Is Jesus God?

[james2ko]

I won't answer for Yoshua, but I will give you my opinion on this:

The truth is Jesus Christ: “I am the way and the truth and the life” (John 14:6), and the term "Christian" means a follower of Christ. So to the extent you follow Christ you have the truth (1 John 4:15). True religion focuses on a relationship with God (see: http://www.gotquestions.org/true-religion.html). It doesn't come from setting up orphanages and widow houses (James 1:27), instead these things come as a natural outflow of one's relationship with God.

1. You're right. Your opinion didn't answer my question for Yoshua. So it remains unanswered: "Which one of the thousands of denominations within the Christian religion has the full truth? Since your opinion couldn't answer the question, please allow Yoshua the attempt to do so.

Yoshua was not wrong, and it's not one or the other, with one interpretation "wrong" and the other "right". The fact that he was in the "form of God" makes him equal to God since there is only one God, not two. Both interpretations are correct. I like the way Ellicott's commentary puts it:

Thought it not robbery to be equal with God.—There are two main interpretations of this passage; first, the interpretation given in our version, which makes it simply an explanation and enforcement of the words “being in the form of God”; secondly, the translation thought it not a prize to be grasped at to be equal with God, which begins in it the statement of our Lord’s voluntary self-humiliation, to be completed in the words, “but emptied Himself of glory.” The former preserves the literal translation of the original word “robbery;” the latter, in accordance with a not uncommon usage, makes it equivalent to “the thing snatched at,” and if this be allowed, has abundant examples in other writings to support the meaning thus given to the whole phrase. Either interpretation yields good sense and sound doctrine; neither does violence to the general context. But the latter is to be preferred; first (1) because it suits better the idea of the passage, which is to emphasise the reality of our Lord’s humility, and preserves the opposition implied in the “but” following; (2) because it has the great preponderance of the ancient Greek interpreters in its favour; (3) because it can, on the whole, appeal more confidently to ordinary usage of the phrase. The sense is that, being in the form of God, and therefore having equality with God, He set no store on that equality, as a glory to Himself, compared with the power of giving salvation to all men, which He is pleased to consider a new joy and glory.

2. You say both interpretations are correct , yet Mr. Ellicot says the latter is to be preferred. That is politically correct rhetoric for the latter is the correct one. The latter is Mr. Martin's and Mr. Wallace's interpretation.

It would be deceptive because of what he stated: "Look at my hands. Look at my feet. You can see that it's really me.

Touch me and make sure that I am not a ghost, because ghosts don't have bodies, as you see that I do(Luke: 24:39).

3. Speaking for Katzpur too? A sinless Jesus could never be deceptive. His disciples were afraid (vs 37) and had a difficult time believing who He was (vs 38). In an attempt to calm their fears of seeing some sort of spirit, He appeared to them in the least intimidating and most identifiable form. He also allowed His wounds to temporarily appear as additional evidence of His identity.

This one verse thoroughly refutes the notion that Jesus rose as a spirit creature who would later haunt the apostles.

4. My point is the scriptures plainly reveal He has the power to become both at will. He appeared to them in bodily form. He also demonstrated to His disciples His transitional spirit form by appearing to them out of thin air:

1Co 15:45 And so it is written, "THE FIRST MAN ADAM BECAME A LIVING BEING." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.​

This verse thoroughly refutes the notion the resurrected Jesus is composed of flesh and bone exclusively. The logical conclusion is that He is both.

I remember preparing dinner and setting it on the table. I then went to my computer to check on a recipe when I heard some paper rattling. Thinking my little nephew might be into something, I asked "Are you eating my cookies?"

"No", he replied.

When I went into the kitchen I saw the opened package and asked why he had lied to me. "But I didn't" he responded. "I'd already finished the cookies by the time you asked".

If Jesus's answer to the apostles is correct because he had just finished transforming himself from spirit to flesh, his answer would be every bit deceptive as my nephew's.

6. Another one of your apples to oranges analogies. You are comparing a sinful human's deceitful motive to a sinless human's pure motive. Christ's motive is outlined in point three. Apple and oranges seem to be your favorite fruits.

 

[Yoshua]

You said, "The basis is still the truth that lies inside the word of God—the Bible." Which leads me back to the original question which you continue to dodge, which one of the thousands of denominations within the Christian religion has the full truth?

I already answered this question. Anyway, I will add this one. At the time of Jesus, many followed him including His disciples. Now in this modern time, we had this Bible where the life and works (including His teachings) of Jesus were recorded as the inspired word of God. There are many who claimed as Christians who used the Bible as their reference. Some of them followed a false Jesus and taught a different gospel. We can trace this as we continue to search and study the word of God. Now the full truth is not the church itself, the founder, teacher or evangelists. It is God who sent Jesus Christ has the full truth. We could not say that 100% in our church will be saved because the basis is individual--the intimate (personal) relationship between God and man. I believed that Jesus dis the same thing with His disciples and followers which we may see in the Bible.

Good. So you admit you were wrong. Nothing wrong with that. My original interpretation matched Mr. Wallace's and Mr. Martin's, your original interpretation did not. You posted a quote from the living bible in reference to Php 2:5-7 stating:

"who, though he was God, did not demand and cling to his rights as God", source
This means you once agreed with the LB's interpretation. Based on the grammar of Php 2:5-7 and the usage of the term "harpagmos" elsewhere in scripture, Mr. Wallace and Mr. Martin disagrees with yours and the LB's interpretation in that Christ was not clinging to his rights as God, but instead chose not to grasp at being equal with the Father. Big difference between the two. The former indicates Christ was equal to God. The latter indicates He was not. Mr Wallace, Mr Martin, and I agree with the latter. And now you do also. Nothing wrong with growing in grace and knowledge

Sorry for quoting the LB translation which lead to misunderstanding about Phil. 2:5-7. I usually used KJV. I did used it with Moorea in my other post with him and it is in my file. I don't think that what you have in mind is the same thing that what I had in mind. I believed Jesus is God while you disagree with Trinitarian doctrine. The deity of Jesus Christ are based on His attributes (divine)-God. They may not equal in their position in the form of man, but in the form of God is truly--a deity. The fullness of God's attributes makes Him God.

Hope I make it clear with Phil. 2:5-7.

Thanks

 

[james2ko]

I already answered this question. Anyway,I will add this one. At the time of Jesus, many followed him including His disciples. Now in this modern time, we had this Bible where the life and works (including His teachings) of Jesus were recorded as the inspired word of God. There are many who claimed as Christians who used the Bible as their reference. Some of them followed a false Jesus and taught a different gospel. We can trace this as we continue to search and study the word of God. Now the full truth is not the church it self, the founder, teacher or evangelists. It is God who sent Jesus Christ has the full truth. We could not say that 100% in our church will be saved because the basis is individual--the intimate relationship between God and man.

The question was, "Which one of the thousands of denominations within the Christian religion has the full truth?" Your answer, "Christianity". Christianity is not a sect or denomination. So you did not answer the question. Understandably so.

Sorry for quoting the LB translation which lead to misunderstanding about Phil. 2:5-7. I usually used KJV. I did used it with Moorea in my other post with him and it is in my file. I don't think that what you have in mind is the same thing that what I had in mind. I believed Jesus is God while you disagree with Trinitarian doctrine. The deity of Jesus Christ are based on His attributes (divine)-God. They are not equal in their position but the form of God is truly--a deity. . The fullness of God's attibutes makes Him God. Hope I make it clear with Phil. 2:5-7.

Yes. They are equal in deity. Meaning they are equally God beings. Just as the Vice President and the President are equally human beings, but one has more rank, status, and power than the other. Jesus (VP) and The Father are equally (God) beings, but the Father (President) is much greater in rank, power, and status than the VP-Jesus.

Php 2:5-7 demonstrates Christ's subordinate rank, power, and status to the President (Father). It also demonstrates how Christ did not want to violently seize the opportunity (harpagmos) to become equal in rank, power, and status to the President (Father).

 

[Muffled]

That was hilarious. Jesus is NEVER called Almighty in Isaiah or in any scripture in any bible translation, that was an outright lie. Jehovah is referred to as The Most High and Almighty God (see Psalms 83:18, Genesis 17:1 etc.). Jesus is referred to as The Son of The Most high, Son of God (see John 20:31, Mark 5:7 etc.)

How can Jesus be God and the Son of God?

In John 20:17 Why did Jesus clearly say that he has a God and Father which is the same as our God and Father?

Why did Jesus get baptized? Who did he dedicate his life to, himself? - Matthew 3:16

Why was Jesus always praying, and to whom was he praying to? Luke 6:12,13

If Jesus is God, Why was he created? Colossians 1:15

Why do people teach and/or believe the trinity if the bible says to us there is "ONE God, the Father"? 1 Corinthians 8:6

If Jesus is God or somehow equal to God, then why did he say "the Father is greater than I am? John 14:28

Why does John 4:23 say "the TRUE WORSHIPPERS will worship THE FATHER", If Jesus was God shouldn't it say true worshippers will worship Jesus or the Son?

After Jesus was resurrected why does Romans 8:34 say he was at the "Right hand of God"? If Jesus was God shouldn't it say he was resurrected as God?

I really could go on for days but i'll let you answer these questions first. I always wondered why everyone was confused over to trinity doctrine and why nobody ever could explain it to me when I asked, in addition I always wondered why the word trinity never occurs in the bible but now I see it's because it's a made up doctrine that many accept as truth.(Mark 7:7) Oh and please use scriptures in your answers don't just say something is true or untrue just because. Thanks ☺

I believe this is it: Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

I believe the same way He can be in God in New York and God in Baltimore.

I don't have a clue and I bet you don't either. I can speculate that it was for the audience.

I believe He already stated the answer to that: to fulfill righteousness.

I believe this is a case of the physical mind having to make contact with Spiritual mind.

I believe the body was created and the Spirit of God has always existed.

I believe it is because both are true.

I believe it is because Jesus is in a body and the Father is not.

I believe one must avoid the mistake of worshiping flesh and the Father not having any can't be worshiped that way.

I believe this is a juxtaposition of Spirit to flesh and can happen anywhere that Jesus resides.

I believe you are seeing things that are not there. The Trinity is in the Bible and needs not to be made up.

 

[Walter Russell]

I'm interested in hearing thoughts about (1) Where this idea comes from and (2) If you agree with it and why/why not. I have heard it described like this: Because of the Trinity, Jesus is God, and all the things done in the Old Testament were therefore done by Jesus prior to his human incarnation. Thoughts?

My view is that Jesus was an illuminated man who was able to express the god in all of us.

John 10:34, Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, I have said you are gods?"

Therefore Jesus is god in that he is aware of any working through the consciousness of god within him.
We all have that ability as Jesus says we do in John 14 also.

Its the creators of the Christian religion to restrict this attribute soley to Christ in order to transfer that power to Pope of Rome.

The trinity exist in multiple religions and in Walter Russells explanation in the Secret of Light, the trinity would be the sexless unified oneness of the creator as the head of the trinity like the Christian version of the father. The 2 seperated sexed opposite lights expressing creation father/mother are the other 2 aspects of the trinity.

My Hindu friends can correct me if I mistate this but in Hinduism the trinity consist of Brahma the creator, Vishnu the preserver and Shiva the destroyer.
This too represents the life/death cycle Russell scientifically details in his book.

 

[Muffled]

Jesus was GIVEN power and authority, he did not own it.


As we all know, God is all-powerful and is independent, he needs no help from anybody. However so this is not the case with Jesus, unlike God, Jesus needs help from God, unlike God, Jesus does not own any power or any authority, rather it is given to him from God.

I believe you will find God does not share or take on partners. So the truth is that He is giving the power to Himself.

 

[Muffled]

Angels are created spirit creatures (Heb 1:14), yet they can also appear as a fleshly human (Gen 19:15-16). Why couldn't a resurrected Jesus have the same form?

I believe there is no such thing as a "spirit creature." A being either has form or it doesn't. Nowehre in the Bible does it ever say angels are spirits. It does say they are human though.

 

[james2ko]

I believe there is no such thing as a "spirit creature." A being either has form or it doesn't. Nowehre in the Bible does it ever say angels are spirits. It does say they are human though.

Nowhere??

Heb 1:13 But to which of the angels has He ever said: "SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, TILL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES YOUR FOOTSTOOL"?
Heb 1:14 Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation?
​

 

[Michael Thought]

GOD is un-manifest and GOD makes no thing but does conceive all things so they can be made. If a thing is manifest it was conceived in the MIND OF GOD and made within the Universe. Jesus was made manifest and cannot be GOD for GOD is un-manifest. If GOD were to manifest then GOD would become something other than itself and the Universe would no longer exist. Understand the creation of all things and you can know the creation of Jesus as a union between Mary and Joseph for GOD cannot manifest as one thing and did not manifest as sperm to impregnate Mary. It really is time for communities to move beyond the children's tales and study the science of GOD, the creation of the universe and humankind's truth of existence as mind in a hologram that is the merging of modern science and ancient science. Jesus was educated in the science of existence from the Egyptian and eastern mystery schools where GOD the CREATOR is forever un-manifest. There is much truth in the statement "I am who I am who sent me", understand this and you will know everyone is the child of GOD.

 

[Michael Thought]

I believe there is no such thing as a "spirit creature." A being either has form or it doesn't. Nowehre in the Bible does it ever say angels are spirits. It does say they are human though.

Mind is the image of GOD,
Soul is the image of the Mind,
Spirit is the image of the Soul and
Body is the image of the spirit

Matter is an illusion, so says modern science and all ancient cultures. A body can only form once the Mind has been birthed in Soul that then takes form as (for want of a better word) Spirit so that matter can be shaped for the spirit to inhabit. I am sure Jesus said the world is illusory and this is why.

Yet not all in in soul in spirit inhabit bodies for the universe is multi- dimensional and mind exists across all in infinite forms.

 

[Michael Thought]

The question was, "Which one of the thousands of denominations within the Christian religion has the full truth?" Your answer, "Christianity". Christianity is not a sect or denomination. So you did not answer the question. Understandably so.



Yes. They are equal in deity. Meaning they are equally God beings. Just as the Vice President and the President are equally human beings, but one has more rank, status, and power than the other. Jesus (VP) and The Father are equally (God) beings, but the Father (President) is much greater in rank, power, and status than the VP-Jesus.

Php 2:5-7 demonstrates Christ's subordinate rank, power, and status to the President (Father). It also demonstrates how Christ did not want to violently seize the opportunity (harpagmos) to become equal in rank, power, and status to the President (Father).

 

[Michael Thought]

The question was, "Which one of the thousands of denominations within the Christian religion has the full truth?" Your answer, "Christianity". Christianity is not a sect or denomination. So you did not answer the question. Understandably so.



Yes. They are equal in deity. Meaning they are equally God beings. Just as the Vice President and the President are equally human beings, but one has more rank, status, and power than the other. Jesus (VP) and The Father are equally (God) beings, but the Father (President) is much greater in rank, power, and status than the VP-Jesus.

Php 2:5-7 demonstrates Christ's subordinate rank, power, and status to the President (Father). It also demonstrates how Christ did not want to violently seize the opportunity (harpagmos) to become equal in rank, power, and status to the President (Father).

GOD is un-manifest and GOD makes no thing but does conceive all things so they can be made. If a thing is manifest it was conceived in the MIND OF GOD and made within the Universe. Jesus was made manifest and cannot be GOD for GOD is un-manifest. If GOD were to manifest then GOD would become something other than itself and the Universe would no longer exist. Understand the creation of all things and you can know the creation of Jesus as a union between Mary and Joseph for GOD cannot manifest as one thing and did not manifest as sperm to impregnate Mary. It really is time for communities to move beyond the children's tales and study the science of GOD, the creation of the universe and humankind's truth of existence as mind in a hologram that is the merging of modern science and ancient science. Jesus was educated in the science of existence from the Egyptian and eastern mystery schools where GOD the CREATOR is forever un-manifest. There is much truth in the statement "I am who I am who sent me", understand this and you will know everyone is the child of GOD.

 

[Oeste]

I won't answer for Yoshua, but I will give you my opinion on this:

The truth is Jesus Christ: “I am the way and the truth and the life” (John 14:6), and the term "Christian" means a follower of Christ. So to the extent you follow Christ you have the truth (1 John 4:15). True religion focuses on a relationship with God (see: http://www.gotquestions.org/true-religion.html). It doesn't come from setting up orphanages and widow houses (James 1:27), instead these things come as a natural outflow of one's relationship with God.

You're right. Your opinion didn't answer my question for Yoshua. So it remains unanswered: "Which one of the thousands of denominations within the Christian religion has the full truth? Since your opinion couldn't answer the question, please allow Yoshua the attempt to do so.

I specifically stated I wasn't answering for Yoshua, and I was unaware that If I answered a question it forbade others from doing the same. This must be a new forum rule... just for Oeste.

2. You say both interpretations are correct , yet Mr. Ellicot says the latter is to be preferred. That is politically correct rhetoric for the latter is the correct one. The latter is Mr. Martin's and Mr. Wallace's interpretation.

Always fun how you interpret things James2ko. It wasn’t only Oeste who said both interpretations are correct, it was Mr. Ellicot also. Let’s go over what he said again:

"Either interpretation yields good sense and sound doctrine; neither does violence to the general context."

I think this is “politically correct rhetoric” that not one, but either interpretation is the correct one. You see a dichotomy where there is none.

He could, I'm sure, but why would it make sense for Him to do so? Why would He have intentionally deceived people by telling them that He was not merely a spirit but had a body of flesh and bones?

Why do you think a sinless Jesus was being deceptive at all? He instantly appeared to them in a room from thin air (Joh 20:19,26). A clear indication of his spirit form. He also appeared to them in the form of flesh and bone. The logical conclusion is he had the power to transform himself from spirit to flesh and bone and vice versa

3. Speaking for Katzpur too?

Hmmm... I seem to recall having a discussion with Moorea944 when a certain James2ko answered me, to wit:

Okay, so Jesus is the "power of God". How is he the “Eternal Father” is you claim he was created? How can something created be “Eternal”? If a manifestation is created, it can’t be eternal, since by definition something eternal has no beginning.

Really? Who's definition determines something eternal has no beginning? We were created (had a beginning) and will be made eternal.

And wait....wasn't Moorea944 conversing with Djhwoodwerks when you answered?

The bible is right, no one has ever seen God. But.... we can see God in so many different ways. We can see His creation, His ways in us and other people. It really doesnt mean face to face....

This makes no sense.

This makes no sense.

The very next verse refutes point 2 in your interpretation. Thus the rest of the interpretation falls:

Col 1:16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.

So apparently this new forum rule does only apply to Oeste (even when he says he's not answering for anyone), and while I am deeply honored to warrant my very own forum rule, I would be even more appreciative if these rules consistently applied to everyone.

A sinless Jesus could never be deceptive.

This is just an aside, but I can't help but ask: What does Jesus being "sinless" have to do with it? Adam and Eve were sinless and that didn't keep them from eating of the fruit, so why would Jesus being sinless prevent him from being deceitful? It seems to me that existing in a sinless state does not prevent one from engaging in sin, otherwise Adam and Eve could never have committed sin.

His disciples were afraid (vs 37) and had a difficult time believing who He was (vs 38). In an attempt to calm their fears of seeing some sort of spirit, He appeared to them in the least intimidating and most identifiable form. He also allowed His wounds to temporarily appear as additional evidence of His identity

I see. So instead of telling them “I am a ghost no longer” he tells them he’s not a ghost at all, when in actuality he was a ghost just a second ago, but then materializes a body with holes in it (which Jesus immediately enters into and possesses) just to alleviate the apostles fears??? This story gets more interesting as time goes on, and I'll explore more of this at the end of my post.

"Look at my hands. Look at my feet. You can see that it's really me. Touch me and make sure that I am not a ghost, because ghosts don't have bodies, as you see that I do." (Luke: 24:39).

This one verse thoroughly refutes the notion that Jesus rose as a spirit creature who would later haunt the apostles.

My point is the scriptures plainly reveal He has the power to become both at will. He appeared to them in bodily form. He also demonstrated to His disciples His transitional spirit form by appearing to them out of thin air:

1Co 15:45 And so it is written, "THE FIRST MAN ADAM BECAME A LIVING BEING." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

Yes Jesus is a life-giving spirit. This verse simply tells us that it is the Spirit of Christ that raises us and allows us to live.

"For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality." 1 Cor 15:53 This is how we are raised. Then, if we are raised, how are we to have life?:

"So while we are in this tent, we groan under our burdens, because we do not wish to be unclothed but clothed, so that our mortality may be swallowed up by life."

Swallowed up by life sounds great, but who's life?:

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. (John 14:6)​

For further confirmation we go to Romans 8:9-11:

"You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ. But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives life because of righteousness And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you."​

So 1Cor 15:45 is never meant to be treatise or "proof text" on the manner of Jesus's resurrection, but simply what that resurrection means for the rest of us. To find out the manner of Jesus's resurrection we simply go to John 2:21:

18 The Jews then responded to him, “What sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?”

19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”

20 They replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.​

"Destroy this temple and I will raise it again in 3 days". . The Jews thought he was talking about their temple in Jerusalem... "But the temple he had spoken of was his body" Obviously Jesus was NOT talking about destroying and raising his Spirit in 3 days, for neither the Jews nor the Roman had power to destroy it. Jesus was clearly referring to his BODY. "After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said". THIS is where and how we draw the manner of Jesus's was resurrection James, not by 1 Cor 15:45! We draw the same parallel that the disciples drew. "Then they believed the scripture".... which scripture? Was it 1 Cor 15:45?? Of course not! And If not, why cite it???..."and the words that Jesus had spoken" which means we shouldn't let others convince us that he wasn't really referring to his body but something else.

This verse thoroughly refutes the notion the resurrected Jesus is composed of flesh and bone exclusively.

I am not aware of any Christian denomination that believes "Jesus was composed of flesh and bones exclusively", nor of anyone asserting such on this thread.

The logical conclusion is that He is both.

Aaah! So what you're really saying is Jesus rose with a body and spirit, just like we have now! Why didn't you say so from the beginning? Or are you saying Jesus rose as a spirit only, and manufactured bodies, as needed, on demand? If the former, I don't see you're argument being much different from traditional Christianity, but if it's the latter there are further questions to ask:

1. How many bodies did Jesus need to manufacture for his various appearances?

2. What did Jesus's Spirit do with his shell (body) after he was finished with it? Did it drop to the floor after it was dispossessed, or did he destroy it?

3. What happened to the former body that Jesus died in? Do you believe, like HockyCowboy, that the Jews made off with it, or did something else become of it?

4. If the Jews made off with it. did Jesus summon his old body when needed or did he actually create new ones? It seems to me that Jesus would have had to summon his old body to remove the rock, but I'm still not seeing why that was necessary if he only arose as a spirit. Can you explain why the rock was removed if he arose as a spirit creature?

5. If the Jews/Romans had the body of Jesus, wouldn't they have paraded the body out in public to show this was nothing more than his shade haunting the area of his demise (which the Gentiles believed occurred quite often) rather than a bodily return from the dead?​

It just seems to me that for every new body Jesus needs to create as a spirit creature (holding his feet: Matthew 28:9, materializing a body with holes:John 20:27, eating fish: Luke 24:42), you have the same problem of disposal as you have with the original body Jesus died in.

 

[Oeste]

The question was, "Which one of the thousands of denominations within the Christian religion has the full truth?" Your answer, "Christianity". Christianity is not a sect or denomination. So you did not answer the question. Understandably so.

The question, as pointed out, has already been answered, by Yoshua and myself, yet you still miss the answer, possibly because your asking the wrong question.

The Christian church (as a whole) comprises the body of Christ, not the head. It is Christ who is the head of the church. This is explained in detail at 1 Corinthians, chapter 12:

12Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. 13For we were all baptized byc one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.14Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many.

15Now if the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 16And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 17If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20As it is, there are many parts, but one body.

21The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” 22On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.

27Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.
​

So the Catholics can be a foot, the Lutherans a toe, the Baptists an arm, and the Methodists a hand. They behave, operate, and function differently. There is not ONE part to the body, but MANY, and these parts must act in harmony and respect with each other because if one part suffers the entire body suffers. There are even millions of Christians who are not members of a specific body part but may course through the body delivering communication, nourishment, or other vital assets to various parts of the body. So your question: "Which of the thousands of denominations within the Christian religion (body of Christ) has the full truth?" has no meaning except to ask which of the many denominations represent an actual body part of Christ. It is Christ, the Head, that IS the "full truth", not the body parts! How can the body parts claim to be the "full truth" when Christ is the truth himself? Are you asking us to confuse the head with the foot?

Even so, there are many who do not join or celebrate with the body but attack the body instead. There goal is to convince Christians that there should not be many, but one part:

"Why are you an eye? Why are you a foot? Where is the unity in many parts? You are divided! Join us in attacking the other parts because we are the only part that has the full truth of Christ."​

These Christians are the "true religionists" that we see on this board, and they convince cells of the eye to join with it and attack other members of the eye, or they attempt the the same with pancreas, liver or foot or whatever member they can get a hold on. They recognize no other part of the body except their own, and their goal is to create one "unified" part, just like them, rather that the many parts God has put together. These attacks do not strengthen but actually disease the body.

Your question, as I see it, was to lend credence to these "true religionists" who believe the body of Christ to be composed of a single part. As such, there is no body part that possesses full truth. How can there be, when only Christ is the truth and we see in shadows only (1 Corinthians 13:12)? The truth has been, and always will be Christ. I nor any other part (religion, Christian) of the body becomes truth, the head remains so, but eventually we will see the truth (Christ) when we come to our glorified bodies (1 Corinthians 15:49, Revelation 22:4, 1 Corinthians 13:12).

 

[james2ko]

Always fun how you interpret things James2ko. It wasn’t only Oeste who said both interpretations are correct, it was Mr. Ellicot also. Let’s go over what he said again: "Either interpretation yields good sense and sound doctrine; neither does violence to the general context."I think this is “politically correct rhetoric” that not one, but either interpretation is the correct one. You see a dichotomy where there is none.

1. Mr. Ellicott stated my interpretation is preferred over yours. Mr. Wallace and Mr. Martin also agreed yours is not satisfactory. It's equally as fun to see how you create equality where there is none.

This is just an aside, but I can't help but ask:

What does Jesus being "sinless" have to do with it? Adam and Eve were sinless and that didn't keep them from eating of the fruit, so why would Jesus being sinless prevent him from being deceitful? It seems to me that existing in a sinless state does not prevent one from engaging in sin, otherwise Adam and Eve could never have committed sin.

2. A false analogy stacked on top of another? Quite creative ...Jesus being sinless has a tad bit of everything to do with it. Being deceitful is a sin (Eph 4:14,22). The bible explicitly states Jesus lived his whole life without committing one sin (2 Co 5:21; Heb 4:15). Did Adam live his whole life without committing one sin? Nope.. Hence exposing your false, incongruous analogy and proving Jesus' actions could not have been deceptive. See how sound logic works?

I see. So instead of telling them “I am a ghost no longer” he tells them he’s not a ghost at all, when in actuality he was a ghost just a second ago, but then materializes a body with holes in it (which Jesus immediately enters into and possesses) just to alleviate the apostles fears??? This story gets more interesting as time goes on, and I'll explore more of this at the end of my post.

3. Did the angels, who are composed of spirit (Heb 1:14), jump into mortal bodies to possess them long enough to grab hold of Lot and his family's hands (Gen 19:16) or did they simply instantly transform themselves from spirit to flesh before being able to grab a human hand? Why would Jesus' , whose post-resurrection body is the same as the angels' transformational bodies (Luk 20:34-36; 1 Jn 3:2), be any different?

Yes Jesus is a life-giving spirit. This verse simply tells us that it is the Spirit of Christ that raises us and allows us to live.

"For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality." 1 Cor 15:53 This is how we are raised. Then, if we are raised, how are we to have life?:

"So while we are in this tent, we groan under our burdens, because we do not wish to be unclothed but clothed, so that our mortality may be swallowed up by life."

Swallowed up by life sounds great, but who's life?:
​

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. (John 14:6)​

For further confirmation we go to Romans 8:9-11:

"You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ. But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives life because of righteousness And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you."​

So 1Cor 15:45 is never meant to be treatise or "proof text" on the manner of Jesus's resurrection, but simply what that resurrection means for the rest of us. To find out the manner of Jesus's resurrection we simply go to John 2:21:

18 The Jews then responded to him, “What sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?”

19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”

20 They replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.
​

"Destroy this temple and I will raise it again in 3 days". . The Jews thought he was talking about their temple in Jerusalem... "But the temple he had spoken of was his body" Obviously Jesus was NOT talking about destroying and raising his Spirit in 3 days, for neither the Jews nor the Roman had power to destroy it. Jesus was clearly referring to his BODY. "After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said". THIS is where and how we draw the manner of Jesus's was resurrection James, not by 1 Cor 15:45! We draw the same parallel that the disciples drew. "Then they believed the scripture".... which scripture? Was it 1 Cor 15:45?? Of course not! And If not, why cite it???..."and the words that Jesus had spoken" which means we shouldn't let others convince us that he wasn't really referring to his body but something else.

4. I'm sorry, but I could not find in this very laborious, long winded reply where you disprove my point and the scriptures which plainly reveal He has the power to become both spirit, and flesh and bone at will.

Aaah! So what you're really saying is Jesus rose with a body and spirit, just like we have now! Why didn't you say so from the beginning? Or are you saying Jesus rose as a spirit only, and manufactured bodies, as needed, on demand? If the former, I don't see you're argument being much different from traditional Christianity, but if it's the latter there are further questions to ask:

1. How many bodies did Jesus need to manufacture for his various appearances?

2. What did Jesus's Spirit do with his shell (body) after he was finished with it? Did it drop to the floor after it was dispossessed, or did he destroy it?

3. What happened to the former body that Jesus died in? Do you believe, like HockyCowboy, that the Jews made off with it, or did something else become of it?

4. If the Jews made off with it. did Jesus summon his old body when needed or did he actually create new ones? It seems to me that Jesus would have had to summon his old body to remove the rock, but I'm still not seeing why that was necessary if he only arose as a spirit. Can you explain why the rock was removed if he arose as a spirit creature?

5. If the Jews/Romans had the body of Jesus, wouldn't they have paraded the body out in public to show this was nothing more than his shade haunting the area of his demise (which the Gentiles believed occurred quite often) rather than a bodily return from the dead?​

It just seems to me that for every new body Jesus needs to create as a spirit creature (holding his feet: Matthew 28:9, materializing a body with holes:John 20:27, eating fish: Luke 24:42), you have the same problem of disposal as you have with the original body Jesus died in.

5. Nothing worse than one wordy false dilemma. Oh wait, there is. Your multiple false analogies. Could there be more choices than the two choices you fallaciously presented? Given your poor logic track record, there has to be . I'm not advocating either. First off, how could you and Christianity propose Jesus has been raised with a body like we have now when scriptures state flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Co 15:50)? Second, the scriptures explicitly state the resurrected Christ "was" a spirit (1 Co 15:45; 2 Co 3:17)-- not "had" a spirit (as you implicate)-- demonstrated by His instant appearance.

He also demonstrated His flesh and bones. So then simple logic would dictate He was resurrected with one (not many), glorified, supernatural body with the ability to transform from flesh and bone to spirit, and vice versa at will. See how easy it is to get your point across and refute a laboriously, lengthy point with just a few lines of text.

 

[james2ko]

The question, as pointed out, has already been answered, by Yoshua and myself, yet you still miss the answer, possibly because your asking the wrong question.

The Christian church (as a whole) comprises the body of Christ, not the head. It is Christ who is the head of the church. This is explained in detail at 1 Corinthians, chapter 12:

12Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. 13For we were all baptized byc one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.14Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many.

15Now if the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 16And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 17If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20As it is, there are many parts, but one body.

21The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” 22On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.

27Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.
​

So the Catholics can be a foot, the Lutherans a toe, the Baptists an arm, and the Methodists a hand. They behave, operate, and function differently. There is not ONE part to the body, but MANY, and these parts must act in harmony and respect with each other because if one part suffers the entire body suffers. There are even millions of Christians who are not members of a specific body part but may course through the body delivering communication, nourishment, or other vital assets to various parts of the body. So your question: "Which of the thousands of denominations within the Christian religion (body of Christ) has the full truth?" has no meaning except to ask which of the many denominations represent an actual body part of Christ. It is Christ, the Head, that IS the "full truth", not the body parts! How can the body parts claim to be the "full truth" when Christ is the truth himself? Are you asking us to confuse the head with the foot?

Your question, as I see it, was to lend credence to these "true religionists" who believe the body of Christ to be composed of a single part. As such, there is no body part that possesses full truth. How can there be, when only Christ is the truth and we see in shadows only (1 Corinthians 13:12)? The truth has been, and always will be Christ. I nor any other part (religion, Christian) of the body becomes truth, the head remains so, but eventually we will see the truth (Christ) when we come to our glorified bodies (1 Corinthians 15:49, Revelation 22:4, 1 Corinthians 13:12).

6. Yoshua indicated there was full truth within Evangelical Christianity today.:

"Now, if you are asking what one denomination has Christ’s full truth, absolute, and exact truth; it is Christianity. But Christianity is too broad. I personally would say it is the evangelical faith that accepts Christ, received his words and having a personal relationship with Him."​

My reply to him, before you unwisely decided to put your two cents worth without getting all the facts, this was not true:

"I never indicated the non-existence of full truth. It does exist. But not by one earthly organization. I'm saying no current earthly Christian denomination has the full truth. Paul indicates knowing the "full" truth (having all knowledge) is not a criteria for faith. Hope, love, faith and knowledge (of truth) are all individual and separate Christian characteristics. Faith, hope, or knowledge of truth are not the greatest. The greatest is love (1 Co 13:12-13)."​

We could also say, Mormons consist of the eye, JW's the arm, Messianic's the hand, Evangelical's the stinky feet . As you correctly illustrated, Christianity consists of more than just Evangelicals. Thanks for assisting me in helping Yoshua realize the part of the body labeled Evangelical Christianity does not have the full truth.

Even so, there are many who do not join or celebrate with the body but attack the body instead. There goal is to convince Christians that there should not be many, but one part:

"Why are you an eye? Why are you a foot? Where is the unity in many parts? You are divided! Join us in attacking the other parts because we are the only part that has the full truth of Christ."​

These Christians are the "true religionists" that we see on this board, and they convince cells of the eye to join with it and attack other members of the eye, or they attempt the the same with pancreas, liver or foot or whatever member they can get a hold on. They recognize no other part of the body except their own, and their goal is to create one "unified" part, just like them, rather that the many parts God has put together. These attacks do not strengthen but actually disease the body.

7. You mean like the Evangelicals who do not recognize as part of the body and celebrate, Mormons, JW's Messianic's, and others, but attack these parts of the body?

Hmmm... I seem to recall having a discussion with Moorea944 when a certain James2ko answered me, to wit:And wait....wasn't Moorea944 conversing with Djhwoodwerks when you answered?So apparently this new forum rule does only apply to Oeste (even when he says he's not answering for anyone), and while I am deeply honored to warrant my very own forum rule, I would be even more appreciative if these rules consistently applied to everyone.

8. The difference is I replied to you with a direct, relevant question--"Really? Who's definition determines something eternal has no beginning?" . You replied to me with an unrequested opinion (opinion is what you called it, right) created by your failure to get the proper context, which ended up in refuting Yoshua. So what is this new forum rule business? Do you also see rules where none exist?

The question, as pointed out, has already been answered, by Yoshua and myself, yet you still miss the answer, possibly because your asking the wrong question.

9. Oh, I asked the right question. You answered without investigating the full context and mistakenly refuted and taught your boy Yoshua something. Love the way God works, don't you?

 

[Oeste]

1. Mr. Ellicott stated my interpretation is preferred over yours. Mr. Wallace and Mr. Martin also agreed yours is not satisfactory. It's equally as fun to see how you create equality where there is none.

Mr. Ellicott CLEARLY stated: "Either interpretation yields good sense and sound doctrine; neither does violence to the general context."

Either means both are correct James, not one or the other. Neither does the word “either” imply “politically correct speech”. A preferred answer does not make another answer “wrong” any more than it makes the preferred answer “right”. I can prefer black shoes but that doesn’t make brown shoes “wrong”. If this is the way you interpret Ellicott, I can only wonder what you’ll do with scripture.

There was nothing “wrong” about Yoshua’s interpretation. You were incorrect to suggest there was. It happens. It’s time to concede the point and move on.

2. A false analogy stacked on top of another? Quite creative ...

Well I’m glad you asked this as a question and didn’t convert it into a statement. So to answer your question: No, this is not a false analogy stacked upon another, so unfortunately I cannot make claim to the creativity you believed me capable of…at least not this time.

3. Did the angels, who are composed of spirit (Heb 1:14), jump into mortal bodies to possess them long enough to grab hold of Lot and his family's hands (Gen 19:16) or did they simply instantly transform themselves from spirit to flesh before being able to grab a human hand? Why would Jesus' , whose post-resurrection body is the same as the angels' transformational bodies (Luk 20:34-36; 1 Jn 3:2), be any different?

Thank you James! I couldn’t have asked for a better question than this, and I invite you and everyone else who believes Jesus was raised a “spirit creature” to answer it!!

Hebrews 1:14 tells us angels are composed of spirit. Genesis 19:16 tells us about angels who ate bread and grabbed a human hand. You state Jesus was raised a “spirit creature” who performed on demand materializations of his body.

So I have two questions to ask:

1. Once Jesus materializes himself a new body, doesn’t this make Jesus a “spirit creature” with flesh and bones? But what does Jesus say about spirits who have flesh and bones?

7 But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit. 38 And He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts?39 See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” 40 And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet.​

So, Jesus tells them a spirit does NOT have flesh and bones as he does. Why? According to your analysis, because Jesus IS a spirit creature with flesh and bones! Or did I get this wrong?

Honestly, I’m trying, but I fail to see the inherent logic here James. Perhaps you can explain this better? Please, don’t feel like I’m picking on you. Anyone can answer this for me. I already know what you and others believe on this subject…what I want to know now is why. After all, it could be something I should believe myself!

2. According to our JW friends, “flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom of heaven” which they take to mean our physical bodies. You apparently share this belief. So what happens to the spirit creature’s materialized flesh and bones shell once he’s through with it?

Jesus was very clear spirits do not have flesh and bones,so he can't possibly be a spirit with materialized flesh and bones, unless the flesh and bones are in the form of a shell. And as you already pointed out, we have Hebrews 1:14 to consider. So if he is a “spirit creature” any flesh and bones materialized must be like a tent surrounding his spirit, kind of like what we have now, and it would have to be disposed of prior to re-entering heaven, much like our spirit leaves the body when we die. Or is this wrong too? Do you see it this way or is there some other explanation I’m not seeing?

 

[Oeste]

Jesus being sinless has a tad bit of everything to do with it. Being deceitful is a sin (Eph 4:14,22). The bible explicitly states Jesus lived his whole life without committing one sin (2 Co 5:21; Heb 4:15). Did Adam live his whole life without committing one sin? Nope.. Hence exposing your false, incongruous analogy and proving Jesus' actions could not have been deceptive. See how sound logic works?

I understand how sound logic works, but what I’m trying to understand is your logic, which is why I ask so many questions. While doing this you get to understand my logic as well. What survives as sound logic can be left to the individual reader. We may not agree, but it’s still a win-win.

The answer you gave would be great answer if I had asked you whether Adam or Jesus sinned. It would even do well if I asked you if deceit was a sin. But that wasn’t the question asked so I apologize for not making it clearer.

I am simply asking whether you believe existing in a sinless state prevents one from ever sinning. If you can answer this question, we can move on to other questions…like which attributes (if any) would prevent one from sinning. It’s not a “trick” question that I’m trying to snap you with. It’s simply an inquiry on what you think on the subject, and why you think it. It also offers further avenues of discourse for everyone here on the forum, especially on the nature of man and deity. That’s it. Really.

4. I'm sorry, but I could not find in this very laborious, long winded reply where you disprove my point and the scriptures which plainly reveal He has the power to become both spirit, and flesh and bone at will.

I agree my comment was long and laborious, and best left to stand on its own. I wouldn’t touch it either.

5. Nothing worse than one wordy false dilemma. Oh wait, there is. Your multiple false analogies. Could there be more choices than the two choices you fallaciously presented? Given your poor logic track record, there has to be .

That’s why I’ve come to you James. Anyone can say there are multiple false analogies, but showing how they're false analogies would be of benefit to everyone, including me. So give us more choices, and show us how my “false analogies” are actually false. You don’t have to be long winded. I’m sure a few terse comments from you are all we’ll need.

First off, how could you and Christianity propose Jesus has been raised with a body like we have now when scriptures state flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Co 15:50)?

First off, how could you and Christianity propose Jesus has been raised with a body like we have now when scriptures state flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Co 15:50)?

Why not quote the rest of the scripture?:

Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

To answer your question, it’s because this verse talks of “flesh and blood” and not “flesh and bones”. This verse is referring to our spiritual, not physical nature. I cannot inherit until my spiritual self has been transformed. In other words my corrupt self is not worthy nor capable or inheriting incorruption.

Second, the scriptures explicitly state the resurrected Christ "was" a spirit (1 Co 15:45; 2 Co 3:17)-- not "had" a spirit (as you implicate)-- demonstrated by His instant appearance.

I'm not sure if I fully understand what you're saying here and would like to be clear. By "was" do you read it to imply Jesus was no longer a spirit creature when he took on flesh because of Hebrews 1:14, or is it your belief he was still a spirit creature and simply wore the flesh like a coat, or was he a spirit with flesh and bones which spirit creatures, according to Jesus,simply do not have, or is it something else entirely?

He also demonstrated His flesh and bones. So then simple logic would dictate He was resurrected with one (not many), glorified, supernatural body with the ability to transform from flesh and bone to spirit, and vice versa at will.

Well now you’re back at it again James. First you argue Jesus was resurrected with a spiritual body, now you’re claiming a glorified body! Could you be a little more succinct and lucid with how you believe Jesus was resurrected? Was there a bodily resurrection or not? I trust you understand that by “bodily resurrection” the traditional Christian church believes Christ rose with a body and spirit and not as a spirit only as the Witnesses believe, nor as a body only which no one I know believes.

See how easy it is to get your point across and refute a laboriously, lengthy point with just a few lines of text.

Well with the exception of your last point I sure do!

And I can’t wait for you to explain how the Word transformed himself from spirit to a flesh and bones spirit creature when he just go through explaining spirit creature don’t have flesh and bones…all with just a few lines of clean, concise text. Then perhaps we can finally get an explanation of why the stone was moved, and what Jesus decided (if anything) to do with his old body.

When you (or anyone else who cares to answer) are ready I’ll be sure to have the popcorn out. I'l get to the other post later.

 

[j76]

Although Jesus is usually assumed to be a God, it’s sometimes hard to know, when reading the New Testament, whether the authors thought Jesus was a man or a God. For instance, Mark portrays Jesus as a fallible prophet, not an almighty God, who is unable to perform miracles in his home town (see Mark 6:5). The prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane is another example of this. In the prayer, Jesus is a man in agony and terror about his fate, terrified of his place in God’s plan, and petitioning God to change His plan! You would need to go through complicated mental gymnastics to explain the prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane from a Trinitarian point of view. In fact, it doesn’t really make sense to see Jesus as any kind of God here, since it seems silly that a God would be terrified of his atoning death, because that is the only reason he would be on earth in the first place. Does it make sense that in a story about a God who came to earth to die to wipe out the sin debt of mankind, that this God would beg to abandon his post? After all, Jesus knows he has nothing to fear because he will just suffer for a few hours and eventually be resurrected: Jesus says “The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men. They will kill him, and after three days he will rise (Mark 9:31).” You can picture a human Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, doubting that he will be resurrected (and terrified by that) – doubts that Jesus would not have if he was a God.

 

[Yoshua]

The question was, "Which one of the thousands of denominations within the Christian religion has the full truth?" Your answer, "Christianity". Christianity is not a sect or denomination. So you did not answer the question. Understandably so.

Christianity is a generic term. Under Christianity, there's a lot of denominations. Now, the denomination that you were mentioning within the Christian religion cannot be answered that it has the full truth. This would mean that no Christian denomination has the full truth because the term "denomination" is not the basis of the full truth. It is just only a name. The full truth is in the application of a person who trusted Jesus Christ as his Lord and personal Saviour. Christ did not require his followers to be in denomination to be saved, but by obeying His word and follow Him. Now, how someone will know that what he is obeying is the full truth that is in Christ? it is by following Christ's teachings. As I said before, We could not say that 100% in our church will be saved because the basis is individual--the intimate (personal) relationship between God and man. I believed that Jesus did the same thing with His disciples and followers which we may see in the Bible. I think this is very clear that it is not the denomination, but the relationship with him. Therefore, your question I think would be is not a right question but a question that is not aligned with the full truth that is in Christ Jesus.

Thanks