Seconds of Pre Embryonic Life of Jesus Christ?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

I said Jesus is not on God's throne.

27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

God rules. According to your chapter in I Cor, God also rules over Jesus.

Oh, he's on a throne BUT NOT GOD's throne, now.

The argument has changed. You never said GOD's throne in the quote I made/

God RULES and put JESUS in ruling power and JESUS will give over that Kingdom HE RULES over to the Father later.

But you are wrong anyway:

Revelation 3:21 KJV To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by mfblume

1 Corinthians 15:25 KJV (25) For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.


WII, read.

1 Corinthians 15:23-27 KJV (23) But every man in his own order: Christ (CHRIST IS THE SUBJECT) the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. (24) Then cometh the end, when he (CHRIST) shall have delivered up the kingdom to God (BECAUSE HE HAD IT WHILE RULING AND WILL GIVE IT TO THE FATHER LATER , NOT YET), even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. (25) For (CHRIST)he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. (26) The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. (27) For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.


The FATHER put all things under the feet of Jesus. That means Jesus ruled.

Christ had authority to RULE. JESUS delivers up the KINGDOM because HE HAD THE KINGDOM. And that KINGDOM IS HIS NOW. He RULES IT. He cannot deliver it to the Father if He did not have it and rule it first. And this prophecy is future so Jesus is CURRENTLY over the Kingdom and RULES IT.

Where is my reading mistaken?

So if HE RULES THE KINGDOM NOW, and shall in the future GIVE IT TO THE FATHER, why do you say HE IS NOT ON THE THRONE?

I could easily be wrong. I said it because I referenced some passages about it but they weren't my words.
I am innocently wondering - do you have maybe a scripture or two to throw over here?
There are dozens of thrones. Two dozen for the cherubs. A dozen for the apostles. Were you guys supposed to get thrones? Saw a passage about that. You're well practiced for judging I have to tell you.

So: Does Jesus have his own thrown? Is he sharing one? Because no chapter or verse I can find has God leaving his thrown.

Let me get you started. I really like you.

Hebrews 8:1 Now the main point in what has been said is this: we have such a high priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens

That's pretty close to the throne

Rev 5:

Then I saw in the right hand of him who sat on the throne a scroll with writing on both sides and sealed with seven seals. 2 And I saw a mighty angel proclaiming in a loud voice, “Who is worthy to break the seals and open the scroll?” 3 But no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth could open the scroll or even look inside it. 4 I wept and wept because no one was found who was worthy to open the scroll or look inside. 5 Then one of the elders said to me, “Do not weep! See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed. He is able to open the scroll and its seven seals.”
6 Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing at the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. The Lamb had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits[a] of God sent out into all the earth. 7 He went and took the scroll from the right hand of him who sat on the throne.

Still pretty close, but not sitting there. God was sitting there holding his book. But that's what I said.

I dunno. Do you have something for us? Because there are several more. I don't really see what you see but I'm just reading the words. Maybe the words don't say what they mean and need re-interpretation? Bring some verses. I'm going to sleep. You have all day to search for them.

[mfblume]

Jesus said He sits on the Father's throne with the Father. ONE throne.

And Jesus was therefore told to sit on the throne of God in Psalm 110:1.

Jesus is told to sit and rule. From where? God's throne.

And the Father puts all powers under the Son's feet, which is currently happening now. Jesus continues to rule UNTIL all those enemies are under his feet. And the reason he is said to later give over the kingdom to the Father is because Jesus currently rules that kingdom. And again, he rules from God's throne.

This is all speaking of CHRIST AS A MAN.

Like Adam had dominion over the earth, CHRIST THE MAN has dominion and rules the world now.

That HUMANITY is a result of incarnation of which we learn in the rest of the bible. Phil 2 clearly says Jesus did not think it robbery to be EQUAL WITH GOD. Howso? Why? He is GOD in incarnation.

And that incarnation involves humanity, or it would not be incarnation. And the incarnation answers the problem of mankind's lost position as king over earth. So, Jesus is now MAN AND KING as Adam was.

God is ALL IN ALL when that incarnation who RULES NOW has completed his job and task. This task ENDS when the Father (God apart from His incarnation) has put all enemies finally under the Son's feet. And then as the SON was God incarnate, the reverse seems to happen and that which is FROM God goes back INTO GOD as it was originally, and God is all in all.

This in no way negates the truth that Jesus is God. It simply shows the plan for Adam is renewed through Christ as MAN RULING, but it has that added aspect that Christ is not only a man who rules on a throne, but is GOD INCARNATE and sits on God's throne.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

I could easily be wrong. I said it because I referenced some passages about it but they weren't my words.
I am innocently wondering - do you have maybe a scripture or two to throw over here?
There are dozens of thrones. Two dozen for the cherubs. A dozen for the apostles. Were you guys supposed to get thrones? Saw a passage about that. You're well practiced for judging I have to tell you.
So: Does Jesus have his own thrown? Is he sharing one? Because no chapter or verse has God leaving his thrown.

Let me get you started. I really like you.

Hebrews 8:1 Now the main point in what has been said is this: we have such a high priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens

That's pretty close to the throne

Rev 5:

Then I saw in the right hand of him who sat on the throne a scroll with writing on both sides and sealed with seven seals. 2 And I saw a mighty angel proclaiming in a loud voice, “Who is worthy to break the seals and open the scroll?” 3 But no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth could open the scroll or even look inside it. 4 I wept and wept because no one was found who was worthy to open the scroll or look inside. 5 Then one of the elders said to me, “Do not weep! See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed. He is able to open the scroll and its seven seals.”
6 Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing at the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. The Lamb had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits[a] of God sent out into all the earth. 7 He went and took the scroll from the right hand of him who sat on the throne.

Still pretty close, but not sitting there. God was sitting there holding his book.

I dunno. Do you have something for us? Because there are several more. I don't really see what you see but I'm just reading the words. Maybe the words don't say what they mean and need re-interpretation?

I quoted read it:


Revelation 3:21 KJV To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

You really like me? Hmmm....

Anyway...

[mfblume]

Not only does Rev 3 says Jesus sat on the FATHER'S THRONE with HIM, but we also read the single throne is called...

Revelation 22:1 KJV And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.

ONE THRONE occupied by GOD AND THE LAMB, both.

All of this clarifies what Psalm 110:1 foretold!

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Not only does Rev 3 says Jesus sat on the FATHER'S THRONE with HIM, but we also read the single throne is called...

Revelation 22:1 KJV And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.

ONE THRONE occupied by GOD AND THE LAMB, both.

All of this clarifies what Psalm 110:1 foretold!

Sounds like the lamb is Jesus and the "and of" means they are sharing it.

Told you there was a passage in Psalms about that. See - you found it. You're studious. Jesus seems to be here and there in the different verses (19 of them, wow) regarding the throne. In Acts he was standing. Not sitting. Maybe Stephen didn't get a clear view. But Rev says the same thing. Then has them sitting together, as Psalms said. Then your passage offers to share it with everyone else. Takes the specialness out right there.

Back to Jesus ruling but subject to God. Why omit those two verses? They are very clear. Why would I Cor be so careful about stating that?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Sounds like the lamb is Jesus and the "and of" means they are sharing it.

Yes.

Told you there was a passage in Psalms about that. See - you found it. You're studious. Jesus seems to be here and there in the different verses (19 of them, wow) regarding the throne. In Acts he was standing. Not sitting. Maybe Stephen didn't get a clear view.

Standing does not necessarily mean upright on two legs. A man can be in good "standing". It's archaic use of terms that do not always agree with modern day counterparts. Will we literalize the right hand and have Jesus sitting on that right hand of fingers and thumb and then standing on it, too?

But Rev says the same thing. Then has them sitting together, as Psalms said. Then your passage offers to share it with everyone else. Takes the specialness out right there.

Back to Jesus ruling but subject to God. Why omit those two verses? They are very clear. Why would I Cor be so careful about stating that?

I already addressed that. God's incarnation is the man Christ Jesus. Like Adam. Adam ruled the world under God. Together they ruled, but Adam was under God. Same with Jesus. And the Father gave the Son dominion over the world to rule it. He is King of Kings.

And we are indeed also seated with Christ in heavenly places. Our concept of specialness is of no consequence to reality. It shows the saved to be extensions of God through Christ... which is God's purpose for all of humanity to begin with.

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Yes.



Standing does not necessarily mean upright on two legs. A man can be in good "standing". It's archaic use of terms that do not always agree with modern day counterparts. Will we literalize the right hand and have Jesus sitting on that right hand of fingers and thumb and then standing on it, too?

No, but Jesus doesn't OWN it. It isn't His. It's God's thrown

I already addressed that. God's incarnation is the man Christ Jesus. Like Adam. Adam ruled the world under God. Together they ruled, but Adam was under God. Same with Jesus. And the Father gave the Son dominion over the world to rule it. He is King of Kings.

And we are indeed also seated with Christ in heavenly places. Our concept of specialness is of no consequence to reality. It shows the saved to be extensions of God through Christ... which is God's purpose for all of humanity to begin with.

My point was never "standing" or "sitting". My point was "different" and "separate" and "subject to". Always has been. The passages don't even say "equal". Why would the writers be so careful about specifically saying that?

There is God, and there is Jesus, nowhere more clearly separated with one subject to the other than in the book of John. The power given to Jesus is questioned nowhere in this thread but consistently from the beginning to the end of the book it is "given" by God.

So why catcall this kid who is going through the exact same verses trying to work it out? He says two different entities, you guys make fun and bring no verses to clarify this? I ask the same, you bring verses that support the kid's position.

Something doesn't add up to what is being taught and eventually it will have to be clarified so that it all makes sense. John 1 with personal interpretations does not constitute an answer.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

My original post was about who is deity and that there is something wrong with the accepted teaching about who Jesus actually is.

The apostles said Jesus (the man from Galilee) is "our great God and Saviour", that the great mystery of the faith is that "God was manifest in the flesh", that Jesus Christ is "first and last, Alpha and Omega, beginning and end, the Almighty", that the Word which was God was made flesh, that the Rock in the Exodus wilderness was Christ (though Moses says it was Jehovah). And many other such things.

So we, as Christians, must accept as true BOTH types of Scriptural statements, the ones that show Jesus is the anointed, sent, chosen Son of God, the mediator, the sin-offering, the Son of David, the Son of Mary... AND that He is also our great God and Saviour, Immanuel (God-With-Us), the Word Made Flesh, the Alpha and Omega, the Rock of Israel, etc.

Those are the boundaries given by the scriptures, and within those boundaries there may be so many various opinions. And some opinions are worth more than others, some more accurate than others. But any opinion that goes OUTSIDE the boundaries set by scripture is simply error and heresy.

The scriptures are not a collection of paint by number pop-up children's picture books. Although any simple person can accept and believe what it says, it is nevertheless undeniable there are some things that are "hard to understand" that require prayerful diligent study. After all, every Christian is supposed to be a disciple (student).

So we should expect to see some "difficulties" and what may seem like (or even be) paradoxes.

[Esaias]

BTW, I hear there are dangerous times in Saudi. I hope you are safe?