Cheryl Schatz

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!