J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
Yes.
His Crucifixion is nothing without Him rising from the dead and being exalted by the Father.
- Status
His Crucifixion is nothing without Him rising from the dead and being exalted by the Father.
E
Elvis_George
Guest
Not really…The Anaphora they used (Anaphora of St James) was a greek anaphora…services were still done in west syriac.
And I have not once pointed to Gnostic texts, I have only quoted scripture…
…however you my friend have tried to present an argument quoting scripture out of context and seemingly try to separate the historical Jesus from Christ as our God…
…and then you try to imply that I am using Gnostic texts which I am not…
… I have concluded you were either a troll or you are wildly mistaken in your beliefs, you cannot even admit that Christ crucified is the greatest work in all of mankind…
…the crucifixion was His work, His labor, the resurrection is a fruit of His work, His labor, there is a difference…
…that is why before He gave up His Spirit He said ”it is accomplished“, His work was complete, His labor finished.
Again you speak of Jesus as if He is a separate entity from the Father…
…He is not…
…He is one with the Father, They are one in the same…
Inseparable.
Last edited:
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
The Crucifixion is nothing without the Ressurection.
As Paul said:
If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.
1 Corinthians 15:13-14
“It is accomplished” is about the Cross. He still had to rise and ascend so He could give the Holy Spirit to men.
And the Father and the Son aren’t the same person.
Both are God. But the Father isn’t the Son and the Son isn’t the Father.
Last edited:
Yes, the crucifixion is nothing without the resurrection…
…however He did rise from the grave, so His work was not in vain…
What you fail to see, is that does not change the fact that the crucifixion was His work His labor…
…and the resurrection was the fruit of that work and labor.
Even protestants can easily recognize the difference…
… Here is a quote from Billy Graham:
”Jesus worked all His life. But the greatest work that Jesus did was not in the carpenter’s shop, nor even at the marriage feast of Cana where He turned the water into wine. The greatest work that Jesus did was not when He made the blind to see, the deaf to hear, the dumb to speak, nor even the dead to rise. The greatest work that Jesus did was not when He taught as One having authority, or when He scathingly denounced the Pharisees for their hypocrisy. The greatest work that Jesus did was not in the great ethical program He presented to mankind—that program which has become the foundation for Western culture. What, then, was His greatest work? His greatest work was achieved in those three dark hours on Calvary. Christ’s greatest work was His dying for us.”
Hence Christ’s crucifixion was His greatest work, His Resurrection is a fruit of that work.
Please show me where I said they were the same person?
Again you are making false claims about what I have said, please carefully read my posts.
I said that Christ and the Father are one in the same…
…as in they are one in the same God they are not separate, they are inseparable.
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
The Cross and Ressurection were all part of His labor.
As I said, He still needed to rise and ascend so we could receive the Spirit.
You said:
When I said:
You should read your posts carefully. Also read this.
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name,
Philippians 2:6, 8-9
One was His work, one was the fruit of His work, you are quite mistaken and at this point we are waaaaaay off topic so I will not make further comments on a point that most agree on.
Stating that Jesus is not a separate entity from the Father is not saying that He is not a separate person from the Father…
…a (false) claim that you tried to say that I said…
…you need to carefully read my posts not the other way around friend, as I never once claimed they were the same person, a charge you brought against me.
Yes, therefore God exalted God, as Jesus is God do you deny this?
Last edited:
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
You quoted a lone Protestant pastor. That’s not a good look for your position.
You accused me of making the Son separate from the Father. You did enough accusing yourself.
More accurately, God the Father exalted God the Son.
Again you look to argue for the sake of argument I am not doing your homework for you, you can look it up yourself.
I did not accuse you of anything, I said it seems as though, that is not an accusation that leaves room open for you to be mistaken, and I didn’t say that you separate the Son from the Father I said you seem separate Jesus from God…
…however I will say that you have lied on several occasions about what I have said, if you would like I can post again what I said…
Perhaps more accurate, however it is not wrong to say that God exalted God, why do you have a problem admitting that Jesus is God?
You present yourself as a Catholic, is it honestly that hard to admit that Jesus is God?
Last edited:
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
So says the student who fails to post sources on a research paper.
I literally said God the Son. It’s not me looking for an argument. It’s you.
O
OriginalGabrielof12
Guest
I believe you underestimate how much the locals in any given province spoke their own native languages. It appears you are forcing everyone during the Crucifixion era are all speaking Greek? The historical Pontius Pilate pretty much floors your opinion, because Pilate has the populace in his time era speaking Hebrew, Latin and Greek. I will repeat again to you, the Greek language was the academia language spoken and written by the Learned intellectuals. Any document you bring up during this period would be written in Greek by an intellectual learned person. We do not have the local lay person per se reading, writing, speaking Greek, besides most of them could not read and write in their own language and yet you got everybody speaking Greek? True the Greeks were a world power at one time, and the Greek language survived and became an academia language for the rich and powerful. The historical era we speak about has the Latin Romans being a world power , like it or not, you can’t change that fact, that the Latin language became well known, in fact most medicines today are still written in Latin. I won’t charge you for the extra credit.
Peace be with you
Last edited:
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
God the Son isn’t good enough for you?
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
The historical fact also has that Greek circulated widely in the East and dominated the Roman world. The Mass was in Greek. The Bible was in Greek. The fact that Pilate wrote in Latin doesn’t change that fact.
Greek was also used for communication not just by intellectuals. Greek was also the language of the Roman courts. The Apostles Philip and Andrew are two examples of how Greece had influenced the Jewish world.
I didn’t say that, when you said God the Son it wasn’t in answer to my question, it was in response to something else, therefore you have not yet directly responded to my question…
So I’ll ask again, do you deny Jesus is God?
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
And again I answer: look at my posts.Julius_Caesar:
I didn’t say that, when you said God the Son it wasn’t in answer to my question, it was in response to something else, therefore you have not yet directly responded to my question…
So I’ll ask again, do you deny Jesus is God?
O
OriginalGabrielof12
Guest
The Greeks did not dominate the Roman world in the first century. No need to digress here.
No, the Mass was in the native languages during the Oral Tradition. When the Apostolic letters were written and circulated, the Apostolic letters were written in Greek but these letters were interpreted into the native languages by an interpreter to simple converts. The Mass was not in Greek in the first century, only the Apostolic Letters were. The first converts were Hebrew/Aramaic speaking Jews. The earliest Mass was celebrated in the same Language Jesus taught.
Jesus had already spread His teachings for about three years before any Greek comes to inquire about Jesus. Where were all these Greeks you speak about when Jesus was teaching for three years. It’s not until three years later we have some visiting Greeks who heard of Jesus and wanted to meet Jesus. By the time any visiting Greek comes along, Jesus pronounces his final hour has come. Sounds like these visiting Greeks were a Johnny come lately. in fact three years later a Greek speaking Greek enters history and as a minority at that, inquiring about Jesus Christ.
Last edited:
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
At the Sermon on the Mount.
News about him spread all over Syria, and people brought to him all who were ill with various diseases, those suffering severe pain, the demon-possessed, those having seizures, and the paralyzed; and he healed them. Large crowds from Galilee, the Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea and the region across the Jordan followed him.
Matthew 4:24-25 NIV
What are the origins for the names of Andrew and Philip? Greek are they not?
Last edited:
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
Nope.
Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language? Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!”
Quite a few Greek speaking Jews.
Last edited:
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
Yet their influence was still felt.
- Status