Back to Front Page

A)  The Bible says Jesus "knew no sin"

B)  According to Heb 9:28, the saints(who evidently DO know sin?) will nevertheless be
found "without sin unto salvation."

#1.  Concerning the first of the two apparent states or ways of being sinless:Do people here believe Jesus was accounted sinless insomuch and because he, unlike us, was not subject to the corruption that is in the world through lust?  Don't most orthodox Christians
believe Jesus had none of our propensities to sin?  [Sin, here, defined as a
transgression of the law of letters-- "Sin is the transgression of the law."(1Jo
3:4)]

#2.  Concerning the second way of sinless:Obviously, the saints are
not concluded sinless because they were always perfect.  So how are such
imperfect specimens as we, concluded sinless?  How are we finally found
not convicted of any sin-- ultimately, whether past or present?  It must be
that the accuser(the devil) does not prevail to convince the Judge to rule
against us.  Jesus said he and God are not here to condemn us, but to save
us!  So the only remaining prosecutor that I see is our own faithless
conscience!  I suspect that if our conscience, by our faith, does not condemn
us, then we are "blessed" and concluded sinless:  "Blessed is he that
condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth."(Ro 14:22)

"Sin" now, as described in the above scenario, is no longer defined by an arbitrary
law of letters.  "Sin" here is defined much differently as, "Whatsoever is not
of faith is sin."(Ro 14:23)  This new definition of sin observes a change also
of the law that came by the change in the priesthood(Heb 7:12).  This law is
not of letters, it is called "the law of faith."(Ro 3:27)  I realize this is a
borderline rhetorical question, but I am altogether curious if anybody else
sees that Jesus could have been concluded sinless via the same law of faith
prescribed for us?  Has anybody else, besides me, considered how it could
have been the power of faith which enabled Jesus to such a union with
God?  Jesus, in Jo 17, clearly expected us to be as much in union with God
as he.  John the Revelator said, "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit
sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of
God."(1Jo 3:9)  What if Jesus, like us-- by that seed of faith alone, was
thereby concluded sinless?  Wouldn't that then make him truly "like unto his
brethren in all things"(Heb 2:17).  Then, wouldn't that indicate that Jesus
taught the diciples that law of faith by living it?

When the Word of God was "made flesh," perhaps that means he was made "not God"
long enough to prove the new law and power of faith!  After all, "God is not a man,"(Nu
23:19) "no man has seen God at any time,"(Joh 1:18) for "God is a
spirit,"(Joh 4:24) and "God changes not,"(Mal 3:6) for yet "a spirit(God)
hath not flesh and bones."(Lu 24:39)  Perhaps Jesus has never been God of
himself; lest why did he cry for the Father for the glory that was NOT of
himself?:  "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the
glory which I had with thee before the world was."(Joh 17:5)I wonder if I've
seen all the apparent paradoxes regarding the nature of Christ, arguably
resolved.  I would like to gingerly turn over some new-to-me-data here, to
see how well it holds up.  Can I get some help here?

(Catholic)
 You raise some truly interesting questions in this post, including the notion
of how Jesus was sinless through living this new "law of faith". <... I will
have to consider this "law of faith" notion a bit more.

(Datone)
Thanks.  I would appreciate your sharing any of your conclusions with me.

(Catholic)
Unfortunately, your post goes on to ask questions about Jesus' divine
nature that were settled by the Council of Nicaea in 325. <... For an answer
to your questions about Jesus' deity, go to the Nicene Creed.
 

(Datone)
I do not deny the divinity of Christ, but I see it as a divinity which the
"saints" may/must have in common with him-- as we are "partakers of the
divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through
lust."(2Pe 1:4)

1Co 15:28 says that at last, "God shall be all in all"(1Co 15:28)  As
"jointheirs with Christ,"(Ro 8:17) we too will be, like Jesus, "with God and
as God."  However, never will we be God(or a God) in and of our own
created selves.  Divine, you see, but not in and of our own "made" selves.
So why is it necessary to dogmatize the divinity of Jesus as so innate as to
proceed from within and of his own self?

You see, I don't deny the divinity, the extent, or power of it.  I do, however,
question the Creed's intention to render us as innately dissimilar from our
Head in God, Jesus Christ; for we are not God of our selves.  If Jesus was,
while flesh, yet God of himself, then I suspect that would render him a fake
human-- lest how could he be "in all points made like unto his
brethren."(Heb 2:17)???

In Conclusion:I am feeling more and more comfortable suspecting that
Jesus was divine, for thirty-three years, by his faith alone.  This suspicion of
mine doesn't undermine his divinity, I suggest it merely exalts the power of
the faith of Jesus Christ.  I also suspect that the saints, the "members of
Christ," have also been with God in Christ for eternity.  Consider the
following verses:

"God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world, that we should
be holy and without blame before him in love: having predestined us"(Eph
1:4,5)

We are "vessels of mercy, which God prepared unto glory before the
world."(Ro 9:23)

"In thy book(Christ) all my members were written, which in continuance
were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them."(Ps 139:16)

"Even though we were still dead in sin(immature), yet God resurrected us
together with Christ(by grace we are saved;), and has raised us up together,
and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus."(Eph 2:5,6)

(Catholic)
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally
begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, begotten, not
made,

(Datone)
Jesus “not made”?  In a scriptural sense, Jesus WAS made.  See Joh 1:14;
1:31, Ac 2:36, 2Co 4:11; 5:21, Ga 4:4, Php 2:7, Heb 1:4; 2:9; 2:17; 5:9; 6:20,
1Pe 2:7.  And what about Col 1:15- “Christ, the firstborn of every
creature.”?

(Catholic)
 Jesus was of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made.

(Datone)
I buy that.  I would point out that the operative word, above is “Through”.

Eph 3:9 says, “God created all things BY Christ Jesus.”  An artist creates a
picture BY a paint brush, but who actually creates the picture?  What if
Jesus, like us, was also a tool in God’s hand?  We are described as God’s
tool(s):  “Thou art my battle axe and weapons of war: for with thee will I
break in pieces the nations, and with thee will I destroy kingdoms.”(Jer
51:20)

(Catholic)
For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of
the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made
man.  For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death
and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the
Scriptures; he ascended into heaven  and is seated at the right hand of the
Father.  He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and
his kingdom will have no end.

(Datone)
Sure, but I would add...
It may be that all the prophecies of Christ are as much fulfilled in us, his
body members; like Jesus said, “All things that were written by the prophets
concerning the son of man, will be raised up again at the last day; and
I(Jesus Christ) will raise him up at the last day."(Luke 18:31 & John
6:39,40)   Consider also Ac 3:21:  "Jesus Christ, whom the heavens must
receive until the times of restitution of all things which God has spoken by
the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began."

(Catholic)
 Needless to say, this understanding
 of the atonement requires an orthodox
 Nicene-Chalcedonian understanding
 of the Person of Jesus Christ,
 otherwise there can be no such
 identification with humanity and
 with God.

(Datone)
How about by the “law of faith” scenario I have described?  Is it not a
legitimate way of identifying man with God-- which the Creed does not
mention?

(Catholic)
Jesus, is the 2nd Person of the Trinity.

(Datone)
When evil is vanquished and time is all done, 1Co 15:28 says "God
shall be all in all."  Then, won't God be composed of a lot more than three persons?

I see One name covers all the persons of the Godhead, but are there
only three persons?  When Jesus was
"transfigured before them, there appeared Moses and Elijah also with him."
Does that mean that the Son of God, at that time, also included Moses and
Elijah?  No?  Well, didn't they all three ascend to heaven?  If so, like Jesus said,
"No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven,
even the Son of man which is in heaven."(Joh 3:13)  So, as surely as Moses,
Elijah, and Enoch have ascended, then that means they are also the Son of
man which is in heaven.  Right?

Therefore that "person" which you call the
second of the trinity, is himself ultimately composed of many saints.  As
partakers of the divinity, are we not also called into oneness with the same
Godhead?  See Joh 17.  Sounds like more than three already.

How about
the Holy Spirit?  In Zec 4:2-6 I see the Spirit of God described as seven.
Have you read in scripture about the "seven eyes," and "seven spirits" of
God?  As you can see, I have my reasons for suspecting that the word
"trinity" may be a bit to narrow to cover all the persons of the eternal
Godhead!

(Catholic)
I have to trust that the Nicene Council was led of the Holy Spirit when they
determined the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

Back to Jesus.  Catholics do believe Jesus was like us in every way...
 He had the capacity to sin.

(Datone)
Jesus had the capacity to sin?  I'm not sure I agree-- unless you
can explain how it is this verse did not apply as much to Jesus as it does to
us:  "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth
in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God."(1Jo 3:9) Now let's
look at your words again:  You said, "He had the capacity to sin, in a human
nature. However, He was full of the Holy Spirit."  I say that is a
contradiction.  If one sins, is that not proof that he is NOT filled with the
Holy Ghost?  Where does it say it is possible for the two to dwell in the
same house together?  What I am suggesting is this:  Sure, I believe that we
may fall, as we too, like Christ, are "made perfect through sufferings,"(He
5:8) but a "fall" or an "imperfection" is not sin.  Sin requires a conviction.
But Jesus and God do not impute sin against the "blessed":  "Blessed is
the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin."(Ro 4:8)  Whoever is born
of the Spirit "CANNOT sin"
 

( Catholic)
You may not deny the "divinity" of Jesus, but you do deny his inherent
deity,

(Datone)
How so?  When we become “partakers of the divinity”(2Pe 1:4)-- when
“God shall be all in all”(1Co 15:28), how do you know that our divinity
won’t be, in the eternal context(beyond the context of time) ultimately
inherent in us as well?  After all, as written in prophecy,  “I have said, Ye
are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.”(Ps 82:6)  I find it
reasonable to suggest any of God’s children may awake one day to realizea
unity with God which has always been; yet, which was initiated through
their faith alone, and which is as complete(inherent) as the union between
Jesus and God(as described in Joh 17).  Did you read all those verses I
provided which describe us as known of God before the world existed?
I still don’t understand why you(your Creed) find it desperately necessary to
believe Jesus had to be so different from us in some ultimate way--
insomuch that he couldn’t have been, for thirty-three years, fully like us in
all things-- including in touch with his divinity through his faith alone.  Do
understand my question?

( Catholic)
co-eternal with that of the Father and the Holy Spirit, and so you do deny
the catholic and apostolic faith confessed in the Creed.

(Datone)

 Denying the faith?  Is there another kind of faith going on here?  How am I
denying “the faith of Jesus Christ”?  Are you saying the “faith of Jesus”
was/is unrelated to “the law of faith” described in Ro 3:27)?  Are you
saying that “the faith which was ONCE delivered unto the saints”(Ju3) was
absent until 325- and exclusively delivered to those wealty bishops at
Nicaea?  By what scriptural liscense do you judge me a heretic simply
because I (unlike you?) am come to “Prove all things, hold fast that which
is good”(1Th 5:21)?   How can we know that the Nicene Creed didn’t
proceed from the depths of hell, if we refuse to compare their words with
scripture:  “If they speak not according to this word, there is no light in
them.”(Isa 8:20)  All “churches” claim to be “The” church to whom God
gave “the keys”.

Now you would call me a heretic because I would seek through diologue to
find a creative settlement between us?

( Catholic)
No one would deny the inherent paradox here; that Jesus is both fully God
(in a non-derivative sense, that is, in his co-eternity with the Father) and
fully human.

(Datone)
Then perhaps they could explain to me why Jesus(while temporarily
human)  “cried” that he had no glory(or divinity) of his own self:  “Jesus
cried, Father glorify thou me WITH THINE OWN SELF, with the glory I
had with thee before the world.”  Doesn’t this indicate Jesus as presently a
bit short on glory/divinity at that brief juncture?  Perhaps only divine by his
faith alone?  The Council of Nicaea obviously didn’t concern themselves
with this possiblity.

So, back to this “law of faith”...
God, by definition, is all-powerful, all-knowing, everywhere, and eternal.
These abilities automatically render faith obsolete.  To believe Jesus was
actually God-- merely wearing a homo sapien suit, is to believe Jesus did
not live his gospel.  We are told we must live as Jesus lived(1Jo 2:6)-- “by
faith.”(Ro 1:17)  If Jesus lived far above and beyond hope/faith, his
superman reality would have rendered his gospel of faith null and void.
Right?

(Catholic)
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, in his lecture notes gathered together later into the
book _Christ the Center_ remarks that to try to force this into a reasonable
category is to make Reason, not God the Father, the father of Jesus Christ,
and to erect an idol (I heartily commend this book to your reading).

(Datone)
The gospel of Christ-- defined as “the gospel of faith”(See Ro 1:16,17), is
inherently unreasonable?  Yes, I’ve encountered this same line of false
“reasoning” with almost every dogmatic “Christian” I’ve ever met.  I’ve
studied at several Bible colleges and on my own for twenty years, and I
realize dogma and diologue are apparently, tragically, allergic to each other.
Still, I would plead with you to try and consider the Bible texts that assure
us of an entirely REASONABLE gospel:  Like Jesus, his apostles reasoned
with the people by the scriptures.  “Come let us reason together, saith the
Lord.”(Is 1:18)  “Produce your cause, saith the Lord; bring forth your
strong reasons.”(Is 41:21)  “Be ready always to give an answer to every
man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you.”(1Pe 3:15)

Jesus used parables, examples.  Such use of parables to convey truth and to
provoke understanding:  this is the glorification of logic.

Obviously, anyone who rejects logic rejects Christ.  Anyone who rejects
reason is dishonest.  Anyone who refuses to understand is a fool, because
“The Lord is a God of knowledge.”(1Sa 2:3)
 Not nonsense.

“Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but
now is made manifest to his saints...full assurance of understanding...” (Col
1:26:2:2)
“Ye have an unction from the Holy One and ye know all things.”(1Jo 2:20)
“Wisdom and knowledge shall be the stability of thy times.”(Is 33:6)
“The knowledge of God will cover the earth, as waters cover the sea.”(Hab
2:14)

(Catholic)
There is nothing in Scripture to support this feeling or suspicion of yours
that Jesus' "divinity" consists in his faith. Certainly John the Evangelist (in
John 1 and the epistles), the Apostle Paul (Phil 2), and the writer of the
epistle to the Hebrews (ch. 1) teach that Jesus' *deity* precedes the
Incarnation and kenosis.

(Datone)
No, I sincerely believe that Jesus’ “divinity” consisted entirely and innately
of the power of God.   Even Jesus’ faith did not originate of his own self:
“For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good
pleasure.”(Php 2:13)  Didn’t Jesus teach the diciples this principle of
complete and utter reliance on God- even for our faith itself?  Why should I
expect the Council of Nicene to work in me to will and to do as vicars for
my faith?

(Catholic)
None of the verses that you adduce as proof of your statements about faith
and theosis makes any argument against Jesus' inherent deity.
 Jesus “not made”? In a scriptural
 sense, I see that Jesus WAS made.
 See Joh 1:14; 1:31, Ac 2:36, 2Co
 4:11; 5:21, Ga 4:4, Php 2:7, Heb
 1:4; 2:9; 2:17; 5:9; 6:20, 1Pe
 2:7. And what about Col 1:15-
 “Christ, the firstborn of
 every creature.”?
Yes, NOT MADE.

(Datone)
So do you consider all of the above verses, which describe Jesus Christ as
“made” and as a “creature,” aberrations?  Do not “The eyes of the Lord
preserve knowledge”(Pr 22:12)?

(Catholic)
 If that which is deity in Jesus is made,

(Datone)
No, Jesus described that state of being filled the Spirit of God
as an awakening-- like being born again!

(Catholic)
then Jesus is a demigod, and Christians are polytheists, and God himself
cannot (or does not) interact with the material universe except through a
being who is less-than-God.

(Datone)
But Jesus was both “equal to” and yet, simultaneously “less than” God:
Here is the paradox.

1) Less than:  Jesus said, “My Father is greater than I”(Joh 14:28)

 yet,

 2) “let this same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who being in the
form of God(as are we-- made an image of God) thought it not robbery to be
equal with God.”(Php 2:5,6)

I see how to resolve the apparent paradox by
using a mother as God and the fetus as the Son of God.  The mother is
greater than the fetus, yet they are one; equal.

(Catholic)
 Can we prooftext creation of the Word or Son of God? Certainly-you have
done so, using precisely those texts (though you did not cite Proverbs 8:22)
which the heresiarch Arius and his party used to prove that Jesus was
neither equal to nor co-eternal with God the Father.

(Datone)
Obviously, God has apparently ALWAYS been composing/creating His
Word.  Just because that Word was “MADE” flesh, doesn’t mean it/he
didn’t exist eternally before that!

God used His Son as the Ultimate Tool whereby to make the heavens and
the earth and all that is in them.  Thereby, I believe, He will continue to
increase His collective reality throughout eternity-- as described in Col 2:19
I have found many differences between the Arians and scripture, and the
Christadelphians and scripture.

(Catholic)
Do you not think that you have given Scripture a "spin" that fits your own
suspicions?

(Datone)
I believe the truth(Jesus Christ), characterized as “a rod of iron,” is spun
with invincible effectiveness by the Spirit of God for the sake of all those
who were predestined to benefit thereby.  It is that spirit, I confess and
testify, which attends my suspicions and yet proceeds to lead me into all
truth.  How can you know that you are not being led by a man-made
“creed”?  How can you know if you cannot consider scriptural proofs?

(Catholic)
As to your "law of faith" scenario as an adequate appropriation of
atonement, I'm afraid that you will have to give me a more precise
statement about what this might be, beyond just a "scenario."

