ECT Concerning hypostasis:

[Cross Reference]

By one medical definition it means, “failure of a gene to produce its usual effect when coupled with another gene that is epistatic toward it”.

epistatic: in the singular, Interaction of a gene and in particular the suppression of the effect of that gene upon another..

These definitions cannot be said to be properly applied if there is no argument concerning the governing factor of why a gene might or might not be in control within the confines of the body which houses them. That brings us to the question of what is the controlling factor of which gene will reign over the other?


From Wikipedia

Hypostasis (philosophy and religion)

The concept of hypostasis as the shared existence of spiritual and corporal entities has been used in a number of religious and intellectual settings. The word hypostasis (Greek ὑπόστασις) means underlying state or underlying substance, and is the fundamental reality that supports all else.

In Neoplatonism the hypostasis of the Soul, Intellect (nous) and the One was addressed by Plotinus.[1] In Christian theology, a hypostasis or person is one of the three elements of the Holy Trinity.[2]

Question: While we can safely assume the Greek is correct, we cannot safely assume that it has been correctly applied to Jesus Christ. I.e., given that the spirit is always subject to the flesh per (1Cor14:32), which gene controlled Jesus? Was it the gene of Adam or of God? If God, then it can be said that He was imposing His will upon Jesus. If the gene of Adam, then we can say Jesus willingly subjected it to the gene of God, given His allegiance to God when tempted by the Devil. Given the ultimate intention of God to have “many sons brought unto glory” (Heb. 2:10), which process do you think would accomplish what He was after from Jesus? And did not up this process, upon its successful completion, make Jesus to be the perfect and now glorified human representation of God. Was this not what happened?

 

[oatmeal]

By one medical definition it means, “failure of a gene to produce its usual effect when coupled with another gene that is epistatic toward it”.

epistatic: in the singular, Interaction of a gene and in particular the suppression of the effect of that gene upon another..

These definitions cannot be said to be properly applied if there is no argument concerning the governing factor of why a gene might or might not be in control within the confines of the body which houses them. That brings us to the question of what is the controlling factor of which gene will reign over the other?


From Wikipedia

Hypostasis (philosophy and religion)

The concept of hypostasis as the shared existence of spiritual and corporal entities has been used in a number of religious and intellectual settings. The word hypostasis (Greek ὑπόστασις) means underlying state or underlying substance, and is the fundamental reality that supports all else.

In Neoplatonism the hypostasis of the Soul, Intellect (nous) and the One was addressed by Plotinus.[1] In Christian theology, a hypostasis or person is one of the three elements of the Holy Trinity.[2]

Question: While we can safely assume the Greek is correct, we cannot safely assume that it has been correctly applied to Jesus Christ. I.e., given that the spirit is always subject to the flesh per (1Cor14:32), which gene controlled Jesus? Was it the gene of Adam or of God? If God, then it can be said that He was imposing His will upon Jesus. If the gene of Adam, then we can say Jesus willingly subjected it to the gene of God, given His allegiance to God when tempted by the Devil. Given the ultimate intention of God to have “many sons brought unto glory” (Heb. 2:10), which process do you think would accomplish what He was after from Jesus? And did not up this process, upon its successful completion, make Jesus to be the perfect and now glorified human representation of God. Was this not what happened?

When we look at the conception of Jesus Christ, we must include in our thinking pertinent scriptures regarding conception and genealogy.

Genesis 1:11-12,21-22,24 parents only have offspring after its kind.

Mary being human cannot cohabitate with any spiritual being, whether it be God or angels or devils

For the human egg in Mary to be impregnated, it has to be impregnated with a sperm of the same kind, that is, human sperm.

Since God is the Father of Jesus Christ, God had to create a human sperm in Mary.

Since God is the source, the creator of that sperm, He is the Father of Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ came in the flesh I John 4:2

 

[Cross Reference]

When we look at the conception of Jesus Christ, we must include in our thinking pertinent scriptures regarding conception and genealogy.

Genesis 1:11-12,21-22,24 parents only have offspring after its kind.

Mary being human cannot cohabitate with any spiritual being, whether it be God or angels or devils

For the human egg in Mary to be impregnated, it has to be impregnated with a sperm of the same kind, that is, human sperm.

Since God is the Father of Jesus Christ, God had to create a human sperm in Mary.

Since God is the source, the creator of that sperm, He is the Father of Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ came in the flesh I John 4:2

I will guess you mean to imply, "merely human". And how could the seed of the Father be "merely human", absent the sinless Divine "Nature" of Him?

To us who are born again, it what mean being "born twice". So we can deduce Jesus was "first born" from above.

 

[Ann Authur]

By one medical definition it means, “failure of a gene to produce its usual effect when coupled with another gene that is epistatic toward it”.

epistatic: in the singular, Interaction of a gene and in particular the suppression of the effect of that gene upon another..

These definitions cannot be said to be properly applied if there is no argument concerning the governing factor of why a gene might or might not be in control within the confines of the body which houses them. That brings us to the question of what is the controlling factor of which gene will reign over the other?


From Wikipedia

Hypostasis (philosophy and religion)

The concept of hypostasis as the shared existence of spiritual and corporal entities has been used in a number of religious and intellectual settings. The word hypostasis (Greek ὑπόστασις) means underlying state or underlying substance, and is the fundamental reality that supports all else.

In Neoplatonism the hypostasis of the Soul, Intellect (nous) and the One was addressed by Plotinus.[1] In Christian theology, a hypostasis or person is one of the three elements of the Holy Trinity.[2]

Question: While we can safely assume the Greek is correct, we cannot safely assume that it has been correctly applied to Jesus Christ. I.e., given that the spirit is always subject to the flesh per (1Cor14:32), which gene controlled Jesus? Was it the gene of Adam or of God? If God, then it can be said that He was imposing His will upon Jesus. If the gene of Adam, then we can say Jesus willingly subjected it to the gene of God, given His allegiance to God when tempted by the Devil. Given the ultimate intention of God to have “many sons brought unto glory” (Heb. 2:10), which process do you think would accomplish what He was after from Jesus? And did not up this process, upon its successful completion, make Jesus to be the perfect and now glorified human representation of God. Was this not what happened?

Please help me understand what you are saying. Are you saying that God is made up of genetic material, that he actually had a gene to contribute to the make up of Jesus' DNA?

 

[oatmeal]

I will guess you mean to imply, "merely human". And how could the seed of the Father be "merely human", absent the sinless Divine "Nature" of Him?

To us who are born again, it what mean being "born twice". So we can deduce Jesus was "first born" from above.

You concept of "merely human" is interesting.

Let me list some "merely human" believers and some the things they did.

Moses parted the Red Sea, and then closed it up by believing God.

Samson obliterated 1000 of the enemies of God with a jaw bone of an ***.

Joshua made the Jordan River, in flood stage, stop and pile up while the children of Israel walked through on dry land.

Joshua, by believing God, and his leadership, caused the walls of Jericho to fall flat.

Ruth, Esther

Joshua had God stop the sun and moon in the sky for about 24 hours.

David, as a teenage shepherd, brought down a gigantic man of war, Goliath.

Peter walked on water, he and John healed the lame man, people thronged him and wanted that his shadow fall upon the sick for they believed his shadow would heal them, He raised Dorcas from the dead,

Elijah slew about 450 prophets of Baal and God honored his sacrifice with fire from heaven

Elisha, Hezekiah, Jehosaphat, Abraham and Sarah having a son when both were well aged.

Which of those things have you done?

Mere man?

Who are you referring to?

Billy Graham? the pope? yourself?

When you exceed the miracles and healings that they did, then you can call them mere

Until then, you disgrace those men and women and God whom they served.

You need to get right with God, now.

 

[Cross Reference]

You concept of "merely human" is interesting.

And your inferring I mean Jesus, is a total misrepresentation of my words.

Repent. Start with an apology.

 

[OCTOBER23]

HYPOSTASIS = TRIUNITY = TRINITY = BALONEY

 

[Cross Reference]

HYPOSTASIS = TRIUNITY = TRINITY = BALONEY

Thanks for your testimony..

 

[oatmeal]

And your inferring I mean Jesus, is a total misrepresentation of my words.

Repent. Start with an apology.

Yes, Jesus was a mere man.

He knew it and was smart enough to love and obey God his Father, because sons are to honor their fathers and mothers

Mere men who believe God do great works

That would put you in the category of being less than mere.

Believers lead powerful lives, even though they are "mere men"

You disgrace God's believers, why don't you believe God?

 

[oatmeal]

HYPOSTASIS = TRIUNITY = TRINITY = BALONEY

Right on!

 

[Cross Reference]

Yes, Jesus was a mere man.

He knew it and was smart enough to love and obey God his Father, because sons are to honor their fathers and mothers

Mere men who believe God do great works

That would put you in the category of being less than mere.

Believers lead powerful lives, even though they are "mere men"

You disgrace God's believers, why don't you believe God?

And no "mere man" could ever be born sinless, you stupid ---!

 

[oatmeal]

And no "mere man" could ever be born sinless, you stupid ---!

How about a chapter and verse?

How about truth instead of your opinion?

So, you parted a lake yet? or a pond? Moses parted the Red Sea

You stopped the sun and moon in the sky yet? Joshua did.

You do any miracles yet, like Philip did? Acts 8:6

Those mere men believed God.

What is your problem?

I admire them for their conviction and courage to do God's will rather then offer ignorant opinions.

Mere men who believe God do mighty works

Jesus is one those mere men who believed God and did mighty works

 

[jsjohnnt]

You concept of "merely human" is interesting.

Let me list some "merely human" believers and some the things they did.

Moses parted the Red Sea, and then closed it up by believing God.

Samson obliterated 1000 of the enemies of God with a jaw bone of an ***.

Joshua made the Jordan River, in flood stage, stop and pile up while the children of Israel walked through on dry land.

Joshua, by believing God, and his leadership, caused the walls of Jericho to fall flat.

Ruth, Esther

Joshua had God stop the sun and moon in the sky for about 24 hours.

David, as a teenage shepherd, brought down a gigantic man of war, Goliath.

Peter walked on water, he and John healed the lame man, people thronged him and wanted that his shadow fall upon the sick for they believed his shadow would heal them, He raised Dorcas from the dead,

Elijah slew about 450 prophets of Baal and God honored his sacrifice with fire from heaven

Elisha, Hezekiah, Jehosaphat, Abraham and Sarah having a son when both were well aged.

Which of those things have you done?

Mere man?

Who are you referring to?

Billy Graham? the pope? yourself?

When you exceed the miracles and healings that they did, then you can call them mere

Until then, you disgrace those men and women and God whom they served.

You need to get right with God, now.

Hnag in there. You are talking to an unbeliever. Maybe your words will pull him out the pit he is digging for himself

 

[Cross Reference]

How about a chapter and verse?

No. You don't need one. nor really want any. Also, willful ignorance doesn't deserve any.

 

[Cross Reference]

Hnag in there. You are talking to an unbeliever. Maybe your words will pull him out the pit he is digging for himself

You can't be serious?! All along, I thought I was simply dealing with a mis-guided individual, a mental cripple, and now I see you are more than that.

 

[nikolai_42]

By one medical definition it means, “failure of a gene to produce its usual effect when coupled with another gene that is epistatic toward it”.

epistatic: in the singular, Interaction of a gene and in particular the suppression of the effect of that gene upon another..

These definitions cannot be said to be properly applied if there is no argument concerning the governing factor of why a gene might or might not be in control within the confines of the body which houses them. That brings us to the question of what is the controlling factor of which gene will reign over the other?


From Wikipedia

Hypostasis (philosophy and religion)

The concept of hypostasis as the shared existence of spiritual and corporal entities has been used in a number of religious and intellectual settings. The word hypostasis (Greek ὑπόστασις) means underlying state or underlying substance, and is the fundamental reality that supports all else.

In Neoplatonism the hypostasis of the Soul, Intellect (nous) and the One was addressed by Plotinus.[1] In Christian theology, a hypostasis or person is one of the three elements of the Holy Trinity.[2]

Question: While we can safely assume the Greek is correct, we cannot safely assume that it has been correctly applied to Jesus Christ. I.e., given that the spirit is always subject to the flesh per (1Cor14:32), which gene controlled Jesus? Was it the gene of Adam or of God? If God, then it can be said that He was imposing His will upon Jesus. If the gene of Adam, then we can say Jesus willingly subjected it to the gene of God, given His allegiance to God when tempted by the Devil. Given the ultimate intention of God to have “many sons brought unto glory” (Heb. 2:10), which process do you think would accomplish what He was after from Jesus? And did not up this process, upon its successful completion, make Jesus to be the perfect and now glorified human representation of God. Was this not what happened?

{Emphasis mine}

If you look at the way that verse about the spirits of the prophets is used, it is simply saying that the prophet can restrain when and how he speaks - not necessarily what is spoken. He could elect not to give all the message that he receives (or understands). But it isn't the right conclusion to say that some gene is ultimately controlling the prophet (or, indeed, Christ). They that are the led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God - Christ being the primary and complete example of this.

 

[TFTn5280]

Please help me understand what you are saying. Are you saying that God is made up of genetic material, that he actually had a gene to contribute to the make up of Jesus' DNA?

Hi Ann, and welcome: I can't tell you how much I think you are asking the right question here. If ~ as is assumed if not clearly stated in his "gene" introduction ~ CR intimates that Mary was impregnated with God's sperm ~ for from where else would Godman Jesus receive the God gene ~ then at best all you could have in this "one nature" view is Jesus, the demigod: part God and part man! He would be God's genetic son, yes ~ as ridiculously absurd as that statement is ~ but he would also be Mary's genetic son as well, producing a hybrid Jesus, who was UNLIKE both God and man! More than a mere man, Jesus would be less than the God who created him, by inseminating the mother Mary: in other words, an alloy jesus is all you would have; jesus, the demigod.

And to those who don't know exactly what CR is doing here, and agree with it ~ I want to caution you with the most emphatic language: No where in the conception accounts does it even intimate that Mary was impregnated with God's sperm. In fact, the only "sperm" passages contained in Scripture with regards to Jesus, are the ones which state that he was born of Abraham's seed, literally "sperma" in the Greek, and David's seed, again literally "sperma," and elsewhere where Jesus is said to be of the genome (literally) of David and (literally) the fruit of David's genitals.

NOW, am I saying that the sperm which impregnated Mary was the sperm of David and Abraham? No, I am NOT! I am saying that beyond those accounts the Bible is silent in regards to Mary's conception, other than to say that the Spirit of God came upon her and she conceived. What gen-erated her pregnancy is a mystery. Far be it better for us to leave it at that, than it is to posit any kind of sperm/gene theory into the equation. For to do so not only introduces speculation into the account, but as well, it presupposes some kind of physicality as it relates to Divinity. That is to say, it does not take "sperm" or "gene" to impregnate Mary and introduce the Son of God into humanity. It takes a miracle! Let's leave it at that. . . For let me tell you, if you are going to posit that it was truly sperm that impregnated Mary, then you are but a Divine orgasm away from being a Mormon.

I would be glad to explain the hypostatic union, as it relates to Jesus AND not to conterprary biological research, if you would like. Until then, good day. T

 

[Cross Reference]

{Emphasis mine}

If you look at the way that verse about the spirits of the prophets is used, it is simply saying that the prophet can restrain when and how he speaks - not necessarily what is spoken. He could elect not to give all the message that he receives (or understands). But it isn't the right conclusion to say that some gene is ultimately controlling the prophet (or, indeed, Christ). They that are the led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God - Christ being the primary and complete example of this.

How 'bout we don't begin splitting hairs. Please address the context of the overall question I posited?

Which "gene" did Jesus live by?

 

[nikolai_42]

How 'bout we don't begin splitting hairs. Please address the context of the overall question I posited?

Which "gene" did Jesus live by?

My response was based on what I read as the contention that genetics was a determining factor (just a question of whose). But the way you appeared to be using I Cor 14:32 didn't seem to square with the rest of the post. That is, it seems to be your contention that the spirit (whatever one it is) does the bidding of the genetics (or is constrained by it). Put another way, the spirit can do nothing unless the flesh does it on behalf of the spirit. Your question then becomes (if I'm reading it correctly) "Which genes submitted to God?" But it does not follow, then, that God is imposing His will if it is some "Divine genetics" which submits to Him. So I can't carry the point past that reference verse.

Then again, maybe I'm not following what you are really saying. It seems really "mixed".

A passing note :

Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
John 10:17-18

What is doing the "laying down" here? The "gene" of Adam or of God?

 

[jsjohnnt]

TFTn5280 writes: "In fact, the only "sperm" passages contained in Scripture with regards to Jesus, are the ones which state that he was born of Abraham's seed, liturally (literally - no doubt a high church error (liturally) stemming from liturgical pracitices of worship ) "sperma" in the Greek, and David's seed, again literally "sperma," and elsewhere where Jesus is said to be of the genome (literally) of David and (literally) the fruit of David's genitals."
__________________________________

With 5280's reminders of the "seed" of Abraham and David, we know that "sperma" is not about sperm and the sexual act, but about genealogies and heritage. Thanks for the reminder.