God is infinite and eternal

[Right Divider]

If think an infinite God is a falsehood then YOU are the falsehood.

Your pantheistic "infinite god" is a falsehood.

You keep throwing out that term without even the slightest attempt to support it with anything other than your own puffed-up opinion.

Use God's Word instead of your own opinion, then I might listen to what you have to say.

Pride is a killer.

Then stop your being prideful.

 

[Prizebeatz1]

Your pantheistic "infinite god" is a falsehood.

You keep throwing out that term without even the slightest attempt to support it with anything other than your own puffed-up opinion.

Use God's Word instead of your own opinion, then I might listen to what you have to say.


Then stop your being prideful.

You are delusional.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Right Divider]

You are delusional.

No, you are. See how that works?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Confusing Metaphysical Categories Leads to Error Concerning the Incarnation

Confusing Metaphysical Categories Leads to Error Concerning the Incarnation

God is infinite and eternal. If Jesus is presumed to be God, then how is he infinite and eternal? In what way?

If we conclude that Jesus' spirit is infinite and eternal then we admit the story is not literal. He must not have died for our sins because we are saying a part of God died and is therefore not infinite and eternal.

If we move toward redefining death then we toy with the idea that he did not really die and the story quits having meaning because he did not die for our sins. Did he or did he not die on the cross?

Further, the idea that Jesus was both human and divine suggests that his humanity and divinity are separate and therefore God is not infinite.

Perhaps the story of Jesus has another explanation. Comments, suggestions, questions welcomed.

Mixing metaphyical categories between the divine and the human lies at the heart of your errors above. You confuse the anhypostatic and enhypostatic issues concerning the incarnation. The human nature assumed by God the Son was not a human person, but a human nature. Jesus Christ can have a fully human nature without also taking a pre-existing human personhood. God the Son took the form of a servant (Philippians 2:7), but not a servant. He did not even take an existing human genotype or embryo. :AMR:

As Sanders (see book link below) rightly observes:

On the one hand, the human nature of Jesus Christ is in fact a nature joined to a person, and therefore enhypostatic, or personalized. But the person who personalizes the human nature of Christ is not a created human person (like all the other persons personalizing the other human natures we encounter); rather it is the eternal second person of the Trinity. So the human nature of Christ is personal, but with a personhood from above.​

​

Considered in itself, on the other hand, and abstracted from its personalizing by the eternal person of the Son, the human nature of Jesus Christ is simply human nature, and is not personal. The human nature of Christ, therefore, is both anhypostatic (not personal in itself) and enhypostatic (personalized by union with the eternal person of the Son).​

We must avoid anachronistically importing how "the rest of us define" person when speaking of the theological doctrine of the Trinity or the Incarnation. Modern notions do not work well in this arena and will lead to the errors you are flirting around with now.

The simple litmus test of a proper understanding of the incarnation is the answer to the question "Could the person we call Jesus have existed without the overshadowing of Mary by the Holy Spirit?"

There is only one right answer: No.

Why? Such a person known as "Jesus" to have existed without the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit would have been the result of natural union between man and woman, thereby he would have been yet another fallen man just as you or I were at our birth. Such a fallen man would have been in need of the Good News, the works of God alone for his re-birth just all us sinners require.

Further, to your question about His death, the death of our Lord was a necessity:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...hat-says-you&p=4924918&viewfull=1#post4924918

Both natures, divine and human are joined in one Person, yet it was not as God that Jesus Christ died, though the Person that was God died. God is said to have purchased His Church with His own blood; not that the Godhead could suffer, but He that was God suffered. So of the man Jesus Christ it may be said that He is omnipotent, yet not omnipotent as man, but the Person that was and is man, is omnipotent. So the Person that is God died, though not as God, but rather died in respect of His human nature, and as He was man.

The Lord Jesus Christ fully God and fully man in an indissoluble union whereby the second subsistence of the Trinity assumed a human nature that cannot be separated, divided, mixed, or confused.

One can best understand this mystical union (together united in one distinguishable subsistence) by examining what it is not, thus from the process of elimination determine what it must be.

The mystical union of the divine and human natures of Our Lord is not:

1. a denial that our Lord was truly God (Ebionites, Elkasites, Arians);
2. a dissimilar or different substance (anomoios) with the Father (semi-Arianism);
3. a denial that our Lord had a genuine human soul (Apollinarians);
4. a denial of a distinct subsistence in the Trinity (Dynamic Monarchianism);
5. God acting merely in the forms of the Son and Spirit (Modalistic Monarchianism/Sabellianism/United Pentecostal Church);
6. a mixture or change when the two natures were united (Eutychianism/Monophysitism);
7. two distinct subsistences (often called persons) (Nestorianism);
8. a denial of the true humanity of Christ (docetism);
9. a view that God the Son laid aside all or some of His divine attributes (kenoticism);
10. a view that there was a communication of the attributes between the divine and human natures (Lutheranism, with respect to the Lord's Supper); and
11. a view that our Lord existed independently as a human before God entered His body (Adoptionism).

