Twisted

I have posted this video again because I thought that it was important and I have added my own notes (see below).

Twisted Doctrine

The tares and the wheat grow together until harvest time…

MOUNTAINS of EVIDENCE! doctrine so twisted it’s backwards! Links below 👇 (39 min)

The Magical Mystical Church does all Christians a service by exposing the twisted and misconceived doctrines of the NAR and the false prophets who are nothing more than New Age theosophists and Gnostics. According to them the cardinal sin is “separateness” and willfully keeping ourselves sperate from God and the world. Scripture teaches us that we can only become united with God (reconciled) through Christ (by taking on his identity in baptism or being “born again’). The New Agers argue that we can all become God and that Jesus was sent to show the way. Accordingly, Jesus was an ordinary man and the Holy Spirit allowed him to become one with God and we can also become one if we simply open ourselves to the Spirit.

This was the sort of Pentecostalism practiced by the Toronto blessing and is associated with the “Kundalini intelligent force” which is equated with the Holy Spirit but is actually mass hysteria causing shaking, trembling, convulsive movements, falling to the ground, and apparent drunkenness and uncontrollable demonic laughter and cackling. It is some sort of disassociated state.

Jesus was not an ordinary man, he was the son of God through the inworking of the Spirit in a creative act:

The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God (Luke 1:35 ).

The overshadowing ἐπέρχομαι (eperchomai) of the Spirit in Luke is obviously meant to recall the Spirit of God moving ἐπιφέρω (epipherō) over the waters in Genesis 1v2 (Greek LXX) so this was no ordinary conception. Jesus was therefore unique and the beginning of a new creation.

The New Agers believe that Jesus became the Son of God when he received the Spirit. The argument then goes that we can all become “God” by stepping up and realizing and accepting (activating the Spirit etc.) and realizing our potential rather than keeping ourselves separate. However, it is our Sins that separated us from God, who is himself Holy (separate), emphasizing the fact that the creator is not the same as the creation (even though everything lives and moves and has its being in him). The New Agers (theosophists) are reverting back to an old doctrine known as Adoptionism, which is a Christian theological doctrine that states that Jesus was adopted as the Son of God at his baptism, resurrection, or ascension. It is also known as dynamic monarchianism. That doctrine was rejected by the Church as a heresy.

After his baptism, at the beginning of his ministry, Jesus received the Spirit without limitation and was tested as to whether he would employ it for selfish reasons or in order to further his mission. It had nothing to do with him being “adopted” as God pronounced in Matt 3:17; “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased” obviously reflecting Isa 42:1 a chapter based on Hezekiah as the suffering servant (and representation of the nation) and a foreshadowing of Christ. Although the birth of Hezekiah was unusual (Isa 7:14) the young woman (the Hebrew is flexible) in question was not (unlike Mary) a virgin  the birth by the young woman in Isaiah’s day was nevertheless a foreshadowing of the virgin Emmanuel birth.

Psalm 2 and Psalm 110

Psalm 2 is also often cited in support of adoptionism.

Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. (Psalm 2:6-7)

In Acts 4:23-28 the first verse of Psalm 2 is given detailed and specific interpretation:

Heathen
the Gentiles
People
Israel
Kings of the Land
Herod
Rulers
Pilate
The Lord’s anointed
Jesus

The verse has therefore an obvious application with the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ but the original context of this Davidic Psalm (adapted/reused by Hezekiah) is 2 Samuel 6. There the details emphasize that when the ark was brought to Zion, David took on himself (with God’s approval) the role of priest-king and became a Melchizedek (not Aaronic) King-priest.

a. He was girded with a linen ephod: v. 14.
b. He offered sacrifices: vv. 13,17.
c. He blessed the people in the name of the Lord of hosts: v. 18 (Num. 6:23).
d. He brought forth bread and wine: v. 19 (Isa. 25:6; Luke 22:17,18; Matt. 26:26-29!).
e. He sat in the presence of the Lord: 7:18.
f. And there he offered prayer: 7:18-29.

All the foregoing (except, an intimacy which not even a high priest was permitted) were normal priestly functions, the bread and wine being specially associated with Melchizedek (Gen. 14:18; Heb. 7:1). Hebrews 1:5 applies the words This day have I begotten thee to Christ when he was glorified to be made an high priest; that is, this day means the day of his resurrection (not the day of his birth). The next outstanding event in the reign of David is described in 2 Samuel 8: concerted attempts by the kings of all the surrounding nations to destroy this kingdom of God in its early stages. Instead, the outcome was a series of God-given victories granted to David and his people, with the result that this new kingdom of God was all at once an empire.

And so Psalm 110 is also firmly placed in the same context:

“Sit thou at my right hand [2 Sam. 7:18!], until I make thine enemies thy footstool. The Lord shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies [2 Sam. 8]… The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath. He shall judge among the heathen, he shall fill the places with the dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries” (vv. 1,2,5,6).

“The Lord (Yahweh) said unto my Lord (Adon)      (Psalm 110:1)

This Psalm (110) and Psalm 2 are about the inauguration of a new priesthood that supersedes all others:

The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. (Psalm 110:4)

In John 20:28 Thomas , with his unique exclamation “My Lord and my God”, in the first phrase expresses (by means of Psalm 110) his suddenly-awakened conviction that only a risen Jesus could fulfill such a priestly work in heaven. The two phrases together make a confession of great insight with their allusion to Zechariah 12:10: “They shall look upon me whom they have pierced [the wounds in his hands and side], and mourn for him” — both Father and Son, Lord(Yahweh) and Lord (Adon) are referred to here.

This is confirmed by Hebrews 7:1-24 as in the last verse of ch. 6 there is emphasis that Jesus was made (and not born) a high priest, and this for ever (no mortal man can be an eternal priest). Then follows a sustained sequence of arguments centering round Psalm 110:4.

So, Jesus was more than a mere man, but was he “fully God”? I will repeat what I have written elsewhere:

I would critique is the use of formulaic or credal language to describe Christ as fully God and fully man as I prefer a more nuanced position such as presented by John A. T. Robinson who interprets the incarnation to mean that Jesus was “totus deus, the one who is utterly expressive of Godhead,” not “totum dei, the exhaustive revelation” of God (Robinson, 1979: 104, 120).

"Further, if Jesus Christ is totus deus - if, that is to say, God has wholly and not merely partially vested himself in Christ - he is, again, not totum dei. Jesus Christ does not represent everything of God in the sense that there is no revelation of God outside him. If he is final, it is because ultimately everything is summed up and included in him, not because he is exclusively the expression of God.  The Christian who asserts that for him Jesus Christ is the all-embracing principle of interpretation is asserting that there is nothing in his experience that requires any other explanation; for everything 'coheres' in him. He makes this judgment - and calls himself a Christian - because he does not find this is true of Buddha and Mohammed, not because he does not find any truth in them. For him Christ represents the definitive revelation of God - and this is a less misleading word than final - because it is inconceivable to him that there could be any higher revelation of God in human terms of 'pure, unbounded love' " (p.221-222).  Robinson, John A.T., 1973, The Human Face of God. Philadelphia: Philadelphia, Westminster Press

I prefer the Greek description manifestation (phanerosis) rather than the Latin verb incarnation (The verb incarno does not occur in the Latin Bible but the term is drawn from the Gospel of John 1:14) derived from the prefix in- and caro, “flesh”, meaning “to make into flesh” or, in the passive, “to be made flesh”. Incarnational doctrine is thought to imply the personal pre-existence of Christ rather than ideological preexistence, however, all believers are said to be chosen in him from the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4).

God’s work of manifestation is not complete as he is calling out a people for his name (sons and daughters) therefore although the Christ event is definitive (Eph 1:23) it is not exhaustive because God manifestation is an ongoing process that can only be achieved in and through the Christ event. Divine manifestation is the telos allowing Timothy to exclaim “My Lord and my God!” in the presence of the resurrected Christ.

First the Natural then the Spiritual

On the principle first the natural, then the spiritual I would add that I am neither fully my father or fully my mother. I could say that my “father is in me” because I owe my genetic make up to him (and my mother) but I am not my father even though I share many characteristics with him (and my mother). I am a unique individual…but Jesus was even more unique. To be fully God and fully man is a contradiction. God cannot die nor can he be tempted. Jesus was called the second Adam (1 Cor 15:47) not the second God, and Jesus always referred to himself as the Son of Man. But he was no ordinary man. He was the “express image”.

Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high (Hebrews 1:3 )

χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ,
charaktēr tēs hypostaseōs autou
carving of-the under-STANDing of-him
image of-the assumption of-him
image of -the express of-his (person)

* the ordinal value of this phrase is 367 giving the palindrome 1441. The first three integers read as 144 from either end and the number reduces to 1. Jesus then represents all the redeemed from the beginning of time… the 144,000 and the “great multitude” that become one in the Lamb (Rev 7:4-9)

The KJV gives (in my view) a good rendering as Adam had been made in the image of God but now Jesus is the express (hypostaseōs ) image, reflecting the character (charaktēr ) of him (the divine personhood). This is the perfect manifestation of God in the flesh. I use the word manifestation and not incarnation because an image is a reflection or representation of the object (it is not the object itself). The apostle Paul says that the light of the knowledge of the glory of God (shines) in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Cor 4:6) and Jesus could say that, “he that hath seen me hath seen the Father” (John 14:9). So Jesus was the unique and express image of God and Jesus was the creator of a new creation (the church) and the resurrected Christ is now the King-Priest and bearer of the divine name, for he has been given the name that is above every name.

Moreover, reconciliation and atonement between God and man could only be achieved by an individual that represented both parties. Jesus was the only person who could represent both God and man. God cannot be tempted neither can he fail. Jesus could have failed in his mission (that possibility existed) and what would then have happened to God? Nothing would have happened. Jesus did not fail (and God knows the beginning from the end) but without freewill Jesus’ victory would have been meaningless and hollow. How you think about the nature of Jesus determines how you think about the atonement. Jesus’ death is not a substitute for our death (we still all die) nor is it a “bet with the devil” (lolz). Jesus opens up a new way of access to God because we now have a representative. When we look at Jesus we see God and when God looks at Jesus he sees us (God be praised) and God knows that somewhere in the spirit of man (despite our weakness) their is a love for him that passeth understanding. Through baptism believers fully identify with the death and resurrection of Christ and have been extended fellowship and forgiveness. And the salvation that was offered to us was done by God (his arm wrought salvation) because he “created” Jesus, moreover, the Father and the Son are that intimate that God shared in the suffering of the world through him, just as we will share in the victory through Jesus. World without end. Amen

And, so, little children, may you contemplate the greatness of God’s work in Christ without falling into dogma. And, yes….the video is correct….they are false prophets and the NAR do twist doctrine.  These “Christians” will kill anyone who stands in their way and they will think that they are doing God a service.

"The time is coming when those who kill you will think they are doing a holy service for God" (John 16:2)

Seven Mountain Awakening (2 min)