ECT Our triune God

[Jerry Shugart]

That wont fly pard.

Moses wudn't at the foundation.

Just because you say that it won't fly means nothing. You did not answer my point about the difference between "from the foundation of the world" and "before the foundation of the world."

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You argument is with Paul who wrote:

1 Corinthians 15:45

So also it is written,
"The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL."
The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

If you will not hear Paul, I am not surprised you cannot hear anyone else...

I have already answered that verse and you had nothing to say about what I wrote:

"And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam a quickening spirit" (1 Cor.15:45).​

Here Paul is describing the Lord Jesus as being a "spirit." The Greek word translated "spirit" is the same Greek word which the Lord Jesus used here:

"Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have" (Lk.24:39).​

Paul is speaking of the Lord Jesus' spiritual, heavenly body. So this proves that neither a "flesh and bones body" or a "flesh and blood" body are essential to humanity. After all, the Lord Jesus remains a Man while in heaven even though He no longer has a flesh and bones body.

Even after being shown these facts you remain clueless.

Paul was using the natural body of Adam as well as the spiritual body of the Lord Jesus in order to illustrate the next verse:

"Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual" (1 Cor.15:46).​

So the order of what is said at Luke 24:39 is not to be taken in a literal sense unless you want to argue that the Lord Jesus was the last man.

Spirit filled Peter certainly did not think that the Lord Jesus was the last man because he addressed the unbelieving Jews in the following way:

"And when Peter saw it, he answered unto the people, Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk?" (Acts 3:12).​

Too bad that you were not around in the first century so you could have corrected Peter, saying "Peter, they are not men!"

You are clueless when it comes to understanding what is written in the Bible. You argue that there were no men between Adam and the Lord Jesus.

You argue that the Lord Jesus originally had just one nature and then when He acquired a second nature He did not change.

Who can take you seriously?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Since God knows the end before the beginning, the manhood of the Incarnate Christ existed "before" it came into existence.

Came into existence?

So according to you the Lord Jesus originally had only one nature and then at some point he acquired another nature.

But that is impossible because of what is said here:

"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever" (Heb.13:8).​

Why don't you try reconciling your idea with what is said there?

 

[fzappa13]

This is another way of expressing what I've been referring to for some time.

All historical views of Theology Proper, including all declared anathemas and modern pursuits of corrective minutiae, ALL share the foundational flaw of uni-phenomenality while never accounting for multi-phenomenality.

Everyone has worked out the Rubik's Cube with a different color on one side, each presuming that color to be the correct means of "solving" the Cube while only accounting for one two-dimensional side of the three-deminensional "puzzle".

Meanwhile, the remaining unresolved sides are non-uniform and unresolved because of a shared central omission by all who have differently worked the Cube to their presumably preferred color-uniformity on only one side (perhaps also getting one or more other sides more complete than other views).

The "culprits" are:
not understanding multi-phenomenality, the lack of necessary emphasis on the created heaven, and the complete meaning of God's Rhema as "bookends" for God's Logos relative to His objective aseity and other incommunicable attributes.

The "culprits"? Perception is indeed one but I think love or the lack thereof to be the more glaring shortcoming. I remember two years into my 24/7 attempt to understand the Bible I hit something of a wall. My approach was totally intellectual in that this was my natural predilection. I was offered the opportunity by a friend to go with him on his weekly Sabbath day visits to different rest homes and hospitals. The experience taught me much about love that, once I had digested it, led to a better intellectual understanding of some of the things that were eluding me. It was as if God was rewarding me for turning my attention to a more important concept. A Mat 23:23 moment if you will. It is fun to swim in the deep end of the doctrinal pool for those able and so inclined but I think pointing to a proper understanding of multi-phenomenality and other such intellectual constructs as a panacea for the variety of Christian theological contention might be painting with too broad a brush.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

The "culprits"? Perception is indeed one but I think love or the lack thereof to be the more glaring shortcoming. I remember two years into my 24/7 attempt to understand the Bible I hit something of a wall. My approach was totally intellectual in that this was my natural predilection. I was offered the opportunity by a friend to go with him on his weekly Sabbath day visits to different rest homes and hospitals. The experience taught me much about love that, once I had digested it, led to a better intellectual understanding of some of the things that were eluding me. It was as if God was rewarding me for turning my attention to a more important concept. A Mat 23:23 moment if you will. It is fun to swim in the deep end of the doctrinal pool for those able and so inclined but I think pointing to a proper understanding of multi-phenomenality and other such intellectual constructs as a panacea for the variety of Christian theological contention might be painting with too broad a brush.

Since I'm speaking entirely in the context of all this being ontological and intuitive rather than methodological and intellectual, we're somewhat similar to two ships passing in the night when approaching this/these topic/s.

With the appropriate priority and emphasis on intuiting such things, we wouldn't have such splintered understandings from rogue individual subjective usurpations of objective truth and reality.

