Okay, rather than derail Lon's thread with a subject that likely can't tag home with it's pinky as it concerns the O.P. I'll start a thread on the subject of man's long home and we can explore what scripture offers on the subject there. Sound good?
ECT Our triune God
- Thread starter Lon
- Start date
Okay, rather than derail Lon's thread with a subject that likely can't tag home with it's pinky as it concerns the O.P. I'll start a thread on the subject of man's long home and we can explore what scripture offers on the subject there. Sound good?
Arsenios
Well-known member
Yes, the Son of the Father -
The Lamb of God...
THAT one we shall see, face to face...
Because:
"No man hath seen God at any time." 1 John 4:12
This is why, in order to affirm both Scriptures, we must differentiate between God Incarnate and God the Father and the Holy Spirit. Face to face does not mean with the non-incarnate God, but with the post-incarnate Son of the Father... Whose human flesh sits at the right hand of the Father...
Arsenios
Arsenios
Well-known member
This clearly shows that "flesh and blood" means "corruption", but that glorified flesh and blood, such as Jesus had after His Resurrection, has no corruption whatsoever... It is fallen flesh and blood that cannot inherit the Kingdom, and so we all die physically...
Arsenios
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
I'm not sure this is completely accurate unless yer not including Paul in history.
Acts 17:28 KJV
28 For in him we live , and move , and have our being ; as certain also of your own poets have said , For we are also his offspring.
If God merely pervades creation, how is it we move and live in him?
The only thing we know for sure about the Holy Spirit is, Jesus said he is a separate entity who will declare what he hears.
John 16:13 KJV
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come , he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear , that shall he speak : and he will shew you things to come .
So far you have failed to prove there is any such thing as multi- phenomenal truth.
Before ever the earth was there have been two.
Proverbs 8:22 KJV
22 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth ; when there were no fountains abounding with water.
25 Before the mountains were settled , before the hills was I brought forth :
26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.
27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:
28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:
29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:
30 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;
31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.
John 5:17 KJV
17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto , and I work .
Last edited:
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Ah. Fair enough. I should have directed the question to him instead.
I've found that very few have given exhaustive attention to understanding God's timeless incommunicable attributes, including the progenitors and purveyors of all variants of doctrinal formulaic for Theology Proper.
You could not ask me that question honestly.
It is I who pointed out yer explanations so far have not allowed for it.
Do not think yer subtilty went unnoticed by me or any other reader.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Arsenios
Well-known member
How could anyone do so?
Man has no time for the timeless...
And no communication with the incommunicable...
Exhaustive attention would, from the human perspective, be attention to non-existence,
since existence is only found in time together with communicability...
Arsenios
Arsenios
Well-known member
John 6:53
Then Jesus said unto them,
"Verily, verily, I say unto you,
Except ye eat theFlesh of the Son of man,
and drink His Blood,
ye have no life in you."
Loos like Flesh and Blood to me...
A.
The words contain a mystery and are not to be literally applied.
You do not eat His actual flesh nor drink His blood.
Joh 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
Joh 6:48 I am that bread of life.
Joh 6:49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
Joh 6:50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
Joh 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
Joh 6:52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
Joh 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Joh 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
Joh 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
Joh 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
Joh 6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
LA
You could not ask me that question honestly.
It is I who pointed out yer explanations so far have not allowed for it.
Do not think yer subtilty went unnoticed by me or any other reader.
subtlety - (i had to) -
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Why would flesh and blood mean corruption? Do you think that our flesh and blood bodies are corrupted?
Was not the Lord Jesus made just like us? (Heb.2:17). Was His flesh and blood corrupted while He walked the earth before His death and resurrection?
If your answer is "yes" then please give me your Scriptual support for such an idea.
Last edited:
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Why in the world would you think that this particular subject would derail Lon's thread? The most fundamental thing we must know about the Second Person of the Godhead is that He never changes:
"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever" (Heb.13:8).
There are many on this thread who say that the Lord Jesus obtained a new nature in the first century but despite that fact He did not really change!
If someone can believe that, they will believe anything, no matter how ridiculous.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
You agree that there was only "One" on the throne and that One was God:
"And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him: And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads" (Rev.22:3-4).
How can anyone see the One who is on the throne but fail to see God?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
No, the term "Son of Man" was employed when referring to the Davidic King:
"I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed" (Dan.7:13-14).
When the Jews heard the Lord Jesus say that He is the Son of God and that God is His Father they understood that He was making Himself equal with God:
"Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his father, making himself equal with God" (Jn.5:18).
Last edited:
"No" would have sufficed.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Thanks. :sherlock: :e4e:
Okay, got it and can agree with it. How could it if it doesn't have any objective existence? Got it and can agree with it but before I could say wholly agree, I'd have to see the argument for phainomai as synonymous with eimi and ginomai. Not sure what this means. Do you mean generally speaking people presuppose phenomenon has a substance but it may not have one? If so, what would be an example? Or is that what the following is? "Dokeo, to think, has in contrast the subjective estimate which may be formed of a thing, not the objective showing and seeming which it may actually possess. One may dokei (think) something which may not have an objective reality. However, something that shines, phainei, must exist objectively." Got it and can agree with the distinction between phaino and hypostasis as well as the definition of hypostasis (disagree, of course that there is one hypostasis but understand what you're saying). Got it and can agree. I'd modify the thought that the son is only (and exclusively) an image but is His own hypostasis as the context here is speaking of God as Father rather than God as God. In other words, the express image of the Father's hypostasis (which isn't seen) is the hypostasis of the Son, which is. Jesus is "the spitting image" of the Father (as a hypostasis since the Father is a hypostasis) we might say similar to the creaturely father/son relationship. Can you contrast phenomenon and prosopon as you are using them? Why can't we just use prosopon and why the need to bring in "phenomenon"? Do you see a distinction being made in Scripture? We know there is one prosopon of God that can't be seen (at least this side of heaven) so this is consistent with your explanation of phaino above "This suggests that something may shine without anybody necessarily seeing it". I'd say intellect. Can we just say aseity? I'd say He's conscious of more than that about Himself--especially since the Son expresses the Father--but I think I get your point. I don't know about this. In verses where both rhema and logos are used in close proximity, the distinction being made seems to be the opposite--logos is the content or concept, rhema is the utterance. The difference will have a significant bearing on your theory for, as many Trinitarians maintain, God's Logos is a hypostasis as the concept of the Father's thought of Himself within His intellect (and so within the divine substance)... ...and the difference may be here: "God and His inherent Logos" whereas Trinitarians would say "God and His immanent Logos". As adjectives the difference between immanent and inherent is that immanent is naturally part of something; existing throughout and within something; inherent; integral; intrinsic; indwelling while inherent is naturally as part or consequence of something. http://the-difference-between.com/inherent/immanent Here it seems we have a time when the Son was not and, thus, God was not Father. This is why I argued mutability before. What is the essential difference between this and various forms of modalism? I'm familiar with them all so don't need a rundown but they all share the distinctive of non-hypostatic distinctions in God. Thus it would suffer from the same issues--when we get to the Incarnation, it seems we have a phenomenon becoming Incarnate who then must receive subsistence from His humanity. Which does a number on Chalcedon, assuming one holds to it. Not sure what you mean here. Procession is understood within the being of God prior to creation. Creation isn't even relevant (in this regard, but it does provide the solid foundation for and in the economy), nor does it need to be. Well maybe because there is . So why not just go for it?Thanks for the exchange--enjoying it. |
Is that the three persons of the Trinity rotfl'ing, Arsenios?
I laughed out loud, too.
Also to this,
"the Orthodox and their Latin and Protestant spawn"
LOL!
Seems to me Jesus retains His wounds--in the flesh.