ECT Our triune God

[1Mind1Spirit]

And sophia (wisdom) is something else altogether.

Specially if yer callin' it intuition, hunh?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Specially if yer callin' it intuition, hunh?

I wouldn't know. I don't do that.

:idea:

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

On one of the sites to which you gave a link we read:

"At Christmas we celebrate that Jesus became human that he might save us. Without ceasing to be fully divine, he took on full humanity."​

According to this "Jesus became human," meaning that He was not always human.

But that idea cannot be reconciled with this verse:

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

Are you going to actually answer the question posed:

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

The passage is Hebrews 13:8 is not teaching anything related to the ontological nature of our Lord. Instead, the references to former "leaders" who had preached the word of God to the community (Hebrews 13:7), and the present leaders whose authority is to be respected (Hebrews 13:17), are complementary. Hebrews 13:7-9 hang together conceptually: the word of God proclaimed previously (in Hebrews 13:7) is crystallized in the confessional formulation of 13:8.

More...

Spoiler

The only way by which we can persevere in the right faith is to hold to the foundation, and not in the smallest degree to depart from it; for he who holds not to Christ knows nothing but mere vanity, though he may comprehend heaven and earth; for in Christ are included all the treasures of celestial wisdom.

Hebrews 13:8 then is a remarkable passage, from which we learn that there is no other way of being truly wise than by fixing all our thoughts on Christ alone. now as the writer of Hebrews is dealing with the Jews, he teaches them that Christ had ever possessed the same sovereignty which he holds at this day; The same, says the author, yesterday, and today, and forever.

By which words the writer of Hebrews intimates that Christ, who was then made known in the world, had reigned from the beginning of the world, and that it is not possible to advance farther when we come to him. Yesterday then comprehends the whole time of the Old Testament; and that no one might expect a sudden change after a short time, as the promulgation of the Gospel was then but recent, the writer of Hebrews declares that Christ had been lately revealed for this very end, that the knowledge of him might continue the same for ever.

It hence appears that the writer of Hebrews is not speaking of the eternal existence of Christ, but of that knowledge of him which was possessed by the godly in all ages, and was the perpetual foundation of the Church. It is indeed certain that Christ existed before he manifested his power; but the question is, what is the subject of the writer of Hebrews. He refers to quality, so to speak, and not to essence; for it is not the question, whether he was from eternity with the Father, but what was the knowledge which men had of him. But the manifestation of Christ as to its external form and appearance, was indeed different under the Law from what it is now; yet there is no reason why the Apostle could not say truly and properly that Christ, as regarded by the faithful, is always the same.

The Lord Jesus was in heaven as Man before He came down to earth and was born of Mary.

Blasphemy! Pardon me while I rent my shirt and throw dirt in the air. As things stand, you are well on your way towards full-blown Mormonism with statements like the above. I am praying for your immortal soul. I have asked you repeatedly to speak with your Pastor about your views on this matter. Have you done so? You need guidance so start with him.

AMR

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Are you going to actually answer the question posed:

Let us look at what you asked here:

Do you think the human nature of Jesus would have existed at all without God the Son?

The Lord Jesus as Man and as God existed in eternity. So neither nature was dependant on the other. After all, we see that the Lord Jesus does not change:

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

These words speak for themselves but since they contradict you teaching you must somehow change the plain meaning:

The passage is Hebrews 13:8 is not teaching anything related to the ontological nature of our Lord. Instead, the references to former "leaders" who had preached the word of God to the community (Hebrews 13:7), and the present leaders whose authority is to be respected (Hebrews 13:17), are complementary. Hebrews 13:7-9 hang together conceptually: the word of God proclaimed previously (in Hebrews 13:7) is crystallized in the confessional formulation of 13:8.

When Hebrews was written the Lord Jesus was both God and Man. That cannot be denied. We also read the same thing in the first chapter:

"And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail" (Heb.1:10-12).​

Despite these facts you say that He did change. According to your idea He originally only had one nature and then at some point He acquired another nature. That can only mean that He underwent a change.

So your idea is contradicted by the Scriptures. How do you explain that? The author of Hebrews says that He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow and that He does not change.

You say that He did change. I believe what the author of Hebrews said instead of you.

We also know that the Lord Jesus Himself said this:

"What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" (Jn.6:62).​

So by the Lord's own words He was in heaven as Man before He came down to the earth and was born of Mary.

