Conference yukon::christian_v7

    re: .6
    
    What in Yeshua's "soul" was lost that required saving?
    
    Steve

    Greg,
    
    So then, what do you mean by saying He had to "lay down His will to
    save His soul" as you said in .6?
    
    Steve

>    			There were two wills struggling within Jesus
>    	at the time - if there were not, - then Jesus would not have 
>    	had to pray about it three times!!  
    
    I could not disagree more strongly!  Jesus had *one* will -- the will
    of God.  It is only the result of sin that *we* have the struggle of
    wills.  To say that Jesus had two wills is to imply that He was a
    sinner with a fallen nature.
    
    Mark L.

	Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord
	teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus
	Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood,
	truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul
	and body; of one substance (homoousios) with the Father as
	regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance
	with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart
	from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before
	the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men
	and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer
	(Theotokos); one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten,
	recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change,
	without division, without separation; the distinction of
	natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the
	characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming
	together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or
	separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-
	begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets
	from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ
	himself taught us, and the creed of the Fathers has handed
	down to us.

    I have no argument with the statement that the Lord Jesus was fully God
    and fully man.  Yet, His nature was *not* that of fallen man.  *HE WAS
    GOD'S PERFECT MAN*.  He had no struggle with sin as do we, as a result
    of our fall.  His will was entirely: "Then said I, Lo, I come (in the
    volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God."
    (Hebrews 10:7)  He had no other will.
    
    Mark L. 

>    			Do you believe it would have been a sin for
>    	Jesus to pray the Father for 12 legion of angels?
    
    Jesus was making a point:  if He had asked, it would have been given.
    
    The "mission" of Jesus was to live as a man, in perfect dependence,
    obedience and communion with God (where Adam failed).  Then, He laid
    down that *perfect life* as atonement for us.  Would it had been a sin
    for Jesus to turn stones into bread?  No.  But it would have
    "disqualified" Him from living as a man in dependence on God -- He
    would have asserted His divine ability to satisfy His needs, rather
    than depending on His Father.
    
    Mark L.

    
    
	Greg,
        
    >			One more interesting point:  Jesus spoke faith
    >	words that He would rise in three days.  Those faith words were
    >	actively in motion and alive with power even while His body was 
    >	in the grave.
    
    This is not interesting at all; it is a fallacy.  Jesus spoke that He
    would be raised from the dead.  The power which raised Him from the
    dead was not the power of the words He spoke while alive on Earth but
    by the power of God that is His nature.
    
    This is some of the cooky stuff coming out of your sect and it stinks
    to high heaven.
    
    jeff

    Once again, Greg, let's look at what the Scriptures say.
    
    Matthew 26:51 And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched
        out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high
        priest's, and smote off his ear.
     52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place:
        for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
     53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall
        presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
     54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must
        be?
     
    Jesus spoke those words in response to Peter's striking out in defense. 
    He was telling Peter "Your defense is not needed.  I am capable of
    getting all the defense I want."  However, He went on to say, "But how
    then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?"  In
    other words, *HE WOULD NOT DO IT BECAUSE IT WOULDN'T FULFILL GOD'S
    WILL*.  Thus to argue over whether it would be sin or not is moot. 
    Jesus was incapable of sin.  It's about as meaningful as asking "Would
    it have been a sin for Jesus to turn the moon into green cheese?"
    
    Mark L.

    Once again, let's see what the Scritures say (why does it seem like
    I've been saying this all day?):
    
    Romans 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death:
        that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of
        the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
     
    Romans 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the
        dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall
        also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in
        you.
     Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus,
        and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the
        dead, thou shalt be saved.
    
    1 Corinthians 6:14 And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also
        raise up us by his own power.
    
    1 Corinthians 15:15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God;
        because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he
        raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
     
    2 Corinthians 4:14 Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus
        shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you.
    
    2 Corinthians 13:4 For though he was crucified through weakness, yet
        he liveth by the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but we
        shall live with him by the power of God toward you.
    
    Galatians 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by
        Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)
    
    Colossians 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen
        with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath
        raised him from the dead.
    
    1 Thessalonians 1:10 And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he
        raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the
        wrath to come.

>    				Perhaps, by looking at the scriptures you
>    	can answer the question?  ( Its a simple yes or no. )
    
    Return to .19, and you can read my answer.
    
    Mark

>    			Are you saying that Jesus did _not_ raise
>    	Himself up?
    
    If that's what the Scriptures in reply .21 say, that's what I say.
    
    Mark

Oh, brother.  Another rathole.  Pass.

    Mr. Griffis,
    
    The overwhelming majority of the Scriptures say that God or the Father
    *raised* Jesus up from the dead.  Jesus said it was by commandment of
    the Father.  Why do you insist on trying to twist things to say
    otherwise?
    
    Mark L.

    
    
    1Corinthians 13:
    
     11  When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I
         thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish
         things.
     12  For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now
         I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
     13  And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the
         greatest of these is charity.
    

I have moved my basenote to 315.0 from this rathole because it is little
to nothing to do with the ensuing and voluminous replies.

MM

    Greg,
    
    Are you sowing discord in here with your accusation against regular
    participants and citing Jim Richard as an example?
    
    Nancy
    
    

    Greg,
    
    I would point out that the one who has been putting forth the majority
    of the questions in this topic is the one who introduced the suggestion
    of the NIGYSOB game.
    
    I would offer the following additional scripture to those who are
    considering this topic:
    
    Hebrews 5:7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up
        prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him
        that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he
        feared;
    
    If you are going to say that Jesus raised Himself from the dead, you
    had better be ready to say that Jesus was praying to Himself.  I don't
    think so....
    
    Mark L.

    Greg,
    
    If game playing has been going in, it has not been from my part.  My
    purpose is to declare the truth of the Word of God and the person of
    the Lord Jesus Christ.  There are some subjects which I am quite
    willing to let pass.  There are others I will defend to the death.
    
    Mark Lovik

    Well, I don't even know where to begin.
    
    Greg - I *never* said something was lost in Yeshua's soul, *you* said
    that He needed to "save his soul" or "psuke" or something similar, and
    I asked you for clarification of *your* statement.  That you could
    twist that situation so easily is a red-flag for me.
    
    While I don't doubt your sincerity or your zeal, frankly, I think your
    doctrine is dangerously lacking and in great need of help.  I don't know 
    who is teaching you the things you've learned (which you appear to want
    to teach others), but a large majority of what I've seen you proclaim 
    appears to me as large gobs of babble sprinkled with a dash here and 
    there of truth. 
    
    The dashes of truth make it all the more troublesome for me, as it can
    have a tendancy (for some) to lend credibility to the babble.
    
    Lest there be any question, I want to reiterate something before I'm
    accused of slander....
    
    I don't question your sincerity or zeal.
    
    I am not attacking you personally.
    
    I *am* concerned about the doctrine you've learned and are proclaiming.
    
    There are a number of wonderful teachers out there, Greg, who base
    their doctrine on the Word; not solely "experience" or "revelation". 
    Experience and revelation are realities, but there are lots of
    experiences and revelations that are neither in line with the Word nor
    are glorifying of G-d.  I strongly suggest finding a teacher who is
    grounded in the Word and committed to teaching what *IT* says, not what
    he "feels" or wants it to say.  Search one out locally, and in the
    meantime, there are folks like Charles Stanley (as just one example) that
    you can find on radio and TV whose ministry can be of help.
    
    Steve
                                                            

 It would seem that .6 in this topic which generated Mr. McConnell's query
 has been deleted.




Jim

    I think the note that prompted the question appears in 302.10 now.

RE:                      <<< Note 308.40 by YIELD::GRIFFIS >>>

       
   . 			Firstly, I _never_ said that there was
   . 	anything lost in His soul that required saving.  Never.
   .	Let me repeat.  Never.  O.k.?!  Secondly, re: your
    


        Hmmm...perhaps, then, you could explain 302.10, the line "Jesus
        had to lay down his will to save His soul..." or something to 
        that effect?





 Jim

    .44
    
    Greg,
    
    Did Jesus have any sin of His own?
    
    Nancy

    If the answer is no to .45, then your sentence needs to be rewritten
    so as to not give the inference that Jesus Himself needed saving.
    
    I will go one step further and say that when Jesus took the sins of the
    World on himself, I believe that is when Jesus then paid the penalty
    and became the sacrifice for our sins.  He paid our debt.
    
    I think that is all the clarification that was being asked for Greg. 
    Just to simply restate your sentence to mean what you mean without
    inferring that Jesus had sin.
    
    Nancy

 Well, I don't know about anybody else, but I'm confused.





 Jim

>Note 302.10                         MERISMOS                            10 of 18
>YIELD::GRIFFIS                                       56 lines  10-NOV-1993 16:20


        Greg, please explain this statement.  I, and I believe Mr McConnell
        to not understand what in Jesus' soul needed saving.



>	dying, Jesus had to lay down his will to save his soul

               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^




 Jim

    Greg,
    
    Since you seem to have an aversion to being asked questions, I will not
    form a response asking you for any answers.  But, what I wish to
    address is the matter:  Was is possible for Jesus to sin?  Was it
    possible for Him to do anything that was contrary to the will of His
    Father?  My answer to both is a resounding "NO!".  I recognize that
    Jesus was fully man (in the physical sense), but He was also fully God. 
    Is God capable of sin?  Is God capable of doing anything that is
    contrary to His holy, just, and righteous character?  Absolutely not. 
    (A wonderful demonstration is that He sent His Son to bear the
    punishment for our sins, in order to satisfy His just judgement on sin
    while at the same time offering forgiveness to the sinner.)
    
    To try to compare the perfect nature of Jesus to our fallen nature (and
    the struggles it introduces against our new nature in Christ) will not
    yield an accurate assessment of Him.
    
    You were pressing for an answer to the question of whether it would
    have been a sin for Jesus to pray for 12 legion of angels.  My answer
    is: if Jesus *had* done it, it would *not* have been a sin; if it would
    have been a sin, Jesus would *not* have done it.
    
    Mark L.

      Hi,
    
        I'm not sure about Jesus having to "lay down His will", but
        He certainly had to DENY His own will.
    
        "Not Mine will, but Thine be done."
    
        There must have been something in the humanity He took that 
        pulled him in a direction contrary to His Father's. 
    
                                                 Tony

    I believe that Jesus became sin only at the time he was being
    crucified.  Jesus cried on the cross "My God, My God, why hast thou
    forsaken me?"
    
    God cannot look upon sin, and I believe at the time of the crucifixion,
    God had to turn from sustaining Christ on the cross and let him die
    with our sins [all the sins of the world] on his body.
    
    But I do not believe that Jesus himself had sin, otherwise the cross
    would be null and void and we are all lost.
    
    Nancy

>    But I do not believe that Jesus himself had sin, otherwise the cross
>    would be null and void and we are all lost.
    
    And death would have had a valid claim on Him, so He would have
    remained in the grave, and our faith would be in vain.
    
    Mark L.

Greetings.

Please allow me to clear up a misunderstanding:

Note 302.10 apparently used to be 308.6.  In the text of this note, Greg 
Griffis wrote the following:

>		Nevertheless, we were given an example by the One
>	who said, "Nevertheless, Father, Thy will be done..."  In
>	dying, Jesus had to lay down his will to save his soul
>	in submission to the will of Father God in order to bring
>	about the miracle of salvation to men.  

Note: "...Jesus had to lay down his will to save his soul..."  This is 
where my eyes stopped (which is my problem, not Greg's).  That prompted my 
question in 308.7:

>    What in Yeshua's "soul" was lost that required saving?

I asked this question because I was missing the context of Greg's statement 
and reading an implication that something in His soul was lost that required 
saving.  The implication I read was not there (at least, not so far as I 
can tell after seeing Greg's responses to my question).

I think in context, Greg was saying that He (Yeshua) had to lay down His
will/desire (and then he names that desire "...to save his soul..." [or, to
be spared from the impending crucifixion]) in submission to the Father's
will.  In other words, "to save his soul" was apparently a phrase meant to
modify the phrase "His will".  Greg - you can correct me if I'm wrong here.

I believe I missed the full context of what Greg was saying, and that 
prompted my question.  To which, Greg replied (in 308.8, not quoted here, 
and) in 308.9; with the following:

>   		I think I see the misunderstanding: when I said, "He
>    	layed down his will to save his soul"...  I did not mean as
>    	in "save himself from the power of sin", -his soul was already
>    	free from that.  

Point amiably clarified within 2 replies from my question.

OK, so at this point, I understand Greg not to be saying that Yeshua 
needed His soul to be redeemed because of sin.  With what Greg says further 
in that reply, I understand him to be saying that He *could* have been 
spared the crucifixion ("don't you know I can ask for 12 legions of 
angels"), but didn't choose to do so - therefore (and please allow me to 
paraphrase), "He layed down his will (read: desire) to be spared from the 
crucifixion and submitted Himself to His Father's will...".

I would question whether it's accurate to say that Yeshua's will/desire was 
to be "spared", on the basis that minimally:

	a) He rebuked Peter/Kefa when he said Yeshua shouldn't die, and

	b) He asked the Father *IF* there were a way, to let the Cup pass,
	   fully realizing there was no other way, for He Himself *IS*
	   *the* Way (Halleluia!)

Personally, I think He was quite clear on His Mission (it having been 
decided from before the foundation of the world) and He was not divided.  
It is possible that with words, we're splitting hairs here, but I would 
caution us all to carefully test *all* doctrine.

Though He *could* have called forth legions of angels, the question needs
to be asked whether He *would* have, and of course, He didn't (because He
WOULD NOT, it was NOT His will to be spared...He Himself said He came for
that purpose...) - so the point is moot.  Greg later asserts in the string
that Yeshua had two wills, which has implications (in my view, dangerous
implications) of His being somewhat divided; a position I do not hold, but
that's another subject. 

Greg seems to recognize that Yeshua didn't "save" anything, but rather 
*gave* all.  To that point, I guess we're fine - but then we run into some 
unprovoked trouble:

Greg says in 308.28

>    	Now, Steve ( McConnell ),
>    
>    			In .7 why you say that there existed something
>    	in Yeshua's soul that was lost?  I'm still trying to understand
>    	what you meant to say.  Perhaps, you didn't know what you were
>    	saying.  Could you explain?
>    					Thankyou very much!

308.28 appears to be nothing more or less than a prime example of the "game" 
that Greg later accuses others of "playing" in this file.  By the time 308.28 
was written, Greg had already responded *twice* to my question (see 308.9 and 
308.10).  I am unclear on what .28 was intended to provoke, but it seems 
intended for provocation.  If my perception is incorrect here, Greg, please 
advise.

I expressed my concerns (308.39) about the mishandling of my question.  I
further expressed my concerns (in general) over doctrine which seems to me
to be at times confused, confusing, and in need of correction and I stand 
behind that observation.  While I readily admit I missed the context of this 
particular statement about Yeshua laying down his will to save his soul, my 
concerns remain; as does my recommendation to seek out and be trained by 
true, Bible-based teachers. 

Steve

      Hi,
    
        Just my 2 cents worth, but the struggle that was Christ's
        I believe was a result of Him taking sinful flesh.  Read
        about the flesh from scripture [sarx].  And read about how
        the Bible consistently states that in spite of the flesh, we
        can be spiritually (rather than carnally [fleshly] minded.
    
        Could it be that Jesus took that same sinful flesh we have
        by right and that in doing so He chose to enter into the full
        realm of human temptation and all His earthly life He crucified
        the flesh???
    
        Is it possible?
    
        I am not saying Christ was a sinner.  I am merely saying He was
        sinless in the same environment that is ours save he never
        submitted to the pull of the flesh.
    
                                                    Tony