The Chalcedonian Definition is one of the few statements that all of orthodox Christendom recognizes as the most faithful summary of the teachings of the Scriptures on the matter of the Incarnate Christ. The Chalcedonian Definition was the answer to the many heterodoxies identified above during the third century.

Recommended reading to dig deeper and understand more:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0830815376
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/080544422X

AMR

 

[Prizebeatz1]

No, you are. See how that works?

You've lost your credibility.

 

[Right Divider]

You've lost your credibility.

Because the great and mighty Prizebeatz1 says so?

No, Mr Pantheist, you never had any credibility to start with. You just come here with your vain opinions.

You deny the God of Word and the LORD Jesus Christ.

 

[Prizebeatz1]

God is infinite and eternal

Because the great and mighty Prizebeatz1 says so?

No, Mr Pantheist, you never had any credibility to start with. You just come here with your vain opinions.

You deny the God of Word and the LORD Jesus Christ.

Because it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know nothing can separate from what is infinite.

Your unfavorable opinion of me is a small price to pay.

I deny the misunderstood interpretations.





Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Right Divider]

Because it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know nothing can separate from what is infinite.

Once again, you throw out your pantheistic terminology and ideas as if they are automatically true.

Your unfavorable opinion of me is a small price to pay.

I have no opinion of you. I don't know you. Your idea are what I am calling garbage.

I deny the misunderstood interpretations.

So do I.

 

[Prizebeatz1]

God is infinite and eternal

Once again, you throw out your pantheistic terminology and ideas as if they are automatically true.


I have no opinion of you. I don't know you. Your idea are what I am calling garbage.


So do I.

By definition nothing can separate from what is infinite. You have no business trying to refute it.

Someone who admittedly thinks the idea of an infinite God is garbage is seriously disturbed and clearly on the side of Satan.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Jerry Shugart]

No need for specifics. It's a generalization.

The infinite eternal God.

I keep waiting for you to say something that makes sense. I wonder why you even come on this forum unless it is to leave people scratching their head. You certainly have not contributed anything which is of the slightest value.

I guess that you must be one of those people who just like to listen to what you say because no one seems to care about your opinions.

 

[Prizebeatz1]

I keep waiting for you to say something that makes sense. I wonder why you even come on this forum unless it is to leave people scratching their head. You certainly have not contributed anything which is of the slightest value.

I guess that you must be one of those people who just like to listen to what you say because no one seems to care about your opinions.

Your playing dumb is only fooling yourself.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Right Divider]

By definition nothing can separate from what is infinite. You have no business trying to refute it.

Someone who admittedly thinks the idea of an infinite God is garbage is seriously disturbed and clearly on the side of Satan.

You're like a broken record.....

Your idea about the nature of God is NOT what the God of the Bible says about Himself. I don't care what kind of crap terminology you try to apply.

Your ideas are anti-Biblical and are opposed to God.

God CREATED the universe. The universe is NOT ITSELF God.

Man was created IN THE IMAGE of God and as some sort of "piece" of God.

You try to take your man-made idea and force them upon God, but it doesn't work that way.

 

[Prizebeatz1]

You're like a broken record.....

Your idea about the nature of God is NOT what the God of the Bible says about Himself. I don't care what kind of crap terminology you try to apply.

Your ideas are anti-Biblical and are opposed to God.

God CREATED the universe. The universe is NOT ITSELF God.

Man was created IN THE IMAGE of God and as some sort of "piece" of God.

You try to take your man-made idea and force them upon God, but it doesn't work that way.

Oh I'm really flinching now.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Right Divider]

Oh I'm really flinching now.

I'm so proud of you.

 

[keypurr]

God is infinite and eternal. If Jesus is presumed to be God, then how is he infinite and eternal? In what way?

If we conclude that Jesus' spirit is infinite and eternal then we admit the story is not literal. He must not have died for our sins because we are saying a part of God died and is therefore not infinite and eternal.

If we move toward redefining death then we toy with the idea that he did not really die and the story quits having meaning because he did not die for our sins. Did he or did he not die on the cross?

Further, the idea that Jesus was both human and divine suggests that his humanity and divinity are separate and therefore God is not infinite.

Perhaps the story of Jesus has another explanation. Comments, suggestions, questions welcomed.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

How about Jesus is not God, only his Father is.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Prizebeatz1]

God is infinite and eternal

How about Jesus is not God, only his Father is.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using TheologyOnline mobile app

That's one way to see it too. I think it's helpful to explore the possibilities. Perhaps there's more to it than we think. Perhaps there's a higher meaning.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL