NN,
The Scripture you quoted is one of prophecy about a future time. Context:

Psalm 2:6–9 (NASB95)
6 “But as for Me, I have installed My King
Upon Zion, My holy mountain.”

7 “I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD:
He said to Me, ‘You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You.
8 ‘Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance,
And the very ends of the earth as Your possession.
9 ‘You shall break them with a rod of iron,
You shall shatter them like earthenware.’ ”

This is written as prophecy about a future time and the book of Hebrews confirms this passage refers to Christ after his resurrection when he became High Priest:

Hebrews 5:5 (NASB95)
5 So also Christ did not glorify Himself so as to become a high priest, but He who said to Him,
“YOU ARE MY SON,
TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”;

My challenge still stands. Please show any scripture that calls God “the Christ” before the incarnation. A prophesy about the incarnation and fulfilled only through the incarnation certainly does not qualify. Any Scripture that calls the LORD of hosts as The Christ would do. Or any Scripture that calls the LORD God as The Christ would be sufficient. Any Scripture outside of the incarnation will do. No doubt at all that Psalms 2 is about the incarnation. Perhaps you have a commentary from a reputable scholar who suggests that Psalms 2 calls God the Christ outside of the incarnation.

I will get to your other tome when I have much more time.

I appreciate anytime someone tries to answer me. Go ahead and search some more and see what you can find outside the incarnation. I have never seen it, but then I subject myself to learning when the Scriptures speak otherwise.

The questions deserve to be answered. But if Mark is posting as Patrick, and then once again we have someone who refuses to answer the hard questions taking the position of one who accuses others of having straw men arguments rather than answer the questions posed to him.

Patrick: It is a good test of integrity to admit that you are Mark posting under Patrick’s name. Someone who is going into the pastorate and may even be a comp pastor by now wouldn’t lie about that, would he? Let’s keep this on the up and up and move on to discuss your questions with integrity. Fair enough?

Patrick,

I’m rather confused here. With the prior discussion you had alot of things seemed to be thrown around which either meant misunderstanding and/or claims of deviance from orthodoxy.

No, you are not. You have seminary education so you know what the answer is to your question. I would be perfectly happy to answer your question so that others will be educated. But before I do, I want you to answer my two questions.

1. Will you admit that you are Mark posting under another name?
2. Please give me even one Scripture where God is called the Christ before the incarnation.

Two very simple questions that you should be able to answer. But then Mark never answered questions and that was why I put him under moderation. It’s my blog and I will answer for others benefit, but I want you to answer my questions and we can move on. Fair enough?

Patrick are you actually Mark?

Patrick,
You said:

So who is the He/he/him?

If we say Jesus Christ, this seems to contradict what Cheryl has said regarding the pre-incarnate Word (who cannot be called ‘the Christ’ and therefore cannot be the one who sustains the world and made it according to this text). If we say Word, it contradicts Cheryl because the head of the Church is the incarnate God/man who is obviously called ‘Jesus Christ’.

Let’s cut to the quick. What Scripture ever calls the pre-incarnate Word the Christ except in future prophecy? If I am wrong, prove me wrong by showing just one Scripture that lists the LORD of hosts in eternity past as existing as the Christ in eternity past. Once I see your proof, we should be able to discuss your points. If you have no Scripture, then perhaps you can explain how the term “Christ” can be given to God in eternity past as His name.

Ah, I see that while I was typing, further comments came in. I will try to get a few more answers in before I retire for the night.

Patrick you said:

Don’t get to caught up in the story, it’s not meant to be analogous in every way to 1 Tim 2, so many of your points made above aren’t really applicable. All i was trying to show was (a) within a overall context of generic men and women, one can use a singular and it still be understood generically and not necessitate the claim that it is a specific woman/man.

The issue is 1 Timothy 2. My comments to you show that when you change from plural to singular, the nuances change. I am not saying that the use of the singular necessitates the meaning of a specific woman. I am saying that the change of the plural to the singular needs to be noted especially when the change is unnecessary. The context will define whether it is a specific woman or not. The context will also remove the generic application with specific language.

If you think otherwise, can you show me how in my example the singular would be understood by all as not applicable to them.

Sure. When you said that a woman is not to be upstairs “or be accompanied by…” This is a statement of allowance not of unilaterally restricting all of those women invited to your house.

Also, please avoid straw men that you then proceed to knock down, e.g “To say that a God-given gift is bad just because of the gender of the person who has the gift or just because of the gender of the person who receives the gift, is something that is never found in the Scriptures.”

I never said such a thing. Again my point was simple (or so i thought). 1 Cor 12-14 shows the limiting of speaking in toungues.

Actually that is not true regarding any permanent limiting of the gift. While only two or three are to speak in one meeting so that the edification of the church can happen unhindered, the one with the gift is free to speak at another time as there is no permanent injunction. Also Paul makes it clear that the one with the gift for tongues is to pray and ask God to give him/her the interpretation, thus the 1/2 gift will become the full gift without a hindrance. This is completely unlike the tradition that stops the teaching of the truth of the gospel for the common good.

Presumably, such a gift was good and encouraged and taught the congregation, although only if used appropriately. I see a similiar parallel to 1 Tim 2. Therefore, it is not only false teaching that Paul prohibits, but as seen in 1 Cor 12-14, a good God given gift that was being abused.

As Paul relates, the purpose is for public edification. It is not for purpose of restricting any of God’s gifts as the one gifted is instructed to ask for the corresponding gift. Encouragement to release the gifts by asking God for the corresponding gift in no way corresponds to a universal prohibition of a gift for the benefit of males.

I would sure like to hear your explanation of why Paul never stopped the teaching of the truth even by those who had less than pure motives? Paul’s actions were very consistent with a sincere desire that everyone should participate with God’s gifts that edify the church and that all should be allowed to speak for the common good.

In an effort to finish Patrick’s comments before I go to bed, here goes on the next comment:

I should have also pointed out that the change in topic is something Cheryl’s view endorses. Given the traditional understanding that the whole pericope is dealing with ‘Public Worship Issues’, the small change of topic is neither here nor there, it’s still within the overall contextual framework.

It isn’t just the change of topic, but the unusual change from plural to singular, when the continuation of a topic would not warrant such a change. And of course there is the problem of the issue of salvation in verse 15 that would make a generic application out of the scope of the entire Bible.

By the way, Patrick, have we dialoged before? Your way of expressing yourself sounds very familiar to me.

TL,
I think you answered Patrick’s thought quite well.

Patrick, you said this about TL:

But you have not engagd in my comments apart from restating Cheyl’s position and claiming it was ‘clear’. I doubt this is true considering the understanding of this passage over the last two millenium.

Actually TL did engage your comments and then went on to state other things. There is a flaw in your argument and TL saw it. As far as the passage being “clear” over the last “two millenium”, Paul’s very detailed wording has caused lots of problems for people who see Paul through human tradition. Paul becomes much more clear when we don’t stop with verse 12 but continue on to verse 15 with the outcome of Paul’s instruction which is “clear” that this is an issue of salvation, thus the teaching that is being stopped is not the true teaching of a true Christian, but the error of an unsaved person.

My example was simply to show that within the context of a generic discussion, one can use a singular with the clear undertanding that it applies to the whole, as per Cheryl’s request.

If that is what you were trying, then you need to rethink your example as your example shows that two women who accompany each other are allowed to do what generic women cannot do. It is a problem for sure, and if you really said that, I’ll bet some industrious teenagers could figure it out, that you aren’t stopping women generically from going upstairs after all.

When i said a woman must not be upstairs, given the context i’m not sure anyone assumed i was talking about a specific woman- it seems too unnatural to the flow of the context plus is equally a poor grammatical construct (at least in English).

I think you are likely right here about not meaning a specific woman. But then you did not add anything about “the woman” (verse 14) and “she” and “they” that give Paul’s meaning more body.

Nonetheless, Cheryl asked for a good reason- i think i provided that.

No, I don’t think you did, but you gave it a jolly good try, and for that you should be commended!

Furthermore, you didn’t discuss the second point i made regarding 1 Cor 12-14. Understadable though, since it’s not your blog.

Well, I did cover it and it is my blog 😉 But I noticed that you didn’t actually deal with the fact that Paul never stopped the teaching of the truth by anyone. Perhaps it would be an appropriate time to ask why one should assume that Paul was stopping the truth of the gospel in verse 12 rather than applying his stated purpose to have Timothy stop the teaching of error?

Thanks for stopping by, Patrick. I apologize in advance if I don’t get to any new comments in a timely fashion. I have a very busy ministry schedule, but I am much more flexible when I don’t have deadlines. Things should lighten up a bit in a week.

Patrick,
You gave one other thought:

Can a person speak in toungues? Yes absolutely, but within a limited context.

It is interesting to note that the only gift that is limited is the gift where the church has no edification at all without the corresponding gift to impart grace to the hearer. Gender is never used to limit the Spirit’s gifts, nor is gender used to limit the reception of the gifts. Men are never said to be in sin for receiving the Holy Spirit’s gifts through a woman.

Patrick,
You also said:

So the parallel i would draw would be like this. Can a woman teach? Yes absolutely, but within a limited context.

The only limited context that Paul ever exercised for anyone regarding teaching, was that error was forbidden to be taught, while truth was given wide exposure. No other context but truth is limited by Paul.

Patrick,
You also said:

As for the second issue regarding Paul stopping true teaching i would direct you to 1 Corinthians 12-14. Granted it is not ‘teaching’ per se, but nonetheless, clearly spiritual gifts, although being a good God given gift, were being abused and needed to be reined in. Clearly then, Christians can abuse something that otherwise, in different contexts and circumstances, would be a good ministry.

Apparently you can see that true teaching is not the same thing as a half a gift. Paul makes it clear that the public speaking of tongues is always to be attached to public interpretation. But if we were to equate public speaking in tongues and interpretation, Paul never ever said that a woman is not allowed to give a message in tongues with an interpretation because she is a woman. To say that a God-given gift is bad just because of the gender of the person who has the gift or just because of the gender of the person who receives the gift, is something that is never found in the Scriptures.

33 Patrick wrote:

“I desire all the men to remain upstairs in the rumpus room. Likewise, i want all the women to remain downstairs in the back loungeroom. I do not permit a women to be upstairs at any time alone with a man. She must either stay downstairs or be accompanied with another…

Now my point is really simple. Given the example above, is the shift from plural to singular grammatically or topically different? Within the context it is clear that the singular still applies to the generic. I don’t see why 1 Tim cannot be any different. This answers your first request to explain the shift.

Your example was flawed if you are trying to compare it to the grammar of 1 Timothy 2. First of all you present one topic about men and women remaining in their place. Paul doesn’t present such a unified topic as the topic changes from the outside dress that presents a godly claim and the other is about teaching and authentein of “a woman” respecting “a man”. There is no upstairs/downstairs similarity here.

Secondly in your example, you are actually permitting two women from being in the presence of one man. Thus all women are to remain downstairs but two women can accompany each other and go upstairs.

Thirdly, it is not altogether clear who she can be accompanied by in your story. While you want all women to remain downstairs, she can go upstairs if she is in the presence of two men rather than just one. As long as she is accompanied, apparently.

In Paul’s words, changing from the plural to the singular, there is a relationship that is added that is not in the plural. “A woman” now is doing something to “a man”. It is not “a woman” is not allowed to teach…”men”, so if this statement of Paul’s to Timothy is generic then at the very least a single woman is not allowed to teach a single man and that is a problem with what Priscilla did. She not only instructed a man, but she corrected him to boot.

I am very happy that you tried to bring up a scenario using “women” and “woman”, your try does not even touch Paul’s unity of thought in 1 Timothy 2:11-15. Paul ends his thought with a positive statement about the salvation of “she” by bringing “they” into the mix. There is no grammar that would ever rightfully equate the singular “she” as being the same as “they” in the same sentence. And because Paul includes the entire package of verses 11-15 within the instruction to Timothy and to the conclusion of the problem, the failure to bring about a modern day equivalent is quite telling. But I really do appreciate, Patrick, that you tried. That shows that you are trying to think this one through.

32 Craig,

Thanks for the link and the quote from Gene Edwards book. It is also interesting to see that his book is copyrighted one year before my DVD was produced and his understanding that Paul was speaking about one woman and one man certainly parallels my understanding.

I am really busy for about another week due to company arriving and a couple of deadlines that must be dealt with. I will answer what I can on the blog tonight, but I probably won’t be back for about another week. Sorry for being so slow in answering some of the posts here.

In God’s humility, he put us first.

Romans 8:32 (NASB95)
32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?

What God did for us, hurt Him, but God did not hold back from benefiting us and in that He modeled the perfect example of One who looks out for the interests of others.

Philippians 2:3–4 (NASB95)
3 Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves;
4 do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.

In the DVD teaching series called The Truth Project, the host says that all of God’s prohibitions model His character. Thus we are told that we should not lie, because God does not lie.

In the same way, I believe, we are told to do things that God does. God is unselfish and He models care for the interests of others. We are to be like our Father. We are to be humble because this is what models the character of God in us.

There are some who promote the Sovereignty of God to the point that they cannot allow God to be humble. An imbalanced view of the Sovereignty of God dictates to God what He can and cannot do, but this puts God in a box that we have created for Him. In contrast, God is completely free to be what He is, whether we understand it or not. He is the perfect example for us and we are instructed to grow in His image. We are to be like Him and practicing humility allows us to be like Him.

NN,
Your main confusion appears to be in your insistence that Christ as a “being” without identifying that He has two natures.

1) Would you agree that the being called Jesus existed in eternity past?

No, Jesus the man did not exist in eternity past. His nature as God existed as YHWH of hosts but his nature as man did not exist until the incarnation. You are in serious error.

2) Would you agree that “the Christ” (as a title is synonymous) with the being called Jesus? [i.e. Would you agree that one could not use “the Christ” (capitalized singular reference) to properly mean anything other than the being called Jesus]

Jesus does not have just one nature as we do and his title as His identification as Christ is ONLY tied to His human nature. Therefore it is improper identification to name the Word of God as the Christ since He had no human nature until the incarnation.

3) Would you agree that Jesus was properly “the Chosen One” and “the Coming One” – both titles distinctively associated with the Messiah – even before He actually took on flesh?

Since Jesus did not exist prior to the incarnation of the Word, the identification of the Messiah is in prophecy alone. It is improper to identify the Word as the Messiah just as it would be improper to identify the Word of God as the offspring of David. It would be a category error just as Catholics practice by saying that Mary is the mother of God. They too believe that Jesus is one being i.e. He has one nature thus Mary has to be the mother of God. That reasoning is flawed and throughout the history of the church, the two natures of Christ have been taught and defended and the church did not talk about the one “being” of Jesus. This is where your error starts and your foundation crumbles.

However, I was “NN” even before I had the fruit tart. The details of my existence do not mean that I didn’t exist before those details were known.

Were you human before you ate the fruit tart? Of course because you only have one nature. Was the Word of God human before He became incarnated? No. He was not human nor was He the seed of Abraham before He took on flesh. You are fully confused about Jesus as one being as you cannot separate His two natures. This is why you are in such error about Christ and the Church. You see Christ as being the same thing as the term God but the two are not the same. The church has not given these terms the same meaning nor has the church defined Christ as one being. The church has defined Christ as having two natures and the church has emphasized these two natures. When you confuse them you enter into error such that you will find yourself deceived on many things. I would love to help you, but it seems like you are refusing my help as if a woman is incapable of correcting a man. Such would be the case if you are specially qualified because you are a man.

I cannot recommend strongly enough for you to get yourself out of the Physics mindset and into proper theology for you are confusing the categories to the point of serious error.

The Tanakh clearly taught us that “The Christ” was the one who would come as God in the flesh, teach us the way of salvation, perform signs proclaiming the power and plan of God and die to pay the ransom for our sins in our place. Does this mean that Jesus was not “the Christ” before He died, or before He performed signs, etc? Absolutely not, Jesus the Christ testifies that He is the Christ long before He was actually crucified (Matt 16:16-17)

Jesus was the Christ at his conception, but He was not legally declared Christ with the necessary proof until His resurrection. He was NOT declared Christ as the Word of God, nor was He called the Christ in eternity past. The term is always one of prophesy unfulfilled in the past and prophesy fulfilled in the man Jesus.

NN, you are a very smart man, but your Physics degree has clouded your mind to make you lift up the male as being some type of uber being declared as the only representatives of God. This kind of thinking will not allow you to accept basic Christian doctrine so you continue in your error because it appears to fit into your agenda. I don’t know how else to see it. That makes me feel very sad because you are obviously gifted and knowing the truth would allow you to be so helpful to others.

(Just for completeness & question answering:
As to your questions in #72 I do not see a Scripturally provable answer – I have my suspicions but I will rest no belief on them as I cannot prove it (and I recognize when I can’t prove something).

I am glad that you realize that you can’t prove something, but it is very, very sad to realize that you choose to believe something that you can’t prove from the Scriptures as truth.

However, they are ultimately immaterial to the case in point. Let us presume that I and Abraham etc. did not exist in “eternity past” – it is irrelevant to the pre-existence of the Bibles clear teaching that Jesus, who is the Christ, pre-existed as I have pointed out above.)

It is not immaterial at all. The Bible NEVER says that the Christ is in existence as a spirit. NEVER!! Show me the Scripture that speaks of Christ as existing in the past rather than a prophetic word about the man who will come at the incarnation. Your faith in the unprovable makes you highly questionable to be teaching anybody anything about Christ’s relationship with the husband. Seriously, I would recommend that you get help because you are a worth while person to receive correction.

I am going to put you on moderation now because I have to get back to my study. I am preparing for an interview that we will shoot that will be a part of our next DVD and I need to get my questions ready. If I let your comments go through right now I won’t get my work done and we leave early tomorrow. I am putting you on moderation not because I don’t like you. I do like you and I think you are a very intelligent brother in Christ. But your error cannot go unchallenged so I am giving myself the necessary breathing room. Fair enough? So go ahead and post what you want. I will let the posts go through when I am in a position to respond. Thanks!

I would also like to add that I have worked in apologetics for many years bringing Jehovah’s Witnesses to faith in Christ. One of the things that JW’s have in common with NN is that they believe that the Christ is a spirit. I am not saying that NN is a cultist, but his agreement with the JW’s on this point is very troubling to me. JW’s believe that Michael the Archangel was raised from the dead and that he (a spirit) takes on the name Jesus Christ as the spirit being who is the Christ.

I have spent many years proving that the Christ is a man and absolutely cannot be a spirit. It actually hurts my heart to see a Christian fighting to see the identification of the Christ as referring to spirit and not flesh alone. The very proof that Jesus was the Christ was His physical resurrection from the dead. Romans 1:4. No spirit could claim to be the Christ just as no spirit could claim to sit on the throne of David and no spirit could raise himself from the dead and claim that he was the legal son of God. The Jehovah’s Witnesses are dead wrong in claiming that a spirit could be called the “Christ” just as NN is dead wrong. I would be happy to communicate with anyone privately if anyone has a question on this matter. It is an extremely important point of Christian faith as it is the physical resurrection of the man Jesus is the ONLY legal “declaration” named in the Scripture. The word “declared” in Romans 1:4 means:

from the basic mng.,1. ‘to separate entities and so establish a boundary’, derives the sense ‘to define ideas or concepts’: set limits to, define, explain
2. to make a determination about an entity, determine, appoint, fix, set

Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed.) (723). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

As someone who has worked hard to prove the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ (only the man Jesus was resurrected as the Word of God never died) I will not have my blog present false teaching without me presenting the correct biblical response. I have very little time right now so I reserve the right to moderate comments that are against our Christian faith, unless and until I have the time to refute them.

NN,
You said:

I believe that you would agree that the being who we call “Christ” (as a title) existed in what you call “eternity past.”

No, I do not agree. The term the “Christ” was an identification of a particular man who meet the qualifications of being a physical descendent of Abraham. The man called the “Christ” did not exist before the incarnation and no spirit was ever qualified to be called the “Christ” for this is a term of a human being alone.

o the only possible contention you can make is that He is not properly called “the Christ” in the context of eternity past. However, since Paul explicitly & unambiguously does so this contention will not bear out unless you wish to maintain that Paul was wrong to do so.

Paul does not say that the “Christ” was in existence in eternity past and he does not say that we existed in eternity past. But both the “Christ” and we the church were chosen by God in eternity past. The “Christ” is not a title as it is an identification of a promised seed. The “Christ” is the physical son of David. He is the physical seed of Eve and the physical seed of Abraham.

Let me ask you, since the qualification for being the Christ meant that one must be the seed of David and thus qualify to sit on the throne of David, did the seed of David exist in eternity past or was the seed of David born in time and the Word of God existed in eternity past?

Actually let me set up two questions for you separately so that I don’t get accused of being ambiguous.

1. According to Ephesians 1:3, 4 did you exist in eternity past?

2. According to Ephesians 1:3, 4 did the seed of Abraham, David and Eve who is the “Christ” exist in eternity past?

NN,
You said:

Though I find it only amusing that you attempt to… let us say educate me about how the dimensionality of time works (my PhD is in physics) – I think that I can get at it from another angle which will be more broadly tractable.

As I said you are smart, but your PhD in physics will not suffice for this serious study of Scripture. In this you are lacking.

Ephesians 1:3, 4 is not saying what you think it is saying. *Sigh* It is the choice that was made in eternity past “in Christ” as Christ was foreknown from eternity past. As I said, I think you need to talk to some man whom you will respect who can straighten you out. You are extremely confused on the issue of Christ. Christ is the seed of the woman and was not in existence before the Word became flesh. Paul did not say that Christ existed from eternity past anymore than he said that the church existed from eternity past. Are you seriously going to tell me that because we were chosen from eternity past that we too existed from eternity past? Seriously? All were foreknown in eternity past. Your pastor should easily be able to affirm to you that the seed of the woman did not exist from eternity past but was known from eternity past. It is a statement from prophecy, determined in eternity about the coming Messiah and the Church chosen in Him.

I have to go now as I have used up my time. Unfortunately you will not find the view that the “Christ” existed before the conception of Jesus except in prophecy, in any theological work. The Word of God as the LORD of hosts was from eternity past. You have stepped outside the line of orthodoxy on this one. It is no wonder that you cannot recognize your error on marriage since you cannot seem to recognize the error in your foundation. I trust that if you are a lover of the truth, you will go to your pastor and get your foundation corrected. I can assure you that having a solid foundation will benefit you. You deserve to at least have that.

Blessings,
Cheryl

NN,
You said:

I believe that it is vital to recognize that though Christ voluntarily adopted the form and even weaknesses of a man that in doing so He never gave up his divinity.

This is inaccurate. The way you are using this wording, the Christ is in existence before He became man. I can see how you are very confused regarding marriage when you seem to think that “Christ” existed before the incarnation of Jesus. It is the Word who is eternal and the Word who became flesh. The Christ did not become flesh, because the Christ did not exist in eternity. It is a term for the humanity of Jesus.

During this discussion I thought you were being tricky and maybe even deceptive but now it appears that you are just uneducated in the meaning of the term Christ. It isn’t willful on your part, it appears, but ignorance. If you remind me when we get back from our trip, I will see if I can recommend some good material for you to read. Perhaps you could also find someone with seminary education in your church such as your pastor who can help. I think it would be a good thing to get this straightened out in your head as it really is foundational.

(baal)
Owner, possessor, husband, Baal. Ugaritic also has the double use of master and the name of a deity. The root in most semitic languages means either “lord” or, when followed by a genitive, “owner.”
In addition to ba?al as owner of things, the noun in the plural is used for citizens (ba?alîm) of a city (Josh 24:11). In Jud 9 where the noun occurs sixteen times, ASV consistently translates “men,” but RSV in addition to “men” employs “citizens” (Jud 9:2) and “people” (Jud 9:46). ba?al can refer to partner or ally (Gen 14:13). Idiomatically ba?al as master of something characterizes the person (e.g. ba?al of wrath, Prov 22:24; of appetite, Prov 23:2; of dreams, Gen 37:19) or identifies occupation (e.g. officer, ba?al of the guard, Jer 37:13).

Harris, R. L., Harris, R. L., Archer, G. L., & Waltke, B. K. (1999). Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament

The primary meaning of baal is master of something. While it can mean husband, it is the husband as master. That would seem to be the kind of marriage where the wife is not in an intimate relationship with the man, but is owned by him. This is the kind of relationship of master that will be left behind to take on the intimacy of complete union.

A synonym of Christ = the last Adam. It would be just as correct to say that the mystery is the last Adam and His bride the church.

And it is interesting that just as the first Adam betrayed his bride and refused to protect her from harm, so the last Adam sacrifice Himself for His bride and He protected her and brought her to Himself.

CHRIST — anointed, the Greek translation of the Hebrew word rendered “Messiah” (q.v.), the official title of our Lord, occurring five hundred and fourteen times in the New Testament. It denotes that he was anointed or consecrated to his great redemptive work as Prophet, Priest, and King of his people. He is Jesus the Christ (Acts 17:3; 18:5; Matt. 22:42), the Anointed One. He is thus spoken of by Isaiah (61:1), and by Daniel (9:24–26), who styles him “Messiah the Prince.”
The Messiah is the same person as “the seed of the woman” (Gen. 3:15), “the seed of Abraham” (Gen. 22:18), the “Prophet like unto Moses” (Deut. 18:15), “the priest after the order of Melchizedek” (Ps. 110:4), “the rod out of the stem of Jesse” (Isa. 11:1, 10), the “Immanuel,” the virgin’s son (Isa. 7:14), “the branch of Jehovah” (Isa. 4:2), and “the messenger of the covenant” (Mal. 3:1). This is he “of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write.” The Old Testament Scripture is full of prophetic declarations regarding the Great Deliverer and the work he was to accomplish. Jesus the Christ is Jesus the Great Deliverer, the Anointed One, the Saviour of men. This name denotes that Jesus was divinely appointed, commissioned, and accredited as the Saviour of men (Heb. 5:4; Isa. 11:2–4; 49:6; John 5:37; Acts 2:22).
To believe that “Jesus is the Christ” is to believe that he is the Anointed, the Messiah of the prophets, the Saviour sent of God, that he was, in a word, what he claimed to be. This is to believe the gospel, by the faith of which alone men can be brought unto God. That Jesus is the Christ is the testimony of God, and the faith of this constitutes a Christian (1 Cor. 12:3; 1 John 5:1).

Easton, M. (1996). Easton’s Bible dictionary.

NN,
Jesus had two natures – human and Divine (God). There are times that His human nature is exposed in the Scripture that is completely opposing to the nature of God. God is not hungry. God does not sleep. God cannot die. It is incorrect to say that Jesus’ human nature is inseparable from His being God. This statement is not taught in the Bible. In fact He operates solely in His human nature at times without any hint of omniscience.

This is why your foundation is so faulty. You have a faulty premise and you have built on that faulty premise. It is most unfortunate because you are one of the smartest people I have met. I think you need to take a step back to understand where the very foundation is wrong.

NN,
Since you refuse to answer as I suspected you might, I will provide the answers to others who do not like to play hide and seek. Let’s get this in the open.

The answer is no. The Father is not the Christ.

We can aptly say that God is not the Christ because of the human nature that is required for one to be the Christ. The Christ is a Greek term equivalent to the Hebrew term Messiah. It is a term that means anointed one and is a term for the human offspring that would be born to mankind as the human Redeemer. Therefore the Father could not be the Christ because the term “the Christ” is not a term of Deity but a term of the human Redeemer. The Father did not become flesh so that Father did not take on human nature and the Father did not become the Christ.

Jesus is not just the human offspring promised to come through Eve (the promised one would be the Messiah – Hebrew, the Christ – Greek) but He is fully and completely God Almighty who took on flesh. The term Christ is not a term that He had in eternity but a term he took on as He took on flesh. It is a term in prophecy to be fulfilled in the future (from the OT viewpoint) and in actuality when Jesus Himself took on flesh, but it is not a term that is the nature of God. Therefore the term Christ and the term God are not interchangeable but are distinct.

My question was not ambiguous. Here it is straightforward once again. Is the Father the Christ? Yes or no? Or should we assume that your answer is the necessary: No the Father is not the Christ?

NN,
That is deflecting because I didn’t ask you those questions. My question is very simple, and I would like you to answer it, yes or no. Is the Father the Christ? Are you able to answer this question or do you choose to pass?

pinklight,
NN’s confusion could be helped if he would just answer the question. Is the Father the Christ? If NN believes that God and Christ are interchangeable then it should not take him long to answer the question. As soon as he answers, his confusion will certainly be evident.

This illustrates the fact that having a faulty premise distorts anything that is build on that premise. This is a very important thing for all of us to learn.

NN,
To be absolutely clear, is the Father the Christ? Yes or No?

NN,
Let me ask you from your view stated above, is the Father the Christ?

NN,
If you read the quotes that I gave, you will see the argument about Christ meaning the anointed one = the Messiah. The Word took on flesh. The flesh is the Messiah. Now if God wanted us to believe that the husband reflects God, He would have said that marriage reflects God and the church. As I said the term God is not the same as the term Christ as the Christ is human. It was the Word who took on flesh not the Father.

Your view that God is the same as Christ gives you a faulty view of the metaphor of the human Christ and the church. I have found no place at all that ever says that marriage reflects GOD and the church and if I am wrong you will have to correct me. You haven’t done that yet.

The church is made up of male and female and all of us reflect the church. At the same time all of us reflect Jesus as we are to be made in His image. None of us is to be left out in the reflection of BOTH the church and the Lord Jesus. To say that the male reflect Jesus alone would not be accurate. And to say that the female reflects the church alone would not be accurate.

If we start with a faulty premise, then the reflection will be muddy and unclear.