Ontology and methodology shouldn't be an artificial binary, and they're not for me. Just as intuition and intellect aren't from my perspective, but most are trapped in false dichotomies.

Since love abounds in knowledge, I'd profer you're still too staunchly embracing dichotomy by juxtaposing them one against the other.

 

[Arsenios]

The Hypostasis is the Who of the Ousia.

Nope.

Then if not the Hypostasis, would you please LOCATE the WHO of God...

The hypostasis "has" the ousia as the wealth of be-ing.

So does a WHO have the wealth?

And is the WHO the Hypostasis?

Another individuated hypostasis as an exact impress would also "have" its own ousia.

How about a discernable hypostasis? You "individuated" is heading into straw-man-dom...

Cannot more than one WHO own the same unlimited (Divine) wealth? Three partners in human terms can own one company, for instance... This is not that unthinkable as you are portraying it...

Nope.

Your "Nope"s are not helpful...

There you go again with that horizontality of uni-phenomenality, and a God who can't even enter His own creation to dwell.

You keep asserting this without showing it...

This is the exact jacked-up hyper-inferential silliness that has plagued the faith for 1.7 millennia.

I know, and you are the only one in two thousand years to finally figure it out, but all that does is feed your vainglory, and does not help me even a little...

No.

Hooray! No "Nope"!

It establishes nothing but speculative and coercive conjecture by deduction and presupposition. And it leaves no apologetic whatsoever for the Holy Spirit as an individuated hypostasis.

Exactly so, because we were not discussing the Holy Spirit...

The uncreated phenomenon...

Do you pray to the uncreated phenomenon?
"Dear Sir..."???

impressed the uncreated noumenon

So the UP impressed the UN?

Such that the UP is comprised of Self-P and Self-N, and the Self-P can make an impression on the Self N in such a way so as to:

to re-present God's singular hypostasis in created phenomenon.

So it is this impressing of the hypostasis of the father upon the Son that makes the Hypostasis of the Father ACCESSIBLE to creation? And that without this,l creation cannot be accessed by the Father?

Have I got this right???

You think the impress IS the wax.

The impressor impresses the impressed...

Thereby the impressor conveys the impression to the impressed by impressing itself upon the impressed...

So I am not sure how you think I understand this a-wrong...

With respect to the Son, the Father is the impressor, the Son the impressed (wax)...

With respect to man, the Son is the impressor, and man is the wax...

You agree??

You won't hear that charakter is the engraving, not the engravED object OF engraving. It stood for the tool, not the object being carved, stamped or engraved. And it meant the impression itself.

It is both, according to Thayer:


1 the instrument used for engraving or carving
2 the mark stamped upon that instrument or wrought out on it
A a mark or figure burned in (Lev. 13:28) or stamped on, an impression
B the exact expression (the image) of any person or thing, marked likeness, precise reproduction in every respect, i.e facsimile

It feels like you are ranting a little here...

The impression with its particular features was considered as the exact RE-PRESENTATION of the object whose image it bore. And autos with the articular means same; not different objectively. It's the same objective reality.

Perhaps a branding iron would be a good visual - Red hot, it places the same mark on all the cows... Won't wash off... But the Iron and the Brand are both included in the meaning of the word: χαρακτηρ

And from charakter is charax, to engrave or impress a mark; a strong stake of wood used in ancient fortifications. Again, not the markED, but the mark. Ultimately, it was the stake driven into the dust of the ground of creation. The Word become flesh.

This is your THRUSTED Logos?

The Son as the charakter is the impression, not that which is being impressed. Not the wax, but the impression IN the wax. Not the markED, but the mark.

Example... The charakter would be the inscription on a piece of jewelry, NOT the necklace or ring itself.

Thank-you...

Arsenios

 

[fzappa13]

Since I'm speaking entirely in the context of all this being ontological and intuitive rather than methodological and intellectual, we're somewhat similar to two ships passing in the night when approaching this/these topic/s.

With the appropriate priority and emphasis on intuiting such things, we wouldn't have such splintered understandings from rogue individual subjective usurpations of objective truth and reality.

Ontology and methodology shouldn't be an artificial binary, and they're not for me. Just as intuition and intellect aren't from my perspective, but most are trapped in false dichotomies.

Since love abounds in knowledge, I'd profer you're still too staunchly embracing dichotomy by juxtaposing them one against the other.

Okay, let me try it this way.

1Cor 13:2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

 

[Arsenios]

I have already answered that verse and you had nothing to say about what I wrote:

"And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam a quickening spirit" (1 Cor.15:45).​

Here Paul is describing the Lord Jesus as being a "spirit."

You seem to have skipped over the part about Jesus being the LAST ADAM... FIRST MAN, ADAM, was one thing... LAST MAN, ADAM, quite another...

You are calling the last first, and the first last...

And you are also overlooking the verb pertaining to Jesus Christ: "WAS MADE"... Because you are insisting that He was PRE-EXISTENT MAN... Which would make the first man, Adam, the second man...

