Can you tell me why you believe that Jesus was "fully God and fully man" at the time of his earthly ministry?...is there scripture that supports this idea? (Please don't cite John 1:1 because that is shot down by John 1:18.)
When did he become this half man half God? If it was at his birth, then why could he not perform miracles before his baptism? And if it was at his baptism, then he was not God for the first 30 years of his life. Can you explain this please?
From my own studies of the Bible for just on 50 years now, I see no reason why Jesus had to be God in order to bring about redemption for the human race. In fact if Jesus had been God it would have overpaid the ransom by an immeasurable amount. (1 Timothy 2:6) Like 6,000 trillion dollars paid to someone who only demanded 60 thousand....
If you understand the mechanics of redemption, you will see that an equivalency was necessary in God's law to bring about his justice.
"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life" was the foundation of the ransom paid by Christ for the sins of mankind. All Jesus needed to be was the equivalent of Adam to offer his perfect sinless life for the perfect sinless life that Adam lost for his children. ( 1 Corinthians 15:22)
It would also mean that an immortal God could be killed by mere humans. Nothing can kill an immortal, so if Jesus was God, he couldn't really die, and so if he did not die, then the ransom was not paid....and man is still lost in his sins. A ransom is a set amount equivalent to what that life is worth to the one demanding the ransom. In this case, it was God.
1 Corinthians 15:45....
"So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living person.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit."
Having a "life for a life" meant that as "the last Adam", Jesus needed to be a sinless human in every sense. 100% human, not a god/man, which is nowhere taught in scripture....in fact the scriptures themselves do not ever put Jesus on an equal footing with his Father, as this would have broken the First Commandment. (Exodus 20:3) It would be a blasphemy.
In John 17:3 Jesus calls his Father
"the only true God" without including himself.
In John 1:18, it says that
"no man has ever seen God at any time"....but we know that thousands of people saw Jesus.
The apostle Paul identified the only God who was worshipped by the apostles....
1 Corinthians 8:5-6...
"For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him."
What can you provide to prove that Jesus was not who he said he was...."The Son of God"...never "God the Son".If Paul calls Jesus the
"firstborn of all creation" (Colossians 1:15-17) how can he be God?
In the case of Cornelius, Peter was convinced of God's approval for this Gentile and his family to become part of the Christian congregation.....the first Gentile who did not need conversion to Judaism to become an approved worshipper of Jehovah.
The operation of God's spirit along with the vision Peter received, was proof enough for him to baptize them in water.
Apollos was on the right track but just need a little help from his friends to supply some more detail. (Acts 18:24-26; 1 Corinthians 3:6-7)
In each case we see something out of the ordinary, not something regularly seen. Those who heard John and repented were baptized in symbol of that repentance, but all who wished to become a follower of Christ had to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ......so a second baptism was required. One had to have a knowledge of Christ's teachings to receive that baptism....as Jesus commanded...
Matthew 28:19-20...
"Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you. And look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.”
This was a work that had to be accomplished right up until the end of the age. Teaching was a requisite for people to know what their baptism meant. No one could know it for them or make a proxy baptism for them. This eliminates infant baptism as legitimate. It has to be a choice made with full knowledge of what it means.
We need faith but also works. You can't have one without the other. One is proof of the other.
James 2:14-17....
"Of what benefit is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but he does not have works? That faith cannot save him, can it? 15 If any brothers or sisters are lacking clothing and enough food for the day, 16 yet one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but you do not give them what they need for their body, of what benefit is it? 17 So, too, faith by itself, without works, is dead."
Faith alone will save no one. Jesus' final judgment of mankind will be on "DOING the will of the Father"...not just "believing" in Christ and assuming that "once saved always saved".....it doesn't work like that. We can lose our salvation by disobedience as Peter said...
2 Peter 2:20-22....
"Certainly if after escaping from the defilements of the world by an accurate knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they get involved again with these very things and are overcome, their final state has become worse for them than the first. 21 It would have been better for them not to have accurately known the path of righteousness than after knowing it to turn away from the holy commandment they had received. 22 What the true proverb says has happened to them: “The dog has returned to its own vomit, and the sow that was bathed to rolling in the mire.”
Never would we want to have that said about us....
Not even close. It does however agree with the scriptures that the anointed ones are chosen by God, not by men.
Those who qualify as "kings and priests" in the coming Kingdom, (Revelation 20:6) have proven their loyalty to God and his Christ to their death. As "kings" they need subjects...and as "priests" they need sinners for whom to intercede and to perform their priestly duties......so who are their subjects, since there are no sinners in heaven?
Was Westcott the only one to question the inclusion of the last verses of Mark 16? Please read post #77 again and see that the questioning goes back way further than Westcott. Not only does the passage not fit my theology, it doesn't fit with the rest of scripture. There is no reporting of snake handling or drinking poison as proof of God's spirit anywhere else in the Christian scriptures.
Since the long conclusion and even the short one are in question, we can rest assured that we have advance warning not to take them as seriously as the rest of the gospels. None of them even mention what Mark is said to have reported. You attempted to make a point of referring to this passage as something to take seriously.....I can only ask why? Is it to support your belief in the operation of God's spirit in a miraculous way in our day? I'm sorry but this is one passage that you cannot use to prove anything of the sort.
The gifts died with the apostles. Whatever is done today is not by the power of God's spirit, no matter how much we want to believe it. If it was, it would be competing with the powerful works of the devil mentioned by Paul as proof of the apostasy. (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12) Why would God make us confused about that? By withdrawing the power of the spirit after the first century, God leaves us in no doubt about the source of "miracles" in later times.
What is the scroll to which John was referring? It was the prophesy on the end times (a Revelation of the future) written in symbolic language that would only be understood at this time in history. He was not referring to the gospels, if that is what you are inferring.....
