Binyawmene
Junior
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2023
- Messages
- 417
- Reaction score
- 323
- Points
- 63
- Location
- Ohio
- Faith
- Reformed Christian. Trinitarian/Hypostatic Unionist.
- Country
- USA
If you happen to be following this thread, then this is for the Readers benefit. There are many deceivers (2 John 1:7) that use Biblical terms known as "Terminology Block" (terms like: God, Jesus Christ, in the flesh). I'm sure you get the point and its part of their deception. Just because the poster says, "I believe Jesus is the Christ" doesn't mean we are in agreement. It's true that the poster is using a Biblical term, but he has redefined those terms "Jesus" and "Christ" to fit his own man-made Christology. Basically, the poster have essentially emptied biblical terms of all of its content. Then he has replaced the content with a perverted Christological heresy. Even twisting and distorting the heresies to be some kind of neo-type version or combining them all together. After that he spray paint it over with Biblical words and terminologies. The outer wrapping looks nice and seems like its Biblical. But when I examine the content and essence of the package. The phrase "Jesus is the Christ" was redefined to fit his own Christology. His Jesus looks like the real Jesus Christ only on the surface. After I dig a little and another one of those false Christs rises up.
Here is an example of the error (1 John 4:6):
From what I can understand from the poster's cryptic message. That the Dynamic Dual Christology is a denial of the identity of Jesus and Christ. It denies the eternal pre-existing God the Word and the incarnate God the Word. According to this doctrine I don't know if "Jesus, the Son of man" had a miraculous virgin birth or he is a biological son of both Joseph and Mary. That is unspecified since the poster choose to evade the questions. Either way, its a denial of "God in the flesh" and "Jesus is the Christ" according to 1 John 2:22 and 5:2. With that being said, "What does the poster actually mean behind "Jesus is the Christ?"
Meyer's NT Commentary states:
In other words, Jesus would only be the Christ in that particular sense according to the poster. Or if you understand this Dynamic Dual relationship between the Father and the Son mention above. The more I think about the poster's doctrinal error, the two Jesus is not a oneness or a twoness, but two separate ontological entities. You also might be wondering when did Jesus, the Son of man receive the Messiahship? Again, that is unspecified since the poster choose to evade the questions. It could have been at his birth, baptism, or the resurrection. While John, on the other hand, teaches Jesus is the Christ (John 1:17, 41, 4:25, 17:3, 20:31), he was not adopted to be the Son (1 John 4:15) or to receive the office of Messiahship (1 John 5:1). But rather, "Jesus" is a actual real person (the Word that was with the Father) who is literally the embodiment of "Christ." Also the identity of "Jesus" and "Christ" are not two separate entities but are the one selfsame individual person (1 John 4:2, 2 John 1:7), who is God the Son incarnate, Jesus Christ.
Here is an example of the error (1 John 4:6):
On post 12, (the poster stated this about 1 John 2:22): "He that denies the dynamic dual the Father Christ working in the Son of man Jesus. ... Some deny the Father not seen did not need the Son of man Jesus seen to fulfil prophecies. Others say the Son of man, Jesus did not need a invisible head. Two is the witness God has spoke. The original dynamic dual."
On post 14: "I believe applied to both Jesus the Son of man, empowered by Jesus as Jehovah, almighty God.... Two Jesus's working as one."
On post 20: "Again I believe Jesus is the Christ the one good teaching master. Christ the seed worked with Jesus the Son of man. The Dynamic Dual."
On post 14: "I believe applied to both Jesus the Son of man, empowered by Jesus as Jehovah, almighty God.... Two Jesus's working as one."
On post 20: "Again I believe Jesus is the Christ the one good teaching master. Christ the seed worked with Jesus the Son of man. The Dynamic Dual."
From what I can understand from the poster's cryptic message. That the Dynamic Dual Christology is a denial of the identity of Jesus and Christ. It denies the eternal pre-existing God the Word and the incarnate God the Word. According to this doctrine I don't know if "Jesus, the Son of man" had a miraculous virgin birth or he is a biological son of both Joseph and Mary. That is unspecified since the poster choose to evade the questions. Either way, its a denial of "God in the flesh" and "Jesus is the Christ" according to 1 John 2:22 and 5:2. With that being said, "What does the poster actually mean behind "Jesus is the Christ?"
(a). The Dynamic Dual is based on the idea that there are two Jesus and one Christ.
(b). The first Jesus is God the Father and the second Jesus is the Son of man.
(c). The Christ is technically God the Father and also is an empowerment that worked through Jesus, the Son of man.
(d). "The Christ" (God the Father) is a different entity that is separate and independent existence from "Jesus" (the Son of man).
(b). The first Jesus is God the Father and the second Jesus is the Son of man.
(c). The Christ is technically God the Father and also is an empowerment that worked through Jesus, the Son of man.
(d). "The Christ" (God the Father) is a different entity that is separate and independent existence from "Jesus" (the Son of man).
Meyer's NT Commentary states:
The lie of the Antichrist consists in the denial that Jesus is ὁ Χριστός, i.e. in the denial of the identity of Jesus and Christ, whereby is meant, according to 1 John 2:19 and chap. 1 John 4:3, not the Jewish unbelief, that Jesus is not the promised Messiah, but the Gnostic heresy of the distinction between Jesus and Christ, which forms the sharpest contradiction to the apostle’s doctrine that Jesus is the λόγος σὰρξ γενόμενος. It is erroneous to find here a reference to two different kinds of heresy; on the one hand the denial of the divine, on the other the denial of the human, nature of Jesus; for John speaks only of one lie.
In other words, Jesus would only be the Christ in that particular sense according to the poster. Or if you understand this Dynamic Dual relationship between the Father and the Son mention above. The more I think about the poster's doctrinal error, the two Jesus is not a oneness or a twoness, but two separate ontological entities. You also might be wondering when did Jesus, the Son of man receive the Messiahship? Again, that is unspecified since the poster choose to evade the questions. It could have been at his birth, baptism, or the resurrection. While John, on the other hand, teaches Jesus is the Christ (John 1:17, 41, 4:25, 17:3, 20:31), he was not adopted to be the Son (1 John 4:15) or to receive the office of Messiahship (1 John 5:1). But rather, "Jesus" is a actual real person (the Word that was with the Father) who is literally the embodiment of "Christ." Also the identity of "Jesus" and "Christ" are not two separate entities but are the one selfsame individual person (1 John 4:2, 2 John 1:7), who is God the Son incarnate, Jesus Christ.