A.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You seem to have skipped over the part about Jesus being the LAST ADAM... FIRST MAN, ADAM, was one thing... LAST MAN, ADAM, quite another...

You are calling the last first, and the first last...

And you are also overlooking the verb pertaining to Jesus Christ: "WAS MADE"... Because you are insisting that He was PRE-EXISTENT MAN... Which would make the first man, Adam, the second man...

You can't seem to grasp the fact that the order is not to be taken literally. That is why you argue that there were no men on the earth between Adam and the Lord Jesus Christ.

But the Scriptures do speak of men who lived on the earth between Adam and the Lord Jesus:

"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" (Gen.6:5).​

You make a mockery out of the Scriptures.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Just because you say that it won't fly means nothing. You did not answer my point about the difference between "from the foundation of the world" and "before the foundation of the world."

That's because it has no bearing on the TRUTH of the matter.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

The impressor impresses the impressed...

Thereby the impressor conveys the impression to the impressed by impressing itself upon the impressed...

So I am not sure how you think I understand this a-wrong...

With respect to the Son, the Father is the impressor, the Son the impressed (wax)...Arsenios

:banana:



John 5:20 KJV


20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth : and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel .

With respect to man, the Son is the impressor, and man is the wax...

You agree??

I do.

But I'm still wonderin' why you dont believe this......

John 5:21 KJV


21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will .

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Since love abounds in knowledge, I'd profer you're still too staunchly embracing dichotomy by juxtaposing them one against the other.

No my brother.

Knowledge abounds in love.

And it is, unfortunately for our old man egos, the last thing the Lord adds to us.

When he does it, a man no longer claims his own understanding, nor the name of any manmade religion.

Nor does he need those books Arse recommended to learn what love is.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

For those with an ear to hear........

to the Greeks

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Do not faint, for due time do take awhile.



1 Peter 5:10 KJV


10 But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while , make you perfect , stablish , strengthen , settle you.

:surf:

Peace.

 

[Arsenios]

You can't seem to grasp the fact that the order is not to be taken literally. That is why you argue that there were no men on the earth between Adam and the Lord Jesus Christ.

But the Scriptures do speak of men who lived on the earth between Adam and the Lord Jesus:

"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" (Gen.6:5).​

You make a mockery out of the Scriptures.

There were only two living men until Christ, the first Adam, who was alive and died, and after him, all were dead until Christ, the second Adam, Who was made a quickening Spirit for us all who are in Him...

The wickedness of man is the wickedness of the dead in Adam...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

:banana:

That's pretty 'thousiastic fer an olde tymer like you...

John 5:20 KJV


20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth : and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel .

Yaarp...

I do.

This is lookin' better'n better...

But I'm still wonderin' why you dont believe this......

John 5:21 KJV

21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will .[/QUOiosTE]

That is normally after the impress of the hypostasis of the Son upon the human hypostasis when a man is baptized into Christ, like Paul was...

There is still normally a whole lot of "the race" to run before the Son does much quickening... But He CAN quicken whenever and wherever He will, sho' 'nuff...

Arsenios

 

[patrick jane]

That's pretty 'thousiastic fer an olde tymer like you...



Yaarp...



This is lookin' better'n better...

But I'm still wonderin' why you dont believe this......

John 5:21 KJV

21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will .[/QUOiosTE]

That is normally after the impress of the hypostasis of the Son upon the human hypostasis when a man is baptized into Christ, like Paul was...

There is still normally a whole lot of "the race" to run before the Son does much quickening... But He CAN quicken whenever and wherever He will, sho' 'nuff...

Arsenios

Acts 1:5 KJV -


Matthew 3:11 KJV -

Mark 1:8 KJV -

Luke 3:16 KJV -

John 1:26 KJV - John 1:33 KJV -



Spirit Baptism Saves, Not Water Baptism - Jesus is Savior
www.jesus-is-.../spirit_baptism_saves.ht...
Spirit Baptism Saves, Not Water Baptism. Scripture tells us that John came baptizing in water but that, "There is one who will come after me. . . He will baptize

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

You did not answer my point about the ...

Speaking of answering things:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4350641#post4350641

Still waiting.

AMR

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

No my brother.

Knowledge abounds in love.

Philippians 1:9 would disagree with you and agree with me.

And it is, unfortunately for our old man egos, the last thing the Lord adds to us.

When he does it, a man no longer claims his own understanding, nor the name of any manmade religion.

Nor does he need those books Arse recommended to learn what love is.

:surf:

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Okay, let me try it this way.

1Cor 13:2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

It helps, though, to know the actual meaning of agape as love; and to know the difference between the knowledge (gnosis) in this verse and the knowledge (epignosis) that love abounds in.

It's still not a dichotomy for love and knowledge, the former abounding in the latter. Just gotta know what KIND of knowledge the latter is.

I don't disagree about love. Just most people's wrong perception of what it is means and IS.

:surf: