Christ's Equality With God

Christ's Equality With God

Well, then, Moses and Jesus both taught a plurality of Eloahhs. Jesus said: I am Eloahh, and my Father is Eloahh, and the children of God by resurrection, each one is Eloahh; and all together we are thy Elohim, O Israel, and yet but one Yahweh. But the Jews repudiate such a God-Name as this. It is incomprehensible to them; and in their opinion, nothing short of blasphemy. It was so repugnant to their notions of things that when Jesus taught it "they took up stones to stone him"; and declared that they did so because that he, being a man, made himself Eloahh in saying: I am the Son of All (John 10:33-36). Like Dr. de Lara, they objected to the idea of Yahweh having a son; and that son being a man; and that man consequently EIoahh or God. Hence, when Jesus asked them: "What think ye of Christ? Whose son is he?" They did not answer: "He is the Son of God" -- to have done so would have been to admit that he would be equal to God, which they considered blasphemy. They, therefore, adhered to the fleshly view of the matter, and replied: "He is the Son of David." This was equivalent to saying that he was equal with David only; and consequently, not equal with Deity. But this position was pregnable, and easily turned. Jesus saw their weakness, and immediately exposed it by inquiring: "How then doth David in spirit call him Adon (lord, superior, ruler, &c.,) saying: Yahweh said unto my Adon, Sit thou at my right hand till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Adon, how is he his son?" They could not answer this; "no man," says Matthew, "was able to answer him a word" (Chapter 22:41- 46).

The point in this argument is a question of equality; and therefore of Deity, or of mere humanity. If Messiah were to have been simply son of David, then he would be equal in natural descent, and inferior in rank. If equal in natural descent he would have been no more than a son of Jesse; and if simply David's son, he would have been socially inferior, inasmuch as in society, and especially in Hebrew society, fathers take precedence of sons. This being admitted as contained in their premiss, upon what known principle could David speak of such a Messiah as his Adon or Sovereign Lord? Here is a notably weak point in the Jewish understanding of the doctrine concerning the Messiah. As in the days of their fathers, so to the present time, "They judge after the flesh." They can only see in Christ a son of David, having no higher origin than blood, or the impulse of the flesh, or the will of man. They have no conception of a Christ, who should be formed by the Eternal Spirit from the substance descended from David, as Adam was formed by the same Spirit from the dust; and therefore generated by the will and power of Ail, still less did they see that such a Son of Power should become a son of a spirit-generation from among the dead. The Jewish mind cannot penetrate "the veil of the covering"; so that all his reasonings begin and end in flesh, "which profits nothing." It is not to be wondered at, then, that the Jews, as Dr. de Lara says, "reject with scorn and ridicule the idea of God having a son; of coming down from heaven and enacting with the Virgin Mary the scene related by Luke." Their minds are so sensual and earthly that they cannot ascend to the contemplation of "heavenly things." What they know naturally, as brute beasts, of these things they can speak; but higher than flesh they cannot rise until the Lord shall come and take away the veil.

Dr. Thomas writes of the equality of Christ with God, quoting from John 10:33-36. The equality of Christ with God or Yahweh is inferred in Phillippians 2:6. But what is meant by it? Not an equality of status (see 1 Cor. 15:28), but of nature; and to that equality all can attain (Rom. 5:2; 2 Pet. 1:4; Rev. 3:12).

This is made clear on p.69 of Phanerosis. The point of the argument which Jesus had with the Jews was whether Messiah was to be of God or only of David; whether he was to be "of Deity, or of mere humanity." If he were to have been simply son of David, "then he would be equal in natural descent, and inferior in rank" inasmuch as "fathers take precedence of sons."

Jesus was begotten from above; so must all those ,who would be sons of God (Jhn. 3:3 mg.); he submitted to his flesh being, crucified, and in doing so denied it to serve His God; and so must all those who would attain unto an equality with Christ by attaining unto Divine nature. They become "heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that they suffer with him; that they may be also glorified together" (Rom. 8:17).

Dr. Thomas is very careful to disclaim any connection with Trinitarian error, when writing of the "equality of Christ with God."

The Melchizedek Tractate Anti-Docetic Gnostic Text

The Melchizedek Tractate Anti-Docetic Gnostic Text

Jesus Christ, the Son of God ...They will say [...] concerning him, and concerning........ which will happen in his name. Furthermore, they will say of him that he is unbegotten, though he has been begotten, (that) he does not eat, even though he eats, (that) he does not drink, even though he drinks, (that) he is uncircumcised, though he has been circumcised, (that) he is unfleshly, though he has come in the flesh, (that) he did not come to suffering, <though> he came to suffering, (that) he did not rise from the dead, <though> he arose from the dead. (Melchizedek, The Nag Hammadi Library)

A fragmentary, noncanonical text found among the Nag Hammadi codices (IX, 1). Not to be confused with the Melchizedek Scroll (11QMelch) found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is notable for its anti-docetic emphasis on the real humanity of Jesus, which has led some scholars to postulate that it originated with a sect of “Melchizedekians” described by Epiphanius in Panarion 55

MELCHIZEDEK TRACTATE (NHC IX 1). This document was found in the Coptic Gnostic Library of Nag Hammadi, but its Gnosticism is less pronounced than other texts in the corpus. It explicitly rejects a docetic interpretation of Jesus (IX 1, 5.1-10) and focuses on apocalyptic, rather than realized eschatology (IX 1, 26).

Jesus Christ, the Son of God [...] from ...
... (2 lines unrecoverable)
... (lines 11-eop unrecoverable)
... which will happen in his name. Furthermore, they will say of him that he is unbegotten, though he has been begotten, (that) he does not eat, even though he eats, (that) he does not drink, even though he drinks, (that) he is uncircumcised, though he has been circumcised, (that) he is unfleshly, though he has come in the flesh, (that) he did not come to suffering, <though> he came to suffering, (that) he did not rise from the dead, <though> he arose from the dead.

The incipit occurs on the same small fragment as the title, and reads, "Jesus Christ, the Son [of God ... ]. " In the fragments that follow reference is made to the ministry and sufferings of Jesus, and in a remarkable passage from a relatively complete page (p. 5} an "anti-docetic" polemic is directed at those (other gnostics?) who deny the reality of the incarnation, suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus

According to the Melchizedek Tractate the body, the flesh, and the suffering of Jesus Christ are indeed real.

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

2 John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

What we must remember is that John had a particular false doctrine in mind - the Docetism. We therefore should not try to interpret this verse without understanding the history behind the letter.

We have to think about who in his day John was talking about. For many of those who believed in Docetism, Christ could never be human (flesh) because in their view the material world was evil and such a divine being could have no true fellowship with a material human body.

Docetism was a doctrine that the Christ appeared as a spirit - with an immaterial body.

This passage, therefore, was not written to support the Trinity (an unknown concept to John and the early Christians), but rather was written to prevent any Christian from following the false doctrine of Docetism

Did Jesus have Original Sin?

Did Jesus have Original Sin

If matter is corrupt, than Christ's body also was corrupt.

Melchizedek Furthermore, they will say of him that he is unbegotten, though he has been begotten, (that) he does not eat, even though he eats, (that) he does not drink, even though he drinks, (that) he is uncircumcised, though he has been circumcised, (that) he is unfleshly, though he has come in the flesh, (that) he did not come to suffering, <though> he came to suffering, (that) he did not rise from the dead, <though> he arose from the dead.

Fragment 10, on John 1:29 (In John 1:29, “The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, ‘Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!’”) John spoke the words, "Lamb of God" as a prophet, but the words, "who takes away the sin of the world" as more than a prophet. The first expression was spoken with reference to his body, the second with reference to Him who was in that body. The lamb is an imperfect member of the genus of sheep; the same being true of the body as compared with the one that dwells in it. Had he meant to attribute perfection to the body he would have spoken of a ram about to be sacrificed. (Heracleon: Fragments from his Commentary on the Gospel of John)

That is the gospel of him whom they seek, which he has revealed to the perfect through the mercies of the father as the hidden mystery, Jesus the anointed.  Through him he enlightened those who were in darkness because of forgetfulness. He enlightened them and gave them a path. And that path is the truth that he taught them.  For this reason error was angry with him, so she persecuted him. She was distressed by him, and she was made powerless. He was nailed to a tree.  He became a fruit of the knowledge of the father. He did not, however, destroy them because they ate of it. He rather caused those who ate of it to be joyful because of this discovery. (Gospel of Truth)

Melchizedek Not only (that, but) I have come to reveal to you the truth, which is within the brethren. He included himself in the living offering, together with your offspring. He offered them up as an offering to the All. For it is not cattle that you will offer up for sin(s) of unbelief, and for the ignorances, and (for) all the wicked deeds which they will do

Melchizedek I have offered up myself to you as an offering, together with those that are mine, to you yourself, (O) Father of the All, and those whom you love, who have come forth from you who are holy (and) living. And <according to> the perfect laws, I shall pronounce my name as I receive baptism now (and) forever, (as a name) among the living (and) holy names, and (now) in the waters. Amen."

Odes of Solomon

Pray and increase, and abide in the love of the Lord;
And you who were loved in the Beloved, and you who are kept in Him who lives, and you who are saved in Him who was saved.
And you shall be found incorrupt in all ages, on account of the name of your Father.
Hallelujah.

Sin in in the flesh is hereditary; and is a consequence upon mankind as the result of Adam's violation of the Eden law. The "original sin" Adam and Eve committed it; and their posterity are suffering the consequence of it. The tribe of Levi paid tithes to Melchisedec many years before Levi was born. The apostle says, "Levi, who receiveth tithes, paid tithes in Abraham". Upon the same federal principle, all mankind ate of the forbidden fruit, being in the loins of Adam when he transgressed. This is the only way men can by any possibility be guilty of the original sin. Because they sinned in Adam, therefore they return to the dust from which Adam came -- says the apostle, "in whom all sinned".

There is much foolishness spoken and written about "original sin". Infants are made the subjects of a religious ceremony to regenerate them because of original sin; on account of which, acoording to Geneva philosophy they are liable to the flames of hell for ever! If original sin, which is in fact sin in the flesh, were neutralized, then all "baptismally regenerated" babes ought to live for ever, as Adam would have done had he eaten of the Tree of Life after he had sinned. But they die; which is a proof that the "regeneration" does not "cure their souls"; and is, therefore, mere theological quackery.

None are born holy, but such as are born of the Spirit into the Kingdom of God. Children are born sinners or unclean, because they are born of sinful flesh; and "that which is born of the flesh is flesh", or sin. This is a misfortune, not a crime. They did not will to be born sinners. They have no choice in the case; for it is written, "The creature was made subject to the evil, not willingly, but by reason of him who subjected it in hope" (Rom. 8:20). Hence, the apostle says, "By Adam's disobedience the many were made sinners" (Rom. 5:19); that is, they were endowed with a nature like his, which had become unclean, as the result of disobedience; and by the constitution of the economy into which they were introduced by the will of the flesh, they were constituted transgressors before they were able to discern between right and wrong.

But men are not only made, or constituted sinners by the disobedience of Adam, but they become sinners even as he, by actual transgression. Having attained the maturity of their nature, they become accountable and responsible creatures. At this crisis, they may be placed by the divine arranging in a relation to His word. It becomes to them a Tree of Life (Prov. 3:18), inviting them to "take, and eat, and live for ever". If, however, they prefer to eat of the world's forbidden fruit, they come under the sentence of death in their own behalf. They are thus doubly condemned. They are "condemned already" to the dust as natural born sinners; and, secondarily, condemned to a resurrection to judgment for rejecting the gospel of the kingdom of God: by which they become obnoxious to "the SECOND Death" (Rev. 20:14).

Thus men are sinners in a twofold sense; first, by natural birth and next, by transgression. In the former sense, it is manifest they could not help themselves. They will not be condemned to the Second Death because they were born sinners; not to any other pains and penalties than those which are the common lot of humanity in the present life. They are simply under that provision of the constitution of sin which says, "Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return". Now, if the Lord God had made no other arrangement than that expressed in the sentence upon the woman and the man, they and all their posterity in all their generations would have incessantly gone to dust and there have remained for ever. "The wages of sin is death." Sinful flesh confers no good thing upon its offspring; for holiness, righteousness, incorruptibility, and life for ever are not hereditary. None of these are inherent in animal flesh. Sinners can only acquire them by a conformity to the law of God; who offers them freely to all who thirst after the water of life eternal (Rev. 22:17; Isa. 55:1-3).

This view of sin in the flesh is enlightening in the things concerning Jesus. The apostle says, "God made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin" (2 Cor. 5:21); and this he explains in another place by saying, that "He sent his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom. 8:3) in the offering of his body once (Heb. 10:10,12,14). Sin could not have been condemned in the body of Jesus, if it had not existed there. His body was as unclean as the bodies of those for whom he died; for he was born of a woman, and "not one" can bring a clean body out of a defiled body; for "that", says Jesus himself, "which is born of the flesh is flesh" (John 3:6).

Sinful flesh being the hereditary nature of the Lord Jesus, he was a fit and proper sacrifice for sin; especially as he was himself "innocent of the great transgression", having been obedient in all things. Appearing in the nature of the seed of Abraham (Heb. 2:16-18), he was subject to all the emotions by which we are troubled; so that he was enabled to sympathize with our infirmities (Heb. 4:15), being "made in all things like unto his brethren". But, when he was "born of the Spirit", in the quickening of his mortal body by the spirit (Rom. 8:11), he became a spirit; for "that which is born of the spirit is spirit". Hence, he is "the Lord the Spirit", incorruptible flesh and bones.

Quoting from Elpis Israel chapters 3 and 4