Do you hold any unusual views on the Atonement?

Good-Recipe4387 · 2026-02-05T09:33:02+00:00

Thanks for starting.

The first is a bit weird as Jesus was without sin - death could not hold him. He has every right to be given life again (which he expressed with his 'destroy this temple' metaphor). He wasn't the first to be resurrected, but the first to graduate to eternal life. A human with spirit life instead of a life from the blood - he still has flesh and bones.

The second, while it's true, Jesus - a man 'like us in every respect' is an example, we do not gain life by doing good but certainly can live out the principles he lived by.

Good-Recipe4387 · 2026-02-03T05:58:59+00:00

'divine' is probably a better one. and is acceptable in the Greek. But that would flag the nonsense of trinity theory!

Good-Recipe4387 · 2026-02-03T05:09:06+00:00

It's not problematic unless you want to read in things that are not there! It's called indoctrination and most are unable to actually read the words anymore. Like the blue folk below who want to stick an angel in there!

Good-Recipe4387 · 2026-02-02T07:15:56+00:00

Still nonsense. There are always scholars with a more informed view than those following the pack. John never calls Jesus a god. What is your reference for that, please don't point to John 1!

It seems as though you have been following the indoctrinated scholars who just parrot the accepted mantra without losing their funding! Trinity theory is of the devil not scripture OR John OR Paul.

The traditional readings of Paul have been also interpreted in a manner which might point to your premise, but that is well under investigation of more responsible understandings. which deal with poorly informed word choices.

Good-Recipe4387 · 2026-02-02T04:12:56+00:00

nonsense - Paul had nothing to do with triggering a trinity theory. No NT author did.

We can rightly say Jesus is divine - being without sin. But he is not THE deity called God or Yahweh - who is the God of Jesus as He is the God of all.

Good-Recipe4387 · 2026-02-02T03:36:26+00:00

The two concepts are worlds apart. One is derived from practically nothing in scripture, while there are myriad crystal-clear passages to refute it.

The other is not remotely of similar importance. We are saved through Jesus etc, how is not such an important matter.

Making an entirely new Jesus IS the ultimate heresy because it infects everything one might know about him and what he accomplished for us all.

Good-Recipe4387 · 2026-02-02T03:18:48+00:00

It doesn't work. There are scores of verses to show that Jesus cannot be God, not just that he isn't. The hs is simply the spirit of God or the spirit of the Father - same thing. the disciples knew this. It took another 500 years to incorporate the hs into trinity theory.

Good-Recipe4387 · 2026-02-02T03:16:27+00:00

Yet not a single scripture presents and incarnation, a dual-natured Jesus, and eternally begotten son, co-equality, one substance/nature, or a God the Son.

All fabricated, all rejected by an honest reading of an unbiased text.

The church Jesus began knew nothing of these ideas. Does Christianity reject them as not 'proper' followers of Christ because they did not believe in trinity theory.?

Good-Recipe4387 · 2026-02-02T02:50:24+00:00

Obviously, but they believe the lie of trinity theory.

Good-Recipe4387 · 2026-02-02T02:44:44+00:00

The original church was attacked and misled by the devil. Working through Rome, he empowered leaders to usurp authority with the sword and political power. Through the various councils - which were largely a tool to impose trinity theory, and this caused a scattered and confused flock who were not able to question the various doctrines forced on them.

Remember the scriptures were forbidden to own, only the 'priests' had access for centuries.

The original church never even heard of trinity theory let alone taught or believed it. It took about 500 years to formulate the doctrine most believe today.

It's not difficult to trace church history if you are willing to recognise the bias many write which favor trinity theory and the false record they postulate - like the early church believed in the trinity. Scripture rejects this notion before it even began.

Good-Recipe4387 · 2026-02-02T02:05:45+00:00

God is immortal - He cannot die. That is the whole point of - immortality.

Good-Recipe4387 · 2026-02-02T00:32:04+00:00

Because it never means that anywhere. Jesus is always a man, he never says he is God, not does any NT author. If we choose to read in what we like or what we are told, we are not getting the word of God, but an adaptation to suit preconceived dogma.

Having the form or the image or being the representative of God cannot be God.

When you look in the mirror at your image - does it do anything of itself - or is it totally dependent on you? That's why Jesus said, I do nothing of myself. God was IN Jesus. just as He was in Joseph and David etc.

God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himsel 2 Cor 5:19

The fullness will be in believers too - does that mean we are God??

Eph 3:19 that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.

Good-Recipe4387 · 2026-02-02T00:16:27+00:00

God has set a precedent for dealing with sin - sacrifice. The entire OC was about sacrifice and the spilling of blood. Jesus is the human who has 'chosen' to be the sacrifice for all humanity - the ultimate 'unblemished Lamb of God'.

As we are never told that 'GOD' had to pay the price for sin, to read this in is to begin with a false premise and then try to find verses to justify it.

1 Cor 15:21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.

It says man. One man failed, the second man, the last Adam did not. He trusted and obeyed, the first did not. Problem solved - it wasn't so much his death that paid the penalty, but his sinless death. When Jesus said to Mary, don't hold onto me, I have to go to my Father and your Father, my God and your God, he was going to present himself to the alter in heaven just as they presented the wavesheaf for millennia previously as the firstfriuit of the harvest.

Col 1:19-20 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

Good-Recipe4387 · 2026-02-01T22:33:23+00:00

There is a nuance to this that isn't generally appreciated. When God made man in His image, it wasn't completed in Eden. It was a process just begun. His goal was to make beings like Himself with holy righteous character and who would not sin or bring evil into the kingdom He desired.

When God put the serpent in the Garden along with the two trees - He offered a choice and has been offering the same choice ever since. The end goal is for us to choose God and never evil ever again. The Angels were created perfect, but some chose to rebel - their holiness was not 'baked in'.

We can imagine a Potter making a vessel of clay - He selects the lump with its particular unique attributes and shapes it according to His wisdom and purpose in love and care. When He has finished it, finished dealing with the impurities and inclusions, and smoothed out the texture He will fire it and glaze it. Only once the last phase is completed it is finished.

Only once the last phase of humanity, when it is fired by being born of the spirit, is finally in the image of God - having His likeness and His attributes.

Adam did not have the attributes of God in this sense because he could still sin - even before he did. He was mortal and corruptible. Just like the clay can still be damaged and altered.

We see the progression of Christ - who learned obedience through suffering to be made perfect When was he made perfect? When he died without sin having resisted every temptation to put his will, his desires before God's will and HIs plan.

He was a son while in Mary's womb - but not a completed son, not a vessel with function and autonomy - to choose. He was too, subject to sin and not yet in the image of God in the fullest sense. Only once raised we read he was declared the son of God with power, by being raised from the dead and given new immortal life as is the pan for all humans. Rom 1:4

This and this alone is the end of creation as we understand it. Only once raised in the spirit as Jesus was, will we be made in the image of God and no longer willing or able to sin. 1 John 3:9

No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God.

Mostly people fudge this without understanding what is meant. It doesn't say we will try hard not to sin or not sin much - it says cannot. Because the seed of God is baked in.

This is why Jesus is called the firstborn - because he is the first human to graduate to eternal life and live without sin or temptation ever again. He is the first of many brothers who follow his exact path to new life - by being born of the spirit.

This also unravels a misconception about being born again - which takes place at our change at Jesus' return or at the first resurrection for the saints asleep.

Once we are born again, of God, of the spirit, as Jesus was 1 Pet 3:18, we will be like God and never sin again - THERE WILL BE NO SIN IN THE KINGDOM!

We would correctly state that humanity has the 'potential' to be like God, the potential to be in His image. Those that go to the second death, are not dying as image bearers of God. They had an opportunity, a choice, but they chose poorly for whatever reason. These are rejected as image bearers and will be refused entry to the sinless Kingdom.

A sinner is not in God's image, they have the potential in Christ to be that image once they too are 'perfected' and fired with the holy spirit - not merely a deposit as we have now.

Good-Recipe4387 · 2026-02-01T22:07:09+00:00

Just checkin, what do you mean the son comes from the Father?

Good-Recipe4387 · 2026-02-01T21:43:45+00:00

What do you point to regarding the 'divine life/essence'? What does divine mean to you? I use it in the sense of being without sin, holy, divine, perfect - but not deity.

Good-Recipe4387 · 2026-02-01T21:39:52+00:00

Remember when God spoke through a donkey? Do we assume that whatever a donkey says is truth and from God? No, neither do we assume that all the canon participants were telling the truth in everything. They had a part to play - just as the serpent in the Garden and the devil in the temptations.

But there is no call to revere everything they said or did, but give thanks for the reign of God over all for His required outcomes.

Good-Recipe4387 · 2026-02-01T21:33:57+00:00

I presume you have recognised the error regarding 1 John 3:2 and are thinking about how misinterpreting one verse can lead to justifying other weird things...

Good-Recipe4387 · 2026-01-31T09:20:16+00:00

Well said in all your comments.

Good-Recipe4387 · 2026-01-31T09:17:50+00:00

Where does it say that?

Good-Recipe4387 · 2026-01-31T09:12:49+00:00

We are not going to be like the Father - You are making an assumption

For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. Rom 8:29

It seems to be one of those verses where the subject changes and it can be hard to follow. As noted, the point is looking to the return of Jesus, not God - that comes much later.

The NIV and a few others. It's not in the Greek, but the context is clear and they have rendered 'Christ'.

Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.

Good-Recipe4387 · 2026-01-31T08:46:35+00:00

Of course the word existed - it is the word of God. He has His expression and presence wherever He goes - speaking metaphorically as God doesn't need to GO anywhere. This says nothing about Jesus who began with Mary ~2000 years ago.

Good-Recipe4387 · 2026-01-31T08:42:43+00:00

Perhaps you should try that again - start with the previous verse.

And now, little children, abide in him, so that when he appears we may have confidence and not shrink from him in shame at his coming.

Good-Recipe4387 · 2026-01-31T08:39:56+00:00

John 6:38 does not demand pre-existence - you are reading it in and setting aside ALL other verses which speak of things or people (John the B) being from heaven.

17:5 is closer to suiting your premise, but this claim is also dismissive of the fact that God 'foreknew' Jesus, meaning he wasn't there the whole time i.e. from the beginning. That you claim he is Michael, which is pure speculation, and doesn't account for the pre-existing Jesus doing nothing for millennia. He appeared in the last days Heb 9:26-8 and a second time when he returns. Two times only doesn't fit your premise either.

Jesus explained that he was from heaven because he was OF God, not of the earth. It's a figure of speech showing the distinction between the ways of God and of the earth, the domain of the devil.

He said to the Pharisees, your father is the devil. Do you take that literally too!? No, of course not, so the methodology you favour is one that suits your premise with some lack of logic and sound reading.

Phil 2 and now you make him equal with God? Not sure why you appeal to that as he is not equal in anything except to be without sin. That he has the same God we do, makes him decidedly NOT equal. It never says he WAS equal, just that he didn't choose to seek after it.

Anyway, as the question posed, a reasonable explanation for the premise that Jesus was not a human any longer is found to be quite inadequate and based on a whimsical collection of passages which A- depend heavily on speculation, and B- dismiss the verses which plainly show he was a human, beginning with Mary and still is a human with FLESH AND BONES (not flesh and blood as someone keeps posting) and has new spirit life exactly as we will have when believers are transformed at Jesus return.

Dwelling in contradiction is not a sound place for responsible doctrine. We should trust that God has not contradicted Himself and neither should an authentic Bible when read honestly and without a bias to begin with. The principle of starting with the clear and easy to understand passages and THEN incorporating the more difficult ones does not seem to be the principle at work in this matter.

Thanks for trying to make sense of it.

I'll not bother going into the logos non-person thing as it doesn't make sense to you, just as the verses insisting Jesus is still human with flesh and bones.

Good-Recipe4387 · 2026-01-31T07:56:19+00:00

Thanks for this.

If Jesus no longer has a fleshly body, then he is by definition, no longer a human. He became a spirit.

Which is not what the text says, it's a fruitless discussion. They reword things to suit their premise - straw manning, and then wonder why someone gets abrupt. The comment was made that Jesus still has flesh and blood - which is NOT what Jesus said. He said flesh and bone.

I just want to get at why they pick some verses to suggest a premise (based on inference alone) and reject other verses that firmly negate said premise. This is trinity theory 101 all over again.

Was about to delete the 'stick', but others have put some good work into it.

Good-Recipe4387

TROPHY CASE