(Datone)
Do you believe the following verse-- the “righteousness of faith” applies to
Jesus?  If not, according to the verse below, faith would then be made void.
“For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the
promise made of none effect:   For the promise, that he should be the heir of
the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through
the righteousness of faith.“(Ro 4:14,13)

I suspect “the law of faith” facilitated the atonement.  Thereby Jesus was
made perfect, fulfilled the law and the prophets unto death, and by our faith
we enter into death with him that we might be the righteousness of God in
him:  ”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.”(2Co 5:21)

In order for this atonement to cover us, we must cease to do our own works.
That means we trust God to establish our thoughts and to do our works in
us.  This is the “rest that remaineth therefore to the people of God.”(He 4:9)
I see He 4 clearly explains this “scenario” if you freely exchange the words
“rest” with “law of faith.”  I also perceive this “law of faith” or “rest” to be
the “sabbath” which the fourth commandment pointed forward to.  As Jesus
observed that rest, the marking of every seventh-rotation of the sun became,
IMO, nothing more than a temporal ordinance which is observed(however
harmlessly and even righteously) by ignorant people to this day.

(Catholic)
Let me get this straight you believe that Jesus wasn't God in the flesh?

(Datone)
For thirty-three years, it seems, Jesus was all about God by his faith alone.
Before Bethelehem and after Calvary he was with God and as God; but for
those thirty-three years, he was “made flesh.”  To honestly be MADE flesh
means to be made NOT God; for “God is not a man,”(Nu 23:19) and “no
man hath seen God at any time.”(Jo 1:18)

(Catholic)
 That He is just a group of believers? That makes no sense.

(Datone)
We, the members of Christ(our Head), are believers, right?  So Christ is
composed of a body of believers.

Jesus showed us how to be born of the Spirit, like him, divine, by our faith!
He lived that gospel of faith.  So let me briefly define the faith of Jesus
Christ as he described it:

"I can of mine own self do nothing."(Jo 5:30)
"I speak not of myself."(Jo 14:10)
"I am not here to do my own will, but the will of He who sent me here."(Jo
5:30)
"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 dwells in me; he doeth the
works."(Jo 14:10)

(Catholic)
We are made righteous through Jesus and what He accomplished on
Calvary.

We have the same Holy Spirit in us that was in Him. We are not made
righteous by what we do, but by what He has done.

(Datone)
So what has he done?  Did he do it by living the law of faith, or not?  Do
you believe Jesus fulfilled the law and the prophets by his own works in the
flesh?   Ga 2:16 says,  “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of
the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ... that we might be justified by the
faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law
shall no flesh be justified.”

So, if Jesus lived by faith, how could he have been inherently divine?  God,
by definition, is all-powerful, all-knowing, everywhere, and eternal.  These
abilities automatically render faith obsolete.  To believe Jesus was actually
God-- merely pretending to be a mere man, is to believe Jesus did not live
his gospel.  We are told we must live as Jesus lived(1Jo 2:6)-- “by
faith.”(Ro 1:17)  If Jesus lived far above and beyond hope/faith, his
superman reality would have rendered his gospel of faith null and void.
Alas, the people insist Jesus was God of himself.  They understand nothing
important about Jesus or his gospel.  Instead, they relish the mainstream and
feast on it’s doctrines of anti-logic.

What did Jesus do?  I believe he came to show us HOW to do it!  How?  By
living “the law of faith.”(Ro 3:27)  He saved us by showing us how to walk;
that’s why John says, “He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so
to walk, even as he walked.”(1Jo 2:6)

(Catholic)
If you are saying that Jesus was just a believer,  and not God incarnate, then
that means that any one of us (who are born into sin) could have died on the
cross for all of mankind's sin and be the perfect, sinless Lamb of God. Why
weren't all the saints standing up and encouraging Stephen when he was
being stoned? The bible says that it was God the Father one His throne and
Jesus standing up on His right hand, not a group of saints.
You deny the very being of God by denying Jesus Christ.

A person can try to apply so much logic that he loses sight of faith - the
important ingredient in our salvation through the cross.

(Datone)
I am not here to apply my own logic; but the Word of God, as a two-edged
sword.

I do not deny Jesus Christ or his divinity and power in God, as God.  What I
am suggesting is that mainline Christianity has denied the power of the
gospel of Jesus Christ- defined in Ro 1:16,17 as the gospel of faith.  I
believe Jesus, as “begotten” of God, was inclined by God to unite with God
by his faith from his childhood; and ultimately dedicated/gave his life to the
fulfillment of all prophecy concerning him-- for our sakes.

Now I(and all the other “saints”) are also begotten (or predestined) of God
as we emulate Jesus and all of his beliefs.  To keep the faith of Jesus Christ
means to emulate the faith of Jesus Christ.  That means our imperfections
are incidental, unimportant, and no longer, necessarily a sin-- unless our
own conscience says it is.
 
(Catholic)
(...)your questions pre-suppose that God is evolving into something more,
which from my understanding of the Scriptures is ridiculous.

(Datone)
I would refer you to Col 2:19 which describes God as increasing:
“...holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having
nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of
God.”

As it is written,  “God shall be all in all”(Col 15:28)--  even as the goal,
toward which all things are “evolving,” is accomplished as described in that
chapter(1Co 15).

(Catholic)
 Moses and Elijah are believers from the OT period, nothing More.

(Datone)
Nothing more?
Please consider the fact that they have been translated-- one without seeing
death, the other one, Moses, having been resurrected.  The Bible also says
many saints were resurrected when Jesus gave up the ghost.(Mt 27:52,53)
Since they have ascended, in light of what Jesus said in  Joh 3:13, they are
united with God in Christ:  "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that
came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."(Joh
3:13)   Can’t you read that verse?  What does it say?

(Catholic).
 Jesus is God Himself, come in the flesh.  I assure Moses and Elijah would
take offense at your suggestion.

(Datone)
I guess you are the one offended here.  I’m sorry.  Actually, I do believe
Jesus and God were and are one.  But for 33 years, when Jesus was “made
flesh,” I believe he was made, like us for that brief time, NOT God.  Why?
So that he could give us the keys to God via “the law of faith.”
 
(Catholic)
Maybe we discovered the problem. "Sounds like" appears to mean you are
trying to reduce God to your level. It can not be done. The best we have are
"like filthy rags" in the presence of Jesus, who is King of kings and Lord or
lords.

(Datone)
Have I said anything without including my scriptural reasons for saying it?
What have I said that so automatically offends you people?  I am honestly
inclined to the Word of God.  That’s it.  That alone is my only agenda.
Can’t you tell?  What have I said that makes you feel I think so highly of
myself that I could reduce God?  I could cry.  I’ll write a song about it.
I’ll try to put a finger on the problem.  I’ll write a post called “Lamenting
The Frail and Vulnerable Key of Diologue.”(see new string above)
 
 (Catholic)
Sinlessness is accounted to us by Christ..."not counting mens sins against
them" therefore making men sinless. The reality is we sin everyday whether
we acknowledge it or not.

(Datone)
That depends on who “we” is.  How can you born of the Spirit, filled with
the Spirit and the gift(s) of the spirit and still sin?  Do you feel good about
contradicting  1Jo 3:9:  “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for
his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.”
Sure, we have all sinned and come short of the glory of God.  Sure, “For we
ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving
divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one
another.”(Tit 3:3)  But something changes when we are born again by the
faith which is taught to us via the gospel of Christ:

Then, on this day and on that day, certain ones of us were “born again.”  To
be “born again” means to be “born of the Spirit.”  To be “born of the Spirit”
means to be filled with the Spirit of God.  He manifests Himself in us via
“gifts of the Spirit.”(I am thrilled with the hope, for twenty years now, that
mine is the gift of prophecy)

(Catholic)
 The good news is living in belief of total forgiveness and unconditional
love causes a man to live a better life...and accounts Gods unconditional
love to identity and fulfillment.

The faith quotient you speak of is to believe what the bible says about the
sin issue...

(Datone)
Are you insinuating that I have parted ways with what the Bible says?  Then
come, let us stand before the people to earnestly contend for the truth.

(Catholic)
The only sin not paid for is unbelief, which is only overcome in repenting
and accepting Christ in your heart.

(Datone)
So what scriptural thing about Christ do you feel I do not believe and accept
into my heart?

(Catholic)

 I think that you are missing something very important in that Jesus died
under the law of the old testament-He came to fulfill the law, and by His
perfect, sinless life did. We are now under a new covenant - of faith.

(Datone)
I would agree with every word you said above, except you leave out
the part about "the faith of Christ."(Ga 2:16)  You seem to be suggesting
that Christ didn't fulfill all the law and the prophets by living his faith in
God-- but by his own works.  This is anti-scriptural.  Let's look a little
closer:  So you believe Jesus was concluded "perfect" because he kept the
O.T. law by his own works?  Ga 2:16 says "a man is not justified by the works
of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ."  Now you're saying Jesus had no
faith?  Ro 4:14,15,16 says perfection by works of the law makes faith
"void."  We are told to "walk even as Jesus walked."(1Jo 2:6)  Now you're
telling me Jesus walked under the letter of the law?  You think that's how
we should walk?  You think that's how he was justified- without faith?  Ro
1:16,17 define the gospel of Christ as the gospel of faith.  Ro 3:27 describes
the law of Christ as "the law of faith."  To suggest that Christ did not live
his "gospel of faith", or prove it's "law of faith," is anti-Christ.  Right?  You
believe Jesus needed no faith because he was already God of himself?  God,
by definition, is all-powerful, all-knowing, everywhere, and eternal. These
abilities automatically render faith obsolete.  That means Jesus was not
really truly "made flesh"  "God is NOT a man."(Nu 23:19)  That means(in
reference to 1Jo 2:6) you try to walk like superman!  The scriptural support
for this traditional dogma is faulty, and it seems I am learning to prove
it.
 
(Catholic)
You speak of needing to subject the teachings of the Nicene Creed to
scriptural scrutiny

(Datone)
How can you disagree with me on this?  Who is your ultimate judge?  The
Creed?

(Catholic)
 and accuse me of not dealing with those texts which you have adduced to
prove that the "divinity" of Jesus is derived and not pre-existent,

(Datone)
Jesus’ divinity not pre-existent?  I have never suggested Christ or his Divine
reality were not pre-existent.  Like I told your friend,
I do believe Jesus and God were and are one.  But for 33 years, when Jesus
was “made flesh,” I believe he was made, LIKE US, for that brief time, that
is, as a human.  As human then, the only ticket to his/God’s divinity was by
living his gospel of faith.  To deny this, as both the Arians and the Nicene
Council did(and as the JWs, Mormons, Christadelphians, etc. do), is to deny
the power of the gospel.  IMO it suggests “a form of godliness that denies
the power thereof.”  The power of faith is what I am trying to lift up,
scripturally, not to reduce God to our level!

(Catholic)
 and yet you have not dealt with the meaning of those texts which clearly
teach the pre-existence of Jesus in his deity. "Let the same mind be in you
that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not
regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness"-our Lord,
antecedent to his incarnation, was in the form of God, that is to say, was
God (for form and substance in God are not divisible); and not regarding his
deity as something to be exploited or grasped (you cannot exploit something
you do not have), emptied himself to become a human being: truly God,
truly human.

(Datone)
Please please look again at that word “emptied” in the line above.  How
could Jesus have truly emptied himself of anything if he was still fully God
of himself as before?

“With God all things are possible”-- including being comfortable while his
apparent humanity was pierced.  In that scenario, he would have had that
option and no one would ever know.  That would deem his reality as
arguably artificial.  Consquently, what your creed is advocating is an
artificial righteousness.

Again, God himself cannot die, or be murdered by humans.  God himself
cannot say, “My God, why hast thou forsaken me.”  God cannot be “made
sin,”(2Co 5:21) for sin is NOT God.  Arguably, these and many more
examples prove Jesus was temporaly made not God.  Right?  Why should I
ignore them for your creed?  Because there are so many with you?  What do
you think Noah would tell you about the flocking syndrome?

Superficially human?  Is it not arguably unreasonable to suggest a man
could be fully, entirely, completely, MERELY human, while
simultaneously divine IN AND OF HIS OWN self, and yet be “IN ALL
THINGS” like you and me?  If so, like I said, isn’t obviously an artificial,
dishonest righteousness?  Why do you find it so necessary to cling to it?
Let’s mix some honesty in here, please?  How is it that Nu 23:19(“God is
not a man”) and Jo 1:18(“No man hath seen God at any time”) do not apply
with me in this?  Does not Jo 1 define “made flesh”(vs 14) as “made NOT
God”?  Is a man God?  Was Jesus made man?  If so, he was made not God.
Right?  Was Jesus *made man*/not God or not?  Which do I believe?  The
Bible or the creed?  Why should I believe the creed while I can’t even
discern WHY the creed so apparently DESPERATELY  insists that Jesus
could not have ever TRULY emptied himself of that most significant thing:
his fully-God reality!!!

IMO, Jesus raised the following question and proved the answer:
“Why do we need to be God of ourself in order to be one with God?  After
all, the power of faith indicates the same attributes of God for us--
omnipotence and omnicience:

Omipotence:  “I can do all things through Christ.”(Php 4:13)

Omnicience:  “Ye have an unction from the Holy One and ye know ALL
things.”(1Jo 2:20)

What if Jesus taught us these principles(keys) by living them?  My question,
again, is WHY does your orthodoxy find it so desperately necessary to not
consider the idea that Jesus was all-Godly as a human BY HIS FAITH
ALONE?  (Now of course, it is no longer faith.  As before, he again is “with
God and as God.”  But, as I can’t seem to remind you enough-- I’m talking
about those 33 years in which Jesus was a real man-- when he was NOT
literally, presently, one with the invisible God-- but by his faith alone Jesus
and his Father were one.)

(Catholic)
But the text which most informs the christological affirmations of the
Nicene Creed is this: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was
with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God...And
the Word was made flesh, and lived among us, and we have seen his glory,
the glory as of a father's only son (or, the Father's only Son), full of grace
and truth."

(Datone)
Isa 28:10-13 says we can’t limit our scope of vision to one or two verses of
themselves:  “line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a
little...”  Please consider the above verse which you quote from Jo 1:
Consider the “glory” of these verses in contrast with Jo 17:5, where Jesus
specifies that glory as not of his own self.  Indeed, nothing about Jesus was
about himself:  “He that believeth in me, believeth NOT ON ME, but on
Him that sent me.”( Joh 12:)  M’t 16:27 says Jesus will come in the glory of
his Father, but obviously it is also something that Jesus now owns-- like an
inheritance from the Father!  His glory is no longer derived, however, for
Jesus is already fully “made both Lord and Christ.”(Ac 2:36)   God has
already given the Son to have life in himself, SO IT IS HIS OWN, no longer
derived.  Right?  Consider Joh 5:26-- “For as the Father hath life in himself;
so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself.”  The composed Word of
God from the eternal ages past has never composed his own “created”(Col
1:15) self!

Indeed.  And we are not called to enter our own glory either, are we!  Like
Jesus, we do not seek our own glory/divinity:    “And I seek not mine own
glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth.”(Joh 8:50)  God is the head of
Christ, and Christ is the head of man and the Church.  NOTE:  The pope is
not the head of the church/body of Christ, Jesus is.  Jesus doesn’t need a
vicar, either, for “But we have this treasure in earthen vessels.”(2Co 4:7)
2Cor 4:6 says God shines in our own hearts-- not just in the popes’!

(Catholic)
The Council of Nicaea, and those theologians whose work formed the basis
for the christological affirmations of the Council, resolved the [seeming]
contradictions between scriptural texts that teach that Jesus is very God and
those that seem to teach that Jesus is a created being in the direction of this
text from the prologue to John's Gospel. Can a Council err? Most certainly!
but orthodox Christian teaching, not only Roman Catholic and Orthodox,
but also of those traditions that emerged from the Reformation-Anglican,
Lutheran, Reformed-and traditions that emerged from them-Baptist,
Congregationalist, Methodist, Pentecostal-, has been unanimous in
subscribing to the christological affirmations of the Creed. Which is to say,
we have believed for almost 17 centuries that the bishops gathered at
Nicaea (and Constantinople later) were led by the Holy Spirit "into all
truth" when they promulgated the Creed, and that the Church has been led
by the Holy Spirit in receiving the Creed as faithfully expressing the
implications of the apostolic witness found in the Holy Scriptures.

(Datone)
I believe the gospel faith, the key to the keys of God, which Jesus offered to
Peter, has been buried treasure for many centuries.  As I have arguably
proven, the orthodox view of Christ’s human nature, which all churches
have in common, fulfills the 1Jo 3:4 definition of antichrist.  I believe it is
that antichrist described in Re 13:7 that has “overcome the saints.”  I
believe we have thereby suffered “a falling away.”  I believe it is “that man
of sin (that shall) be revealed.”  I think, perhaps, the ultimate antichrist of
Re 13:7 has fully come-- and that this common “nature of Christ” doctrine,
which all churches have in common, is it.  I am honestly looking at this; and
I think I can prove to you that my pride(or hubris) are arguably a non-issue
here.  How?  I think you’ll be surprised.

(Catholic)
Reason is not cast off, but neither is an individualistic understanding of
reason enshrined as you seem to have done. Dietrich Bonhoeffer is not
advocating irrationality (if you have read him, you could not possibly make
that accusation); what he is warning against is the use of human reason to
level Jesus and God to something understandable and neatly packaged,
against the use of reason to resolve the paradox of Jesus' being fully God
and fully human. For to create such a God, to create such a Jesus, is to erect
an idol.
 

(Datone)
Worldly reason.  Picture this:  We have you and your billions of
mainstream, orthodox theologians pointing to me, ALL ALONE, and
saying, “Beware, you are being deceived by the wisdom of this world!”???
No, 1Co 3:19 says “the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.”
Solomon and the prophets say the world will endeavor to destroy
themselves while the lone, poor wise man is ignored.  Jesus said, “As it was
in the days of Noah, so shall it be...”  Again, what if the mud of the
mainstream is clogging the eyes and ears of the mainstream masses?

(Catholic)
The [translated] verses which you adduce to bolster your claim of a logical
gospel use reason in a way that means nothing like what the Enlightenment
meant by "reason", whose "logical" definition you accept.

(Datone)
Lest I wax remiss, I must ask you to please support the above statement in
some way.    Thanks.

The “saints,” the “church of Christ,” and “the body of Christ,” are all the
same thing, aren’t they?  If not, how are they different?  If I’m theologically
correct, then tell me how the saints are NOT incorporated into Jesus as
their/our Head.

(Catholic)
 Strangely, while you attempt to prooftext
a corporate Jesus, composed of his saints, your own theological method
completely ignores the corporate nature of the Church, Christ's Body, when
you insist on your own idiosyncratic understanding of scriptural teaching
and refuse to be guided by the insights of Christians in past generations. For
that is what reliance on Tradition as a framework for interpretation means:
relying on, trusting in, the insights and guidance of earlier teachers, pastors,
saints and believers. As St. Vincent Lerins summed up the core of authentic
Christian teaching: what the Church has always taught in all places and in
all times.

(Datone)
“...in all places and in all times.”???  But your creed has not been in place at
all times in all places.  Arguably it didn’t exist as such until 325 or so,
right?  The definition of antichrist(1Jo 4:3) concerns the nature of Christ.  If
Re 13:7 is fulfilled-- if the ultimate antichrist is here, described in 1Jo 4:3 as
a nature-of-Christ issue, then why would we want to ride on the shoulders
of such a dubious rendition of the nature of Christ?
 

(Catholic)
God in no wise intended for each of us to redevise the theology that informs
the Christian faith, as though it needed to be created afresh (though this
does not exclude new insights that will brighten, not contradict, previous
authentic teaching). Paul himself speaks of handing on tradition when he
reminds the Corinthian Christians: "For I received from the Lord what I also
handed on to you" (1 Cor 11:23), and "For I handed on to you as of first
importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in
accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was
raised on the third day" (1 Cor 15:3,4a). Luke writes of being devoted "to
the apostles' teaching and fellowship, the breaking of bread and the prayers"
(Acts 2:42).
 

(Datone)
Re  5 describes a book that is sealed, that no man could open, yet it is to be
opened afresh.    In Isa 41:28,29, is written,  “...for I beheld, and there was
no man; even among them, and there was no counsellor, that, when I asked
of them, could answer a word.
 29 Behold, they are all vanity; their works are nothing.”

What has been the problem?  One among many, not the least of which is
described in  Isa 9:16 “For the leaders of this people cause them to err; and
they that are led of them are destroyed.”  So, considering the above
warnings, tell me again why should I rush to my eager, would-be-leaders to
teach me the mystery of God?
 

Concerning the “corporate” nature of the body of Christ.  It consists of saints
for the more common body members, Jesus as our Head, and God as the
Head of Jesus Christ.  Do not all the members consult their respective
Head?  Col 2:19 says we should hold our Head, Christ Jesus, that we all
may increase with the increase of God.
 

(Catholic)
Finally, we have your [brief] ad hominem attack on the bishops gathered at
Nicaea: "wealthy bishops" you called them, as if to suggest that they were
corrupt, venal medieval prelates intent on quashing dissent.
This is frankly reprehensible. Are you aware that a number of bishops at
Nicaea bore in their bodies the scars of the last persecution under
Diocletian? Were you aware that Spiridion, bishop of Cyprus, was a humble
shepherd when elected bishop by his people and remained a shepherd
(literally and figuratively) after his ordination to the episcopate? Were you
aware that Athanasius of Alexandria, whose theology was instrumental in
saving the Church from the teachings of the Arians,

(Datone)
If Athanasius’ teachings were the instrumental ones, perhaps they would
have the answer I’m looking for.  Is there a record of the council debates
somewhere?  I sure would like to know why/how they found this arguable
stuff so dogmatically necessary.  [Again, my question for Athanasuis would
be this: “Why is it so important to make Jesus out as God himself for those
33 “human” years alone-- when all that does is undermine his gospel of
faith?  How could he have lived his gospel unless he was truly made flesh?
To truly be made flesh means to be made NOT God, right?  For “God is not
a man,”(Nu 23:19) and “No man hath seen God at any time.”(Jo 1:18)

(Catholic)
(Athanasius) was exiled (to the German frontier, to Rome, and to the desert)
from Alexandria on no less than four times by Arian and imperialist
churchmen and politicians? These were men who were willing to live and
to die for the Christian faith, and to dismiss them as "wealthy bishops" and
"vicars" is contemptible.

(Datone)
I wasn’t directing my remarks as a personal insult.  Nevertheless,
I point to the leaders of the people as the problem:   “For the leaders of this
people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed.”(Isa
9:16)  Inevitably, the people generally choose the wealthy to bear rule over
them:  “The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their
means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end
thereof?”(Jer 5:31)  If the above Bible texts do not apply to all of the
Nicene counselors, then I’ll certainly look forward to apologizing to them in
heaven.  Meanwhile, in light of my references above, I don’t see that any
significant injustice has been leveled to the (presently) wealthiest “church”
in the world!  Still I would urge the people:  “Put ye not confidence in a
guide; put not your trust in a friend.”(Mic 7:5)  “Work out your own
salvation with fear and trembling.”(Php 2:12)

Am I not arguably scripturally justified in suggesting everyone read every
speck of the Word for themselves?

(Catholic)
 As I understand it, it says that a man cannot be Justified by works because
of his sinfull nature inherited from Adam. Not a problem for the Son of
God.

(Datone)
Well, let’s look and see what tendencies and characteristics the Word
prescribes for Jesus who was in all things made like unto his brethren.’(He
2:17)   What does the Word say we are like?

‘We are as an unclean thing; all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags.’(Is
64:6)  The natural human ‘heart is deceitful above all things and
desperately wicked.’(Je 17:9)  ‘There is not a just man on earth that doeth
good and sinneth not.’(Ec 7:20)

Jesus was, ‘like unto his brethren in all things.’  He ‘was shapen in iniquity,
and in sin did his mother conceive him.’(Ps 51:5)  His mother, like us, was
of her own self, full of evil, for ‘we are all as an unclean thing.’(Is 64:6)
‘One cannot bring a clean thing out of an unclean.’(Job 14:4)  Like us,
‘...though (Jesus) was a son, yet he was made perfect by those things which
he suffered.’(He 2:10)

Dear friend, what if  Jesus was concluded sinless by his faith-- the same way Jacob
and all spiritual Israel(which includes all ‘saints’) are concluded sinless:
‘The Lord hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob, neither
hath he seen perverseness in Israel.(Nu 23:21)  Jesus was
concluded ‘without sin’ by his faith, not by lawful deeds; you see, ‘By the
deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified.’(Ro 3:20)  Jesus taught the
paradox of sinlessness by faith.  Consider a man, full of sin, yet, by faith
without sin-- ‘It is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.’(Ro
7:17)  For those who live by such faith, there is a new definition of sin:
‘Whatsoever is not of faith is sin.’(Ro 14:23)  His faith rendered Jesus
sinless.  By faith Jesus abided in our God.  Thus God established Jesus’
thoughts and directed his steps.

As described above, there exists in human nature the strong, innate
propensities to the faults of the flesh.  To say Jesus had not this nature is to
say he came not in the flesh.  To say Jesus Christ came not in the flesh is
the definition of the ultimate antichrist.(see 1Jo 4:3)
 

(Catholic)
But man must be justified by faith IN Jesus.  the verse from Romans says
the same thing. If man could achieve justification thru works, why would he
need the sacrifice of Jesus? (faith in)  Yes. His justification came thru His
obdience to the will of God. (obdience to God is lack of sin)  Are you
suggesting that Christ needed to have faith in Himself for justification?
 

(Datone)
Faith in himself?  “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence
of things unseen.”  If he was already that substance itself, how could he
hope for it!?

Yes, like you say, I believe Jesus’ justification came thru His obedience to
the will of God, but I believe that obedience came via his faith in God; for
Jesus taught the apostles that “sin is the lack of faith.”(Ro 14:23)
 

(Catholic)
 The law of faith (in Jesus) gives believers justifacation by exemption from
the law of the O.T.  Jesus was truly made flesh, and was living fully in the
will of God. I won't try (couldn't anyway) to explain the nature of God, The
Father, Son and Spirit, but the way that I have resolved this is to say that
Jesus, while in the flesh, was full of the Spirit of God.

(Datone)
I like that.  We too can be dilled full of the Spirit of God and deemed
sinless!  Samson was also, at last, after much adultery, was again filled with
the Holy Ghost.  For that moment before his death, Samson was once again
one with God.  When Samson was pulling those pillars over, he and the
divine nature were perfectly at peace; complete.  He is finally concluded
sinless and one with God, even as the prophecy says of us(spiritual Israel):
‘The Lord hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob, neither
hath he seen perverseness in Israel.(Nu 23:21)
 

(Catholic)
 This is what I believe that we are called to imitate: a perfect communion
with the Spirit of God.
 

(Datone)
Mere imitation.  hmm... So, whenever Samson,
Elijah, Moses, Esther, Peter, Paul, John, and all the
others of our spiritual body were filled with the Holy Spirit, do you think they were
merely “imitating” a oneness with God?
 

(Catholic)
 We cannot achieve this perfection,
 

(Datone)
Then why did Jesus tell us to “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father
which is in heaven is perfect.”(Mt 5:48)

(Catholic)
 so we must rely on the Grace of God to supply a means of justification, and
thru Jesus, He did. I guess that I am saying yes, Jesus was justified thru
works, and we are justified thru the faith of His blood sacrifice.
 

(Datone)
But “the faith” scripture advocates, “the faith of Jesus Christ” is so
powerfull our works DO justify us!  “ Jas 2:17:  “Even so faith, if it hath not
works, is dead, being alone.
18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy
faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
 19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also
believe, and tremble.
 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?”
 
(Catholic)
  That's about the best I can do. Hope it helps, if not, don't stop looking. I'm
sure someone can give you what you are looking for.
 
(Catholic)

I guess I know a fair amount about sin, being a sinner and all. I believe
Jesus saves people like me who are sinners. You want the scriptures?

(Datone)
That depends on who “we” is. How can you born of the Spirit, filled with
the Spirit and the gift(s) of the spirit and still sin? Are you sure you feel
good about contradicting 1Jo 3:9: “Whosoever is born of God doth not
commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.”

(Catholic)
Yes, in Christ the seed remains in the sinner, and the sinner is accounted
sinless by Christ who lives in us...Don't even tell me you don't sin. In the
flesh there is no good thing...therefore you sin just like the rest of humanity,
even though you are saved...

(Datone)
Sure, we have all sinned and come short of the glory of God. Sure, “For we
ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving
divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one
another.”(Tit 3:3) But something changes when we are born again by
the faith which is taught to us via the gospel of Christ:

(Catholic)
Again you have given us a string of biblical references which you have
adduced to prove your position. Strangely, few if any teachers through the
history of Christianity have arrived at the conclusions that you have. And
yet you seem unconcerned by this, as we and our "billions of mainstream,
orthodox theologians point" to you and you alone.

Behind our rejection and questioning of your ideas is over 19 centuries of
biblical study and teaching: what you contemptuously reject as "the mud of
the mainstream" that clogs our eyes and ears and minds.

I reiterate the teaching of Nicaea and earlier and later orthodox teachers of
the faith: Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man, and was so during his 33
years of earthly life, and will be through all eternity!

In thinking that orthodox Christianity teaches that being fully God means
that Jesus "cheated" on righteousness and sinlessness you have confused
orthodox teaching with a heresy known as Apollinarianism. Apollinarius of
Laodicea taught that the human mind and will in Jesus were obliterated by
his deity, so that in his deity Jesus' will was totally in line with that of the
Father. Bishops and teachers in the Church rejected that as a denial of his
full humanity, just as they had rejected Arianism (and dynamic/rationalistic
monarchianism) as a denial of his full deity. Jesus' will and mind were fully
human during those 33 years, and he was fully God incarnate during those
same years. Else how can Jesus be Emmanuel, "God with us", which name
Matthew the Evangelist applies to him from his conception and not from
some time by which he had achieved divinity?
Finally, though, we (all orthodox Christians-"all the churches") have been
summarily anathematized by you. I am sorry that someone who laments the
end of reasonable discourse should so TERMINATE the possibility of
discussion by his declaring us all to be Antichrist.

Also: "Whatever Scripture says that the
Son has received, it understands as having been received with respect to His
body, and that body is the first-fruits of the Church. Accordingly, God
raised up and exalted His own body first, but afterwards the members of His
body." By these words Athanasius explained what a little afterwards he
applied in its way also to the entire Church.

You make a facile dismissal of the moral culpability for believing
"the spirit of antichrist" on the part of those of us who have been deceived
by the false doctrine of the dual nature of Christ (as you would hold it).
Surely you must hold the bishops of Nicaea culpable, at least, and yet you
stated that you would apologize to them in heaven. Are not false teachers
excluded from the kingdom of God? Neither are the believing ("deceived")
faithful ("masses") stupidly gullible sheep. In fact, catholic tradition holds
that any doctrine to be reckoned as authentic witness to Jesus Christ must
be accepted as such by the consensus fidelium, by the consensus of the
faithful, who act as a sort of discerning jury through the centuries (which is
to say, the Holy Spirit works not only in councils of bishops but also in the
reception-or rejection-by the whole Church of the teachings declared in
council). Both teachers and people are active participants in the
development and reception of Christian doctrine.

Thus, [individual] believers of falsehood are as culpable as teachers of
falsehood. And, as I am a willing believer in the person of Christ as (I
believe) taught in the Scriptures and defined at Nicaea and Chalcedon and
am a teacher of that doctrine (as a lay parish catechist), you must reject me:
"Everyone who does not abide in the teaching of Christ, but goes beyond it,
does not have God; whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and
the Son. Do not receive into the house or welcome anyone who comes to
you and does not bring this teaching; for to welcome is to participate in the
evil deeds of such a person" (2 John 9-11).
 
(Catholic continued)
I offer this as my further reflections on the original posting by Datone and
on an early reponse of his to my initial response. Specifically, these will be
reflections on those proof-texts chosen by Datone and a little reflection on
his hermeneutic, namely disjointed and out-of-context prooftexting.

(Datone)
Doesn’t “hermeneutic” mean “airtight”?  How can my prooftexting be
apparently air-tight, yet disjointed?  As for the “out-of-context” argument...
It seems to me that air-tight truth is perceived as such, because it transcends
contexts-- or at least may be reasonably accomodated within any context.
For example, the texts that say, “God is not a man,” and “God changes not,”
may not change with the context.  If we believe, as Jesus said, that “the
scripture cannot be broken,” then, clearly, we have been given license to
apply all truth to every context.  Right?

(Catholic)
(...)Jesus was born into a sinful human society and as such had some share
in our sins, even if it was the untolerable burden of them to his deity and his
pure humanity.

(Datone)
“Pure” humanity?  How pure?  How can one’s flesh convey a natural
inclination(or propensity) to sin and yet be wholly pure?

(Catholic)
 Jesus was free of sin because of his intimate relationship with the Father,
through which he was obedient.

(Datone)
He couldn’t have had such an “intimate relationship” through faith alone?
Are you implying that Jesus was obedient of his own will?  Do you think
Jesus thoughts and actions were initiated by and proceeded from his own
inherent, divine, wisdom?  If so, then you must think Jesus was speaking
words which did not really apply to his mortal human context when he said,
“I came not to do mine own will...”  “I can of mine own self do nothing,”
etc. ?
 
(Catholic)
As to the "law of faith" which occurs in Romans 3:27, it is clear that this
was not some new law taught and lived by Jesus, by which he earned his
divinity and our salvation. Look at the context: "But now apart from law,
the righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the law and
the prophets, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all
who believe it. For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall
short of the glory of God, they are now justified by his grace as a gift,
through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a
sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. he did this to
show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed
over the sin previously committed; it was to prove at the present time that
he himself is righteous and that he justifies the one who has faith in Jesus"
Rom 3:21-26.
It is clear that what Paul means by "the law of faith" is faith IN Jesus, not
the faith OF Jesus. Paul uses the phrase, "law of faith", to distinguish faith
in Jesus from the older law (of works).

(Datone)
So, would you contend this as another KJV translation error?  The words
“the faith OF Jesus” does appear a number of times in the NT.

Let’s suppose the words “faith OF Jesus” hadn’t appeared at all in my
Bible.  Let’s say they had been translated as “faith IN Jesus” in every case.
What exactly does it mean to “have faith in Jesus”?  Well, John defines
what it means to have faith in Jesus:  “He that saith he believeth in Jesus
ought himself to walk even so as Jesus walked.”  So how did Jesus walk?
Well, let’s hear Jesus tell us how he walked.  Jesus said, “I can of mine own
self do nothing."(Jo 5:30)  "I speak not of myself."(Jo 14:10)  "I am not here
to do my own will, but the will of He who sent me here."(Jo 5:30)  "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 dwells in me; he doeth the works."(Jo
14:10)

Clearly sounds like “the gospel of faith”(see Ro 1:16,17) was something
which Jesus lived.

Suppose I were trapped in a burning prison.  Suddenly, someone breaks
down the bars and says, like Jesus says, “believe in me!”  What does it
mean to believe in my rescuer?  Does it mean just sit down in the smoky
corner, shut my eyes, and merely  B E L I E V E ???  No.  It means, like
Jesus said, “FOLLOW ME!”  What does it mean to follow Jesus?  It means
we must believe everything that Jesus believed.  It means we must think
what he thought and do what he did; and we will do even greater things
than Jesus did.(Joh 14:12)

(Catholic)
(...)In Colossians 1:15, Paul writes to a church beset by Judaizing gnostics,
"He [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation..."
Paul goes on to say that "all things have been created through him and for
him. He himself is BEFORE all things, and in him all things hold together"
(emphasis added). First of all, Datone surely cannot claim this as a
prooftext for his own, rationalistic monarchian christology, because Paul
clearly teaches Jesus' PRE-EXISTENCE here. But surely this is a prooftext
for Arius ("firstborn of all creation")?

(Datone)
It seems clear to me that God has “made” or composed His Word(Jesus
Christ) many different times and ways throughout eternity.  God has
composed his Word this way and that way, yet it continued to exist before
and after it was “MADE flesh.”  Like my proof-texts prove, God is not a
man, so to be “made flesh” obviously means to be “Made NOT God” for 33
years.  It doesn’t mean Jesus was non-existent or less than God before and
after those 33 years; but it does bring the gospel and law of faith into a
much more relative perspective.  Living like we, who are not God, is what
makes Jesus an authentic hero.  Not God of himself, but an “express image
of the Father” was expressed to us via Christ’s faith.  One cannot be both
God of himself AND an “image” of the “one and only God”(Isa 44:6)

(Catholic)
(...)John 1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God."

(Datone)
But let’s put John 1:1 in context with verse 14.  Verse 14 describes that
same Word as suffering a dramatic makeover-- that is... “and the Word was
MADE FLESH.”  What does it mean to be made flesh?  Well, the scripture
says, “God is not a man,”(Nu 23:19) and “the scripture cannot be broken,”
so to be made man means to be made not God.  Right?

(Catholic)
(...)Indeed, attempting to resolve any of the *seemingly* contradictory
teachings about the person of Jesus in any direction other than that of
Nicaea simply does not work, and leaves us polytheists with a God who
didn't come among us (Arianism), or believers in a Messiah who earned his
way to the right hand of the Father (rationalistic monarchism), leaving us to
do the same.

(Datone)
God did come among us in Jesus Christ.  Now again, God does come
among us IN US, as we abide in Christ.  Again, what does it mean to abide
in Christ?  1Jo 2:6 describes it precisely as, “walk even as he walked.”
Datone is convinced that orthodox, Nicene-Chalcedonian Christianity
believes that Jesus was not "made man" at all. Not so. The Church
decisively rejected every attempt to make Jesus' humanity something
different from our own, from Docetism (the notion that Jesus was just a
spirit who "seemed" to be human, rejected in the epistles of John) to
Apollinarianism (which teaching was that Jesus' body was really human, but
his deity had obliterated and replaced his human will). There is no way to
resolve the Nicene-Chalcedonian paradox: fully God (from eternity) and
fully human, without compromising one or the other of Jesus' dual natures.

(Datone)
This “fully God and fully human” is both a forked tongue AND arguably,
obviously, unscriptural.  The God part and the human part would be
unequal parts- an ultimate contradiction:  “   For the flesh lusteth against the
Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the
other.”(Ga 5:17)  “God is a spirit”(Joh 4:24), but “a spirit hath not flesh and
bones as ye see me(Jesus) have.”(Lu 24:39)   One cannot be fully God AND
fully human, for the God part ultimately supercedes and cancels the human
part as insignificant and non-comparable to the Godness.  To say he was
all-God and all-man is a forked tongues way of saying he was not an
all-man as we.  This is described in 1Jo 4:3 as the ultimate antichrist.

(Catholic)
What of the idea that we, too, will share in Jesus' divine nature?
The important claim here would seem to be that when Paul wrote "so that
God may be all in all" he was really thinking about some sort of progressive
pantheism. 1 Cor 15:28 says: "When all things are subjected to him, then
the Son himself will also be subjected to the one who put all things in
subjection under him, so that God may be all in all." There is nothing here
to suggest that everything (or everyone) will become God in the end. "So
that God may be all in all" means that God will be sufficiency for all; (...)
The remaining texts cited by Datone to show that we will share "divinity"
even as Christ does (Ephesians 1:4,5; Romans 9:23; Psalm 139:16;
Ephesians 2:5,6) have nothing to say about such a claim. They are about
predestination and foreknowledge (or have been strangely misinterpreted-Ps
139:16, complete with gloss).

(Datone)
You are wrong.  We are described as “partakers of the divine nature.”(2Pe
1:4)  Joh 17 describes a oneness between the saints, Jesus Christ, and God:
“I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one.”(verse 23)
Re 3:12 describes the ultimate oneness with God between those who walk
as Jesus walked:  “Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of
my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of
my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem,
which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him
my new name.”

By lifting up the power of faith, I believe, I am lifting up Jesus Christ.  To
call Jesus “God of himself while yet human,” is to deny the gospel of faith
which Jesus did live, and belittles the kindred passions of Jesus.

(Catholic)
Your primary hermeneutical problem is that you insist on interpreting the Holy
Scriptures outside their principle context, the bosom of the Church catholic.

(Datone)
The Catholic church, as it is today, did not exist when ANY of the Holy Scriptures were
written.

The Catholic church(most specifically, your pope) claims to be “Vicar of the Son of God.”
However, Jesus Christ, the “light”; the “treasure,” [“But we have this treasure in earthen vessels.”(2Co 4:7)] needs no vicar.  Jesus said,  “And call no man your father upon the
earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.”(Mt 23:9)  Don’t texts like these make “priests” and “popes” obsolete?  You trust your vicars and the council of Nicaea.  I trust the Holy Ghost is my guide.  He alone is my “hermeneutics”!

(Catholic)
Not only am I implying that Jesus was obedient of his own will, I am explicitly stating it.
The man Jesus, whose will and mind are human, is God. There is not a separable God-nature in the man Jesus which obliterates his humanity in any way. This is a confession of faith (which produces works of faith), not subject to any proof or reason. Jesus, the man, is God.

(Datone)
Yes he is; but why does it trouble you to consider him as a GENUINE man-- not God for 33 years?  Why is your dogma not subject to things which Jesus said, like:  “I came not to do mine own will, but the will of He who sent me.”(Joh 6:38)  Why does your dogma need to insist that Jesus’ works DID proceed from within his own will and inherent divinity?  Why does your dogma find it so desperately necessary-- even at the expense of reason?  “Your confession of faith is not subject to any proof or reason”?  This is clearly unscriptural.  Look:

‘Come let us believe irrational unreasonable things?  In Isaiah 1:18 it says, ‘Come let us
reason together, saith the Lord.’  ‘Produce your cause, saith the Lord; bring forth your strong reasons.’(Is 41:21)  The apostles reasoned with the people ‘by the scriptures.’  Samuel said, ‘Stand still that I may reason with you before the Lord.’(Sa 12:7)  Solomon ‘...searched for the reason of things.’(Ec 7:25)  Peter says, ‘Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you.’”(1Pe 3:15)  “Prove ALL things, hold fast that which is good.”(1Th 5:21)
 
It seems clear to me that God has “made” or composed His Word(Jesus Christ) many
different times and ways throughout eternity. God has composed his Word this way and that way, yet it continued to exist before and after it was “MADE flesh.”<<
(Catholic) I frankly have no idea what you mean by God’s “composing His Word many
different times and ways.” And I’m fairly certain that you are not aware of the meaning that the prologue to the Gospel according to John gives “the Word”.

If there is something we don’t understand about the Nature of God and His Word, look in
the mirror-- we were made in his image.  We too have the ability to speak and compose our WORD(s).  Every time we write a letter or record our voice we are expressing our word. God too has expressed His Word many times in many ways-- just like a painter’s brush paints many portraits.  God’s Word is God’s tool.  Thereby God has created all things.  Each new creation was a new composition; expression.

If I send my mother a video tape recording of myself, she may exclaim, “That’s my
Datone!”  Was she talking about the video tape itself?  Does she really think that piece of plastic is, in and of itself, me?  Of course not.  My express image is conveyed via the plastic.  It conveys my spirit and the spirit of my words.  The video tape is me but not me-- a paradox which can be easily understood and resolved.  Jesus, God’s Word, was the same kind of easily resolvable paradox--

but not to purveyors of human wisdom which consult anti-reason for their answers.

(Catholic)
Your prooftexts do not prove that God cannot be a man. Consider the CONTEXT of
Numbers 23:19 (the beginning of the second oracle of Balaam): “God is not a human being, that he should lie, or a mortal, that he should change his mind.” God (through Balaam) is declaring that he does not change capriciously or deceitfully, as a human being does. God does not here declare, “God will not be a human being, will never be made flesh.” Again, context, context, context.

(Datone)
Fact:  “God is not a human being,” and he doesn’t change.  Yet you believe, unscripturally, that the context invented in Nicene CAN change God, and HAS changed God into a contrary nature!  "The flesh and spirit are contrary to each other."(Ga 5:17)

(Catholic)
I am not wrong in rejecting your so-called “proof”texts for our becoming divine; the ones
you have chosen (except for 2 Peter) are about God’s predestinating us in Christ, not about our becoming god-like or divine in and of ourselves, by our efforts to follow the “law of faith.”

(Datone)
You are completely misrepresenting the “law of faith.”  It has nothing to do with our
efforts.  To start with, “God has given to every man the measure of faith.”(Ro 12:3)  This “seed of faith” is what “remains in us and we cannot sin, for we are thereby born of God.”(1Jo 3:9)  Just as the oak tree does not grow via it’s own efforts, so also we do not grow via our own efforts.  We grow as we abide in the seed-- the blueprint, Jesus Christ.

(Catholic)
To reject the teaching that Jesus is fully God and fully human is to reject apostolic
witness:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He
was in the beginning with God...And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth” (John 1:1,2,14).

“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation...For in his all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross” (Col 1:15,19,20).

(Datone)
A video tape recording is also an express image.  Nobody takes a video tape recording of
Catholic and says, “This video is in and of itself Catholic”!  God conveyed his Word to us.  Jesus was that letter or video tape recording from God.  That letter conveyed the express image of God.  Thereby we beheld the glory of God; but the glory of that letter did not proceed from within and of the letter’s own seperate self-- Like Jesus said about his absent glory: “Father glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory I had with thee before the world was.”(Joh 17:5)

Obviously, was he not a bit short of that ultimate glory while “made flesh”?!

Amongst your words, your bottom line is now clear.  You summed it up for me when
you said your  confession of faith is “not subject to any proof or reason.”  How can you call that honest debate?  How is it that you ignore the many texts that cry for proof and reason?  “PROVE all things,” “come let us REASON together,” etc.???

(Catholic)
 The bottom line, Datone, is
 that I (and hundreds of millions-billions?-
 of other orthodox Christians for
 the past two millenia) am willing
 to subject my interpretations of
 scripture to the corrective norms
 of the Body of Christ, the Church,
 as defined in the Holy Scriptures
 of the Old and New Testaments and
 the teaching of the undivided Church
 of the first few centuries, including
 the first four ecumenical Councils
 (of which Nicaea I-325 AD-was the
 first).

(Datone)
Yes, but you ignore what the Bible says about "mainstream religion.?"  Nothing is more
poisonous than relying on the mainstream to guard truth:

"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to
destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:  Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."(Mt 7:13)

(Catholic)
 You claim to rely on the guidance
 of the Holy Spirit, but there is
 precious little evidence in the
 NT for the Holy Spirit's leading
 an individual away from apostolic
tradition.

(Datone)
The NT didn’t exist when your “apostolic tradition,” or Nicene Creed was composed.  How do you “Prove all things, hold fast that which is good”(1Th 5:21)???  Did Jesus rely on the mainstream teachers?  No.  He had only one teacher-- our ONLY teacher, the Holy Ghost:   “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth.”(Joh 16:13)  Perhaps, Jesus was referring to a time when “all truth” would be an elusive commodity; a time when “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that
day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.”(2Th 2:3)  I have introduced that “son,” here, as that mainstream doctrine which all mainstream Christianity observes-- regarding the nature of Christ-- and as defined in 1Joh 4:3.

The truth in Christ, “which few will find,” is entirely unlike your neat little processed package.  The real truth is like a big rock.  You’d best fall on it and suffer the breaks lest it fall on you-- like Jesus said, “...it will grind him to powder.”(Mt 21:44)

(Catholic)
 And why do you accept the
 canon of Scripture, not commonly
 accepted in its complete form by
 the Church anywhere until the fourth
 century? The same Church that you
 do not trust to teach you about
 the person of Jesus Christ is the
 same Church who received the canon
 of Scripture to which you make
 appeal. Where's the consistency
 in that?

(Datone)
Faith is like a big butter churn.  If you simply believe everything, the truth will cancel the
untruths and rise to the forefront.  Like Paul said, “Charity... BELIEVETH ALL
THINGS.”(1Co 13:7)  I read and believe all things.  Why?  “The Lord is a God of KNOWLEDGE.”(1Sa 2:3)  He is not a God of tradition for tradition’s sake!  That’s why I read the apocrypha, Koran, Torah/Talmud, as well as any ANY version of the Bible-- and I have even listened quietly to diverse “freaks,” activists and astrologers, as they zealously emptied out there heads to my I-don’t-know-it-all face.

(Catholic)
Ignatius wrote:
" I succeeded Evodius as the third Bishop of Antioch."

(Datone)
OK, I believe you.  How did you become a "bishop"?  Like Constantine?  Constantine took upon himself the office of lay bishop, episcopus externus, and put the secular arm at the service of the Church-- and the laws against heretics became more and more rigorous.(Catholic Encycl)

So how do you guys do that to yourselves for God?  Do you hop in the tub, raise you hand over your head and say, "I now dub thee bishop in the name..." and wa-laa, baptize yourself???

(Ignatius)
> As I mentioned before, I had
> the privilege of learning directly
> from John and because of his teachings
> I was instrumental in putting forth
> to the early Church the proper
> interpretation of what he wrote
> as he explained it to me.

(Datone)
What you or John writes matters nothing of itself.   "To the law and to the testimony: if
they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."(Isa 8:20)  If
everything you say, like John, can be accomodated by every context-- as in "precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little..."(Isa 28:10-13) then it is useful.  So, where are your writings that I may prove them?
Oh!  I see, some of them are right below!  Wonderful!

(Iggy(=
> Maybe
> an excerpt from my letter to the
> Smyrnaeans will help you to see
> exactly what John meant by his
> writings:

 > “They abstain from the Eucharist
> and from prayer, because they do
> not confess that the Eucharist
> is the flesh of our Savior Jesus
> Christ, Flesh which suffered for
> our sins and which the Father,
> in His goodness, raised up again.
> They who deny the gift of God are
> perishing in their disputes. It
> would be better for them to have
> love, so that they might rise again.
> It is right to shun such men, and
> not even speak about them, neither
> in public nor private”

(Datone)
Strictly speaking, your words are scriptural; but...
Are you sure you know what the “eucharist” is?  It is NOT necessarily a cracker in your
“priest’s” hand.  It is THE WORD.  “My words, they are spirit and they are life.”  As we
digest the words of the Word(Jesus Christ), thereby we are infused with the nourishment of God; like Jesus said, “Man may not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”  You see?  Even Jesus analogized God’s Word as the true bread!  So why restrict yourself to the symbols?  Why not break out your concordance and start digging for treasure?

(Catholic)
What Datone clearly fails to understand is that Christian teachers in the first four
centuries of the Church were not "the mainstream." 

(Datone)
This does nothing to condone their unscriptural dogma.  The fact remains, their wisdom is
their own.  They were appointed by humans; and, no prophet or apostle of God has ever been human-appointed.  Gifts of the Spirit, such as “the gift of prophecy,” are not something one bestows upon one's own self!
 

(Catholic)
One does not appoint oneself a bishop. Bishops in the early Church were elected by
the people over whom they were set as pastors and shepherds; they were not
self-appointed.
 
(Datone)
So there were other people in the tub saying in unison, “We dub thee...”  This does nothing to indicate they were led of the Holy Ghost!  The criteria remains:  “If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is NO light in them.”(Isa 8:20)

The “word of prophecy” which you presumptuously ascribe the Holy Ghost to, is more
accurately described as “the word of  human-appointed purveyors of *truth*”.  There is no need for such “interpreters”!  The reason I am much more effective than you,
scripturally-theologically, is because I go stright to the horse’s mouth.  Without “It is
written...” scriptural references to support your assertions, they are spiritually emasculate--  these are the “women” which I believe Paul was referring to when he said, “let the women keep silence in church.”

 2Pe 1:21-- “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”

That prophecy cannot be purveyed by natural humans-- which the people elected to
compose the traditions you hold dear:  “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”(1Co 2:14)

I am here to “earnestly contend for THE FAITH which was once(BEFORE
Inatius!) delivered unto the saints.”(Ju 3)  I have asserted NOTHING on this board without “line upon line, here a little and there a little.”  Everything I say is scripturally irrefutable.  That’s how you test the authenticity of any spirit.  Like Paul, I too am here “saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come.”(Ac 26:22)  The words of the “prophets and Moses” are the only words whereby one may ascertain whether or not the gospel of faith has been hidden-- as I have asserted here-- that it has been hidden from everyone,
including myself , Captain Kangaroo, and, apparently, the martyrs, until now.

So why not avail yourself of scriptures and discover the gospel treasure for yourself-- treasure which has been heretofore hidden according to all prophecy.  It has been a book which no man has been able to open or look upon.(Re 5:1-3)  Christ and his gospel are “the hidden wisdom”(1Co 2:7)  "That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.”(1Co 2:5)