I looked at pass discussion and I couldn't find any topic relating to this question. However if there is one, do direct me to it.

I was wondering for Christ to die at the cross, He had to be mortal. For if Christ is immortal, then He wouldn't of been capable of dying. I always heard that His divinity was "quiet-cient"(did not used his divine power). But having his immortality only in the back burner, doesn't it makes Him still immortal and uncapable of dying? I know that He died because the Bible says so. I don't question that. So there's a dimension that I don't understand.

Where in scripture it talks about Jesus divine nature covered, or taken out at the incarnation? And does it say something about His immortality?

Also, since we're talking about Jesus nature on earth, in Scripture it talks that Jesus maintain His Divine Authority for He told Satan a few time to get behind Him, and gave authority to His disciples to cast out devils in his name. So this shows that He did maintain some divine attributes.

So what did He keep and what was left behind, or it wasn't left behind, but His divinity was clothed with human nature?

im sure others can answer this better than i. Jesus was fully God and also became fully human. He had His full divinity but never exercised it. how He was able to die and His divinity not die is a mystery we have to take on faith. some things our fallen human nature will not be able to understand this side of heaven. and we may never be able to understand it in heaven...

Deep waters, Elle. A few quick thoughts. Maybe more later.

First of all, the word you were looking for is "quiescent." "Dormant" is a common English word we use to convey a similar idea.

Jesus Christ had the prerogatives of divinity, but didn't use them, is a way the thought is often put (among Adventists).

I think the following might be useful to consider:



Also:



Regarding Scripture, a number of times Jesus was describes as "the life" and in similar terms.

The concept is similar to His taking our sinful nature upon His sinless nature. There is a blending of two natures. He takes the one while retaining the other. So while Christ, of Himself, was immortal, He became mortal, as far as His humanity is concerned, by virtue of taking our nature. Similarly Christ, of Himself, could not be tempted, but by virtue of taking our nature, He was able to be tempted in all points as we are.

Pretty mind-bending stuff you're asking about; this and "the Trinity." What's next?

I need scriptures, however, I did find a few which I'll post later. I'm not going to base my believes elsewhere but scripture. I think I express that clearly previously. Despite, the EGW quote you posted here, does not address my question here. What's .(5 SDABC 1113)? Is that a EGW quote? It's the Bible commentary right.

This logic is very poor and that's what I was taught. This doesn't make sence to say that He's at the same time immortal and mortal. He either is one or the other when He was on earth. If Christ was a blend of divine and human, then what attributes of divinity did He possess? And which one did He not possess? We see that He did have authority over Satan and He used that Authority.

This type of reasoning would bring to the conclusion that only his body was dead and his divinity was not. The Bible says, "God is Spirit", so His spirit was not? So was He in heaven when he died? No, for the scriptures says that He haven't ascended to heaven yet when He appeared to Mary. So where was His omni-present, omniscence, omni-potent, self-existent, and immortality go once He died? All I can think, is that He didn't have it to start with. But I want to see scripture to tell me that.

According to the Bible when you are dead, you have no knowledge of what is happening, your spirit(the breath of life) goes back to God, and your body slowly decays back to dust. This is a True man's death. So if Jesus was 100% man, then He needed to die a 100% man's death. We know according to scripture that He gaved his spirit(breath of life) back to God before he died. So that shows to me that He didn't have self-existence and depended on the breath of life like any other man to be alive.

There's something that we are not grabbing, something reveal in scripture that is overlooked. If there's no better explaination than the one you gave me, then we should bring all the scriptures relating to this topic and ponder on these.

Tom, we need to study for ourselves. The Trinity is very foundamental as a doctrine and crusial. The Catholic based all their doctrines on the Trinity, so why wouldn't I ponder on it.

i think you misunderstood tom here. he was not criticizing you, but merely pointing out that you were delving into difficult subjects to understand.

i dont know how much "scripture" would change your mind since you seem to be clearly coming from an sda antitrinitarian position based on several of your posts. i have been to some of those websites and from what i have seen one of their tactics is to say that ellen whites writings were tampered with, and the second is to say that we are to be going by the scriptures and not the sop, anyway.

the problem with this is that they use the sop to back their conclusions. so they apparently feel they only are qualified to know which writings were not tampered with and how to "rightly" use the sop.

i would like to point out that every where you go, the people who want to say ellen whites writings were tampered with are the people who want to get around something she was very clear about.

i would also like to point out that you use the sop when it conveniences you. so it looks like you are setting yourself up as the judge of when it can and cant be used.

using logic in the case of God is not the best approach i would think.

but by all means lets go through the scriptures and use all the texts that would be relevant.

Some Bible verses which could throw light on this subject, Elle.

“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1: 14) – God became human.

"’They shall call His name Immanuel,’ which is translated, ‘God with us’" (Matthew 1:23). The name implies that, when Christ became human, He didn’t divest Himself of His divinity, but was, at the same time, God and man. “God was manifested in the flesh” (1 Tim. 3:16).

“For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5). Christ is still a man. Divinity and humanity were united in one Person forever.

“Jesus answered and said to them, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’ ... But He was speaking of the temple of His body” (John 2:19). Christ said He would raise His own body. So, humanity died, but divinity did not die.

It seems to me that it is this logic which is "very poor." By this logic, Christ could not have been both God and man;"He either is one or the other when He was on earth."

If partaking of human nature makes it possible for Christ to both be God and man simultaneously, why would there be a problem in asserting that He was both immortal and mortal? The same paradox comes up in regards to whether or not Christ could be tempted. As God, He could not be tempted, but as man, He was tempted in all points as we are.

Regarding Scriptures, I think Rosangela's is a nice list. There are, in addition, a number of references from John asserting that Christ was "the life," that life was in Him, that He is the "resurrection and the life," and so forth.

To me, having immortality and mortality at the same time is not possible
That's a good point. I had brought that question a few time in the Christ Desired and Lusted to sin? thread, but no one answered me.

If we ponder on this searching scripture that would make everything harmonize, then which attributes of His divinity would prohibit Jesus to be tempted? These divine attributes wouldn't effect temptation:omni-present, omni-potent, immortality, omniescence, and self-existent.

If Jesus is stripped off of His Divine attributes, can he still be considered as Divine? For sure, if he has not the divine attributes, then He can die like a man would.

Would love, self-sacrifice, unselfish, etc... be considered Divine character as opposed to attributes? Now I see these divine natural characteristic would prevent Jesus to be tempted. If these are quiesience, then it makes if possible for Jesus to sin right? And possible for Him to die?

Now I wonder, if He even had these divine characteristics at the incarnation. At first, that's what I thought, now I'm leaning more towards post-laps in the understanding that He had 100%human natural tendencies and charactrer. I came across a text that said that had to be so but I can't find it right now.

What my original question was, what divine dimension Jesus had when he came on earth? I'm thinking maybe His Divine attributes was taken from Him at the incarnation so to make it possible for Him to die like a man, but He was still 100% Divine. Is that possible to be Divine without the divine attributes?
To me this is saying that Jesus Christ had to be mortal to put on immortality and so to give us the hope in the resurrection to come. Isn't He our example? Live like a man, Die like a man, and resurrected like a man.

And Paul says thanks be to God(Father), which gives us the victory through Jesus (death, and resurrection). It is through the Father's power who made Jesus victorious. Jesus submitted Himselft to the Father's will, so that's how He showed the Father's character to all, and was able to live the sinless life to His death, and the Father resurrect Him.

If we look at the first temptation of Jesus by the Devil, wasn't Jesus tempted concerning in using His authority. We know Jesus came with authority over the Devil and He used that and He was not sinning in doing so. The other two temptations, is typical for a man: of worship and to tempt the Father.

Tx Rosangela, for bringing in Bible text. The last one you brought, was something that I wasn't clear on. John 2:19 Jesus says that "I" will raise it up. That's interesting and seem contradictory to most if not all other scriptures. Could it be that Jesus was saying "I" to mean The Father in some way. Anyway, I'm not grabbing this one because it seem contradicting all the other text below which is over 30. According to the scriptures below, it was the Father that raised Jesus from the dead.

When I was finding these quotes, I notice 3 text that reads "raised again"???? That's an interesting wording. Do you have any light to what it means?

Well Teresa, what you are saying is false. I did not come on this forum with anti-trinitarian position, and today I'm still undecided on this issue and still am studying, and won't jump in hasty position.

I came to the forum as an open book and as a student. You can go down my posts and see there was an evolution in me discovering reality of the Church and this forum. I came here initially to study prophecies with the Bible and I made that clear with everyone and within my posts is the prove.

When I came to the realization of our Church being confuse with understanding end-time prophecies, only then I started to wonder why? Then the Lord showed many of our Church weaknesses. One big weaknesses is to mainly SOP to prove doctrinal views. To prove once doctrinal views, very few are using scriptures here and seems there is more support found by using SOP which makes everyone very divided on issues, because it seems you can find SOP quotes to support almost any views.

Then I read posts concerning the tempering of EGW writings, I see it is not being in the realm of improbability. EGW says very clearly that our Church will apostasize and I'm sure you can't deny that. So why do you think, it is impossible that in the spirit of apostasie, that our leaders would of changed a few words here and there, and add chapter or take away some paragraph to go with their apostasy so that we may not be considered as a "cult"?

However, if you noticed, I'm not dwelling in this and have left it behind. It bothered me at first, but hey, what else would you expect as a tactive from the Devil. Perfect way to divide the Church on issues. Anyway, what will be will be and I'm not going to waste my little time left with this. I came here to be more grounded on Scripture according to EGW counselling to be prepared for the end-time, so using SOP never was my angle in discoving truth to start with.

However, with this discovery came a new quest, and it was to review all doctrines. So that's what I'm doing, and want to see all doctrines from the Bible alone.

Concerning the people you are talking about, well I don't know them nor their motives and I won't comment on that.

However, for what you say about me, is again totally a false accusation. I used one SOP quote since I've been here, not to prove any doctrinal points or views, but just to expand the born again experience physiologically since EGW brought in nice details. And this quote was used by Pastor Liversidge in the same manner. The born again doctrine is well supported by scriptures which I have quoted when showing the importance of being born again.

To understand things, you can't do it but by the means of logic or reasonings. There's a difference to use fancy logic to try to prove a point, versus trying to understand scriptures by using reasonings. I'm not using logic to point my view as if you read this thread, I have no view in this. I'm raising a question and saying there something I don't understand.

Scriptures has to harmonize and when we see things that seems contradictory, then there's some dept that we don't understand, and that dept will bring scriptures in harmony again. So that's what I'm trying to get here. I don't want to be a superficial reader and just accept poor reasoning that doesn't make sence and doesn't hold together with other truths. The Lord invites us to reason with Him.

where does she say that? and if we are going to go by scripture, where does it say that in the scriptures?



and what is the proof of this?

amazingly, and who knows why, the papacy had the scriptures for centuries and still painstakingly copied it word for word. why they didnt change the scriptures during all those centuries to make it say what they wanted it to say is absolutely amazing, wouldnt you think?

You can do an EGW database search with the word apostasy and find it yourself. EGW called it Omega apostasy and there was another label, however, really I don't want to waste my time on it. I'm not here to point fingers and to find the dirty laundry of the Church. To me it's a waste of precious time.

Again same thing as above. I'm not interested in wasting my time on that. Green is showing how new versions of Scriptures has been tampered with, so I'll leave him to show you what he's discovered. Everyone has their gifts, and it's not mine.

However, I'm interested in reading what Green has discovered. Already, I learn something very important with Green's research and I'm grateful for that. I'm looking forward to other of his post.

All I have said is that I acknowledge that it is very possible that EGW writings was tampered with. And some proves has already been brought to you. However, you seem to think it is not valid. So maybe, someone will come on the forum with a good research with quantitive proves beyond measure gathered from comparing different editions of EGW writings.

Regardless, I want to stand on Scripture and Scripture alone for all matter of doctrines.

Regarding #111315, I agree with your point that the fact that Jesus could be tempted implies He took fallen nature, and for the reasons that you give. I've tried to make this argument in the past, without effect. Maybe I should try it the way you presented it!

Tom you mean #111314 right? #111315 is my reply to Rosangela.

Well, you know, these pre or post-laps terminology and arguments was getting frustrating to me and it was a lot for me to learn. I'm not saying I understand the issue and that's why I'm digging. Anyway I don't want to prove any views including my own. I just want to know the truth.

But there's a possibility that this study about the immortality might shed light on the incarnation of Christ and see fully what Paul understood in the power of the Gospel. I think these are quite important and holds tons of blessings to those who study and keep the words which we need, to pull us through the end-times.

Elle, regarding Ellen White's saying the church will apostatize, I don't know where you got that idea. There are many statements which contradict this idea. For example:



It's true that the church is in a sad condition, being rich and increased with good needing nothing, not aware of its true condition. However, the church will respond to the message to the church of Laodicea and repent. Don't know when, but it will happen.

it seems to me that if a person is going to make accusations they should be able to back them up. i would suggest that either you did not understand what she said, or that indeed you have been to the sites that say these things.

i personally have already checked and found it all untrue.



elle: Again same thing as above. I'm not interested in wasting my time on that. Green is showing how new versions of Scriptures has been tampered with, so I'll leave him to show you what he's discovered. Everyone has their gifts, and it's not mine. [/quote]

if you go back and study the issues it isnt that the versions have been "tampered" with, they come from different manuscripts.





and where were the "proves already brought to (me)" on this thread that i started, or anywhere else?
http://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forum...7167#Post107167

you havent been privy to my discussions with others on other sites, unfortunately, but if there are any "proves" surely someone could produce them.



then perhaps you might like to contribute to this study......
http://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forum...5744#Post105744

I agree with what Teresa said, especially important being this point:



I've seen this a lot on this forum, which is unfortunate. I think an easy way to avoid this is to simply be more careful with the language one uses. If you're not sure of something, perhaps ask a question, or put things in such a way that the uncertainty is clear. We should be very careful with things we assert.

Please delete in you mind what I said about the apostasy. I never studied the subject, and I don't know what I'm saying and I just repeated what I've heard from many many individual including leaders. I really don't care to go into that subject. And I agree with you, that I shouldn't of said it in a assertive way, but as a question. So please forgive me.

However, you rebuked me for this comment:
1. which could be a true comment, or a false. So for an individual to have concluded using this term depends on the individuals knowledge of the true foundation our pioneers has laid, and their knowledge of the doctrines, and how much of a deviation someone think deserve the term apostasy.
2. which was my respond to Teresa's false accusations of my person in explaining my thoughts. If you read from the beginning you will see what I mean.
3. but don't say nothing about Teresa's two faults accusations she did on my person.
4. She never apologized or even brought proved about those accusation. I don't want her to bring proved about my person on this thread. If she wants to open another thread and try to proved what she has accused me. That's fine with me, but as it is right now, she owes me an apology.

Already lot's of post has been brought here about things that wasn't relevant to this subject. So I would appreciate that any further comments, about apostasy or my motives on the forums can be brought to other posts. This thread is about the study of Immortality and Jesus death.

Elle, I looked back at the posts, but couldn't find anywhere where you were being accused personally. The only post I thought you even might be referring to is this one:



If this is the case, I think Teresa's points are right on, but aren't limited to you. Actually, I think everyone is guilty of this, to differing degrees. We all tend to interpret things (anything, Scripture, SOP, anything), according to how we see things.

Like Teresa, I would tend to be skeptical of interpretations which depend upon conspiracies to work (btw, one of the "complaints" I have against the idea that EGW was a prelapsarian, although, in this case, it requires a conspiracy of 1 -- maybe 2(?), I wonder if Prescott was in on it?).

One more point. First of all, I have no status to be judging another. I've certainly been guilty in my life of insensitivity. I try to be as careful as I can be in posts here to keep things issues related and not hurtful to people, as one is handicapped by not seeing the body language or hearing the voice of others, so the tone one writes always comes off several degrees stronger than it would in other circumstances. It seems to me that Teresa is being quite careful in the way she puts things, qualifying her statement with "it seems" and "I think" and so forth, which I think is very appropriate.

Love, self-sacrifice, and unselfishness are indeed divine attributes or characteristics. When Moses asked God to show him His glory, God showed him these characteristics. These are part of God's "image."

Remember also that Adam was made in God's image. When he came from the Creator's hand, Adam was naturally loving and unselfish. He was in the image of God.

However, in that unfallen state of perfection, of being loving and unselfish, of being in God's image, Adam was tempted. So, here we find one guidepost of truth: Being fallen is not required to be tempted. The same argument can be used with Lucifer in heaven.

When man sinned, selfishness took the place of love. The defining characteristic of God - love - which Adam had at his creation, was replaced by its antithesis - selfishness. So, that makes the unregenerate man WANT to be tempted, and WANT to sin. Hence, it is harder for such to avoid sin because he likes it.

Going to your other list of divine attributes, there is one there that could prevent temptation: omniscience. Larry Kirkpatrick presented in a sermon that omniscience prevents God from being tempted, but I haven't really spent the time analyzing it. In any case, I'll present my understanding of his argument.

We are tempted to sin when the sinful option is presented to us, and we get the idea that some benefit could come from it. Just consider Eve's temptation to eat the forbidden fruit. However, it is wrong to think that we could benefit from sinning; we just don't know it because we don't know everything. So it is possible to fool people, even people with perfect characters such as pre-fall Adam and Eve, into thinking that falling into temptation could be beneficial.

This is where omniscience keeps God from being tempted. If a temptation is presented to Him, He can see the end from the beginning, and knows how it would all turn out. He would see all the nasty consequences of sin. That omniscience, combined with His wisdom and unselfishness, keeps Him from wanting to have any part of sin.

Jesus, while incarnate, was not omniscient. He could not see the end from the beginning. He couldn't even see what He was going to do for the rest of the day, but relied on God telling Him what to do. IOW, Jesus used God's omniscience to keep Him from sinning. But on His own, He was not omniscient and could be fooled into thinking that some benefit could be gained from sinning.

If we imitate Christ's example, we also can be kept falling into temptation. We can also take advantage of God's omniscience, and let Him "lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil." That's why it is important to walk by faith and not by sight, because without omniscience sight is not reliable.

Harder than for Christ?

I don't think the omniscience speaks well of God. That is, if the reason that God doesn't do bad things is simply because He is omniscient, that's not a very good reason IMO.



Certainly this is true, but what I hear from the other threads (I guess we're getting a bit off topic here) is that what's needed is not only to not fall into temptation, but not be able to be tempted; that is, the temptation itself is sin. So we need to lose our tendencies to sin (which is to some extent true) so that we can't be tempted. I say to some extent, because cultivated tendencies do need to be removed from our character, but the idea has been expressed that Christ had no tendencies to sin, even ones that would come genetically, so we need to not have any either -- even the genetic ones must be removed.

???
Let me repeat what Arnold has already said in his last post. If the absence of sinful tendencies in the person prevented that person from being tempted, how is it that the angels in heaven, as well as Adam and Eve, were tempted?
By the way, what I said was that the sinful desire is sin, as the tenth commandment points out, and that, as I see it, internal temptations are accompanied by sinful desires.

No, I don't see John 2:19 as contradictory, but complementary to the other scriptures. God called His Son from the grave, but He came from the grave by the life that was in Himself. Surely no mere man can say, like Jesus (John 10:18) that he has power to take his own life again. Neither can any mere man say "I am the resurrection and the life."

About this, Ellen White says,

When the voice of the mighty angel was heard at Christ's tomb, saying, Thy Father calls Thee, the Saviour came forth from the grave by the life that was in Himself. Now was proved the truth of His words, "I lay down My life, that I might take it again. . . . I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again." Now was fulfilled the prophecy He had spoken to the priests and rulers, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." John 10:17, 18; 2:19. {DA 785.2}

Over the rent sepulcher of Joseph, Christ had proclaimed in triumph, "I am the resurrection, and the life." These words could be spoken only by the Deity. All created beings live by the will and power of God. They are dependent recipients of the life of God. From the highest seraph to the humblest animate being, all are replenished from the Source of life. Only He who is one with God could say, I have power to lay down My life, and I have power to take it again. In His divinity, Christ possessed the power to break the bonds of death. {DA 785.3}

I don't know about that. I don't see how it is complimentary with the quote offered. Over 30 Bible text state very clearly that the Father raise Jesus up. This is different then the EGW statement that said, an angel said to Christ, the father calls you. I know that Jesus said that "He's the ressurection". This can be taken that those who ressurect will ressurect throught Him. But did Jesus ressurect from Himself? and why the other 30+ scriptures says the Father raised Him up.
Also Jesus is our example in life, death and ressurection :



So we shall be also be raised in the likeness of Christ? through our own power of the resurrection? Do you have other scripture that says that Jesus raised himself up?

OK, let's us assume that Jesus ressurected himself, that power in Christ that raised Himself up, Is it His Omnipotence? His immortality?

i dont know if this will help or not, but we have been planted in the likeness of Christs death when we were baptized, not when we literally die.

we will be raised in the likenessof His resurrection. He raised Himself because it was not possible that death should hold Him.

Elle,

Christ is our example but not everything He did we can do. He forgave sins; we can't do that. He said, "I am the way, the truth and the life;" none of us can say that. Notice the present tense. He was the way, the truth and the life while He was a man, on earth. He didn't divest Himself of His attributes (omnipotence, ominiscience, immortality, etc). He just chose not to use them in His own benefit until His work for man's salvation was finished.


He lived for us (His life substitutes ours); He died for us (His death substitutes ours); He raised Himself for us - as His power raised His own body to life, it will also raise our body in the last day.


As I said, John 10:18 also alludes to this. "No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again."

If this is so, and I am not saying it isn't, wouldn't this have given Jesus an advantage over Eve, Adam, and the rest of us?

Rom 6:5 says what it says, in the same likeness Jesus ressurected so we are going to be ressurected. And it's in harmony with the other 30+ scriptures that I quoted above that the Father raised Christ, and so will Christ raise us up.

Rosangela you're saying that Jesus posseses all His divine attributes (omni-present, omniscience, immortality...)when he was on earth. Then that pose a problem, because He did not come on this earth like one of us.

I think these divine attributes doesn't make Him more of less the son of God. Jesus is the Son of God regardless of these. I saw a text that said that Jesus stipped himself from his divity, but I can't find it right now.

With holding to what we were taught will make this study a dead end.

I don't believe that Jesus could of died while still possessing immortality.

It prevents people from being tempted from within, which original sin advocates say is sin. It is at this point that Donnell and Haskel disagreed, and where you agree with Donnell and disagree with Haskell.



Simply having a temptation is not a sin. Cherishing a desire is sin. As A. T. Jones put it:



As Ellen White put it:



No consent = no sin.

Arnold was saying Jesus *wasn't* omniscient, so He would have had an advantage of us, since we aren't omniscient either.

John 10:18 is the text that came to my mind as well. There's also the one that Rosangela mentioned earlier where Jesus said, "Destroy this temple, and after three days I will raise it up." Both of these seems to be in perfect harmony with Ellen White's comments.

some verses:






Jesus was one lone man, in appearance like any other man. how was he able to drive out all those able-bodied men in the temple?

when Jesus said, i am, why did those who came out to get him fall to the ground?

are you assuming that none of us have already studied this out? that we are just repeating what we have been "taught"?

The Father provided Jesus with foresight when it was necessary. Jesus does the same with us with dreams, visions, or even just thoughts.
Same as above. We also at times, can know what others thinks.

Jesus had authority. Jesus always remained the Son of God.

I'm not assuming anything. I meant what I said.
I pointed out a problem in thinking Jesus had immortality and mortality at the same time. I'm suggesting that new light can be grasp, however, if you have already studied it and you are happy with what you know. Then good for you, but I think you should let others study if they want to dig further.

Of course. The sinner who likes sin would have a much more difficult time rejecting than Jesus whose nature recoiled from evil. It's just like my wife, compared to me, has a much harder time avoiding avocados because she likes it, while just the thought of it entering my mouth makes me want to throw up. Don't you agree that it's much harder for her to avoid avocados?

You might have missed this part: "That omniscience, combined with His wisdom and unselfishness, keeps Him from wanting to have any part of sin."

Omniscience by itself is no guard against sin. In fact, it could tend toward sin. Back in the day, I had a good idea what goes on in dance clubs. That did not deter me; it attracted me. So, your logic is valid, but it is missing a crucial premise: God is wise and unselfish.

Thanks. That hits the spot.


Ah, the often-overlooked 10th commandment. It commands against the corrupt desire. This is the one that pointed out to Paul that he was a sinner, in spite of his outward compliance to the law. The need for inward holiness is still getting shortchanged to this day.

It gives Him an advantage over everyone who does not listen to God as well as He did. If we would but listen to God instead of our own selfish lusts, we would all be much better off.

Do "true believers" "consent" to having "corrupt channels of humanity"?

what scriptures do you see as proving the conclusions you come to regarding these texts? i cant see anything to gain in trying to explain them away. actually it scares me to try and reason them away. but then i hear some who are in serious error on a regular basis. it tends to keep me in prayer......


you know when "virtue" goes out of yourself? what virtue might that be?

Ok, I gathered all the main text that I know of that shed light on the incarnation of Christ. If there are some more, I would really appreciate if you post them here. I would like gather them together.

1. Luk 1:35 The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God."
(Holy child means having the presence of God. John the baptist was also filled with the Holy Spirit from the womb. So now, I lean that it is the same for Christ, because scriptures says at many places that Jesus was filled with the Spirit of His Father.)

2. 1Cor 15:45 So also it is written, “The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit." Through Christ we have life. So this text could be referring to what Jesus said about Himself being the life and the ressurection.

3. Rom 8:3 "For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh" Likeness can be taken in two ways. Now I'm leanient to believe it meant that Jesus was 100% man, including his brain. Previously, I didn't think Jesus was physically/genetically the same as us.

4. Phl 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: I checked the word "no reputation" G2758, which means to empty, make empty, or to laid aside equality with or the form of God.

At the begining I only had the first 3 texts which I quoted in a few of my post. The 4th text is a new one for me. So it's shedding new light and I've abandonned what I thought a few weeks ago. This is how I view it now and would like to hear your comments.

So Phil 2:7 seems to say that Jesus put aside the form of God, or made himself empty of the form of God when incarnated. So that would harmonize with the fact that He didn't have immortality when he was on earth, and could die the death of any man.

Also, having not the omniscience then, he could be tempted just like any man.

Also when Jesus said "I can of mine own self do nothing" Jn 5, He probably meant what He said. He didn't have any Omnipotence and all the other attributes.

Having not the divine attributes, does not mean it made him less "the son of God". He was 100% the son of God, but was stripped of his form of God including all the powers that comes with it, so he can be a servant in the likeness of a Man.

But being the Son of God, His authority always remain, because He is what He is regardless of His stipping of power on earth. He came on earth to show the Father and to die.

The SOP tells us that an angel made the men fall.

I had always thought it was Christ revealing a portion of His divinity within that caused them to fall, however, I also remember it being an angel coming between Christ and those men, but then the timing of the angel doing this is interesting.

Of course Jesus didn't come in the form of God, otherwise all those whom He met would have been annihilated. Now, saying He didn't possess the attributes of God is entirely another thing. If He had divested Himself of the attributes of God He would have ceased to be God - this is obvious. What makes God, God is His attributes. I noticed you didn't explain the texts I cited. Could someone who was not God forgive sins? Of course not - even the Jews accused Jesus of blasphemy because of that. Could someone who doesn't have life in himself say, "I am the life"? Christ's greatest temptation was to use His attributes for His own benefit. How do you explain the first temptation if Christ didn't have the power to change stones into bread?

Paul wrote:

1 Timothy
3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Ellen White observed:

The study of the incarnation of Christ, His atoning sacrifice and mediatorial work, will employ the mind of the diligent student as long as time shall last; and looking to heaven with its unnumbered years he will exclaim, "Great is the mystery of godliness." {COL 133.4}

"God had a knowledge of the events of the future, even before the creation of the world. He did not make His purposes to fit circumstances, but He allowed matters to develop and work out. He did not work to bring about a certain condition of things, but He knew that such a condition would exist. The plan that should be carried out upon the defection of any of the high intelligences of heaven--this is the secret, the mystery which has been hid from ages. And an offering was prepared in the eternal purposes to do the very work which God has done for fallen humanity. {6BC 1082.3}

The incarnation of Christ is a mystery. The union of divinity with humanity is a mystery indeed, hidden with God, "even the mystery which hath been hid from ages." It was kept in eternal silence by Jehovah, and was first revealed in Eden, by the prophecy that the Seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's head, and that he should bruise His heel. {6BC 1082.4}

To present to the world this mystery that God kept in silence for eternal ages before the world was created, before man was created, was the part that Christ was to act in the work He entered upon when He came to this earth. And this wonderful mystery, the incarnation of Christ and the atonement that He made, must be declared to every son and daughter of Adam. {6BC 1082.5}

The incarnation of Christ is the mystery of all mysteries. {6BC 1082.6}

dealing with just this verse above for the moment. we need the preceding verses to get the point paul is trying to make. the point is humility, and paul would have us humble ourselves as well by studying how Jesus lowered Himself farther and farther.




you seemed to have gone a step further than what the definition gave.
G2758 kenoō
From G2756; to make empty, that is, (figuratively) to abase, neutralize, falsify: - make (of none effect, of no reputation, void), be in vain.

Jesus abased Himself for our sakes.

i stand corrected, almost. ill have to check but i believe my memory is still valid for driving out the temple crowd, tho.

Locking the topic until one of us gets around to fixing it up.

OK.

It seems this topic got locked and forgotten, therefore, I thank Elle for bringing this to my attention.

I have skimmed through the thread and noticed the topic within a topic, however, seeing a lot of time has gone by since the thread was closed, I am going to open the thread as is and then see if we can figure out what needs to be moved into another topic and under what new topic name.

I am hoping asygo and Elle will work with me via group PM in getting this separated into two topics.

Please limit your discussion to the title/topic of this thread.

Several Bible texts have already been presented in this thread which demonstrate Jesus as "the resurrection and the life," and it is my belief that Jesus did indeed fulfill His word to the Jews that said "destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up." As to those texts which say God raised Jesus up, we must not forget that Jesus is God. Those texts are true. And it might even go a step further, for Jesus Himself has said that the things He did were in obedience to the Father. Perhaps the Father told Jesus when to rise.

Divinity is immortal. Jesus' divinity never died. Only His humanity died.

The following quote from Mrs. White clarifies the state of Christ's divine nature while on earth:

In other words, this theme will be an endless, inexhaustible one which we will continue to study through eternity. As such, I hope we can be patient in realizing that we may not understand it all right now. Here is another statement from Mrs. White about Christ's divinity:

It is amazing that Christ would be willing to do this for us. That He would leave His position of King of the Universe, to be our lowly Servant! and with all of His more noble, sinless subjects looking on! Amazing love. He did it only for the love He had toward us.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Oh, the enduring wonder of the Incarnation: we cannot fathom that act of the Father as his Word became flesh, let alone how it happened!

As for God raising Jesus up from the dead: yes, course Jesus is divine, but he lived and died as a human, and was raised as a glorified human, wasn't he, so the Father raised him up from the dead. His divinity was hidden in his humanity: the Son of God personally died, but his divinity could not, yet personally he died as a man.

Yes, deity has the power to raise he dead to life, but Jesus was a dead man as God, so his Father had to call him back to life.

Jesus obedience to his Father dates back to "the days of eternity", and this would be no different. Also being begotten at his resurrection wasn't the only time Scripture allows for or alludes to that happening, so the Father "raising him up again" can be seen in that light, too, not so.

The following three quotes are all from the Desire of Ages. Mrs. White affirms that while the Father sent a message to Jesus via an angel, calling to Jesus, it was Jesus who raised Himself (divinity raising humanity, for divinity did not die).

• Still seeking to give a true direction to her faith, Jesus declared, "I am the resurrection, and the life." In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived. "He that hath the Son hath life." 1 John 5:12. The divinity of Christ is the believer's assurance of eternal life. "He that believeth in Me," said Jesus, "though he were dead, yet shall he live: and whosoever liveth and believeth in Me shall never die. Believest thou this?" Christ here looks forward to the time of His second coming. Then the righteous dead shall be raised incorruptible, and the living righteous shall be translated to heaven without seeing death. The miracle which Christ was about to perform, in raising Lazarus from the dead, would represent the resurrection of all the righteous dead. By His word and His works He declared Himself the Author of the resurrection. He who Himself was soon to die upon the cross stood with the keys of death, a conqueror of the grave, and asserted His right and power to give eternal life. {DA 530.3}
• When the voice of the mighty angel was heard at Christ's tomb, saying, Thy Father calls Thee, the Saviour came forth from the grave by the life that was in Himself. Now was proved the truth of His words, "I lay down My life, that I might take it again. . . . I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again." Now was fulfilled the prophecy He had spoken to the priests and rulers, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." John 10:17, 18; 2:19. {DA 785.2}
• To the believer, Christ is the resurrection and the life. In our Saviour the life that was lost through sin is restored; for He has life in Himself to quicken whom He will. He is invested with the right to give immortality. The life that He laid down in humanity, He takes up again, and gives to humanity. "I am come," He said, "that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly." "Whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life." "Whoso eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." John 10:10; 4:14; 6:54. {DA 786.4}

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Hi Green,

Well there's over 30 Bible texts that affirms that the Father raised Jesus. I highlited the ones that says that the Father raised Jesus AGAIN. :

Elle,

Do you not view Jesus as God?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Actually, I was thinking about this today, wondering what "raising Jesus up again" meant. So Jesus was in obedience to HIs Father back to days of eternity. Where in the Bible does it say that Colin ?

Is it this passage?
The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. (Proverbs 8:22, KJV)

Green, these text clearly refers to the Father as raising his son.

How do you know this?

I went to the Bible concordance for the Greek word definitions for "God" in each of the above texts you have quoted.

Every single time the word "God" appeared in your list of texts it was using the same Greek word. The word is "theos" and is defined in my concordance as:

theos...God, usually refers to the one true God; in a very few contexts it refers to a (pagan) god or goddess. The "Son of God" as a title of Jesus emphasizes his unique relationship to the Father. "The god of this age" refers to the devil:- God/god [1309], God's [15], gods [8], godly [6], Godward [2], exceeding fair (+791+3588)[1], godly (+2596)[1]

Spiros Zhodiates, a well-recognized modern scholar on the Greek language, says this about the word theos in his book "The Complete Word Study New Testament":


(I'm lazy to type the whole thing, so I have skipped some of the material.)

The conclusion is, the word God as used in each of those texts in your list, Elle, is applicable to all three of the Godhead. It might be appropriate here to remember that it was Jesus who spoke with Moses at the burning bush and with the children of Israel at Sinai. Jesus called Himself the "I AM." God is always God. Divinity cannot die. Jesus' human body may have died, but His divine Person never did. Remember what it said in Genesis 3:15? If Jesus' divinity had also died, and/or He had somehow lost His divinity, should that prophecy not have said that the Serpent would also bruise Jesus' head, rather than merely His heel?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

making Jesus just a man is not really "new light". the concept has been debated for about 2000 years, i believe.

Rom 4:25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

This doesn't mean two raises --
It's like saying,
he left and came back again.
he put the pie in the fridge and took it out again.

Jesus died and was raised again.


As to WHO raised Jesus -- that is the question.

The Bible says:

Act 2:24 Whom God hath raised up
Act 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus
Romans 6:4 Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father
Gal. 1:1 God the Father, who raised him from the dead

John 10:17 (Jesus said)"I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
10:18 No man takes it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.


It's true what Elle is saying -- there are far more texts indicating that God the Father raised Jesus from the dead.

While the OT usually makes no distinction between Christ (who is the God who spoke and communicated with man in the OT) and the Father, yet the NT does. So we can't just say that verses saying "God raised Jesus" means Jesus raised Himself. Besides there are plenty of verses that specifically mention God the Father raised Jesus.

However, the Bible also has a couple verses suggesting that Christ raised Himself.

How do we reconcil the two?


Could texts like the following help:

John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father do: for what things soever he does, these also does the Son likewise.

Remember, when Jesus took the body of humanity, part of the plan was that He would NOT use His divine power to make things easier for Himself, He would be fully man, submitting totally to the Father, as any faithful human must submit fully to God.

So could we say that even though Christ had the POWER, he didn't use it, but relied totally on the Father, as every human must?

This text isn't dealing with the subject of Christ's divinity and humanity.
It's talking about Jews and Gentiles.

Christ's death broke down the segregating wall between Jews and Gentiles and made them all ONE at the foot of the cross.

See context --
[quote]Eph. 2:11 Wherefore remember, that you being in time past Gentiles....2:12 strangers from the covenants of promise
2:13 But now in Christ Jesus you who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
2:14 For he is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of partition...
2:19 therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

I think you are not taking into account the fact that when Jesus died, it was "mission accomplished." He no longer needed to be submissive to God as our example as before, for the test on His behalf had completed, and He had passed.

Jesus had said He would lay down His life, and take it up again. Mrs. White tells us that is exactly what He did do.

Why do we doubt this?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

jones understood it differently and im going on that understanding which makes more sense. ill see if i can find his reasoning which would be better than my explanation.

yes, i agree. once Christ had died "it is(was) finished". that He can raise Himself is proof that He can raise us. but i guess its something one has to see for themself.

Why do you doubt the many verses that say God the FATHER raised Jesus?

The Bible says:

Act 2:24 Whom God hath raised up
Act 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus
Romans 6:4 Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the FatherGal. 1:1 God the Father, who raised him from the dead

1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

Ephesians 1:17,20 the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:...And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places."


Are you sure His death was "mission accomplished" before the resurrection?

Doesn't Paul say if Christ were not raised our faith is in vain?

And even after His resurrection He told Mary "don't touch me I must first ascend to my Father". We are given further insight that He ascended to the Father to verify that His sacrifice was sufficient. "Jesus quickly ascended to His Father to hear from His lips that He accepted the sacrifice, and to receive all power in heaven and upon earth. {EW 187.1}


Why not look for reconciliation instead of pitting 30 verses against 2?





So what do you do with all those texts that say God the Father raised Jesus?
Do you doubt them?[/quote]

from the 1895 sermons:
Turn to the second chapter of Ephesians beginning with the first verse and let us read the good news that the enmity against God is destroyed so that all may be free. Beginning with the first verse:

And you hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins; wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience.

We walked according to that spirit. What spirit is it that rules in the children of disobedience? The spirit that controls the world, the mind that originated the evil in the garden and that is enmity against God. Who is the prince of the power of the air? The spirit that worketh in the children of disobedience, the god of this world--who has nothing in Jesus Christ, thank the Lord.

Among whom also we all had our conversation [our way of life] in times past, in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind.

The mind of this world, being of this world, naturally falls into the ways of this world. "And were by nature the children of wrath, even as others." We were.

Before reading further in Ephesians, turn to Colossians 1:21. You "were sometimes alienated and enemies in your mind." Then where did the enmity lie that made us enemies? In the mind, the fleshly mind. The mind of the flesh is enmity and it controlling us makes us at enmity and enemies--"by wicked works."

Now Ephesians 2:11: "Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles is the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision"--by the Lord?--No, but "by that which is called the circumcision in the flesh made by hands." Then here are some men in the flesh calling other men in the flesh certain names, making certain distinctions between themselves.

That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

Another passage in connection with that is in the fourth chapter, 17th and 18th verses, which we will read before reading further here:

This I say therefore and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, [that is, in the idolatry of their mind], having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart.

Those who are in the flesh, far off from God, are walking in the vanity of their mind, are alienated from God and
are separated from the life of God. Enemies in the mind; that is what we were. Reading again in Eph. 2:13: "But now"-- When? I mean that. I mean we who are now here studying the scriptures, we are to yield ourselves to the word of God exactly as it is, that it may carry us where He may want us. Therefore I ask, When? Now, right where we are.

"But now, in Jesus Christ, ye who sometime were far off." Far off from whom? Far off from God? or far off from the Jews? The previous verse says far off from God, "without God," alienated from the life of God. "Ye who sometime were far off [from God] are made nigh" to whom? To God? or to the Jews?--Nigh to God of course.
"Ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh to God by the blood of Christ. For He who is our peace, who hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us--that was between us--having abolished in his flesh the enmity." Thank the Lord. He hath "abolished the enmity" and we can be separated from the world.

"Hath broken down the middle wall of partition between"--whom? Between men and God, surely. How did He do it? How did He break down the middle wall of partition between us and God? By "abolishing the enmity." Good.
True, that enmity had worked a division and a separation between men on the earth, between circumcision and uncircumcision, between circumcision according to the flesh and uncircumcision according to the flesh. It had manifested itself in their divisions, in building up another wall between Jews and Gentiles--that is true, but if the Jews had been joined to God and had not been separated from Him, would they have ever built up a wall between them and anybody else? No, certainly not, but in their separation from God, in their fleshly minds, in the enmity that was in their minds and the blindness through unbelief which put the veil upon their heart--all this separated them from God. And then because of the laws and ceremonies which God had given them, they gave themselves credit for being the Lord's and for being so much better than other people, that they built up a great separating wall and partition between themselves and other people. But where lay the root of the whole thing, as between them and other people even? It lay in the enmity that was in them that separated them first from God. And being separated from Him, the certain consequence was that they would be separated from others.

"For He is our peace, who hath made both one." Made both who one?--God and men, certainly. "And hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us, having abolished in his flesh the enmity...for to make in himself of twain [of two] one new man, so making peace."

Let us look that over again. "having abolished in His flesh the enmity." Now omitting the next clause (We are not studying that in this lesson.), what did He abolish that enmity for? What did He break down that middle wall of partition for? Why? "for to make in Himself of twain one new man, so making peace." Does Christ make a new man out of a Jew and a Gentile? No. Out of a heathen and somebody else? No. Out of one heathen and another heathen? No.

God makes one new man out of God and a man. And in Christ, God and man met so that they can be one.

All men were separated from God and in their separation from God they were separated from one another. True, Christ wants to bring all to one another; He was ushered into the world with "Peace on earth; good will to men." That is His object. But does He spend His time in trying to get these reconciled to one another and in trying to destroy all these separations between men and to get them to say, "Oh, well, let all bygones be bygones; now we will bury the hatchet; now we will start out and turn over a new leaf and we will live better from this time on"? Christ might have done that. If He had taken that course there are thousands of people whom He could have persuaded to do that; thousands whom He could persuade to say, "Well, it is too bad that we acted that way toward one another; it is not right, and I am sorry for it. And now let us just all leave that behind and turn over a new leaf and go on and do better." He could have got people to agree to that. But could they have stuck to it? No. For the wicked thing is there still that made the division. What caused the division? The enmity, their separation from God caused the separation from one another. Then what in the world would have been the use of the Lord Himself trying to get men to agree to put away their differences without going to the root of the matter and getting rid of the enmity that caused the separation? Their separation from God had forced a separation among themselves. And the only way to destroy their separation from one another was of necessity to destroy their separation from God. And this He did by abolishing the enmity. And we ministers can get a lesson from this, when churches call us to try to settle difficulties. We have nothing at all to do with settling difficulties between men as such. We are to get the difficulty between God and man settled and when that is done, all other separations will be ended.
It is true, the Jews in their separation from God had built up extra separations between themselves and the Gentiles. It is true that Christ wanted to put all those separations out of the way and He did do that. But the only way that He did it and the only way that He could do it was to destroy the thing that separated between them and God. All the separations between them and the Gentiles would be gone, when the separation, the enmity, between them and God was gone.

Oh, the blessed news that the enmity is abolished! It is abolished; thank the Lord. There is therefore now no need whatever of our having any friendship with the world. No need of our having any lack of obedience to the law of God. No need of any failure to be subject to God, for Jesus Christ has taken the enmity out of the way. He has abolished it, destroyed it. He has destroyed the wicked thing in which lies friendship with the world, in which lies lack of subject to God and failure to be subject to His law. It is gone; in Christ it is gone. Not outside of Christ. In Christ it is gone, abolished, annihilated. Thank the Lord. This is freedom indeed.

That has always been good news, of course. But to me now, in view of the situation which God has shown us as we are now placed in the world, this blessed news has come to me in the last few days as though I had never heard it before. It has come to me bringing such joy, such genuine Christian delight, that--well, it seems to me I am just as happy as a Christian.

Oh, the blessed fact that God says that thing which separates us from God, which joins us to the world and which does all the mischief, is abolished in Him, who is our Peace. Let us take the glad news tonight, rejoice in it all the night and all the day, that God may lead us on further and further into the green pastures and by the still waters of His glorious kingdom into which He has translated us. "Fear not, for behold I bring you good tidings of great joy which shall be to all people. For unto you [unto me I know] is born this day in the city of David, a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord." Thank the Lord.

by A.T. Jones

Dedication,

I do not doubt that God the Father raised up Jesus any more than I might "doubt" that God the Father is the "Father" of this world--whereas we know that Jesus, who is the Word, created this world. In other words, their roles may have the same purpose. They are ONE GOD. Jesus said, "If ye have seen me, ye have seen the Father." Who loves us more? Jesus, or the Father? "The Father himself loveth you." By the same token, who is more responsible for Christ's resurrection? Perhaps they BOTH are responsible.

I do not deny the Father's role. As Mrs. White said, and I believe it to be true, the Father is the One who sent an angel to tell Jesus that it was time to come forth. Jesus then, in response to this, raised Himself. The angel rolled away the stone, but the angel did not raise Jesus up. Jesus came out on His own.

It is entirely possible given the mystery of the Godhead, that the Bible gives us but a cloudy, darkened reflection of the truth. One day, we will know Him face to face instead.

I doubt that I'm expressing my thoughts as clearly as I wish here. I may yet find a better way to illustrate them. Nevertheless, I fully accept Mrs. White's light on the subject, and to me her words are clear.


Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

i think we might be able to claim this one:Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

this one doesnt say the Father raised Christ, nor that the Father raised Him by His-the Fathers-glory. glory = character. Jesus raised Himself because He had the character of the Father. He had retained the character of the Father from babyhood through death.

ylt: Rom 6:4 we were buried together, then, with him through the baptism to the death, that even as Christ was raised up out of the dead through the glory of the Father, so also we in newness of life might walk.

we can claim this one also:
1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

ylt: 1Pe 1:3 Blessed is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, according to the abundance of His kindness did beget us again to a living hope, through the rising again of Jesus Christ out of the dead,

this one was already ours:
Act 2:24 whom God did raise up, having loosed the pains of the death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it,
death could not hold Christ, not just because He was God, but because He had not sinned. death can and will hold us, unless Christ calls us from our graves.

if death could have held Christ for any reason, then we are in a world of hurt.

Jones didn't say anything different from what I said.

It's talking about the Gentiles and the Jews --
Both were alienated from God.
But the Gentiles didn't have the covenant promises
The Jews did but still were alienated from God and had built a huge wall separating themselves from the Gentiles.

But all were declared guilty ' that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God."

Yes, indeed Christ reconciled them to Himself and included all in the covenant of salvation!
We are NOT to classify people as Jew or Gentile, all have the same priviledges in Christ.

It's still not talking about Christ's divine and human nature being reconciled.

Good thoughts!

Green Cochoa.

I have no doubt whatsoever that death could not hold Jesus.
But had He sinned, death COULD have claimed Him.

I have no doubts whatsoever that He is the resurrection and life.
Coming out of the tomb, was a sure sign He had conquered death!

The question is --
was He really dead -- as in "thoughts perished, know not anything," -- The biblical discriptions of a person who is dead. Was He really dead?

I think this is what is troubling Elle --

This idea that only part of Him was dead, while another part was alive and conscious and capable of doing things. Like "two persons" in one body, the one dies with the body, while the other hovers above it waiting for the time of resurrection to arrive.
To raise oneself, one would have to be conscious would they not?


I think you are getting closer to an answer by saying Christ and the Father both had a part in the resurrection.
The Bible attributes the resurrection to BOTH, thus we should too.
Yes, they are "One" but that oneness is not a mathematical one, Christ is NOT the Father, and the Father is not Christ. Christ was dead in the tomb, while the Father was in heaven.

Somehow, the life within Christ, would have to be an unconsious power while He was dead, sort of like the life in a seed that has to be planted before it springs to life.

Thus when the Father called, the Father would have sparked the "life" slumbering in Christ, enabling Christ to take up Life again.


That it was a resurrection like no other is apparent.

Personally, I don't think it makes that big of a difference just how He arose.
What's important is that
Christ died for us, and He AROSE! and that ensures our resurrection.

I appreciate all what you brought. I know there's a big blessing for all who search the scriptures and to reconcile these apparent conflict to find a deeper meaning.

Yes, I do have a problem accepting the following :
1) Saying that Christ was two persons in one
2) With the notion Christ died having both immortality and mortality at the same time
3) With this explaination that Christ "human" part only died, but his "divinity" didn't die.
4) Disregarding a bunch of scriptures that says the Father raised Christ.
5) Disregarding scripture saying that in the same manner of Christ ressurection, we will be ressurected. Rm 6:5

I came across Psalm 88; isn't it talking about Jesus death? It says :
This verse clearly says that Christ couldn't come forth.

This would be in harmony with what Jesus said in John 5:30 Jesus says "I can of mine own self do nothing".

I truly believe that Jesus didn't finish all at the Cross like Green implies. His statement that it was finish, could of meant the section of him living a perfect life and taking on all our sins could be finish. That was the biggest thing as now he could rest as his mission has been accomplish.


The greek word for "I might take" is the same as "have I received"; see G2983 . So Christ laid down his life so he may receive it again. The Greek word "power" can mean power, but also can mean "authority" or "permission". Christ had permission to lay down His life so that He could receive it again from His Father.

To me, Christ could not raise himself up or else He would not have been dead to begin with. To make this claim would contradict John 5:30 where Jesus says "I can of mine own self do nothing". Also, it would imply that we need to have the "power" to raise ourself up, as in the same like manner, we will ressurect as Christ did.
Christ and Paul compares the death and ressurection with the seed. The seed is dead when planted, and cannot bring itself forth. God needs to awake the genes and put them into action.

We also have in Isa 53 the following
It says that Jesus "SOUL" was an offering for sin.

Soul is the Body/mind/spirit plus the breath of God. It was Jesus "SOUL" that was made an offering for sin. It was God that was required to die here, not a man.

Christ came and clothed his divinity with humanity, so to make it possible for God to die here as it was required to take the place of "every man". Heb 2:9 would mean nothing if Christ didn't die completely. If only the human half of Jesus died, there would be no necessity for Jesus to be "made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death".

Also Acts 2:31 says that the "SOUL" of Christ was in the grave : The soul of Christ rested with His body in the tomb.

Also, scripture tells us that Jesus gaved up his "Ghost" of the breath of God at his death. So the Holy Spirit returned back to God the Father just like any man. Christ was made 100% man and depended on the "breath of God" like any other man to live.

Christ was our substitute, our example,and the way. Throught Christ Victory over death, He made it possible that all man receives lives throught Him and that's why Jesus said that He is the "ressurrection and the Life" of all man.

Those words I quoted are from Micah 5:2 (margin): they refer to God's Son's first reported cosmic activities, aside from that Prov 8 text, which goes to the same point, as well. Jesus was obedient to his Father before his Incarnation, too.

Yes, maybe I could help. Your study is good, Elle! Dedication is helpful, too: dead means dead!

Christ's humanity died and his divinity could not, but both his identities - his personages - died. Two persons in one, and both died. Sister White emphasises that the Creator suffered on the cross. The Father called the Son of man back to life, and divine identity and nature went with the human: his whole life was like that and so is his resurrection life, continuing today: Amen!

I like that bit you did on Jn 10:17&18, and the rest of your study: our literature today doesn't seem to go into this issue!

What do you think of Jesus' person as God's Son dying but his divinity not dying? Somewhat like Dedication has suggested? Also, with Jesus deity not being perishable, it was given, by his death, to the human race as the life of our salvation. This gift from him of his own, "original, unborrowed, underived [life]" to us is the point Sister White was making in the Signs of the Times article of 1897 from which that famous list of 7 words found in DA. While Jesus defeated death as a man, our "everlasting life" of Jn 3:16 is thanks to Jesus' divine life - infinite and sharable with all, as he received it in the deity he and his Father possess (Jn 5:26): he received the body of the Son, being already the Word of God.

Yes, the resurrecion of the saints shall be the same as the Saviour's: humans called from the tombs!

Christ is "God manifested".

What does that mean?
It is God revealed!

"Unto the King eternal, incorruptible, invisible," "who only hath immortality, dwelling in light unapproachable; whom no man hath seen, nor can see," - 1 Timothy 1:16; 6:16

God, in the fullness of His Godhead dwells in light unapproachable -- glorious. Even the angels veil their faces in His presence. (See PP 252)

How is God going to relate with His Creatures?
It is Christ Who veils His blinding brightness and "goes forth" and mingles with the created!



In heaven, before sin, Christ went forth and mingled with the angels, sharing with them the will of God. (The will of God was as much His will, as the Father's will, for in this they were ONE -- One in purpose, motive, plans, ONE GOD, yet two separate individuals) Now, the angels became so accustomed to Christ mingling with them that Lucifer seemed to think they were equals and he, Lucifer, should have the same rights as Christ!

So the Godhead had to set them straight. The angels were shown that
"The Son of God shared the Father's throne, and the glory of the eternal, self-existent One encircled both." {PP 36.2}

Thus the ONE Who whose "goings forth" were from eternity, went forth again from the Father into this dark world, veiling His glory still further to communicate, reveal and fulfil God's will to mankind.

John 8:42 "I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me."Christ is showing that this was a joint plan. Both Christ and the Father planned this!

John 16:28 I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.

Thus showing their unity in this plan, and Christ's true place with God the Father.

As a man Christ was totally obedient to the Father. He took on "the yoke of obedience".

As God, Christ's will was the same as the Father's will! It was not a matter of One obeying the Other.
"The angels all wear the yoke of obedience. They are the appointed messengers of Him who is the Commander of all heaven. But Christ is equal with God, infinite and omnipotent. He could pay the ransom for man's freedom. He is the eternal self-existing Son, on whom no yoke had come;" (YI June 21, 1900). {5BC 1136.12}

Christ's divinity could not die, but His divine personage died? So what didn't die? What's the divinity part that doesn't include His divine personage?

It's correct to say that Christ is "two persons in one"? One human and one divine?

Turn to the second chapter of Ephesians beginning with the first verse and let us read the good news that the enmity against God is destroyed so that all may be free. Beginning with the first verse:

And you hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins; wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience....

Before reading further in Ephesians, turn to Colossians 1:21. You "were sometimes alienated and enemies in your mind." Then where did the enmity lie that made us enemies? In the mind, the fleshly mind. The mind of the flesh is enmity and it controlling us makes us at enmity and enemies--"by wicked works."...

"But now, in Jesus Christ, ye who sometime were far off." Far off from whom? Far off from God? or far off from the Jews? The previous verse says far off from God, "without God," alienated from the life of God. "Ye who sometime were far off [from God] are made nigh" to whom? To God? or to the Jews?--Nigh to God of course....

"Hath broken down the middle wall of partition between"--whom? Between men and God, surely. How did He do it? How did He break down the middle wall of partition between us and God? By "abolishing the enmity." Good....

But where lay the root of the whole thing, as between them and other people even? It lay in the enmity that was in them that separated them first from God. And being separated from Him, the certain consequence was that they would be separated from others.

"For He is our peace, who hath made both one." Made both who one?--God and men, certainly. "And hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us, having abolished in his flesh the enmity...for to make in himself of twain [of two] one new man, so making peace."

Let us look that over again. "having abolished in His flesh the enmity." Now omitting the next clause (We are not studying that in this lesson.), what did He abolish that enmity for? What did He break down that middle wall of partition for? Why? "for to make in Himself of twain one new man, so making peace." Does Christ make a new man out of a Jew and a Gentile? No. Out of a heathen and somebody else? No. Out of one heathen and another heathen? No.

God makes one new man out of God and a man. And in Christ, God and man met so that they can be one.

Not according to my understanding. But it's the way I see some people understanding it.

My take:

While it is plain that Divinity cannot die, how to understand this?

It's not really hard if we put aside the thought that "divinity" is a person and "humanity" is a person both residing in one body.

It's because Christ could not die while in His Divine form, that He took the form or body of a human, so He could die for us.

It was Christ, the Son of God that died. Christ was as dead as anyone can be dead. He wasn't just 1/2 dead. He was DEAD!
Just because He was in His human state as He died, does not mean it wasn't the WHOLE Person -- the Son of God, Creator, Sustainer of the Universe, that died.

Christ truly shed His own real blood and died a REAL death (as in His thoughts perished, His emotions perished, etc. as all who die)

By saying His divinity didn't die, it's speaking of an attribute that belonged to Him, but which He set aside so He could die. It's not another "person" or "spirit" that stayed alive in some way, while the human part was dead.

My Bible Study on the subject:

Let's start with John's magnificent depiction of Who Christ is!

1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

And what did Christ do in order to save us?

1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

He (THE WORD, that was with God and was God, was made flesh) It's still the same GREAT PERSON, but He was made flesh.
Why?

Philippians 2:5-9 Have this mind in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Jesus, Who was fully God, with God the Father,
gave up much -- to save us.
He became human so He could die for us.
It was the SAME Divine Person, the Word that was with God and was God, that died for us.
Christ entered the world, His divinity clothed in humanity.
The incarnation is a mystery! How God could become a fetus in a human womb is even a greater mystery than the death of God upon the cross.


Some belittle the fact that Christ took on humanity in order to die as if that somehow lessens His sacrifice.
It doesn't -- it shows to what depths He descended in order to reach us!

And Christ didn't give up His humanity at His resurrection either. It's amazing -- simply amazing what Christ did in order that we might be His brothers and sisters, sons and daughters of God!

So the rendering of this verse would be what?
I have authority to receive my life again?
I have authority to take my life again?
I have permission to receive my life again?
I have permission to take my life again?
The first and the third options, of course, do not make sense: authority or permission given by the Father to receive the life that the Father will give? The second and the fourth are possible, but then there is no way to escape the strength of the verb “to take.”


We will be raised in the same manner as Christ was. Agreed. But the point is, who will raise us? The Father or Christ?

So Jones did say it, but is it really the context of the passage?
Or did he skip around to come to his own conclusions and give a nice spiritual message quite apart from what the text was actually saying?


Let's just stick to the text itself:

2:11 Wherefore remember, that you (the Ephesians) being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, (what was the problem? they were Gentiles) who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; (who was excluding them? The Circumcision in the flesh which refers to the Jewish nation who saw this ritual as their key to acceptance with God)
2:12 That at that time you (Who is he addressing again? He was addressing the Ephesian Gentiles) were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, (what were they aliens from? The commonwealth of Israel) and strangers from the covenants of promise, (who held the covenants of promise? The descendants of Abraham did) having no hope, and without God in the world: (without those covenants of promise what hope did they have?)
2:13 But now in Christ Jesus you who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. (Who was Paul addressing when he started this message? The Ephesian Gentiles)
2:14 For he is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of partition between us; (now is it correct to change the subject? The whole prelude was concerning the Gentiles and the commonwealth of Israel and how the "circumsion" refused to accept the "uncircumsion" into the covenant of promise. There was a huge wall that fenced in the Jews and kept the Gentles out -- Paul fights to pull down this wall all through his writings)
2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; (what was abolished? there was a whole ream of laws and regulations that kept the Jews away from the Gentiles. It was like a fence protecting the Jews from invasion from paganism, but Christ broke down that wall not to expose Jews to paganism but to share His gift of life with all.) for to make in himself of the two one new man, [so] making peace;
2:16 And that he might reconcile both unto God (if this is talking about Christ's Divinity and humanity, why would Christ have to reconcile both to God?) in one body the church is the body, Christ is the head of the bodyby the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
2:17 And came and preached peace to you (Gentiles) which were afar off, and to them that were nigh (Jews) (He didn't come to preach to Christ's divine and human nature but to both Jews and Gentiles). 2:18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. (Through Christ both Jews and Gentiles have access to God's throne of grace! "BOTH" is not speaking of Christ's human and divine natures, but of the Jews and the Gentiles.)
3:4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
3:5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
3:6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

Let's consider the text to answer this question:



The answer to the question is given in verse 18. Christ became flesh in order to reveal God, whom no one has seen. That is, Christ became flesh to make the Father visible. (I hadn't thought of this before. Thanks for asking this question!)

instead of breaking this up and responding to each part i am going to colorcode.
yes, had Christ sinned death would have claimed Him. in what way did He conquer death? both the righteous as well as the lost will be resurrected, called by Christ Himself, so would that mean that both sets of people had conquered death? will we have conquered death? moses came out of the grave but he did not conquer death. Christ did.

this would seem to be a very valid point except that we are dealing with the concept of God here, something incomprehensible to us, so we stumble trying to be able to understand it. we cant. the Son of God and man became one, "blended", "combined". how that can be is incomprehensible.

how the Son of God, just as much deity as the Father is, could not sin, but yet as man could sin is incomprehensible, also. but we know that in order to save us somehow the two natures were combined, only someone Who was above the law and owed nothing to it could die for us. yet man had to live the law also, from birth through eternity, something we could not do. hence the God-man, two natures united, something only God could accomplish, which is beyond our comprehension, to state it mildly.

we know that Jesus was really dead but how His divinity did not die we cannot understand.

"one hovering above it", i guess would be a picture someone could come up with, but im not sure how.


im not sure how this plays into anything unless were dealing with trinitarianism somewhere here and i missed it.
the bible makes clear that their "Oneness" is in their love for each other and us, in their character.

that is a possiblity. this comes to mind, tho, Deu 29:29 The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

as well as,
2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

but this we can understand:
2Co 3:18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

The verb "to take" in v. 18 is the same greek number 2983 as v. 17. So I don't understand what you mean.

Let me paraphrase John 10:17,18 this way:
17. "therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I [receive it again]G2983.
18. No man taketh it from me, because I lay down of myself. I have power(authority to lay it down, or have permission to lay down my life if I choose), so to choose to(instead of I have power) [receive it] G2983 again (instead of "might take it" again).

To make it simple, we all have a choice to lay down our life -- to let self die --just as Christ had the choice to lay down self daily and His life at the cross. We know if we die daily(self), Christ will live in us, just as His Father lived in Him. We do this daily and some of us maybe will be required to lay our life down facing persecution or just by serving Him in a ministering life. Just like Christ layed down His life for us all and knowing he would receive it back again. Christ made this principle very plain to all of us

Christ of course. Christ is subject to the Father and the Father raised Him. We are subject to Christ and Christ will raise us. There's order in the universe.

Yes, He became flesh to reveal God, He is God MANIFEST.
That has been His mission from the time the Godhead created intellegent beings. To mingle with the Created and show them God!

His name "Michael the archangel" is His name which shows Him at the head of the angelic hosts.

His name "Jesus the Christ or anointed One" is His name which shows Him at the head of the human race.

The truth that the Word, which is with God, and is God, "goes forth" to "manifest God" to His Created intelligent Beings, does not reduce what He is -- but rather shows us His work and how He adapts Himself to the Created beings in order to manifest God to them.

But he also became flesh so He could die. Because divinity cannot die, He took on flesh, mortality, so He could die.

sorry if this has caused confusion.
The above was questioning, it's a "troubling" concept, not presenting my position.
In further posts I made it clear this is not what I believe.
I do not believe there were two "persons" living in one body. That one died, the other stayed alive.
But ONE PERSON -- the Word that became flesh. The Word that held both attributes within Himself --divine and human in one person.
Nor do I believe 1/2 of Christ was alive hovering over His dead body -- which sounds rather spiritist to me. I believe He was dead. Totally 100% unconscious.

Phil. 2 says He emptied Himself, took on the form of a servant, and being found in the form of a servant humbled himself to the death of the cross.

My statement which is closer to what I believe is:
"Somehow, the life within Christ, would have to be an unconsious power while He was dead, sort of like the life in a seed that has to be planted before it springs to life.
Thus when the Father called, the Father would have sparked the "life" slumbering in Christ, enabling Christ to take up Life again."

Sorry for the confusion.

Wow, Teresa: Amen!

that absolutely floored me when i read that on the smyrna
site. that is a contradiction in terms if i ever heard it.

so, yes, 1Co 15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

but
1Ti 6:14 .... until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:...
1Ti 6:16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

and we do receive eternal life,
Rom 2:7 to those, indeed, who in continuance of a good work, do seek glory, and honour, and incorruptibility--life age-during;

but to receive "original, unborrowed, underived life" is a pure contradiction. if we receive eternal life, it is not inherent in us as it is in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. when, and because, we receive it it cannot be original-it came from God, it will be borrowed from God, it will be derived from God.

all the unfallen beings have unoriginal, borrowed, and derived, life from God.

and that didnt touch on His deity being given to the human race....

Well, I agree with your assessment.

But I'll say no more.

Thanks, Dedication, for helping me out here, as I didn't intend to cause any confusion: nor did I say what it appears you thought I said.


I agree with your studies wholeheartedly.

I wasn't saying divinity is a person, or humanity a person. I'm Colin and I'm a human being: my identity isn't my nature.

Christ's deity isn't his identity, it's just his nature: he is the Son of God, only begotten. He became flesh, for reasons of Jn 1 and Phil 2! He called himself the Son of man, and died as the Son of God in human flesh. His humanity is blended with his divinity - God alone knows how! - but his identities kept their individuality, didn't they?

His divine life he laid aside and it is our eternal life given by him to us: thus he fully died, the Son of God and man.

His identity as Michael the Archangel is another study, also for Tom, who hasn't answered my question to him about why God's Son is Michael, is head of the angels. I don't think it was just to mingle and present God to them.

Otherwise, your study on the Creator of the universe dying on the cross in human form, and being raised forever more in human form, is great.

Catching up when I shouldn't be "up" at all!

I misstate myself, there, Teresa, as I think we are all, Dedication as well, in agreement here. Jn 5:26 is quite a statement by Jesus! I should, on this point, stick to the words of Jesus, as he knows what he's talking about!! So, I take back the word "received" on this one, for we ourselves do do that!

Jesus also had glory "with the Father" in Jn 17. Dedication's quote from P&P chapter one - even that whole chapter! - helps set the scene with Prov 8:22-31. Jesus received a body from the Father, as the begotten Son - and Word since the beginning: can we agree that the Son's physical, divine form as God is from the Father? After all, Phil 2:6 (KJV) alluded to an honest analysis by the Son -joining the Father as a separate person in the full form of God, surely?

I understand Father and Son are one in nature by family relations, not just character and appearance: still, individual in personality and identity: yes, the Father isn't the Son and so on.

The Son's deity is original, begotten of the Father, with whom he shares the Godhead, of which there is a Holy Spirit, with infinite deity, having a personality, but not the same type of person as Father and Son as not having a permanent divine form or a throne. The Son's life is original to his deity, the fulness of the Godhead manifest.

Yes, I'm not sure of all that's on that smyrna website, either, but have other, better, sources of analysis of Adventist pioneer literature. Thanks for the heads up!

Are we agreed, here?

was Jesus "obedient"? or are they one-in agreement or the same- in character and purpose?

but yes, here on earth Christ was perfectly obedient to the Father as an example for us.

this is generally how i see it also.

Wow, what an abundance of great profound truth was shared here. A lot of my questions were answered. Thank you all for sharing all of these. I still have to digest some part of it as I'm not grabbing the nature vs identity fully. But give me some time to re-read all you've said Colin before I come with relevant questions.

Also, Colin, I'm quite curious to hear your study about Michael. Whenever the current other studies are over and if you have the time and the heart to share with us, I surely would like to know about it.

I'm very grateful for everything you've shared.