Do you think Jesus’ identity changed after the crucifixion, and especially after the resurrection. He came from the grave as the “first fruits” representing resurrected humanity.
I don’t know. This was one of the competing views of Jesus in the early centuries, I think. Others thought he was transformed at his baptism, which may be why Mark starts there. Some held that he was not God (there is only one God, right?) but instead a sort of demi-god, a son of God in the literal sense.
This is where the Trinity confuses things as well. God is identified as Spirit (Jn4:24), to begin with; and then you have the Hoy Spirit, and Jesus as the Son of the spirit, God. The relationship Jesus sets up, God as Father, seems to be in context of the Hebrew culture surrounding authority. His message throughout his ministry was to reach individuals, demonstrated by his interactions with various people. His ultimate message is “the coming kingdom”; and how it has already come in the hearts and minds of God’s people - to be actualized in some future. The miracles were evidence of that kingdom making inroads in the present, indicating God’s kingdom is not of this present world.
J.B.Philips sees Jesus as the aperture through which we, humans, are able to see God (the spirit God). It’s difficult to identify with something as ambiguous as a SPIRIT -so, He came as human - spiritually. I say spiritually because Jesus obviously was made of flesh. So we’re dealing with spirituality, not holy flesh different from our flesh - a man.
it truly is sad to see what the GOP is doing in the senate, after seeing what they did in the house…it does look like trump will be acquitted by this time next week…but this will only be a temporary reprieve, given what’s working it’s way through the courts…
SCOTUS will hear cases based on access to trump’s tax records in june…in fact arguments will start in march…hopefully chief justice roberts will be so disgusted by what he’s seeing in the senate, he’ll side with the liberals on the court and force trump to disclose what he’s been hiding for over 3 yrs…bombshell revelations involving russia’s hold on trump could very well be this yr’s october surprise…
of course if the dems take over the senate in november, while retaining the house, there is the real possibility of a second impeachment, assuming trump wins the presidential election, given the fact that the mcgahn case will likely be settled at some point before 2024…in this case, we could very well see the first removal of a president in the history of the country, which would be worth seeing…
whatever one thinks of trump, there’s no question his presidency has been riveting…it’s been a train wreck in the making that we just can’t keep our eyes from…
Grown men, imagine, scared, i mean TERRIFIED, quaking in their boots, over liberal fairy tales. I’m told there is some hope for such irrational fears, phobias, philias, though perhaps not here.
And off topic-way off topic, again.
Can’t you guys help yourselves-at ALL?
The @webEd admin doesn’t seem to enforce the “off topic” rules, apparently whenever they veer left.
This has nothing to do with 176 being a very small fraction of 14 or 5 billion. None of us can comprehend time periods like 14 billion or 5 billion years. But we can all understand the meaning of “soon.” When I tell my teenage daughter to be home soon after 10 pm, we both have a good idea of what that means and what it doesn’t—be home by 10:30 pm; not by 3:00 am.
Various writers of letters in the New Testament promised to visit their readers “soon” or to send an associate to them “soon”, invited their readers to visit them “soon,” or anticipated their death “soon.” Surely, they all expected these things to take place within days, weeks, or months not dozens or hundreds of years later. (See 1 Cor 4:19; Phil 2:19, 23-24; 1 Tim 3:14; 2 Tim 4:9; Heb 13:19; 2 Pet 1:14; 3 Jn 14)
As an eschatological declaration, “soon” surely means within one’s lifetime. I reject the historicist interpretation of Revelation for many reasons, but one of them is the use of “soon” in the document. The text quotes Jesus promising to come “soon” (2:16; 3:11; 22: 7, 12, 20), and the writer refers to “what must soon take place” (1:1; 22:6). I contend that the writer expected his original readers to understand what he was writing. Therefore, “soon” in Revelation must be within the average lifetime of its readers. That fact that Jesus did not return within their lifetimes is merely further evidence of the prevailing New Testament failed contention that Jesus would return within the 1st century or the early 2nd century.
Likewise, “soon” today should also mean at least within one’s lifetime. The time since 1844 is two lifetimes. That fact alone destroys the credibility of the Adventist proclamation of the “soon” coming of Jesus.
As an eschatological declaration, “soon” surely means within one’s lifetime. … “Soon” today should also mean at least within one’s lifetime. The time since 1844 is two lifetimes. That fact alone destroys the credibility of the Adventist proclamation of the “soon” coming of Jesus.
If “the days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years” (Psalm 90:10), and if “the living know that they will die; But the dead know nothing” (Ecclesiasties 9:5), doesn’t this mean, effectively, cognitively, that every person is no more than 70-80 years from Christ’s return?
I would add:
I don’t think that people who are actively engaged in executing the Gospel Commission, and who see the size of this work against the brevity of their own lifetimes, think that God is taking a long time to return.
Indeed, I think the older one gets, the more one realizes that the amount of time they have been given feels woefully inadequate. What I’m saying, here, is just another expression of the common observation that, when one is very busy, time flies, but when one is unoccupied, it crawls.
I should further add:
I’m one of those people who agree with the late Dr. Desmond Ford that the last days began at the Resurrection. I also believe that the return of Christ is soon, but that it could happen 500 to 1,000 years from now, or even more; say, 2,000, or 10,000 years, for example.
As you say, “Be home soon after 10” implies a given understanding of the adverb soon that your teenager comprehends. But it would have a different meaning should, at her graduation from high school, you think, “Soon, she’ll probably be a mother.” Or, should she have children, and as you hold your grandson, you reflect on how fast your daughter’s life went by, and you think, “Soon, this little baby will be driving, then having babies of his own.”
Or, going back to the present, if you are, say, a planetary geologist, you might tell your teenage daughter, “Soon, the Earth cooled.”
Each of these scenarios applies the term soon in an appropriate way, but against widely varied timescales—from half an hour to 4 billion years.
So, the question is, to my thinking, “What was the truest, best way Christ could temporally characterize His return?” By this, I mean not only the way that would do the most human good, but the way that is most accurate, especially when considered against the time scales involved.
I’d hold that, given all of the above, that way is soon.
@Harry_Allen I’ve sometimes considered in my occasionally wildly unleashed imaginings that a God unconstrained by time, space, matter (or human imaginings/thought/reason) that perhaps we limit God by believing he will return at a single point in eschatological time as measured by human chronology. In the “instant forever” of kairos, we who are trapped in chronos cannot comprehend that such an unconstrained God may have already come-it is we who have to “come to him”.
Perhaps it is not until Satans impeachment of God is concluded and his character and governance found innocent that all of we mortals-living, and already dead and resurrected are concurrently cognitive of that. Consider the provocative thought, if the dead in Christ are already “with him” in kairos, what have they to do with those of us still in our three-score and ten (or twenty, or as my very fundamental father even 32) chronos of solar laps?
I’m not suggesting the anathematic thought that once a person dies he becomes aware of his translation, but what of that those not “dead in christ”? They never, apparently, have that unknown blind date with kairos…I’d suggest our current understanding is perhaps less “set in stone” than the epitaph “in the rolled stone” that HE IS RISEN! We have to be cautious when we “shut the door” on what TRUTH is-and how God deals with those of us deluded into untruth (by the father of lies)
I know-I’m rambling, where’d i put the leash this time?
Nevertheless, thank you for your thoughts-
and thank God for you sharing them!
PS to add:
BTW, does time even scale to infinity?
I copy the following from some where. I can’t recall, but it seems like a good response to this article:
"God’s timing is not always easily understandable but it is always perfect to accomplish His will” (Andrews Study Bible pp. 594, 595). Moreover, one of the qualities He seeks to develop in His children is patience (see Rev. 14:12). Hence, what He is doing in us while we are waiting, is as important as what we are waiting for. Therefore, “Wait on the Lord; be of good courage, and He shall strengthen your heart; Wait, I say, wait on the Lord. "
Yes, with God there is no ‘time’ as we count it. Einstein changed our concept of time and space. Some science believe there is no past or future - everything is “now”; so, along with what you say, we have to catch up to the future as it already exists. “Christ slain from the foundation of the world”. Just a thought.
Fear did not work in Noah’s day. The antediluvians believed that a loving God would not hurt His creation until they realized that they should have had a little more fear when it came to heeding God’s waring.
I cringe whenever I hear one of my brothers or sisters speak as if they alone have an unconstrainable God in their tiny little denomination, church, book, version, school, op hands.
We do that with alarming alacrity-almost as fast as we “shut the door” in the face of some other “ism”.
I so agree with what your last statement implies.
I thought of asking how you know what the pre-flood people thought of God, but then thought better of so doing when i comprehended what my present day cohorts (or myself) feel about God.
I struggle at times too, Tim.
I’ve heard some of what Ehrman says, but not as in depth as you have. I’ll be listening to some discussions and debates with Ehrman and some Christian apologists/theologians. It will be interesting.
I found this one from 2011 with Ehrman, Wright and 2 others.
I haven’t watched it yet. Just throwing it out there.
Thanks for your response.
[quote=“cfowler, post:57, topic:19640”]
I’ve heard some of what Ehrman says, but not as in depth as you have.
Elaine Nelson directed me to Ehrman a long time ago. I’ve read two or three of his books. They are troubling, especially when you read that some of the authorship of even the Bible books, and certainly some manuscripts, were written, using names of the apostles and other pseudonyms, to give them authority.
I have to come back to the basics - the universe exists, and nothing comes from nothing; so I have no problem believing in an intelligence called God. But beyond that, Jesus’ only credibility lies in the resurrection, and how it was reported - plus other internal coordination within the Bible accounts that would be beyond deliberate manipulation.
I find a great deal of confidence from C.S. Lewis, who, after trying hard to distance himself from Christianity, finally came to the conclusion that it had to be either Hinduism or Christianity, and opted for Christianity on the internal literary proofs of the Bible. In fact, Lewis had thought that “Christianity itself was very sensible apart from its Christianity”. He couldn’t actually say that, without “revealing how nonsensical it was. Then, one of the most staunchest atheists he knew, said, after reviewing the authenticity for the historicity of the Gospels, “Rum thing, all that stuff about the ‘Dying God’. It almost looks as if it really happened once.” It was G.K. Chesterton’s Everlasting Man that took him on the last leg of his journey into Christianity. I’ve read it many times, as it deals with all those other"gods” that are the basis for the Hebrew God and the dying Christ in Ehrman and others.
In the end, faith is a choice, otherwise it’s not faith.
I get there sometimes too…the very basics. And my most basic belief is that there is a creator. The complexity of our earth and all of the life in it, couldn’t have just happened.
Chesterton has been on my list to read for a while. I guess today is the day to order it!
Thanks for your reply, Sirje…
Living without a mediator.
The Adventist Christian angle.
Well Harry, I guess that Jesus and all the other sooners should have simply stated “Sooner, or later”.
I think the way I’d respond to both you, and to @cadge22—I was hoping my previous response suggested the following—is that I don’t think the narrative of Christ’s return calls for a special understanding of time.
In Rev. 3:14, God describes Himself as “The Faithful and True Witness.” He is both.
What I’d urge, then, is that His use of the term soon, in eschatological matters, is both faithful—designed to be effective in bringing people closer to Him—and true—an accurate description of the facts.
I was petty young (16) when I joined the church through baptism, followed by the “Adventist Christian angle”; but I never succumbed to the fear. I guess it’s really true, that our early upbringing sets our attitudes for life. I grew up to the age of 16 without fear of any judgment - just a loving family.
Similar to me too, Sirje.
I joined at 24, and I never had the fear that I saw among many SDA’s regarding Jesus second coming. I couldn’t relate to it at all. In fact, I was happy if some event seemed to point to Jesus soon return (in the SDA view). But, I never saw a happy, joyful SDA when something happened. It was quite a few years before I understood why they were so fearful…