from the person's  identity, i.e., individual personality - physical life. But to the Hebrew mindset the body or flesh, the person, were all one being.  When God breathed into the nostrils of Adam the breath of life, it says he became  “a living soul.”  Not that Adam had a soul implanted in him.  And people may not be aware, but animals are called “souls” as well.  We don’t have a soul, we are a soul.

We are not just a body.  We are a whole human being that is able to think, reason, communicate, and have emotions.  These are not separate from our body.   

What About the Person Who Has Never Heard the Gospel?

I saw a video clip where Oprah Winfrey asked one of the people in her audience about the Jungle man who has never heard the gospel.  She could not believe that God would condemn someone to hell if they never heard the gospel.  I will have to say, it was a good question.  I believe Romans 2:14 is the answer.

“For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:”

They do by nature the things contained in the law.  There is a moral law within all of us. We know that when we do something that is not right; our conscience will condemn us. God gives man a conscience to know the difference between good and evil, and the choice to choose what path we will follow (Exodus 20:6, Micah 6:8; Isa. 55:7; Psalm 50:23, 97:11, 103:17-18, Prov 28:18; Acts 17:26-27; Acts 10:34-35, Romans 2:14-15, ).

They will know we are Christians…by how we shun?

Paul says the following and it has to do with people who call themselves believers or Christians. It is not about those who are unbelievers.  

" I wrote you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people.  In no way did I mean the immoral people of this world, or the greedy and swindlers and idolaters, since you would then have to go out of the world.  But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who calls himself a Christian who is sexually immoral, or greedy, or an idolater, or verbally abusive, or a drunkard, or a swindler. Do not even eat with such a person.  For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Are you not to judge those inside?  But God will judge those outside. Remove the evil person from among you." 1 Cor. 5:8-13

Paul makes it clear that the people we should have nothing to do with are those who claim to be Christians and live wickedly.  We are not to have anything to do with them or even sit and eat a meal with such a person.   But, how many Christians would treat unsaved friends and family members in this manner? 

Faith Is Not Just a Mental Assent

Faith is not just some mental assent or repeating a prayer for salvation. Mental assent is an enemy of true Biblical faith.

Mental Assent is defined as a subtle form of self-deception, just one step removed from the demonic leaven (yeast) of hypocrisy.

Mental assent is believing something with your mind, but does not come from your heart. What a person believes in his mind does not produce what is in his heart. However, what you believe and hold in your heart, you will put into practice, “for out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies…” (Matt. 5:19)

The post-Reformation teaches that salvation is ‘by faith alone’. They insist that final judgment does not depend upon human effort, meaning, doing works of righteousness – to live rightly. Their idea of ‘faith’ is defined as believing in and trusting in Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life” (See Westminister Confession of 1646 AD, Article XIV, section III).

According to post-Reformation we either: