Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Very good question.  I vote no because it would negate his very
    nature...that of being the messiah.  All OT prophecy would have been
    incorrect, Jesus would have been a hoax, and He would have failed in
    his mission.
    
    I believe he did this to actually show he was the Messiah.
    
    -Jack

 re .0

	Yes, the temptations were real,  after the ordeal the angels ministered to him.
	Matthew 4:11 NWT reads "Then the Devil left him, and , look! angels came and
	began to minister to him."

	As the second Adam Jesus showed that it would have been possible for the first
	Adam, as a perfect human, to resist the Devil. The fault of Adam's downfall was
	his own and not that there was a fault in the Creator's design. As Deuteronomy
	32:4,5 NWT "The Rock, perfect is his activity, For all his ways are justice. A
	God of faithfulness, with whom there is no injustice, Righteous and upright is
	he. They have acted ruinously on their own part, They are not his children the
	defect is their own. A generation crooked and twisted!".

	Phil.

    The question isn't really was it possible for Jesus to resist the
    temptations.  The story tells us that he resisted the temptations.
    
    But was it possible for him to not resist the temptations.
    
    If he were in fact able to fail, then his success shows his character
    and obedience to God.  If he were not able to fail, then his success is 
    less important.  
    
    Did Jesus succeed because he was programmed only to succeed, or did he
    succeed based on his, faith, trust, and obedience to his heavenly
    parent?

I don't believe he could have really been tempted.

Jesus/God is all knowing. Before the temptations occurred, Jesus knew
that he would successfully resist those temptations.

Just like he knew Peter would betray him. Just like he knows which of us
will be saved before we are even born.

TTom

On a little thought, here's what I believe...

>    Did Jesus succeed because he was programmed only to succeed, or did he
>    succeed based on his, faith, trust, and obedience to his heavenly
>    parent?

Being fully human, Jesus had free will.  He could have chosen to fall to
the temptation.

Being fully God, it is inconsistent with his character and being to
sin.

I can't grasp all the interworkings of all that those two things mean.

But I know that Jesus, being tempted as I am, is able to understand me
and what I go through, and have compassion from experience.  He also
showed me ways to handle tempatation when I am confronted with it.

-Steve

>Yes, the temptations were real,  after the ordeal the angels ministered to him.
>Matthew 4:11 NWT reads "Then the Devil left him, and , look! angels came and
>began to minister to him."
    
    just out of curiousity, what Greek word is being used there for 
    "minister"?  could it be that they brought Him lunch and water?  
    That's ministering to!

      Hi Patricia,
    
        EXCELLENT topic!
    
        It seems to me that the overall tenor of the brunt of these
        replies implies that Jesus was righteouss by NATURE.
    
        That is of no good to me!
    
        I believe that Jesus was righteouss by FAITH!
    
        He took our fallen nature with all its infirmities and rendered
        a perfect obedience.  In the incarnation, Jesus empties Himself
        of all divine attributes.  We know He wasn't omnipresent.  We
        know He wasn't omniscient ("only the Father in heaven knows the 
        time, not even the Son knows").
    
        I tend to believe the choice to sin was there and the pull of
        fallen flesh was there as well as the pull of external temptation
        such as Satan's coaxings.
    
        I tend to believe that Jesus could not sin, not because He did
        not have oppurtunity and not because of His nature, BUT because 
        He was by faith an open vessel to the oupouring of divine love
        in His mind.  He was like a gold wire just submitting to the 
        current of divine love.  And with that submission to His Father's
        love, He demonstrated that "where sin abounds, grace does much more
        abound."
    
        Romans 8:1-3 tells us that we can have the same experience.  The
        key is not a transition of NATURE, it is a transition from unbelief
        to 'faith made perfect' which faith allows the indwelling of the
        same kind of grace that worked obedience in Jesus.
    
                                                    God Bless,
    
                                                    Tony
    
    
                                                    

Re: STRATA::BARBIERI 
                 -< Righteouss By Nature???  NO!  BY FAITH!! >-

>>        It seems to me that the overall tenor of the brunt of these
>>        replies implies that Jesus was righteouss by NATURE.
    
>>        That is of no good to me!
  
I see your point here but I'm having some problems fully grasping it.  Yes, it
is clear from Philippians 2 that he took on the form of a bondservant and was
made in the likeness of man.  At the same time, it also says that..."who, being
in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
(or exploited by definition of the original greek).  This brings up a
discussion I have had with other believers on the topic of humans reaching
sinless perfection.  Remember, Jesus was conceived by Mary but of the Holy
Spirit.  We were conceived in sin but Jesus wasn't.  
  
>>        I believe that Jesus was righteouss by FAITH!
  
Yes.  But at the same time, Jesus knew who he was and he also knew the Father.
Remember the transfiguration...this incident really displayed who Jesus was.
     
>>        Romans 8:1-3 tells us that we can have the same experience.  The
>>        key is not a transition of NATURE, it is a transition from unbelief
>>        to 'faith made perfect' which faith allows the indwelling of the
>>        same kind of grace that worked obedience in Jesus.
  
So Tony, did Jesus inherit the sin nature or original sin that we did?
  
In Christ,

-Jack    
    
                                                    

                                                   

re Note 1003.8 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

> Remember, Jesus was conceived by Mary but of the Holy
> Spirit.  We were conceived in sin but Jesus wasn't.  
  
        Perhaps you can explain why you put these two statements
        together.  Are we "conceived in sin" because an act of sexual
        intercourse is involved, or because a man was involved?  
        Since you seem to believe Mary to be sinless, is it because
        you believe all women to be sinless?

        Bob

It has almost nothing to do with the act of sexual intercourse.

Jesus did not inherit the sin of Adam because (1) he has no human father,
and because (2) Mary was miraculously kept free from inherited sin to make
her a fitting vessel for the gestation of the incarnate God by a special
retroactive outpouring of God's saving grace on the cross in appreciation
of her perfect obedience when she said "Let it be unto me according to thy
word."

/john

      re: .10,.8
    
      Hi Jack and John,
    
      According to Romans 1:3, Jesus was made of the SEED [Greek: sperma]
      of David according to the FLESH [Greek: sarx].
    
      Call it a miracle, but according to sperm, He was made like David's
      (a fallen man) flesh.  My point John that David was a man and
      Jesus' flesh is according to that of fallen man.
    
      According to His humanity, Jesus was a real man in virtually every
      respect.  His flesh was like the flesh of any man's.  It was fallen,
      sinful flesh.
    
      I suggest a study like the Bible calls us to study.  Pull out the
      concordance and read every text that contains the phrase 'born of
      a woman' - very illuminating.
    
      However, His mind simply never submitted to the pull of the flesh.
    
      Jack, I don't think I believe in the idea of 'original sin.'  I also
      don't believe Jesus had preexistent knowledge, but rather by faith
      discerned things about His past.  I believe that He lived by every
      word that proceeds out of the mouth of God and through faith in that
      word came to discern that He is in fact the Christ.
    
      Also, Jesus was/is God, but in the incarnation He emptied Himself
      of all divine attributes.  
    
      As I said, He wasn't omnipresent.  He was not omniscient.  He also
      had to depend on His Father, i.e. "I can OF MINE OWN SELF do
      NOTHING."
                                                      
      Are you implying that it was a package deal?  That He retained some
      attributes of divinity and laid aside others?  Thats a very strange
      position to me Jack!
    
                                                      Tony

    It is a good question and it points to a tremendous theological
    question.
    
    Was Jesus fully human and fully Divine. 
    
    I think it is easier for us to know what it means to define Jesus as
    fully divine(whether or not we accept the meaning)
    
    But what does it mean to Difine Jesus as fully Human?
    
    Is it Jesus' perfect obedience that is key or is it his perfect
    righteousness?
    
    For me, Jesus serves as a role model of the New Creation because of his
    perfect obedience.  Jesus was fully capable of sinning in the desert. 
    Jesus was fully capable of running away and not proceeding into
    Jerusalem,  Jesus was fully capable of asking God to take his cup away
    from him, not only in a moment of desparation but in truly not wanting
    to proceed into Jerusalem to be nailed to a Cross.
    
    For me, Jesus becomes less than the Biblical role model which he is if
    he had no sovereignty to not make these decisions for himself.
    
    Jesus can only be a model for us inperfect human beings if he too felt
    all the temptations that we humans feel and demonstrates the way to
    obedience, through total reliance of the Heavenly Parent.
    
                                     Patricia

The Deity of Christ
-------------------
The Apostle's Creed states: "Conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin
Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, died and was buried; He descended into
Hell; the third day He arose from the dead; He ascended into Heaven and sitteth
on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to judge
the quick and the dead."  Jesus Christ is the second Person of the Trinity, the
eternally Begotten Son of God who became flesh and is now our "great high
priest, that is passed in the heavens...[who] was in all points tempted like as
we are, yet without sin" Hebrews 4:14-15.  More supportive Scriptures can be
found in John 1:1-3, John 1:14, I John 4:3, Ephesians 1:21, Colossians 2:9.

1. He is called God by the Apostle John (John 1:1).
2. He is called God by the Apostle Thomas (John 20:28).
3. He is called God by God the Father (Hebrews 1:8).
4. He claimed to be God in that He was with the Father before creation
   (John 17:5).
5. He claimed to be God in that He was before Abraham.  "Abraham rejoiced to see
   my day..." (John 8:51-59).
6. He received worship, and only God is to be worshiped (Matthew 14:33).
   Angels are refused worship (Revelation 22:8-9).  Man is refused worship
   (Acts 10:25-26).
7. He forgives sin (Mark 2:5-11).  Only God can forgive sin.
8. He is creator and maker of all things (Colossians 1:16).
9. He is sustainer of all things (Hebrews 1:3).  Only God can control the
   universe.
10. He claimed to have "all power in heaven and in earth" (Matthew 28:18).  Only
    God has all power.
11. He walked upon the blue waters of Galilee.  The winds and waves obeyed His
    command.  He healed the sick and raised the dead.  He gave sight to the
    blind and hearing to the deaf.  He cast out demons and made the lame to
    walk.  He turned water into wine, and fed 5,000 with the lunch of a lad.

The Humanity of Jesus Christ
----------------------------
The humanity of Jesus Christ is seen in His human parentage (Matthew 2:11).

1. He developed as a normal human being (Luke 2:52).
2. He was subject to all the sinless infirmities of the human nature:
   - He hungered (Matthew 4:2)
   - He was thirsty (John 19:28)
   - He was weary (John 4:6)
   - He wept (John 11:35)
   - He was tempted (Hebrews 4:15)

Jesus is man, and yet He is more than man.  He is not God and man, but the
God-man.  He is God in human flesh.  His 2 natures are bound together in such a
way that the 2 become 1, having a single consciousness and will.  

      Hi Mike,
    
        I find it interesting that you supported position #1 of the
        humanity of Jesus part with scripture and yet did not support
        position #2 with scripture.
    
        The Bible tells me that He had the same flesh and blood as 
        the children of men (not Adam and Eve).  That is plain enough
        for me!
    
        I'm not sure what it means to you that the two natures were
        mingled.  Does this mean that He then retains the divine quality
        of omniscience?  Is He omnipresent?  Can He not do all things
        of His own will?
    
        If not, why not?
    
                                                     Tony

	Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord
	teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus
	Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood,
	truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul
	and body; of one substance (homoousios) with the Father as
	regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance
	with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart
	from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before
	the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men
	and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer
	(Theotokos); one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten,
	recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change,
	without division, without separation; the distinction of
	natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the
	characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming
	together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or
	separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-
	begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets
	from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ
	himself taught us, and the creed of the Fathers has handed
	down to us.

Almost every one of the great Christian heresies has to do with the proper
understanding of the person of Christ.

I again recommend that you read "The Cruelty of Heresy" by C. FitzSimons
Allison, Morehouse Publishing.

This book is almost entirely devoted to discussing in detail the importance
of an orthodox understanding of Christology.

It deals specifically with the Temptations of Christ in great detail, even
briefly discussing the movie "The Last Temptation of Christ" which, though
scandalous, contains one scene which is not likely to be historically correct
(because we no longer think that Mary Magdalene was a sinful woman) presents
a very orthodox explanation of Christ's resistance to temptation.

The discussion centers around the difference between "being able not to sin"
and "being not able to sin".  For Christ to have been fully human, the first
must be the case -- he was "able not to sin".

As are we all, to a greater or lesser degree, as we accept and allow ourselves
to be filled with the saving grace of God.

Read the book; it is excellent.

/john

re Note 1003.16 by COVERT::COVERT:

> Almost every one of the great Christian heresies has to do with the proper
> understanding of the person of Christ.
  
        Which of course makes the skeptic in me wonder whether the
        right side won, or merely the strongest.

        Bob

re .17

Read the book.

/john

>        I find it interesting that you supported position #1 of the
>        humanity of Jesus part with scripture and yet did not support
>        position #2 with scripture.
    
    yes I did.  I provided a scripture reference for each human
    characteristics of Jesus.

    Hi Tony:
    
    A few little things to start.  First, the Bible does state that by one
    man sin entered into the world and death comes through sin, then sin
    passed among all, for all have sinned.  It also states that.."For in
    Adam all die, so through Jesus all shall be made alive."  I believe
    these are from the Corinthian epistles.  I believe the analogy is clear
    that just as the blood of Christ is passed as the saving vehicle for 
    all mankind, the "sin" of Adam brought forth death for Adam and for all
    his descendents....Including Mary.  I just happen to disbelieve that
    Mary was miraculously exempt from original sin.  It is a doctrine that
    isn't supported by scripture.
    
    We need to remember that Adam was the father of all mankind and he
    passed along his nature to us.  Jesus is the only begotten son of God
    the Father, hence the origins are different.  The real question is, did
    Jesus inherit the traits of Adam even though he is the only begotten
    son of God?  
    
    I see your point Tony, and I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. 
    I'm just trying to throw some things out here to see if there is logic
    to it.  How could the only begotten son of God be able to fall into
    sin?  It would be against his very nature to do this!
    
    -Jack

      re: .19
    
      Hi Mike,
    
        Those all could be consistent with infirmities of sinful
        flesh.  And I believe that for Jesus to be tempted in all
        points like as we are (yet without sin), He must have been
        laden with sinful flesh.
    
        Your descriptions (to me) do absolutely nothing to support
        a contention that the flesh Christ took was sinless.
    
        Personally, I think the Bible is just so clear.  He took the
        flesh and blood of the CHILDREN of men.  he was made of the
        seed of David ACCORDING to the flesh.  he was born of a woman.
      
                                                 Tony

      re: .20
    
      Hi Jack,
    
        Actually, I didn't say He could fall into sin.  I said He could
        be tempted like as we are and that He was not righteouss by
        _nature_, but by faith.
    
        We are called to walk as He walked, to follow Him, to overcome 
        even as He overcame.  He could not have had the advantage of
        superior physical equipment.
    
        He had a perfect faith and one that He can fashion in us.  He
        obeyed by depending on His Father by faith as can we.
    
        To me to bring the flesh into it (among other things) is to
        weaken the precioussness of righteouss by faith in so far as
        it implies that something more than faith was required for 
        Christ to obey.  That thing being a different flesh.
    
                                                   Tony

    Tony,
    
    I think you and I are saying the same thing.  Just as Jesus had a
    choice, so we have a choice.  To choose the will of God or to choose to
    ignore the will of God.
    
    Sorry for blending the two topics together.  It is the way my mind
    bounces around.
    
                           Patricia

�The Humanity of Jesus Christ
�----------------------------
�The humanity of Jesus Christ is seen in His human parentage (Matthew 2:11).
�
�1. He developed as a normal human being (Luke 2:52).
�2. He was subject to all the sinless infirmities of the human nature:
�   - He hungered (Matthew 4:2)
�   - He was thirsty (John 19:28)
�   - He was weary (John 4:6)
�   - He wept (John 11:35)
�   - He was tempted (Hebrews 4:15)
    �
�>        Those all could be consistent with infirmities of sinful
�>        flesh.  And I believe that for Jesus to be tempted in all
    
    Tony, which of the above are sinful flesh?  I don't think it's correct
    to associate human needs for sustainence with sinful flesh.  Jesus
    Christ also ate with His glorified body.  
    
Galatians 5:19
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery,
fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Galatians 5:20
Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions,
heresies,
Galatians 5:21
Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell
you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such
things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
    
    I don't see any of the above in the life of Christ.
    
Galatians 5:22
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness,
goodness, faith,
Galatians 5:23
Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

    I do see lots of these in the life of Christ.
    
>        points like as we are (yet without sin), He must have been
>        laden with sinful flesh.
>    
>        Your descriptions (to me) do absolutely nothing to support
>        a contention that the flesh Christ took was sinless.
    
    Is sinful flesh the same as human nature and all that is human?   When
    did Christ sin?  I don't think I understand what you're trying to say.
    
    Mike

      Hi Patricia,
    
        Its probably my mind that is screwed up!!   ;-)
    
      Hi Mike,
    
        Our flesh is sinful until corruption puts on incorruption, 
        is it not?  Sinful flesh refers to the physical part of us
        which fell after Adam and Eve sinned and which exert a pull
        on the mind.
    
        Galatians speaks of the works of the flesh.  It is excellent
        logic to point to those works and conclude that thus Christ
        could not have had such flesh ON ONE CONDITION.
    
        And that would be that "where sin abounds, grace does NOT much
        more abound."
    
        Another view is that one could have sinful flesh and live a 
        righteouss life provided He is submitted to the Spirit and
        (by the grace of God) his sinful flesh is crucified.
    
        Oh, one other thing.  I do not believe that being tempted as
        we are tempted are "sinless infirmities of the human nature."
        I believe that to be tempted as we are tempted is an infirmity
        of sinful human flesh.
    
        Finally, when I speak of sinful flesh, I refer to the sarx.  
        According to the KJV, I do not believe Jesus had a sinful nature.
        Look up nature in the Concordance.  It appears only a few times
        and is an altogether different Greek word (phusis).  A couple
        significant examples are Romans 2:14 and Ephesians 2:3.  Clearly,
        phusis is inclusive of the mind.
    
        Notice Eph 2:3 by the way
        among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of
        our flesh, _fulfilling the desires of the flesh_ and of the mind,
        and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.
    
        Look closely at the phrase "FULFILLING THE DESIRES OF THE FLESH."
        In other words, there is a flesh within which contains DESIRES.
        Look at the phrase again.  There is a choice to be made.  We
        can fulfill those desires, but we don't have to.
    
        Sinful flesh is the physical part of us and it does not imply
        consenting to sin.  It only implies something that contains 
        desires to sin.  The realm of choice (and thus sin and obedience)
        is of the mind and not of the flesh.
    
        Jesus took the flesh within which contains desires to sin.  He
        simply never fulfilled them.  He crucified the flesh and submitted
        wholly to the Spirit.
    
        And that is precisely the kind of Savior I need and the kind of
        Savior the Bible, especially Hebrews, is talking about.
    
                                                      Tony
    
        

re: .2  Title:  The temptations were real, if not why did the angels minister to
him?

        The fault of Adam's downfall was
	his own and not that there was a fault in the Creator's design.

Then why did the design fail? But I guess we've been down this path before...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: .7  Title:  Righteouss By Nature???  NO!  BY FAITH!!

	In the incarnation, Jesus empties Himself
        of all divine attributes.  We know He wasn't omnipresent.  We
        know He wasn't omniscient ("only the Father in heaven knows the 
        time, not even the Son knows").

He retained at least some form of omniscience. As noted earlier, he knew that
Peter would betray him. In fact, he seemed to have fairly complete foreknowledge
of the last days, at least.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: .22  Title:  Not Righteouss By Nature

        He had a perfect faith and one that He can fashion in us.  He
        obeyed by depending on His Father by faith as can we.

Is any human capable of perfect faith? If they were, could they then perform
miracles, walk on water, rise from the dead, etc? I guess another way of putting
the question is were Jesus' powers the result of being God, or the result of his
perfect faith in God?

Steve

>        Jesus took the flesh within which contains desires to sin.  He
>        simply never fulfilled them.  He crucified the flesh and submitted
>        wholly to the Spirit.
>    
>        And that is precisely the kind of Savior I need and the kind of
>        Savior the Bible, especially Hebrews, is talking about.
    
    I agree with this.  He was also able to remain sinless because of the
    Divine or Spiritual nature within Him.  The fact that He never
    committed a sin is just as important to fulfilling the role of Messiah
    and Savior.  You refer to Hebrews often.  What kind of Lamb was
    required for the Altar of Sacrifice in the Tabernacle in order to gain
    access into the presence of God within the Holy of Holies?  
    
    A perfect and unblemished Lamb!  Through Our Perfect and Unblemished
    Lamb, we are also given access to God in the Holy of Holies.
    
    Mike

    Mike:
    
    I brought this up in another string and it was rejected...something
    about the perfect lamb being ones own interpretation!
    
    -Jack

      Hi Mike,
    
        Are you implying that Jesus obeyed because of the nature
        He had before the incarnation?
    
        If so, how can He possibly say "of Mine own self, I can
        do nothing."
    
        Which is it Mike?
    
        Did Jesus walk by faith and thus was empowered by the Holy
        Spirit as He submitted to the Spirit?
    
        Or did He walk according to the divine nature He had before
        the incarnation?
    
        These are two fundamental positions one of which points to 
        a Savior nigh at hand and another that points to One who 
        is like an eagle flying high up in the skies and imploring us
        (a bunch of land-dwelling animals) to fly?  (Watch Me obey and
        now (in like fashion) you obey!
    
        As per the lamb unblemished...
    
        It is subject to interpretation as to what unblemished is
        symbolic of.  I believe it refers to character/sinlessness and
        not to requiring that Jesus took sinless flesh.
    
        If you believe it implies that He must have taken sinless
        flesh, I think this is a matter of interpretation and one that
        is not in harmony with much of the rest of scripture.
    
        So why interpret it that way?
    
                                                       Tony
                                       

    He was both.  He was Immanuel, God with Us.  He was the Word become
    flesh.  He was the God-man.
    
    Mike

      Mike,
    
        I'm really trying to understand.  Was your last reply a response
        to my last reply?  If so, it didn't help me out at all.
    
                                                  Tony

    yes, and welcome to the club.  I don't understand where you're coming
    from or where you're going either.

      Hi Mike,
    
        I think I'm coming from 2 main points...
    
      Point Number 1:
        Christ is held up in scripture as an Example we can follow.
        We can overcome as He overcame.  We can walk as He walked.
        He bids us, "Follow Me."  Revelation speaks of a group who
        have "the faith OF Jesus."
    
        I contend that if the above is true, something took place in 
        the incarnation that you seem to disagree with.  And that is
        that, though God, Jesus emptied Himself of ALL divine attributes.
        This would find noncontradiction with Jesus' own words, "I can
        of Mine own self do NOTHING."
     
        I believe you have inferred that Jesus was righteouss, in part, 
        by nature.  I suggest that for Jesus to be our Savior, He must
        be righteouss in the same way we can be righteouss - by faith,
        by a wholehearted submission to a higher power.
    
       
      Point Number 2:
        I have also contended that Jesus Christ, in the incarnation, 
        was born of a woman, made of the seed of David according to the
        flesh, and took the flesh and blood of the children of men.
    
        I have contended that there is a strange characteristic that
        this flesh has as Ephesians 2:3 and several other scriptures
        attest to.  And that is that this flesh lusts after sin.  It
        exerts a pull on the mind (to sin).  
    
        I have further contended that "where sin abounds, grace does
        much more abound."  And that it is not heresy to say that Christ
        took this same flesh, it actually elevates Him to a higher status
        for He rendered a perfect obedience with this extra liability.
        His faith was so perfect that His flesh (its lusts) were cruci-
        fied all of His earthly life.
    
        Another point I have made is that _unblemished_ as refering to the
        lamb must be symbolic of the character of Christ and that to insist
        it is also symbolic of the flesh He took is to contradict the word
        of God in other places.
    
        
        Anyway Mike...is any of the above still confusing?  If so, could 
        you show me what?
                                    
                                                       Tony
    

from .26, I'm still curious...

Is any human capable of perfect faith? If they were, could they then perform
miracles, walk on water, rise from the dead, etc? I guess another way of putting
the question is were Jesus' powers the result of being God, or the result of his
perfect faith in God?

Steve

>      Point Number 1:
>        the incarnation that you seem to disagree with.  And that is
>        that, though God, Jesus emptied Himself of ALL divine attributes.
>        This would find noncontradiction with Jesus' own words, "I can
>        of Mine own self do NOTHING."
    
    I don't think he emptied Himself of ALL divine attributes.  If this was
    true, He wouldn't let people call Him God (John 1:1, John 20:28,
    Hebrews 1:8); He wouldn't claim He was God (John 8:51-59); He wouldn't
    allow people to worship Him as God (Matthew 14:33); and He wouldn't be able
    to forgive people of their sin (Mark 2:5-11).  These are all Divine
    attributes that only God can have/do.
     
>        I believe you have inferred that Jesus was righteouss, in part, 
>        by nature.  I suggest that for Jesus to be our Savior, He must
>        be righteouss in the same way we can be righteouss - by faith,
>        by a wholehearted submission to a higher power.        
    
    This may be partially true because of His humanity, but He was still
    righteous because He was God in the flesh (human form).  The above
    Divine attributes state this clearly.  Only God could do those things
    or make those claims or accept worship as God.
    
>      Point Number 2:
>        I have also contended that Jesus Christ, in the incarnation, 
>        was born of a woman, made of the seed of David according to the
>        flesh, and took the flesh and blood of the children of men.
    
    I agree here, this is Christ's humanity.  He was supernaturally
    conceived via the Holy Spirit so He had both characteristics: divine
    and human.
    
>        I have contended that there is a strange characteristic that
>        this flesh has as Ephesians 2:3 and several other scriptures
>        attest to.  And that is that this flesh lusts after sin.  It
>        exerts a pull on the mind (to sin).  
    
    I agree here too.  Romans 7 is quite detailed on this battle between
    flesh and spirit.
    
>        I have further contended that "where sin abounds, grace does
>        much more abound."  And that it is not heresy to say that Christ
>        took this same flesh, it actually elevates Him to a higher status
>        for He rendered a perfect obedience with this extra liability.
>        His faith was so perfect that His flesh (its lusts) were cruci-
>        fied all of His earthly life.
    
    This sounds okay to me too.  He had to overcome his humanity to be the
    spotless Lamb.  He was the only one to do so.  
    
Hebrews 2:18
For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them
that are tempted.

    Jesus knows from personal experience what we go through.  He has
    overcome it and we can too through Him.  This in no way changes His
    Divinity though.
    
I Corinthians 10:13
There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is
faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but
will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear
it.

    Mike

    Interestingly the great debate in the early church was not regarding
    God's Divine nature but his human nature.
    
    It seems that some people could not bring themselves to believe that JC
    was 100% fully human?
    
    Sounds like a lot of people still have this problem.
    
    
                                   Patricia

>Is any human capable of perfect faith? If they were, could they then perform
>miracles, walk on water, rise from the dead, etc? I guess another way of putting
    
    Peter walked on water until he took his eyes off Jesus.
    
    All the apostles performed these miracles after the ascension of
    Christ.  It's all in the book of Acts.  Peter and Paul healed the sick.  
    They raised Dorcas (Greek name.  Was Tabitha in Hebrew) from the dead. 
    The man who fell out the window in Acts 20 and died was raised from the
    dead.  Paul survived the viper bite (which are extremely lethal) in 
    Acts 28.
    
    Mike

      Hi Steve,
    
        I'm in agreement with Mike here.  Jesus discerned when His 
        Father willed Him to do His every move and every miracle He
        did was by faith in His Father, i.e. His Father worked through
        Him.
    
      Hi Mike,
    
        I believe Jesus can still be God and (temporarily) be emptied
        of all divine attributes.  Hypothetically, if I was there at the
        time of Christ and knew this Jesus was preexistent and One with
        the Father and that for the sake of saving man was in a unique
        status of relinquishing divine attributes; I would have no problem
        worshipping Him.  He is who He is.  He is still God, but He is 
        emptied of divine attributes.
    
        I don't think your view can possibly be consistent with One who
        could say, "I can of Mine own self do nothing" and your silence in
        regard to this is significant.
    
                                                       Tony

>        I don't think your view can possibly be consistent with One who
>        could say, "I can of Mine own self do nothing" and your silence in
>        regard to this is significant.
    
    No, you're just reading too much into this.  Christ's humanity was most
    certainly subject to the Father.

    .36  Excellent point, Patricia.  It's apparent that you've been doing
    your homework.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;2 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
	Re: 1003.37 Mike Heiser


	>  Paul survived the viper bite (which are extremely lethal) in 
    	>  Acts 28.
    
	Not so extreme. As a youth I hunted vipers for pocket money (they
	were a pest and we received a premium for each snake). I survived
	two bites without any "wonder-drug" treatment. Simple tourniquet,
	cut and bleed method.

	Not even my worst enemy would say that I have any (other) Pauline
	attributes!  :-)

	Greetings, Derek.

      re: .39
    
      Mike,
    
        Please elaborate for me.  You contend that Jesus was not emptied
        of all divine attributes.
    
        When Jesus says "I" within the context of His own capabilitites,
        does this not then refer to what He is capable of?
    
        So why can't His humanity submit to His own divine attributes?
        Why can't He rely on His own divine attributes instead of saying
        "Of My own self [i.e. of that which I am capable of], I can do 
        NOTHING."
    
        You seem to say that the nature of divinity was active and alive
        and well while Jesus walked this earth as man.
    
        Then, why couldn't Jesus resort to His own divine nature?
    
        How can you possibly maintain that Jesus, with an active divine
        nature, could of His own self do nothing?
    
        Why was Jesus' own divine nature insufficient regarding Jesus'
        capability to do anything?
    
        Can you appreciate the questions I am asking you?
    
        Mike, Please answer each question point by point!  This is really
        important!  Hebrews hammers down the importance of considering
        our High Priest Jesus Christ and this is essentially what we are
        trying to do!
    
        I maintain that Jesus, though God, emptied Himself of all the
        divine attributes that are His by native right and that He 
        previously had time prexistent.  He walked by faith.  His 100%
        dependence was outside of self and on the Father.
    
        One with an active nature of God Himself need not rely on another
        and (according to self) is able to do a whole lot more than
        nothing.
    
    
                                                        God Bless,
    
                                                        Tony
           

>        I maintain that Jesus, though God, emptied Himself of all the
>        divine attributes that are His by native right and that He 
>        previously had time prexistent.

Sounds a little like Nestorianism.

/john

>    It seems that some people could not bring themselves to believe that JC
>    was 100% fully human?
>    
>    Sounds like a lot of people still have this problem.
    
    Don't you need a human father too to be 100% human?

>	Not so extreme. As a youth I hunted vipers for pocket money (they
>	were a pest and we received a premium for each snake). I survived
>	two bites without any "wonder-drug" treatment. Simple tourniquet,
>	cut and bleed method.
    
    Derek, where in the Middle East did you spend your youth?

    thanks,
    Mike

    Hi Tony,
    
>        Please elaborate for me.  You contend that Jesus was not emptied
>        of all divine attributes.
    
    No I don't, God's Word does.
    
>        So why can't His humanity submit to His own divine attributes?
>        Why can't He rely on His own divine attributes instead of saying
>        "Of My own self [i.e. of that which I am capable of], I can do 
>        NOTHING."
    
    We can speculate this forever, since it's not real clear in the Word, or
    we can take it on faith.  But let's take a look at this verse:
    
John 5:30
I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just;
because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent
me.

    In context it looks to me that He was still subject to God's will. 
    When you take things out of context, you end up with a pretext.  Being 
    subject to God's Will doesn't strip Him of divinity.  He is still one with 
    the Father.  The Will of Christ's divine nature is the same as God's.
    
    >    Then, why couldn't Jesus resort to His own divine nature?
>    
>        How can you possibly maintain that Jesus, with an active divine
>        nature, could of His own self do nothing?
    
John 10:30
I and my Father are one.

John 10:38
But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and
believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

John 14:10
Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words
that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in
me, he doeth the works.

John 7:17
If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of
God, or whether I speak of myself.

John 17:11
And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to
thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me,
that they may be one, as we are.

John 17:22
And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one,
even as we are one:

John 8:29
And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do
always those things that please him.

    I think that more than proves the point.
    
    >    I maintain that Jesus, though God, emptied Himself of all the
>        divine attributes that are His by native right and that He 
>        previously had time prexistent.  He walked by faith.  His 100%
>        dependence was outside of self and on the Father.
    
    This isn't scriptural.  I've already shown you the verses that refute
    this.  And I thought SDA's were trinitarians.
    
    Mike

  Hi Mike,
    
    �Don't you need a human father too to be 100% human?

    No, God is capable of miracles.

    Adam didn't need a human father.

                                          Tony

    Hi Mike,
    
>        Please elaborate for me.  You contend that Jesus was not emptied
>        of all divine attributes.
    
    �No I don't, God's Word does.

    Well, I'll look in your reply to see where it says so!
    
>        So why can't His humanity submit to His own divine attributes?
>        Why can't He rely on His own divine attributes instead of saying
>        "Of My own self [i.e. of that which I am capable of], I can do 
>        NOTHING."
    
    �We can speculate this forever, since it's not real clear in the Word, or
    �we can take it on faith.  But let's take a look at this verse:
    
John 5:30
I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just;
because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent
me.

    �In context it looks to me that He was still subject to God's will. 
    �When you take things out of context, you end up with a pretext.  Being 
    �subject to God's Will doesn't strip Him of divinity.  He is still one with 
    �the Father.  The Will of Christ's divine nature is the same as God's.
    
In context, it also looks like of His own self, He could do nothing!  What's
the point of citing this text, acknowledging something else this text is
saying (which by the way doesn't rule out what I said) and then ignoring 
what I said?

    >    Then, why couldn't Jesus resort to His own divine nature?
>    
>        How can you possibly maintain that Jesus, with an active divine
>        nature, could of His own self do nothing?
    
�John 10:30
�I and my Father are one.

So what does this mean Mike?  What is Jesus referring to when He says 
'one'???

This is what I think Jesus was referring to...

John 17:25,26
"O righteouss Father!  The world has not known You, but I have known You;
and these have known that You sent Me.
And I have declared to them Your name, and will declare it, that the love
with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them."

I don't believe the context of John 17 speaks of Jesus stating in His 
prayer: "I have (actively) all attributes of divinity!!"  He is stating 
that He and the Father are one in will, in character and He looks forward
to the time that His followers are one in the same way - that the love of 
God may be in them.

�John 10:38
�But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and
�believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

All the works Jesus has done (according to the above verse) are evidence that
the Father is in Him.  As the next verse says...

�John 14:10
�Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words
�that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in
�me, he doeth the works.

The Father does the works!  Jesus doesn't do them!

(I skipped a couple scriptures.)

�John 17:22
�And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one,
�even as we are one:

Whose point are you trying to defend Mike?  Yours or mine?  We've just seen
that the works Jesus did were done by the Father.  Now we see that the Father
gave Jesus glory!  Certainly these verses are more supportive of my position!

    �I think that more than proves the point.
    
Interesting...I think it more than proves my point.

    >    I maintain that Jesus, though God, emptied Himself of all the
>        divine attributes that are His by native right and that He 
>        previously had time prexistent.  He walked by faith.  His 100%
>        dependence was outside of self and on the Father.

    �This isn't scriptural.  

It sure is according to the scripture you gave!  Man, if your best defense
are scriptures that support my position, better you leave them out and
support from human speculation!

�I've already shown you the verses that refute this.  

Sorry...haven't seen them.  Father does the works...He can of His own 
self do nothing...Father gave Him glory...

�And I thought SDA's were trinitarians.
 
I don't know what SDA is on this.  As Janet Brown has mentioned, I and
SDA are not always one.
   
But, I refute your assertion that I state that Jesus is not divine.  I
have stated that Jesus, during His earthly life, emptied Himself of divine
attributes.  I believe that the One who created all is the One who walked
this earth a man.

Perhaps He had all these divine attributes and just would not use them.
I'm open to that.  Or perhaps somehow they were there but necessarily
dormant.

These waters are deep, but scripture clearly points to a Savior who HAD
NO ADVANTAGE in His earthly walk.  He submitted by faith to His Father.
He is the ultimate faith advantage.  He demonstrates the capabilities 
of a life that is totally faith-lived.  However, He had faith from the
beginning.  He was born of the Spirit right away.  We (likewise) can also
be born of the Spirit.

He does not do one single thing, not a work, not a revelation received,
not a prophecy, not a single moment of obedience, that is outside the
realm of complete faith-dependence on His Father and that is in the
realm of application of His own native divine capabilities.

I think you take the trinitarianism thing too far when you state that
I am not.

                                                  Tony

      Correction to .48
    
      I meant to say He is the ultimate faith Example (not faith
      advantage).

�>        Please elaborate for me.  You contend that Jesus was not emptied
�>        of all divine attributes.
�    
�    �No I don't, God's Word does.
�
�    Well, I'll look in your reply to see where it says so!
    
    This will make the 3rd time I've presented these to you...
    
    1.  He is called God by John
    
John 1:1
IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:2
The same was in the beginning with God.
John 1:3
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was
made.
John 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.

I John 4:3
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is
not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that
it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Ephesians 1:21
Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name
that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:

Colossians 2:9
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

    2. He is called God by Thomas.
    
John 20:28
And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

    3. He is called God by God the Father.
    
Hebrews 1:8
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre
of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

    4. He claimed to be God in that He was with the Father before creation
    
John 17:5
And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I
had with thee before the world was.

    5. He claimed to be God in that He was before Abraham.  "Abraham rejoiced 
       to see my day..." (John 8:51-59).
    
John 8:58
Jesus said unto them, Verily verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

    6. He received worship, and only God is to be worshiped (Matthew 14:33).
       Angels are refused worship (Revelation 22:8-9).  Man is refused worship
      (Acts 10:25-26).
    
Matthew 14:33
Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth
thou art the Son of God.

    7. He forgives sin (Mark 2:5-11).  Only God can forgive sin.
    
Mark 2:5
When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins
be forgiven thee.

    8. He is creator and maker of all things (Colossians 1:16).
    
Colossians 1:16
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth,
visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or
principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

    9. He is sustainer of all things (Hebrews 1:3).  Only God can control the
       universe.
    
Hebrews 1:3
Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and
upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged
our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

    10. He claimed to have "all power in heaven and in earth" (Matthew 28:18). 
        Only God has all power.
    
Matthew 28:18
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in
heaven and in earth.

    You haven't refuted any of this yet.
    
    Mike

John 5:30
I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just;
because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent
me.

>In context, it also looks like of His own self, He could do nothing!  What's
>the point of citing this text, acknowledging something else this text is
>saying (which by the way doesn't rule out what I said) and then ignoring 
>what I said?
    
    Because the passage is about doing God's Will.  Which is God's Will, 
    the Father's or Christ's?
    
John 14:10
Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words
that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in
me, he doeth the works.

>The Father does the works!  Jesus doesn't do them!
    
    So in other words, Jesus isn't God.  He couldn't be since you reject
    His Divinity.  There's no other way around it.

John 17:22
And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one,
even as we are one:

>Whose point are you trying to defend Mike?  Yours or mine?  We've just seen
>that the works Jesus did were done by the Father.  Now we see that the Father
>gave Jesus glory!  Certainly these verses are more supportive of my position!
    
Isaiah 42:8
I am the lord: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another,
neither my praise to graven images.

    You have stated that Jesus isn't God, but God says in Isaiah he doesn't
    share His glory with *ANYONE*.  
    
John 17:5
And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I
had with thee before the world was.

    If Jesus isn't God, how could God share His glory with Him?  You have
    put yourself in quite a corner.
    
>Interesting...I think it more than proves my point.
    
    you think wrong.  Time to re-examine your doctrinal view on Christ's
    divinity.
    
>It sure is according to the scripture you gave!  Man, if your best defense
>are scriptures that support my position, better you leave them out and
>support from human speculation!
    
    I can't believe anyone would suggest placing human speculation above
    scripture!  Human speculation is what you get when people say "Christ
    emptied Himself of all Divinity" instead of standing on the foundation
    of God's word.
    
>�I've already shown you the verses that refute this.  
>
>Sorry...haven't seen them.  Father does the works...He can of His own 
>self do nothing...Father gave Him glory...
    
    Try reply .50, for the third time.  You haven't refute any of this,
    which clearly rejects your view.
    
>But, I refute your assertion that I state that Jesus is not divine.  I
>have stated that Jesus, during His earthly life, emptied Himself of divine
>attributes.  I believe that the One who created all is the One who walked
>this earth a man.
    
    This is contradictory to what you're saying.  Besides, if God emptied
    Himself of his Divinity while on earth, how does God put His Divnity
    back into Himself?  If He had no Divinity, He wouldn't be God and not
    able to restore Himself.  
    
>Perhaps He had all these divine attributes and just would not use them.
>I'm open to that.  Or perhaps somehow they were there but necessarily
>dormant.
    
    ...or perhaps God's spirit is the only thing that overcomes the flesh
    and allowed Him to fulfill His ultimate mission.  Paul confirms this in
    Romans 7.
    
>These waters are deep, but scripture clearly points to a Savior who HAD
>NO ADVANTAGE in His earthly walk.  He submitted by faith to His Father.
    
    You've shown me one verse taken out of context.
    
>beginning.  He was born of the Spirit right away.  We (likewise) can also
>be born of the Spirit.
    
    Those who are truly saved ARE born of the Spirit!
    
>I think you take the trinitarianism thing too far when you state that
>I am not.
    
    I think you are coming dangerously close to blasphemy.
    
    Mike

      Hi Mike,
    
        But, didn't Jesus say "All power IS GIVEN UNTO ME..."?
    
        Here's the focal point of disagreement as I see it...
    
        Your position is that for Jesus to be God, He must have
        (actively) all attributes of divinity while on earth a man.
    
        We both agree Jesus actively had all attributes of divinity
        before the incarnation.  We both agree He created all via 
        His own capabilities.  He is GOD.  He is JEHOVAH!
    
        I am open to the possibility that Jesus could, in the incarnation,
        be emptied of those divine attributes, and yet He is who He is -
        God!
    
        But, I am also open to the possibility that Jesus always had 
        those attributes as a person, but wasn't aware of them and by 
        faith became aware of them, but knew that for the sake of redeeming 
        man, He must not use them.
    
        Could all divine attributes be there, but willfully not used?
    
        I suppose so.
    
        I'm open to both possibilities Mike.
    
        The other side of the coin which is very important to me is the
        manner of Christ's victorious life of obedience even unto the
        death of the cross.  I maintain it was 100% faith and 0% reliance
        on divine attributes.
    
        So, I'm open to the possibility that He did indeed still have 
        divine attributes as a man.  I'm closed to the possibility that
        He could, even for a moment, use them and still be our Savior.
        He must leave them inactive or dormant as it were.
    
                                                  God Bless,
    
                                                  Tony
                                                          

      Mike, my .52 was written without having read .51.
    
                                            Tony

Luke 23:46
And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I
commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

    What kind of man determines on his own the completion of his death at
    the exact time?
    
Mark 15:39
And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out,
and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.

    An eyewitness knew that only God could complete His own death like
    that.
    
    Mike

    You are citing in your examples Jesus' ability to heal, resurrect the
    dead, and forgive sins as making him Divine.
    
    Jesus passed these gifts on to the disciples.  With Faith they too
    could do all things.  Would you then argue that the disciples too were
    Divine?  Or are you perhaps taking these things out of context?
    
    Patricia

>    What kind of man determines on his own the completion of his death at
>    the exact time?

A man who is 100% human and 100% God.

/john

 Re .55 (Patricia)  What did Thomas call Jesus?



John 20:28  And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. 




 Jim

    Jim,
    
    I have not gotten to John yet.  Give me another month.
    
                                     Patricia

    I do know that John is the least credible of the four Gospels as a
    historic document.   It was not written as a historic document.  I will
    get back to John though.  I expect the study of that book to be
    fascinating.
    
     
                                 you can even call me thomas if you wish.
    
    
                                      

>    You are citing in your examples Jesus' ability to heal, resurrect the
>    dead, and forgive sins as making him Divine.
>    
>    Jesus passed these gifts on to the disciples.  With Faith they too
>    could do all things.  Would you then argue that the disciples too were
>    Divine?  Or are you perhaps taking these things out of context?
    
    Patricia, you are the one taking this out of context.  The disciples
    and Christians today (myself included) pray for the sick IN JESUS NAME!
    Christ is the one that does all of the above!  
    
    Mike

>    I do know that John is the least credible of the four Gospels as a
>    historic document.   It was not written as a historic document.  I will
>    get back to John though.  I expect the study of that book to be
>    fascinating.
    
    History isn't nearly as important as the message of John's Gospel, even
    if your source(s) or scholars are correct.
    
    The purpose or main theme of John's Gospel is to present the Deity of
    Jesus Christ and confirm that He is God.  It is considered by many to be 
    the deepest and most spiritual book in the Bible.  In it, Christ
    reveals more of Himself and of God than in any other of the synoptic 
    gospels.  Over half of the book is devoted to the events of Christ's
    life and his sayings during his last days on earth.  Only John records
    Jesus' conversations with individuals (Nicodemus, Woman of Samaria,
    Jews at the Feast of Tabernacles, private instruction to the disciples,
    and His intercessory prayer).  John records 8 miracles of Christ to
    prove His divinity, 6 of which are only in John (water into wine,
    healing the official's son, healing the man at the pool, the man born
    blind, the raising of Lazarus, the second catch of fish).  The 2 main
    thoughts that Christ expresses in John the most deal with Faith and
    Eternal Life.  
    
    hope this helps,
    Mike

    Patricia:
    
    Just as a pointer, pay particular attention to John 3:16 - 18.  You
    will indeed find it fascinating!
    
    -Jack

      Hi All,
    
        I do disagree with the position that Jesus relied on His
        divinity even one moment during His earthly life.
    
        Scripture also states that _as Christ did, so can we_.  
        Rev 3 says "to him who overcomes EVEN AS I OVERCAME..."
    
        I believe I have tried to embrace all of scripture in my
        attempt to speak of that particular time Christ walked this
        earth.  I also believe that you Mike are neglecting a lot
        of scripture.  You simply cannot have it both ways.  Christ
        cannot be our Example of what it means to live a righteouss
        life if His righteoussness was in any part due to His divinity.
        It must have been faith first and last.
    
        This is such an important doctrine.  To me, it is perhaps the
        heart of what it means to "consider our apostle and High Priest."
        The meat of what that really means is obliterated with the ideas
        I see here.  This is close to blasphemy.
    
        My point being that to take away His constant need to depend and
        submit by faith is to take away His mediatorial work which is a
        salvation work.
    
        And Mike...my point about 'human speculation'...it was a low blow
        and I'm sorry.  Human speculation is the last thing God wants.
        I inferred that the scripture you cited was so supportive of my
        general position (that Christ was 100% dependent on the Father
        and thus divine attributes were dormant) that human speculation
        was as good a defense - which of course is no defense at all.
    
                                                   Tony

  Hi Mike,

    I just thought of something that I think is real important
    to this discussion.

    You have asserted that Jesus' divine nature was active while
    He walked the earth.  You have also acknowledged not being 
    able to comprehend how it is He could actively have such a
    nature and yet need to depend on His Father and how of His 
    own self He could not be capable of doing anything.

    I have asserted that Jesus' divine nature was dormant while
    He walked the earth as a man.  I have maintained He was/is
    God.  And because of the dormant status of His divine attributes,
    I have clearly given what I understand to be my explanation 
    for His need to depend 100% on His Father.

    The following is the real important point...

    Time and time again you have accused me of denying the divinity
    of Christ.  And it occured to me that I never did so!

    I never once maintained that Jesus is not God!  Not once!

    I was actually getting all defensive and for what?  When have
    I ever stated that Jesus is not God?

    There are two possible points of incomprehension:

    1) Your Position.
       Maintain that His divine nature was not dormant and leave
       unexplainable how it is that He could do nothing of His own
       and be a true Example for us to follow.

    2) Maintain that Jesus had to walk as we can and yet maintain
       that He is God.  Although perhaps unexplainable, maintain 
       that His divine nature was dormant while He walked this 
       earth - all the while maintaining He is God.

    I think the above is the crux.  As either position contains an
    aspect that is unexplainable (beyond our comprehension), I choose
    to acknowledge the fact that we cannot understand everything.

    Your accusation that I strip Christ of His divinity is one that
    I reject.  My explanation for my position treads into the realm
    of that which perhaps we cannot comprehend.  But, IT DOES NOT
    tread into the realm of my personal and deep conviction that
    Jesus is Jehovah.

    So I would appreciate you not accusing me of professing that
    Jesus is not God.

    What I am essentially doing is upholding the critical feature
    of Christ's salvation work.  That being that from the cradle to 
    the grave His walk was a walk of faith.  That He would not and
    could not do anything that would step Himself outside of the realm
    of faith.  To put another way, He could not for a moment utilize
    a single aspect of His divine nature.  He MUST depend on His Father
    by faith and be led by the Holy Spirit.  He MUST NOT depend on
    His own inherent divine nature.

    The impasse is in the realm of the unexplainable.

    Your position (to me) is a denial that Christ walked by faith
    alone.  And I cannot accept that.

    Your position implies that He is not an Example to any of us.
    That for Him to say "Follow Me" and "overcome as I overcame"
    is a sham.

    Your position contains its own incomprehensible aspect as does
    mine.  And your position strips Christ of His exampleship.

                                                  Tony

>    He walked the earth.  You have also acknowledged not being 
>    able to comprehend how it is He could actively have such a
>    nature and yet need to depend on His Father and how of His 
>    own self He could not be capable of doing anything.
    
    this summary is false.  I never made such a statement.
    
>    I reject.  My explanation for my position treads into the realm
>    of that which perhaps we cannot comprehend.  But, IT DOES NOT
>    tread into the realm of my personal and deep conviction that
>    Jesus is Jehovah.
    
    You said earlier that we can comprehend this due to that one verse in
    the Bible that you quote the phrase from.  Which is it?
    
>    Your position contains its own incomprehensible aspect as does
>    mine.  And your position strips Christ of His exampleship.
    
    I don't agree, but thanks for your opinion.
    
    Mike

re: .66
    
    Hi Mike,
    
>    He walked the earth.  You have also acknowledged not being 
>    able to comprehend how it is He could actively have such a
>    nature and yet need to depend on His Father and how of His 
>    own self He could not be capable of doing anything.
    
    �this summary is false.  I never made such a statement.
    
    Excuse me, I thought you at least inferred this.  Would you
    then explain this?   Why should He need to depend on His Father?
    Why not depend on His own divine capabilities?  Is He depending
    on His own capabilities?  If He is, in what does He depend on
    Himself and in what does he depend on the Father?  And why?
    
    What of Himself can He do?   What of Himself can He not do?
    Why can He do what He can do?  Why can't He do what He can't 
    do?
    
    You haven't even begun to explain this and (to me) to not do so
    is a far cry from heeding the admonition to consider the apostle
    and High Priest of our profession (Heb 3:1).
    
    Please quote one single example in this topic where you have
    explained the above.
    
>    I reject.  My explanation for my position treads into the realm
>    of that which perhaps we cannot comprehend.  But, IT DOES NOT
>    tread into the realm of my personal and deep conviction that
>    Jesus is Jehovah.
    
    �You said earlier that we can comprehend this due to that one verse in
    �the Bible that you quote the phrase from.  Which is it?
    
    I'm not sure I catch your drift.  What did I say we can comprehend?
    What verse do you speak of?
    
    I believe we can comprehend the _notion_ that Christ can have His
    divine attributes dormant and be God.  HOW this is so, we cannot
    understand.
    
>    Your position contains its own incomprehensible aspect as does
>    mine.  And your position strips Christ of His exampleship.
    
    �I don't agree, but thanks for your opinion.
    
    Its one thing to say you don't agree, but such a statement is
    empty when your comprehension is not even hinted at.  Please
    explain this to me!
    
    You have never offered explanation.  Why not?
    
    You have also not responded to the main point of my last reply.
    That being that you accuse me of stating that Christ is not God
    and my saying that I have never said such a thing.
    
    Why the silence?  
    
                                              Tony

re.55

Patricia,

> Would you then argue that the disciples too were Divine? 

Why YES! We never share in the Godhead but in life and nature we are the same as
He! He was the prototype, we are His mass reproduction. 

Romans 8:29  Because those whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be
conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the Firstborn among many
brothers.

Regards,
Ace

    Ace,
    
    As the first fruit, I can accept Jesus' divinity.  I agree with your
    reading of Romans.
    
                             Patricia

      Ace!,
    
        How ya doing?
    
        Now hermano...you know what she meant!
    
        I think Patricia exemplified the apostles as persons whose
        miracles were performed as they submited by faith to God
        and utilized a power that was not their own inherently.
    
        Holding up the apostles as an example, how can one insist
        that Jesus Christ didn't perform miracles in the same way
        the apostles did?  I.e. by faith in the Father who performed
        the miracles through Christ.
    
                                                    Tony

    Tony,
    
    What I mean is that the earthly Jesus' was made of the same stuff as
    you and I.  Call it fully human if you like, call it fully divine if
    you like.  They are just words.   The decisions that Jesus made while
    being tempted are the same decisions that humans can make when being
    tempted.  The source of the faith is the same.
    
                                              Patricia

re.70  

	Tony,

	Doing great, thanks for asking.

	I only briefly scanned the exchange between you and Mike. Don't have a
burden to engage in it either. Like most people, your mind is somewhat made up
already. 

	Glad to see you still around!

Regards,
Ace
	

>    Excuse me, I thought you at least inferred this.  Would you
    
    I think you assumed.  Better minds than I have been debating the
    questions you raise in the rest of this section for centuries.  I have
    no desire to address them nor do I see myself capable of addressing
    them.  Like you said, a lot of this goes beyond the realm of
    understanding and I believe I have to take a lot of this on faith.
    
    I know for a fact from God's Word that Christ had a human nature and a
    divine nature.  I know for a fact that He was tempted and was also
    sinless.  I know for a fact that He paid the price for sin that I could
    never pay.  I know for a fact that He loves us.  I know for a fact that 
    He is our example and we are to strive to be like Him.  I know for a fact 
    that after being born again we are His children.  I prefer to take these 
    facts on faith rather than try to debate something none of us really 
    understand right now.  When I get to heaven I'll probably ask Him to share 
    some insight on many issues (including this one).  
    
>    is a far cry from heeding the admonition to consider the apostle
>    and High Priest of our profession (Heb 3:1).
    
    He was the High Priest that made the only sacrifice that could be made
    for the removal of sin so that we can have access into the presence of
    God.  He was also the only High Priest that could do this.  Why was He
    the only High Priest that could do this?  Because He was God and
    because He is perfect.  Like Abraham told his son Isaac, "God will
    provide Himself the Lamb."  This is exactly what He did.  The work has
    been finished and I'm content to rest in it.
    
>    I'm not sure I catch your drift.  What did I say we can comprehend?
>    What verse do you speak of?
    
    The phrase you are basing your whole position on "I can of mine own
    self do nothing" in John 5:30.
    
>    I believe we can comprehend the _notion_ that Christ can have His
>    divine attributes dormant and be God.  HOW this is so, we cannot
>    understand.
    
    ...but you have to ignore quite a bit of scripture to state that they
    were dormant.  Once again, this puts you back to debating the makeup of
    the nature of Christ.
    
>    Why the silence?  
    
    See my first 2 paragraphs above.  A debate like this is really
    pointless.
    
    Mike

re.71

	Patricia,

	I view it this way (perhaps you might too).

	All humans are fully human (a blinding flash of the obvious!).

	But He was different. 

	Through incarnation God mingled with humanity to produce the God-man,
Jesus. He was the complete God and the perfect man. This One was unique. When He
says "He who has seen Me has seen the Father" (John 14:9) we see the divine
attributes of God manifested through His humanity. He was the only begotten Son
(John 3:16) before and while he lived on the earth according to His divinity.
Yet His humanity had not been "sonized". Therefore, in His resurrection His
humanity was brought into the Godhead and it was in His resurrection that He
became the Firstborn. Now on the throne He is through His Spirit regenerating
those humass who believe into Him. Regeneration (i.e. born again) is just the
resurrected and ascended Christ coming into and mingling Himself with our human
spirit. Through this indwelling Spirit of Jesus, we the believers receive His
divine life and nature. In this way we are divine and human. Though His humanity
was perfect and ours is not, we through the Spirit are able to employ not only
the divine attributes of Christ, but also His human virtues which he expressed
on the earth. By His blood, we the regenerated believers are redeemed, forgiven
and reconciled to God. By His Spirit we are born of God. And by His Spirit we
are able to experience His death, resurrection, ascension, and transcendent
power in our daily life.

	Now we the regenerated believers are different too!

Regards,
ace

      re: .73
    
      Mike,
    
        Its one thing to believe Christ is God and that (somehow)
        during His earthly life, He did not actively use His
        divine attributes then it is to deny the divnity of Christ.
    
        I would say ~95% of the basis of my last several replies
        was in reference to your accusation that I denied Christ was
        and is divine.
    
        I didn't think it was right.
    
                                                 Tony

    Reading this debate, I am now convinced more than ever of the classical
    Unitarian Christian position.  It is impossible for Jesus to be both
    man and God at the same time.
    
    If Jesus is God and not man, he cannot serve as our role model.  If
    Jesus did not experience real temptation, then there is no lesson for
    us in the story.  What is so powerful about God being in the wilderness
    with the Devil and not being tempted by the Devil.  If Jesus as human
    is in the wilderness with the Devil and triumphs over evil because of
    his obedience to God, that is truly powerful.
    
    The Jesus of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, then are fully human.
    The Jesus of John is fully Divine.
    
    It cannot be both ways at the same time.  
    
    patricia

RE:        <<< Note 1003.76 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>

       
   > It cannot be both ways at the same time.  
    
    

   Why not?

re .76

Read "The Cruelty of Heresy".

The entire book explains why Jesus must be both fully God and fully Man.

/john

re.76

	I see that it can be puzzling Patricia. 

	The issue I think is this. Jesus was a role model but not a role model
according our natural concept. He was role model by living a human life in which
the source and dependence was the divine life. In other words, the divine life
was the center and source of His life and His living yet expressed it through
His humanity. On the Mount of Transfiguration He "unzipped" Himself for a moment
and the disciples saw his internal constitution of divinity (Matthew)
	If He were only human He would be no different than say Gandhi, or maybe
Confucius. Humanly speaking they were of high character. He would be no
different if His constitution were no different. We could follow any of them.
	As our role model He says that we must take up our cross daily and
follow Him. To take up the cross means to put the human life on the cross and
live according to Spirit, the divine Life, within. If we have received Him into
our hearts, then we too can live a life as He did since we also possess both the
divine and human life. This is real power.

	I know He had to possess both divinity and humanity because I took
possession of divinity and His uplifted humnaity once I received Him. 

Best Regards,
Ace 

re Note 1003.78 by COVERT::COVERT:

>                     -< Read the experts, not a notesfile! >-

        I must admit, John, that I start out with a bias against the
        "experts" in the fields of Christian theology.  It seems to
        me that 2000 years of the experts' work has not brought
        Christendom to any greater understanding of God but has
        shattered the Church into fragments.

        Now, mind you, this doesn't mean that I consider the
        discussion in a notesfile to be any better than the experts!


> Read "The Cruelty of Heresy".
> 
> The entire book explains why Jesus must be both fully God and fully Man.
  
        John, can't you please summarize (to the best of your
        ability, which I respect) the arguments of the book which
        are germane to this discussion?

        Bob

      Hi,
    
        John, I agree with Bob.
    
        I totally disagree with the 'concept' of experts.  Some experts
        are of the leadership and some are not.  Most 'experts' seem to
        arise out of nowhere, not having received degrees in theology
        or having gone to the schools of the pharisees.
    
        John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah, Peter, John, Jesus...
    
        So many experts who would not have that title in the way that 
        many of us would entitle one to it.
    
    
        Ace, the essential question is this...
    
        Was the realm of Jesus' experience the realm of faith?
    
        If it was faith, virtually any divine anything He ever did
        (while on earth) was done as He depended by faith on His Father
        who worked through Him.  Jesus even said He did the works of
        His Father.
    
        Faith depends on a higher power.  If Jesus utilized His divinity,
        the realm was not of faith, but rather of dependence on self and
        His own divinity.
    
        And that is of no comfort to us who are not so equipped.
    
        In the way we can partake of the divine nature (by faith in God),
        Jesus partook of the divine nature.  He could not use His own
        divine attributes and save us.
    
                                                     Tony
    
    
    

>        In the way we can partake of the divine nature (by faith in God),
>        Jesus partook of the divine nature.  He could not use His own
>        divine attributes and save us.
    
    Jesus had faith in God.
    God had faith in Jesus.
    Jesus did God's Will.
    God showed His Will through Jesus.
    Jesus is God.
    God is Jesus.

Something about the way this is worded inspired the following.  I am not
trying to make any grand statement.  I just wanted to share what went through
my mind. :-)

(1) >>    Jesus had faith in God.
(2) >>    God had faith in Jesus.
(3) >>    Jesus did God's Will.
(4) >>    God showed His Will through Jesus.
(5) >>    Jesus is God.
(6) >>    God is Jesus.

assume:
	@ is the symbol for "had faith in"

given:
	(1)	A @ B
	(2)	B @ A
	(5)	A == B
	(6)	B == A

then:
	A @ A
	B @ B

      Hi Mike,
    
        I sliced it differently!  ;-)
    
        I believe that you are espousing a situation that is impossible.
    
        If Jesus utilized His divine attributes, He cannot grow in
        wisdom and stature, it is not possible for Him to NOT KNOW the 
        time of the second coming, He cannot be made perfect through
        suffering, and we cannot walk AS He walked.
    
        It is just plain impossible for Jesus to rely on His divinity
        and have the above also be true.  Divinity, by very nature, is
        omniscient (knows the time of the second coming) and already
        is increased in wisdom and stature such that there is no
        increasing that can take place.  Divinity is by nature infinitely
        increased.
    
        Your denial that it is possible for Jesus to be divine and yet
        not use His own inherent divine attributes forces you to main-
        tain a position that simply cannot be.   You have never come 
        close to explaining why it is not possible that Jesus could be
        divine and yet not depend on His own divine attributes.  
    
        And yet, within the framework of offering no explanation, you
        insist that there is no other way to slice it.
    
        I value the force of a position partly on rational explanation
        of the scriptures.  As you have offered none, I see no force
        whatsoever in your assertion that there is no other way to slice it.
    
        So...slice it another way I will!
    
                                                     Tony

>        If Jesus utilized His divine attributes, He cannot grow in
>        wisdom and stature, it is not possible for Him to NOT KNOW the 
>        time of the second coming, He cannot be made perfect through
>        suffering, and we cannot walk AS He walked.
    
    If Jesus didn't utilize any of His divine attributes, He wouldn't have
    been perfect or sinless, He wouldn't have been able to perform miracles 
    (note: He never said "In Jesus Name" as we are required to), He
    wouldn't have been able to forgive sins, He wouldn't have been able to
    accept the worship of men, He wouldn't have been able to survive the 
    temptations of Satan, He wouldn't have been able to survive His severe 
    capital punishment where He was beaten beyond recognition, He wouldn't
    have been able to commit His own spirit to determine His own death, and 
    He wouldn't have been able to fulfill all 332 Messianic OT prophecies in
    His lifetime against astronimical odds!  
    
>        Your denial that it is possible for Jesus to be divine and yet
>        not use His own inherent divine attributes forces you to main-
>        tain a position that simply cannot be.   You have never come 
>        close to explaining why it is not possible that Jesus could be
>        divine and yet not depend on His own divine attributes.  
    
    ...and you haven't come close to reconcile His 100% Divine nature with
    His 100% Human nature without violating Scripture.  Your position of
    emptying all Divine attributes is also an impossibility.
    
>        And yet, within the framework of offering no explanation, you
>        insist that there is no other way to slice it.
    
    I'd rather take the Biblical facts on faith than to adopt heresy.
    
>        I value the force of a position partly on rational explanation
>        of the scriptures.  As you have offered none, I see no force
>        whatsoever in your assertion that there is no other way to slice it.
>    
>        So...slice it another way I will!
    
    Tony, feel free.  Slicing it your way instead of the Biblical way is
    what put you in this mess to begin with.
    
    Mike

re Note 1003.85 by FRETZ::HEISER:

> >        So...slice it another way I will!
>     
>     Tony, feel free.  Slicing it your way instead of the Biblical way is
>     what put you in this mess to begin with.
  
        Sorry, Mike, but it looks like you're the one who's slicing
        and dicing here, and applying a goodly dose of human
        tradition and human logic, whereas Tony is just arguing from
        the Biblical statements.

        Bob

re.81

	Tony,
	
>In the way we can partake of the divine nature (by faith in God),
>        Jesus partook of the divine nature.  He could not use His own
>        divine attributes and save us.	

	The divine attributes of the Father are the divine attributes of the
Son. They are one and the same. There is only one God and one set of divine
attributes.

	" even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You,..." John 17:21
	"For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily"  Col 2:9

Regards,
Ace

      Hi Ace,
    
        I never said Jesus was not divine...so don't say I did!
    
        I am saying that He did not utilize His divine attribues
        while on earth.
    
        Jesus was not righteouss by nature, He was righteouss
        by faith.  
    
        Jesus and the Father are one and of course just what this
        means is subject to interpretation.
    
      Hi Mike,
    
        I see that you have chosen not to explain and (as I said)
        I value the weight of your position on the basis of rational
        explanation of the scriptures.  In other words, I value them
        not at all.
    
        If Jesus depended on His divine attributes while walking the
        earth...
    
        He cannot grow in wisdom and stature for divinity is already
        full grown.
    
        He must know the time of His second coming for omniscience 
        knows all things.
    
        He must not walk as we can for we can only walk by faith and
        He is walking by dependence on His own divine nature.
    
        Yours is the heresy.  Because you have insisted that faith is
        a much weaker 'commodity' than it really is.
    
        The faith of Jesus, the faith perfected in Him and wrought by
        Him is a faith that can endure all punishment without consenting
        to sin.  It is a faith that can fulfill all prophecies that the
        Father will to fulfill.  It can do all things for it is perfect
        submission to the Father who does all things through the    
        faithful vessel.
    
        Faith is the victory.
    
        A heresy is the insistence that it cannot be.
    
                                             Tony
         

re.88 

Tony,

>       I never said Jesus was not divine...so don't say I did!

	Hmm, what did I say that gave you that impression?

	You're not reading meanings into my notes that don't exist are you?
	8*)

Regards,
Ace

>        I am saying that He did not utilize His divine attribues
>        while on earth.

I'm not sure what "utilize his divine attributes" means.

Certainly he forgave sins.  He had to use divine attributes to do that.

Certainly he knew the hearts of people around him and chose what
to say based on that knowledge.  He had to use divine attributes here, too.

Certainly he revealed the Truth to his Apostles.  He did this using his
divine attributes in a manner that far surpasses the ability of any of his
followers.

Maybe he didn't "reveal" certain divine attributes, such as those which
would have proven who he was even to those who had no faith, but the time
was not right for that.  But do we know he didn't "use" divine attributes?

/john

    John,
    
    What you are saying amounts to that Jesus was not fully human.  If
    during his time on earth he used his God attributes and his human
    attributes than it is impossible that he is both.
    
    On the other hand if God provides divine gifts to each of us according
    to his will, gifts of vision, gifts of prophesy, gifts of esp, gifts of
    revelations, gifts of knowledge, than Jesus as the first fruit is
    exhibing these gifts that are available also to humans.  Jesus may be
    divine in the same sense that humans partake in the Divine.  Jesus just
    more fully.  That does not equate to Jesus and God being One.
    
                                       Patricia
                                       Daughter of the Arian Heresy.
    

  re.87

	Tony,
	
>In the way we can partake of the divine nature (by faith in God),
>        Jesus partook of the divine nature.  He could not use His own
>        divine attributes and save us.	

�	The divine attributes of the Father are the divine attributes of the
�Son. They are one and the same. There is only one God and one set of divine
�attributes.

    
    Here is where I thought you inferred that Jesus is not God.  To
    be God is to be of the essence of the divine.  In the above, I 
    thought you inferred that I suggested that Jesus did not have the
    same divine attributes as did the Father.  I never said this.  I
    said that He could not utilize them during His earthly mission.
    
    And of course, as a single example, I have maintained that had
    Jesus utilized omniscience (which attribute includes the capability)
    of perfect foreknowledge, He would have known the time of the
    2nd coming.  
    
    Which He explicitly says He did not know which implies he was
    not utilizing His native divine attribute of omniscience.
    
    And of course silence can be deafening.  By this I refer to the
    complete lack of _explanation_.
    
    I believe I am embracing far more scripture than you or Mike.
    
                                              Tony

Hi John,
    
>        I am saying that He did not utilize His divine attribues
>        while on earth.

�I'm not sure what "utilize his divine attributes" means.

    It means to _use_ them.  As an example, had Jesus used the divine
    attribute of omniscience, He could never have said He did not know
    the time of the 2nd coming which He said only the Father knows.
    
    Thus, he did not use omniscience.
    
�Certainly he forgave sins.  He had to use divine attributes to do that.

    I don't believe so.  He has to be God (which He still is though not
    referring to that advantage while on earth).
    
�Certainly he knew the hearts of people around him and chose what
�to say based on that knowledge.  He had to use divine attributes here, too.

    I believe that He spent entire nights in prayer to His Father and
    by faith received fresh revelation from Him every day.  His Father,
    I believe, revealed to Him His agenda for the day.  I believe His
    prayers included the Isaiah verse which says that the Lord woke Him
    morning by morning so that he knew what to say to the weary and also
    the one that says that one can know whether to turn to the right or
    the left.
    
    Men have received divine revelation.  Does this imply they are God?
    
�Certainly he revealed the Truth to his Apostles.  He did this using his
�divine attributes in a manner that far surpasses the ability of any of his
�followers.

    I give faith a lot more credit than you do.  If we are 100% open to
    the Father, we could reveal truth as well.  "Greater works will you
    do..."
    
�Maybe he didn't "reveal" certain divine attributes, such as those which
�would have proven who he was even to those who had no faith, but the time
�was not right for that.  But do we know he didn't "use" divine attributes?

    That's what the Bible seems to say.
    
                                                Tony

      Hi Patricia,
    
        I just want to differentiate my belief from what I think 
        you are saying yours is.
    
        I believe Jesus is preexistent and is God in a way altogether
        different than what it means for us to partake of the divine
        nature.
    
        I believe Jesus spoke all that is into existence by virtue of
        His own intrinsic essence - divinity.
    
        I just happen to believe that He did not rely on His divine
        attributes during His earthly mission, that's all.
    
                                                Tony

      Hi Again,
    
        I just want to mention the concept of the 'straw horse.'
    
        A straw horse is the method whereby one attacks another's
        position by misrepresenting it.  They then attack the
        misrepresentation all the while inferring that such a
        straw horse is the position of the other person.
    
        Mike, whether meaning to or not, you have erected a straw
        horse for you have accused me of not believing Jesus is God
        and have attacked that _straw horse_.
    
        Except for the strength of deception, this holds no weight
        at all.  For you are not attacking my position rather one
        which you have made up.
    
                                                  Tony

    Tony, it is entirely possible that Jesus' human nature didn't allow for
    Him to be omniscient while on earth.  Do we know from Scripture that
    Jesus is still not fully omniscient now that He sits at the Father's
    right hand?
    
    He demonstrated that He was omnipotent while on earth because He did
    things on His own that no man could do on His own.  If we are to pray
    for the ill, or pray for nice weather, we have to pray in Jesus' name. 
    Jesus didn't do this.  He commanded the weather to obey Him and He
    healed the sick on His own.  He raised the dead as well.  For us to do
    this we would have to pray in Jesus' name and hope we had enough faith
    (and that it was God's Will) for the dead to be raised.  Jesus also
    dictated when His spirit was to leave Him on the cross.  Man can't do
    this.
    
    We are also given insight to Jesus' omnipresence in John.  
    
John 3:13
And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even
the Son of man which is in heaven.

    Here we have past and present tense in regards to Christ and heaven. 
    The Greek tense also verifies that Jesus claimed to be in heaven and on
    earth as He talked to Nicodemus.  You can't get any more omnipresent
    than that.
    
    When you add all of this up to all the divine attributes that we
    already know Jesus used while on earth, there is no way you can say
    Christ emptied Himself of *ALL* divine attributes.  Omniscience is the
    only issue we are sure of on earth with respect to His second coming. 
    Even then He knew enough to at least give the signs that it was drawing
    near.
    
    Mike

>    
>    What you are saying amounts to that Jesus was not fully human.
>

I have said no such thing.

>   If during his time on earth he used his God attributes and his human
>   attributes than it is impossible that he is both.

You are wrong.  This is not true.  Jesus is fully God and fully Man, and
was so from the moment of his conception.

The importance of this is well explained in "The Cruelty of Heresy", which
spends a lot of time explaining how every heresy has a great deal of truth,
but is cruel because it narrows the real truth and makes salvation more
difficult.  The problem with each Christological heresy and its deleterious
effect on universal salvation is discussed in detail.

/john

    The real Heresy is to preach that salvation is dependent on the
    understanding of such obscure doctrine.
    
                                      Patricia

	re.93 thru .97 (Patricia you're spared!  8*)

	Tony, 

	I think Mike and John have presented as much scripture and logic as you
have in their explanations. The fact that I happen to agree with their
explanations helps me to see that!  8*) 8*)

	You seem to be blocked with the idea that Jesus was a man exhibiting the
divine attributes of God. Why is that difficult for you to to believe? (A short
answer is fine too!).

Regards,
Ace

    .98  I'll second that, Patricia.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

>    The real Heresy is to preach that salvation is dependent on the
>    understanding of such obscure doctrine.

No one has said that salvation is dependent upon individuals fully
understanding doctrines.

However, salvation aside, there is a duty to attempt to understand
and also not to teach against Truth.

And one should not be dishonest and teach against a straw horse.

/john

      re: .99
    
      Hi Ace,
    
        I believe that Jesus most certainly did exhibit the divine
        attributes of God.  However, scripture several times alludes 
        to Jesus' WAY being the exact same WAY that can
        be our own. A couple examples are "to him who overcomes EVEN AS
        I OVERCAME..." or "He who says he abides in Him ought himself 
        also to walk JUST AS HE WALKED" or Romans 7,8 which speak of Christ 
        doing something and then of us being able to do the same thing if 
        we do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.
        Because of this I believe that the divine attributes were exhibited 
        by Jesus as the Father worked through Him as Jesus depended
        completely on the Father by faith.
    
        So while I believe Jesus had the divine attributes, He could not 
        use them, but rather walked as we can.  He had faith in His Father
        just as we can exercise faith in Him.  And the divine attributes 
        exhibited through the Son had their source in the Father.
    
                                                        Tony

      Hi Mike,
    
      John 12:49,50
      "For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who
      sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should
      speak.
      And I know that His commandment is everlasting life.  Therefore,
      whatever I speak, just as the Father has told Me, so I speak."
    
      By the way, I am not relying on one single scripture.  I am relying
      on SEVERAL!
    
      I wrote the above to tell you how I believe Jesus spoke whatever
      He spoke.  He never spoke from His own authority.  He related what
      the Father told Him.  I believe Jesus 'heard' the Father during 
      His seasons of prayer.  "Ye shall hear a voice behind Thee saying,
      'This is the way, walk Ye in it.'"
    
      "Just as the Father has told Me, so I speak."
    
      I believe you have minimized the power of divinity and the power
      of the faith OF Jesus.
    
      Divinity _utilized_ even if coupled with humanity would still have
      the characteristic of omniscience.  For you to say that humanity 
      could couple with divinity and thus make for divinity to lack the
      divine characteristic of foreknowledge is heretical in my book!
      Nothing finite can limit the infinite!
    
      I prefer to go just by the Word.
    
      Jesus did not know the time of the second coming for two very simple
      reasons...
    
      The Father didn't tell Him.
    
      And Jesus would not use His own inherent attribute of divinity.
    
                                                       Tony

re Note 1003.102 by STRATA::BARBIERI:

        I do appreciate the effort you have been taking to explain
        your interpretation including the quoting of citations.  Your
        understandings make it much easier to square the Trinity with
        the many places in the Bible where Jesus draws a sharp
        contrast between himself and the Father.

        Bob

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >    The real Heresy is to preach that salvation is dependent on the
    >    understanding of such obscure doctrine.  (Patricia)

*No one has said that salvation is dependent upon individuals fully
*understanding doctrines.

*However, salvation aside, there is a duty to attempt to understand
*and also not to teach against Truth.  (John)

*And one should not be dishonest and teach against a straw horse.(John)

    
    That is exactly the point I am trying to make.  Just as God is beyond
    Time and Space so also is Truth about God beyond human understanding
    and also beyond anything human.  If the Bible were also beyond Time and
    Space, it would be worthy of our worship.  If the Bible is the Source
    of Truth, then the Bible also would be beyond time and space.  The
    bible is real, physical, and here and now.  it has an origin, a
    history, a perspective.  It is not Truth.  It contains some truths but
    it does not contain Truth.  Since the Bible is human, of time and
    history, it contains human flaws.  Since it contains human flaws, it
    contains untruths as well a truths.
    
    My opinion about any doctrine, such as the Doctrine of the Trinity and
    the Bible are the same.  They are products of humans.  They are
    products of inspired humans, they contain some revelation but they are
    not Revelation.  They are not Truth.  They are not Gods.
    
    IMO,  Heresy is to preach as Truth that which is not truth.  Heresy is to
    preach that anything is Truth since Truth cannot be known by finite
    humanity.  All of our definitions of Truth fall short of the reality. 
    As humans we must stand in humility before God in faith and and with
    limited understanding.  Each of us "sees in the mirror dimly" but with
    Faith, "face to face."  (From 1Cor 13)
    
    That is the key point I have been trying to make throughout my noting
    here.  The Heresy is not in believing, but in believing that one has
    "Truth" which noone can have. 
    
    The sin is to act on that false belief
    and negatively impact others who do not acknowledge for Truth, that
    which cannot be truth.
    
                                           Patricia 

      Hi Bob,
    
        Thanks much brother for your recent reply and the one
        previous to that!!
    
        When getting lambasted with volleys of denying the divinity
        of Christ and of preaching blasphemy, its nice to get a reply
        like yours.
    
        You've been an encouragement to me.
    
                                                    Tony
     

      Hi Again,
    
        I just want to summarize things here...
    
        One position:
    
        Exalts the truth of the divinity of Christ.
    
        Maintains that Jesus did not depend on His own native divine
        attributes while on earth from cradle to grave.
    
        Exalts part of what it means to be divine.
    
        Exalts the faith of Jesus.
    
        Is in harmony with the truth that we can walk "just as"
        Jesus walked.
    
        Exalts agape.
    
    
        One Position:
    
        Exalts the truth of the divinity of Christ.
    
        Maintains that Jesus utilized His divine attributes while
        on earth.
    
        Brings down (I'm trying to think of a word that is the opposite
        of exalts!) part of what it means to be divine.  Explain below.
    
        Brings down faith.   (Explain Below)
    
        Brings Down agape  (explain below)
    
        Is in disharmony with the plain teaching of scripture that says
        we can walk just as Jesus did.
    
    
        
        It brings down part of the divinity of Christ because the only
        way one can 'square' maintaining that Jesus' actively used His
        divine attributes with several scriptures showing limitations
        (such as not knowing the time of the 2nd coming) is to espouse
        the view that somehow His humanity was able to limit divinity.
        I contend that divinity utilized cannot be limited by humanity
        and to say that it can is bad doctrine.
    
        It brings down the faith of Jesus because it says that the only
        way Jesus could have done what He did was by utilizing His divinity.
        This implies that it is impossible to depend so perfectly in the
        Father that the Father could perform the self-same works.  As
        faith is our dependence, what is brought down is faith.
    
        It brings down agape because faith _works by_ agape (Gal. 5:6).
        So the reason faith is insufficient is because it lacks enough to
        work by.  In other words, agape simply is not enough of a 
        motivating power to produce the faith that depends so perfectly
        on the Father.
    
                                                     Tony

E. Calvin Beisner's "God in Three Persons" 
    (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1984)

Edward H. Bickersteth, "The Trinity" (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1976).

      Mike,
    
        I mean no offense, but if the explanations you have
        provided are based in part on your reading of the book
        you cited, I have no use for it.
    
        Bob Fleischer probably echoes my thoughts fairly well.
    
                                          Tony

    Correction: 
    
    I meant to say books (plural)

    No, those are just recommended references on the doctrine of our triune
    God.  I don't think anyone has figured out your position but you ;-)

	Tony,

	Why do you separate the divinity of the Son from the divinity of the
Father? You make it sound like 2 separate divinities. Is that what you mean to
say?

	There is one divine essence in the Triune God. 

Regards,
Ace

      Hi Ace,
    
        I am not sure of exactly what constitutes trinitarianism and
        frankly, I don't care!
    
        The essence of my faith I think is best embodied (for me) by
        Gal 5:5,6/2 Corin 5:14/Gal 3:1,2.  And that is that from first
        to last, it is an experience of beholding (by faith) God hung
        for me and as I grow in beholding the depths of the cross, I
        will grow in submitting my will to God's.  This will permit
        Him to fashion my heart into His image.
    
        But, anyway, awhile back (3 years maybe?) I explained my under-
        standing of the Father and the Son.  It seemed to be welcomed
        by Garth, a staunch supporter of trinitarianism.
    
        What I basically said was that God knew He would have a creation
        and He knew there would be a sin problem.  In foreknowledge, He
        knew what the solution had to be and it would involve God Himself
        being the sacrifice.  But, this sacrifice would have to depend on
        God!
    
        So I believe the Son proceeded forth from the Father.  Essence
        of the Father proceeded forth from Him and this was/is the Son.
        And as He is of divine essence, He has all the qualities of
        divinity including preexistence.
    
        Anyway, I believe Father and Son are utterly _distinct_.  They
        are two separate and distinct 'entities' (for want of a better
        word); each being of divine essence.
    
        Now to the incarnation.  As I have been saying, I believe Jesus
        had to do all that He did in the realm of 100% faith-dependence
        on the Father.  Thus, incomprehensible as this might be (and I
        can totally accept not being able to fathom this), the Son does
        not use His native, divine attributes while on earth.
    
        So I separate the divinity of the Father from the divinity of
        the Son simply because I believe they are separate 'entities.'
    
        Clearly, they are distinct, for Jesus said "I seek not Mine own
        will, but the will of He who sent Me."
    
        Obviously distinct wills while Jesus is on earth (to some extent
        anyway).
    
        Sorry if I rambled!
    
                                                        Tony

      Hi Mike,
    
        I don't think what I have said is complicated.
    
        All I have said, to summarize, is that while on earth Jesus
        did not use His divine attributes.  All Jesus did, He did in
        the same realm that is our own - faith.  Its not complicated
        to submit the notion that faith allows the power of divinity
        to work through the faithful vessel.  Eph. 3 looks forward to
        a time that a people is "filled with all the fulness of God."
        This takes place when a people comprehends the dimensions of
        agape and as faith works by agape, it would seem to follow that 
        here is a group that is so blown away by a revelation of agape
        that they are, by faith, totally submitted to the Father.  They
        are putty in His hands.  Finally the resistance of our 'will'
        is laid to dust and He can do anything through them.  
    
        They have the faith of Jesus.
    
        Is this really that complicated?
    
        Complicated is saying things like Jesus did fully exercise His
        divine attributes AND (because of His human nature), He somehow
        does not know the time of the second coming.  (All the while His
        divine attribute of omniscience is being used!!!)
    
        Now THAT is complicated!!
    
        Does anyone understand that?
    
                                                    Tony

Quicunque Vult

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold
the Catholic Faith.

Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt
he shall perish everlastingly.

And the Catholic Faith is this:  That we worship one God in Trinity,
and Trinity in Unity,

Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the substance.

For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another
of the Holy Ghost.

But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one,
the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal.

Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost.

The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate.

The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost
incomprehensible.

The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal.

And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal.

As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one
uncreated, and one incomprehensible.

So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost
Almighty.

And yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God.

And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord.

And yet not three Lords, but one Lord.

For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every
Person by himself to be both God and Lord,

So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, There be three Gods,
or three Lords.

The Father is made of none; neither created nor begotten.

The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten.

The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created,
nor begotten, but proceeding.

So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one
Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts.

And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other; none is greater, or less
than another;

But the whole three Persons are co-eternal together, and co-equal.

So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity
in Unity is to be worshipped.

He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe
rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

For the right faith is, that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ,
the Son of God, is God and Man;

God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man, of
the substance of his Mother, born in the world;

Perfect God, and perfect Man:  of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting;

Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father,
as touching his Manhood.

Who although he be God and Man, yet he is not two, but one Christ;

One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the
Manhood into God;

One altogether; not by confusion of substance, but by unity of Person.

For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, So God and Man is one Christ;

Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third
day from the dead.

He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God
Almighty; from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies and shall give
account for their own works.

And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that
have done evil into everlasting fire.

This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he
cannot be saved.

Before anyone grumbles,

In English "incomprehensible" meant "without bounds" at the time this was
translated.

/john

 
re.113

Hi Tony,

>       Anyway, I believe Father and Son are utterly _distinct_.  They
>        are two separate and distinct 'entities' (for want of a better
>        word); each being of divine essence.

	I think you take this too far. If they were utterly distinct and both of
divine essence then they would be two gods. Since they are of the same divine
essence they must be the same person. God is one. 

	Since you believe they are two separate and distinct entities of the
same divine essence, please tell me, which one of them is God?

	The distinctions that Jesus makes between Himself and the Father are
concerning His humanity which had not been brought into the Godhead at the time
of His earthly ministry. You've taken what Jesus says concerning subjecting His
humanity and applied those statements to His divinity thereby concluding that
His divinity is different from the divinity of the Father. I think you've done
this and the result leads to an error concerning His Person. 

"For in Him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily (Col 2:9)". This means
that the divinity of Jesus was the precisely the same as the divinity of the
Godhead. Not like or similar or cut from the same stock, but the very same.

	I know you're my precious brother because of the time we've prayed
together in the past. That won't ever change. But concerning this matter, I
think this would be worth another look.

Peace,
Ace

    	Re: .115 John    Quicunque Vult

	> Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that
	> he hold the Catholic Faith.

	> Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without
	> doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

	And here we have faith, fact, and dogma; but the greatest of these
	is dogma.

	Greetings, Derek (with apologies to Paul).

      re: .117
    
      Always my brother (hermano!) Ace.  I don't think that will
      ever change.
    
      I do see Father and Son as distinct Persons of the Godhead.  
    
      I guess I'll hope to grow in seeing Christ hung for me and
      in 'hearing' that revelation by faith.  That really is the
      essence of what I think my experience needs to be.
    
      And if you are right regarding what you say then I suppose as
      I grow in beholding God hung for me, I will grow in conviction
      as regards the truth of the matter.
    
      One thing though...
    
      Ephesus lost her first love.  Things like what John Covert (Hi
      John!) brings up mean little to me because it is part and parcel 
      of the church writings during the historical period of its
      losing its way.  Its part of the falling away, the great apostasy.
    
      All I'm saying is that when I look at these old writings, I look
      at them from the perspective (in part) of the historical description
      given by the scriptures.  There WAS a falling away.
    
      Thus when I look at them, I cannot insist they are truth.  But, I
      also won't insist they are all error.
    
      I just want to be real careful.                 
    
      Thanks Ace.
    
                                                    Tony

>        All I have said, to summarize, is that while on earth Jesus
>        did not use His divine attributes.  All Jesus did, He did in
    
    you keep touting this notion, yet we've already reviewed several
    scriptures that show He did use His divine attributes.  This
    "discussion" is as to how He did and to what degree.  I already
    admitted that it wasn't 100% due to omniscience, but the Bible proves
    He did use omnipotence and omnipresence.
    
    Mike

      Hi Mike,
    
        Never said He didn't.
    
        I just happen to believe that omnipotence and omnipresence
        (when used) were performed by the Father and by His own
        divine attributes and performed THROUGH the Son by the faith
        of the Son.
    
        So on what scriptural proof were they "His" [Jesus'] divine
        attributes and not the Father's?
    
                                                   Tony

    John 3:13 
    And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from
    heaven, even the *SON OF MAN* which is in heaven.

        Matthew 10:8
        "Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast
        out demons.  Freely you have received, freely give."
    
        Doesn't say Father either.
    
        BUT, I will not use the scriptures as you do and assume that
        since it doesn't say the Father that they must have done it
        of their own inherent capabilities.
    
        Rather, I would urge one to use the scriptures as Isaiah 28
        instructs us to use them, i.e. line upon line, precept upon
        precept, here a little, there a little.
    
        John 14:10
        "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father
        in Me?  The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My
        own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works."
    
        The Father does the works in Jesus.
    
        This finds harmony with the texts you seem to avoid such as
        "to him who overcomes even as I also overcame" and the 1 John
        one that calls us to walk EVEN as He walked.
    
        You continue to insist that part of His 'walking' was of a type
        that is in direct conflict with the plain teaching of the word
        of God.  That is, doing things in a way in which we simply cannot.
        While the word simply says that AS HE DID, WE CAN.
    
                                                  Tony

Hebrews 2:17-18
Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that
he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to
make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them
that are tempted.
    
Hebrews 4:15
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our
infirmities; BUT WAS IN ALL POINTS TEMPTED LIKE AS WE ARE, *YET WITHOUT SIN.*

Hebrews 7:26-27
For such an high priest became us, WHO IS HOLY, HARMLESS, UNDEFILED, SEPARATE
FROM SINNERS, AND MADE HIGHER THAN THE HEAVENS;
Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for
his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered
up himself.

II Corinthians 5:17-21
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed
away; behold, all things are become new.
And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ,
and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not
imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of
reconciliation.
Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we
pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.
For he hath made him to be sin for us, WHO KNEW NO SIN; that we might be made
the righteousness of God in him.

      Hi Mike,
    
        Yeah, its plain and simple.  Lets be inclusive and instead 
        of abandoning what I have said, EMBRACE THE FULL SUM OF ALL
        THAT HAS BEEN SAID.
    
        Did you notice how one of the verses you quoted stated that
        we could have the exact same experience?
    
        Now let me ask you and please answer:
    
        1) If we can have the same experience spiritually
    
        2) and if we accept your insistence that Jesus utilized His
           divine attributes in order to have this experience, i.e. 
           that there was no other way He could have this experience.
    
        3) The conclusion must be that we (as Christ did) utilize
           OUR native divine attributes just as Christ did!
    
        4) Which then implies that I am God.
    
    
        So we see that this is fundamentally flawed and rationally unsound.
    
        So what could possibly EMBRACE the texts you have given and the
        ones I have given?
    
        Simply this.  Jesus was born-again at the incarnation.  His FAITH
        was NON-INTERMITTANT from incarnation on.  His will was submitted
        to the Father's from incarnation on.
    
        His Father performed all the works IN HIM.  (You did intend to
        embrace this text, did you not?)
    
        And Jesus says to us, "This is the WAY, walk ye in it."
    
        And surely the way He points to is one that is not inclusive of
        utilizing native divine attributes for the simple reason that
        we are not God (as He is).
    
        Summary: He walked by faith and says we can do the same.
    
        Consider embracing all of scripture Mike.
    
                                                   Tony
                                        

      Hi,
    
        One other thing.
    
        Either Jesus utilized omniscience or He don't.  Omniscience
        is the divine attribute of all-knowingness which includes
        foreknowledge.
    
        Jesus Christ, by His very own testimony, lacked all-knowingness.
        He did not utilize omniscience.
    
        Does anyone disagree with this?
    
                                                    Tony

    Tony, are you 100% sure you've considered all the possibilities according 
    to what the Bible tells us?
    
    Mike

re Note 1003.127 by FRETZ::HEISER:

>     Tony, are you 100% sure you've considered all the possibilities according 
>     to what the Bible tells us?
    
        Mike,

        How can anyone honestly say that they are sure that they have
        considered all the possibilities suggested by the Biblical
        text?

        Bob

      Mike,
    
        Of course not.  To insist such would be proof that one 
        knows nothing as they ought to know it.
    
        I am ~98% sure that you are unwilling to squarely explain
        a multitude of texts.
    
                                                  Tony

    Tony, you've mentioned before in regards to the Investigative Judgment
    that Christ is still performing ritual cleansing and atoning as the
    priests did during Yom Kippur.  In studying the order of Melchizedek,
    it is obvious that this priesthood is far above the Levites and Aaronic
    priests.  The requirements are vastly different and much more
    stringent.  So much so that only Christ was in the order of
    Melchizedek.  This also ties in to Christ having to be the spotless
    Lamb as well as our High Priest.
    
The name Melchizedek is only mentioned in the Bible in 3 passages, all written
thousands of years apart.  These passages are in Genesis 14:18, Psalm 110 and
Hebrews 5-7.  From these 3 passages, some basic characteristics can be
determined about Melchizedek:

1. His name means "King of Righteousness"
2. He was King of Salem.  Salem means "peace" so He was the King of Peace.
3. He was the Priest of El Elyon - The Most High God Himself
4. He served Abram bread and wine to bless him.  Christ served the disciples
   bread and wine and commanded believers to do the same in remembrance of Him.
5. King David said He is a Priest Forever and a King.  Levites and Aaronic
   Priests were forbidden to be kings and God dealt severely with anyone of them
   who tried to be a king.  Obviously this priesthood is extremely unique.
6. In Psalm 110 (verse 1), YHWH (LORD) is talking to Adonai (Lord).  YHWH calls
   Adonai a Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.  This is a
   clear picture of the triunity of God.
7. He personally received Abram's tithe and offerings and blessed him.
   Levites and Aaronic priests could only collect tithes and offerings, not
   personally receive them.
8. He has no father or mother or geneaology.
9. He has no beginning of days or end of life.
10.He is *like* the Son of God.  In Daniel 3:25, translators incorrectly
   translated Elohim to say "*like* a son of the gods."  Given what we know
   about Elohim, it should say "*like* the Son of God."  They do the same
   thing to Elohim in Daniel 5:11,14 which should say "God" instead of "gods."
   Finally, Daniel 7:13 also refers to "*like* a Son of Man."  The whole point
   of this is that the Holy Spirit moved the authors to refer to the
   pre-incarnate Christ as "*like* the Son of God."  The First Advent hadn't
   yet occurred so Christ took on the appearance of what was to come.
11.He abides as a priest perpetually, and no else is part of this order.
12.He was not a Levite or Aaronic priest, He was vastly superior.

I wouldn't be dogmatic about this, but I believe it is obvious that Melchizedek
was a pre-incarnate appearance of Jesus Christ.  The only known member of this
order is Jesus Christ.  He was the only priest allowed to be both a High Priest
and a King.  Nobody else could live up to the requirements of the Melchizedek
priesthood set forth by God.  Only Christ is after the order of Melchizedek
because He was perfect, holy, undefiled, separated from sinners, and exalted
above the heavens and didn't need to perform the ritual cleansing required of
the Levites and Aaronic priests (Hebrews 7:26-27).  Only Christ is called the
King of Righteousness, King of Peace, and the High Priest of the Most High God.
    
    Mike

      Hi Mike,
    
        Say Mike, what is the relevence of your last reply to this
        topic?  It seems your last reply is more relevent to the
        sometime discussion we have had regarding when the atonement
        is finished and by which of Christ's work (sacrifice or priest)
        it is finished.
    
        I'm gonna assume that your reply speaks nothing about whether 
        or not Christ utilized His divine attributes during His earthly
        sojourn as our Example.
    
        But, as a reply to the requirements of Christ in terms of
        cleansing, I believe all of the OT cleansings are highly symbolic.
        To cleanse an earthly sanctuary is symbolic of cleansing the
        heavenly sanctuary is symbolic of cleansing the human heart.
    
        My heart is not entirely clean.  And I know that Jesus says we
        are now clean as in...
    
        John 15:3
        You are ALREADY clean because of the word which I have spoken 
        to you.
    
        In some respect, if one has received Christ by faith, He is
        ALREADY clean.
    
        However, the inspired word also says...
    
        2 Corin 6:11,14
        O Corinthians!  We have spoken openly to you, our heart is wide
        open.
        Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers...
    
        [Paul is addressing people of faith, people who believe.  That is
         my point for citing this text.]
    
        2 Corin 7:1
        Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse our-
        selves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, PERFECTING
        HOLINESS in the fear of God.
    
        God's people are not yet clean in all the ways the Holy Word 
        speaks of cleansing.
    
        When the atonement is finished, God's people are reconciled to 
        Him.  The enmity is in our hearts.  Christ's High Priestly work
        will be finished when something takes place in His people.  They
        have perfected holiness in the fear of God.  Then, the sanctuary,
        the hearts of His beloved, is cleansed.
    
        Anyway, this is quite a tangent from the discussion at hand but
        so far as this discussion right here is concerned, I ask you:
    
        In what sense are we already clean by the word and in what sense
        are we not yet completely clean?
    
        Is there a cleansing yet incompletely done?
    
        Who accomplishes this cleansing, i.e. whose work is it?
    
        What characterizes its being done, i.e. describe its practical
        result?                         
    
                                                     God Bless,
    
                                                     Tony

>        Say Mike, what is the relevence of your last reply to this
>        topic?  It seems your last reply is more relevent to the
    
    It's right in the opening paragraph.  Christ was both the High Priest
    and the Unblemished Lamb Offering.  He was both God and man.  He was
    perfect.  No other priest is in this order or worthy of it.
    
    Mike

>        2 Corin 7:1
>        Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse our-
>        selves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, PERFECTING
>        HOLINESS in the fear of God.
    
    This obviously deals with the struggles between the flesh and God's
    Spirit within us per Romans 7.  The atonement has been made already. 
    We will continue this struggle until Christ's return when we will be
    glorified and shed the flesh (1 Corinthians 15).
    
>        God's people are not yet clean in all the ways the Holy Word 
>        speaks of cleansing.
    
    Agreed.  It will be finished at the next resurrection in 1 Corinthians
    15.
    
>        When the atonement is finished, God's people are reconciled to 
    
    The atonement *IS* finished.  How many times does Christ have to die
    for you?
    
>        Him.  The enmity is in our hearts.  Christ's High Priestly work
>        will be finished when something takes place in His people.  They
    
    Again, you're confusing Christ with a Levite.  The order of Melchizedek
    isn't subject to the same rituals because He is perfect.
    
>        Anyway, this is quite a tangent from the discussion at hand but
>        so far as this discussion right here is concerned, I ask you:
    
    Not at all.  It ties in nicely.  The High Priest of El Elyon (Most High
    God) had to be perfect since He also filled the dual role of being the 
    Sacrifical Unblemished Lamb.
    
>        In what sense are we already clean by the word and in what sense
>        are we not yet completely clean?
    
    Only in the struggles of the flesh.  We shed this when we are
    glorified.
    
>        Is there a cleansing yet incompletely done?
    
    No.  The price has been paid.  There is nothing more we can do and
    there is nothing more God needs to do.  He's done it all already.
    
    Mike

      Hi Mike,
    
        I am not sure where you are coming from with your High
        Priest contributions.  Are you saying that Christ is not
        presently doing a High Priestly work?  On what basis?
        Because He _was_ a High Priest forever?
    
        Does not the word also say that Jesus was the Lamb slain 
        from the foundation of the world?  And given this, why not
        apply the reasoning you apply to Christ's priestly function
        to Christ's sacrificial work?
    
        By this I mean your reasoning that Christ cannot possibly be
        doing a High Priestly work now because He always was a High
        Priest.  Well, He always was a Lamb.  Thus it follows (applying
        your reasoning) that the atonement was finished from the founda-
        tion of the world.
    
        I do not accept these applications.  I am not exactly sure what
        it means for Jesus to have been both Priest forever and the Lamb
        slain from the foundation of the world, but there are other 
        possibilities than yours.  One possibility is that these texts
        refer to God never changing and that in some sense He is always
        sacrificial love and loving Mediator.  Another possibility is
        that through foreknowledge, it was known that Christ would be
        both and thus (in a sense) its inevitability is a 'done deal.'
    
        You say the atonemnent is finished.  I say that it is not, but
        the real source of conflict is far more significant and far more
        fundamental.  The real important thing is the meanings we attri-
        bute to the terms.
    
        For you, atonement probably refers to God having to be appeased
        by sacrifice, by payment.  In other words, the sacrifice of
        Christ appeases God for it is HIS need that is satisfied.  Our
        condemnation is not sin, it is God having to kill because of
        sin - all in the name of 'justice' of course.  But, then again,
        our 'meaning' of the what and why of justice are altogether 
        different as well.
    
        Is the wages of SIN death or the wages of GOD for sin death???
    
        I say atonement refers to man having to be reconciled to God.  It
        refers to the source of alienation being SIN and the satisfaction
        of reconciliation being the final and complete removal of the
        source of enmity (again SIN).
    
        Mike, I'm a sinner.  And I know the enmity, the sting of sin.
    
        The time is going to come when God removes the alienation.  He
        really and actually cleanses the heart from sin.  THEN and only 
        then we can bear to see the love of the Father fully unveiled
        and live.  THEN and only then the mediatorial work of Christ 
        is finished for He can afford to allow our faith to "pierce
        behind the veil" and to look at the face of God in the Most Holy.
    
        You say the atonement is finished all the while humanity (even
        those that have begun to allow Christ residence in the heart)
        experiences the ache of sin and knows first hand some of its deadly
        sin (even though its sting is anesthetized for light makes manifest
        and we look through the glass darkly).
    
        There is still sin in my heart Mike.  Jesus still has a work to
        do.  Deny the work of cleansing the heart from sin if you will
        Mike.  But, it is an ongoing work and the worker is Jesus Christ
        who ministers NOW in a temple not made with hands, but the one
        of which the Mosaic is but a pattern.
    
        And the problem always has been sin.  Sin is the enemy.  Sin is
        the source of the problem.  And the actual removal of it is the
        remedy.
    
        Cleansing...perfecting holiness in the fear of God (that's how
        Corin defined it).  THAT is the work of atonement.  That is a
        work ongoing.  That is the work which reconciles humanity back
        to God.  That is the work yet unfinished for we still SIN.
    
        But, again, you do not believe all this because the fork in our
        roads lies deeper.  For you deliverance is from God who must
        kill because we sin.  For me deliverance is from sin because 
        it is sin which kills (and which death is made manifest by the
        light).
    
        That is the real fork.  Concepts of atonement, justification,
        and the efficacy of the cross take on very different meanings
        depending upon the path taken AFTER the fork.
    
        I have found and continue to find incredible scriptural harmony
        once I dared to accept this notion.  But, unlearning can be
        mighty hard to do.
    
                                                    Tony
                          

    Tony,
    
>        I am not sure where you are coming from with your High
>        Priest contributions.  Are you saying that Christ is not
>        presently doing a High Priestly work?  On what basis?
>        Because He _was_ a High Priest forever?
    
    I'm saying He was always the High Priest and performed the perfect
    sacrifice for our atonement since He was perfect.  No more sacrifice is
    made or necessary because it has been completed.  He is the author and
    finisher of our faith.  
    
Hebrews 7:26-27 "For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest,
    holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the
    heavens; who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up
    sacrifices, first for His own sins, and then for the sins of the
    people, because this He did ONCE AND FOR ALL WHEN HE OFFERED UP
    HIMSELF."  (NAS)
    
>        Does not the word also say that Jesus was the Lamb slain 
>        from the foundation of the world?  And given this, why not
>        apply the reasoning you apply to Christ's priestly function
>        to Christ's sacrificial work?
>    
>        By this I mean your reasoning that Christ cannot possibly be
>        doing a High Priestly work now because He always was a High
>        Priest.  Well, He always was a Lamb.  Thus it follows (applying
>        your reasoning) that the atonement was finished from the founda-
>        tion of the world.
    
    ...and He always was God, and He always was the Creator, and He always
    was YHWH, the King of Peace, the Messiah, and hundreds of other names
    and titles.  All of these titles as well as Lamb and High Priest were
    fulfilled in due time.  It was always known that they would be
    fulfilled, but they weren't fulfilled until the time was right.  If the
    atonement was finished from the foundation of the world, there would be
    no need for Abraham's bosom (Sheol).  The atonement wasn't finished
    until Christ paid the price for it.  Now there is no need for Sheol or
    the OT sacrificial system.  It is no coincidence that it and the Temple
    disappeared after Christ's resurrection.
    
>        I do not accept these applications.  I am not exactly sure what
>        it means for Jesus to have been both Priest forever and the Lamb
>        slain from the foundation of the world, but there are other 
    
    The Lamb might have been slain from the foundation of the world, but it
    is incorrect to say that the atonement was also paid then.
    
>        sacrificial love and loving Mediator.  Another possibility is
>        that through foreknowledge, it was known that Christ would be
>        both and thus (in a sense) its inevitability is a 'done deal.'
    
    This is what I believe the Bible is presenting.  God knew it was going
    to happen.  The OT prophets even wrote about it.  But it still had to
    happen to be complete.
    
>        For you, atonement probably refers to God having to be appeased
>        by sacrifice, by payment.  In other words, the sacrifice of
>        Christ appeases God for it is HIS need that is satisfied.  Our
>        condemnation is not sin, it is God having to kill because of
>        sin - all in the name of 'justice' of course.  But, then again,
>        our 'meaning' of the what and why of justice are altogether 
>        different as well.
    
    You're miles away on this assumption.  My view of God is not a
    dictator.  God paid the price for our sin because He loved us so much
    and because He knew there was no other way for us to be with Him.  It's
    all about God's love and grace.
    
>        Is the wages of SIN death or the wages of GOD for sin death???
    
    Romans 6:23 chooses the former and so do I.
    
>        I say atonement refers to man having to be reconciled to God.  It
>        refers to the source of alienation being SIN and the satisfaction
>        of reconciliation being the final and complete removal of the
>        source of enmity (again SIN).
    
    I think we agree on this to a degree.  God's love and grace is what
    initiated the reconciliation.  God came to us since we couldn't go to Him. 
    God reached out for us out of love and paid that price.
    
>        Mike, I'm a sinner.  And I know the enmity, the sting of sin.
    
    I'm no stranger to it either, but that doesn't say I'm content there. 
    I've accepted Christ's gift and strive to live for Him.  We all stumble
    on the way, but praise God we don't stay there.
    
>        The time is going to come when God removes the alienation.  He
>        really and actually cleanses the heart from sin.  THEN and only 
>        then we can bear to see the love of the Father fully unveiled
>        and live.  THEN and only then the mediatorial work of Christ 
>        is finished for He can afford to allow our faith to "pierce
>        behind the veil" and to look at the face of God in the Most Holy.
    
    Today is the day of salvation.  The veil has been torn in two.  Through
    Christ's righteousness now in us we can boldy go before the throne.  We
    now have access to the Father.  When God looks at us after we've
    accepted His Son as Savior, He sees the righteousness of Christ in us. 
    
>        You say the atonement is finished all the while humanity (even
>        those that have begun to allow Christ residence in the heart)
>        experiences the ache of sin and knows first hand some of its deadly
>        sin (even though its sting is anesthetized for light makes manifest
>        and we look through the glass darkly).
    
    Read Romans 7 and 1 Corinthians 15.  The battle of the flesh continues
    as the Holy Spirit gradually kicks the old man out of this human shell. 
    This battle is gradually won as we starve the flesh and take on more of
    God's Holy Spirit in our lives.  This happens as we grow as Christians. 
    The battle will be complete in the next resurrection.
    
>        There is still sin in my heart Mike.  Jesus still has a work to
>        do.  Deny the work of cleansing the heart from sin if you will
>        Mike.  But, it is an ongoing work and the worker is Jesus Christ
>        who ministers NOW in a temple not made with hands, but the one
>        of which the Mosaic is but a pattern.
    
    I don't deny it's there, but Christ has done the work.  It is time for
    you to now bask in the grace and love of Jesus Christ and the assurance
    of your salvation.  As you grow through studying God's Word, worshiping 
    Him for His wonderful love and grace, and maintain an attitude of prayer, 
    you'll start winning the battle with the flesh.  I've experienced this
    just as personally as I've felt the sting of the flesh.
    
>        And the problem always has been sin.  Sin is the enemy.  Sin is
>        the source of the problem.  And the actual removal of it is the
>        remedy.
    
    Agreed.  And the remedy has been provided.  It's time we accept that
    and move on as we grow in God's grace.  Continually worrying about our
    salvation is not how we grow.  I've been there and never grew at all. 
    When you're saved, you'll know it, and growing in grace after that
    glorious acknowledgement is a tremendous experience.
    
>        Cleansing...perfecting holiness in the fear of God (that's how
>        Corin defined it).  THAT is the work of atonement.  That is a
>        work ongoing.  That is the work which reconciles humanity back
>        to God.  That is the work yet unfinished for we still SIN.
    
    You had it right until the last sentence.  Jesus Christ paid the price
    for sin.  Perhaps you're struggling with sin now more than you should
    because you haven't accepted Christ's full atonement yet.
    
>        But, again, you do not believe all this because the fork in our
>        roads lies deeper.  For you deliverance is from God who must
>        kill because we sin.  For me deliverance is from sin because 
>        it is sin which kills (and which death is made manifest by the
>        light).
    
    Like I said, this is a very bad assumption on your part.  For me
    deliverance is from the bondage of sin so that I can bask in the
    freedom Christ has provided because of His glorious love and grace.
    
>        I have found and continue to find incredible scriptural harmony
>        once I dared to accept this notion.  But, unlearning can be
>        mighty hard to do.
    
    No offense, but I am sorry to say that I can think of several passages 
    that put your stance in disharmony with God's grace and love.  As far
    as I can see, your whole stance is based on only 1 verse (Hebrews 8:2). 
    Correct me if I'm wrong.  The whole theme of the NT is God's gift of
    grace and the atonement being complete through Christ's finished work
    on the cross.
    
    Mike

The One Perfect and Sufficient Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross was
presented to the Father on the Day of the Crucifixion but is continually
presented to the Father in heaven by Our Lord the High Priest, God and King,
not again and again or as a new sacrifice, but as an eternal presentation
of the One Same Sufficient Sacrifice on the Cross.

The benefits of that Sacrifice are made available for Christians today
through the Holy Sacrifice of the Eucharist, in which the celebrant, in
obedience to Our Lord's command to "do this" unites the whole Church with
the Eternal Sacrifice and, acting in the person of Christ as the leader
of the community, presents ourselves, our souls and bodies to be a Holy
and Living Sacrifice to the Father, united with the very same Lord and
Christ who offered himself to the Father on the day of the Crucifixion.
In Celebrations of the Holy Eucharist, as on the Road to Emmaus, we come
to know Our Lord in Word and Sacrament: in the reading and explanation
of Holy Scripture and in the Breaking of Bread.

In reality, there is only one High Priest, only one Sacrifice; all
celebrations of the Eucharist are outward and visible signs in today's
world of the inward and spiritual reality of the one Sacrifice 2000
years ago.

/john

Hebrews 8:1
NOW of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high
priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the
heavens;

    There are a few interesting things to point out about this verse. 
    Notice is that Christ is seated (i.e., resting).  If you are familiar
    with the life of a Levite priest, you'll know that their work was never
    done.  Sort of like parents (usually the Mom) who's work was never
    done.  There were always sacrifices to perform, atonement to be made,
    process of self-cleansing, etc.  This is why Jesus Christ wasn't a
    Levite.  Christ was of the heavenly order of Melchizedek because there
    would be a time when His work as High Priest would be finished.  It
    happened at Calvary and now He is seated.
    
    Secondly, look to the Sanhedrin as an example of the seating
    arrangements here.  The Sanhedrin was a very powerful civil and
    religious court.  They were the major player in the arrest and
    crucifixion of Jesus Christ.  In the Sanhedrin court, the person
    logging all the condemnations sat on the left of the judge.  The person
    who logged all the acquittals sat on the right hand of the judge.  It's
    also interesting to note that the translation of Satan is "Accuser." 
    Jesus Christ is on the right hand of God because He has logged all the
    acquittals for us.  When God looks at the Christian, He sees Christ
    righteousness!
    
Hebrews 8:2
A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord
pitched, and not man.

    The true temple that the Lord has built is within the heart and soul of
    the believer in Christ.  Way back in Ezekiel, it was prophecied that this 
    inward change would take place.
    
    Ezekiel 36:26
A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I
will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart
of flesh.

    This prophecy was fulfilled in the words of Jesus Christ Himself:
    
John 3:3-5
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man
be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter
the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water
and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

    How could the Lord's Temple be in the believer in Christ?  Let's see
    what else God's Word says about this.
    
I Corinthians 6:19
What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in
you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

    Paul is very clear here on this.  How is it possible that the Lord's
    Temple is within the Christians?
    
John 2:19-22
Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I
will raise it up.
Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt
thou rear it up in three days?
But he spake of the temple of his body.
When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had
said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus
had said.

    Jesus Christ paid the price for the new covenant so He could set up His
    Temple within us and minister to us when we become servants of God.  He
    continually intercedes on our behalf as well.
    
Hebrews 8:6
But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the
mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
    
I Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ
Jesus;

    He continually intercedes for the believer, showing His righteousness
    through us.  As we continue to serve Him, He continually washes and
    regenerates us in His Spirit.
    
    Mike

      Mike,
    
        I have been real busy all day and have only had the chance
        to glean your second to last reply.
    
        Just what was paid in full?
    
        What exactly is the atonement?  How did the cross satisfy it?
    
        I'll have to give your reply a closer read, but it seemed like
        your reply didn't address the main point I tried to make which
        is that we disagree on what it is that condemns us (and thus what
        it is that we need to be delivered from) and all other topics
        ultimately emanate from this huge source of disagreement.
    
        You believe our salvation is from God because He requires a 
        punishment of death for sin and the cross meets this payment
        which if accepted is credited to your account.
    
        I believe our salvation is from sin because condemnation is 
        inherent to sin and the cross meets the payment of deliverance
        because it is the love demonstrated that as we behold it in
        faith, our hearts our delivered from sin.  Sin is cleansed 
        from the heart.
    
        As to our High Priest and your assertion that He is resting
        (doing no work), what of the following?
    
        1 Peter 1:2
        elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in 
        sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling 
        of the blood of Jesus Christ.
    
        Who sanctifies?
    
        Who sprinkles the blood of Jesus Christ?
    
        Where is it sprinkled?
    
        What does the sprinkled blood do?
    
        I suppose you can anticipate my general answer.  These are all
        works Jesus is now performing and they all happen to be works
        performed by a Priest and these works reconcile (atone) the 
        heart from sin and to God.
    
                                                     Tony