Evidently you, like many others, falsely believe that a flesh and blood body is essential to humanity. And that is the source of your error. You put more faith in your preconceived ideas than you do in what the Scriptures actually say.

 

[Arsenios]

Evidently you, like many others, falsely believe that a flesh and blood body is essential to humanity. And that is the source of your error. You put more faith in your preconceived ideas than you do in what the Scriptures actually say.

Well, God did make man body first, then breathed into him a living soul, and then hypostatically joined him to the Living God...

That is why death - eg the separation of the soul from the body - is so un-natural and wrong... Man was created by God with a body... Would you not agree that this makes the body needed for man to be as God created him? Is that not why there will be a bodily resurrection?

Arsenios

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Well, God did make man body first, then breathed into him a living soul, and then hypostatically joined him to the Living God...

That is ridiculous. You want us to believe that the Lord Jesus originally had but one nature and then at some point He acquired another nature but He did not change!

You throw your reason to the wind and assert that the Lord Jesus with one nature is the same exact Jesus with two natures!

That is why death - eg the separation of the soul from the body - is so un-natural and wrong... Man was created by God with a body... Would you not agree that this makes the body needed for man to be as God created him?

You still cannot understand that a flesh and blood body is not essential to being a human.

After all, the believers who have died and are now in heaven with the Lord did not cease being "man" when they lost their flesh and blood bodies.

Perhaps you want to argue that they are in heaven now but they are no longer "men"?

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

That is ridiculous. You want us to believe that the Lord Jesus originally had but one nature and then at some point He acquired another nature but He did not change!

You throw your reason to the wind and assert that the Lord Jesus with one nature is the same exact Jesus with two natures!



You still cannot understand that a flesh and blood body is not essential to being a human.

After all, the believers who have died and are now in heaven with the Lord did not cease being "man" when they lost their flesh and blood bodies.

Perhaps you want to argue that they are in heaven now but they are no longer "men"?

Are you assuming these horses and angels had no body?


2 Kings 6:17 KJV


17 And Elisha prayed , and said , LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see . And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw : and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

And why would you then assume the departed have no bodies?

Paul said we have bodies.

Just because you cant see em dont mean they aint real.


49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.




Glorified flesh, same as the Lord ascended with.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Tried to insert image, didn't work.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

to moderators, please delete

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Ditto

 

[Jerry Shugart]

And why would you then assume the departed have no bodies?

What kind of bodies do you think that those who are in heaven waiting for the resurrection have?

Surely they no longer in possession of their flesh and blood bodies. Or do you think that when they get to heaven they are given another flesh and blood body?

Frankly, I find that to be impossible, especially with what is said here in view:

"And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption" (1 Cor.15:49-50).​

Paul said we have bodies.

Yes, and he called our earthly bodies "natural bodies." And he used the adjective "spiritual" bodies to describe the kind of body we will have when we are resurrected:

"It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body" (1 Cor.15:44).

The Greek word translated 'spiritual' "always connotes the ideas of invisibility and of power" (Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words).

That is the body which believing men will have in the eternal state, the heavenly kingdom. And the things in that realm cannot be seen because in our flesh and blood bodies were are not equipped to see these things:

"While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal" (2 Cor.4:18).​

The Lord Jesus is described this way:

"Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting. Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever" (1 Tim.1:16).​

The Lord Jesus is now in heaven with a spiritual, heavenly body. He is not now in heaven with either a flesh and blood body or a flesh and bones body. Despite this He remains Man.

 

[Soror1]

Good evening, PPS!

And classical Theism is uni-phenomenal.

This would only be a problem (in this specific context) if it couldn't explain God's transcendence and immanence but it can.

Since God is innately both noumenal and phenomenal Spirit, He IS omnipresent once wheres are created.

CT would agree with this.

No. I'm demonstrating it precisely. God is eternally transcendent AND omnipresent within creation (heaven and the cosmos) once He creates all where/s, when/s, and what/s.

And this. But not this,

God created everlasting. God created heaven. And He inhabited everlasting (aeviternity) when/as He created ALL.​

if by that you mean the Creator has subject Himself to creation (here time or place.) Like all creation, He sustains it and is present to it but not circumscribed. In heaven, we could say He is more present but this would be by being better known.

Rhema > Logos > Rhema

When we think and express, it's logos. The objective rhema is the thing we're thinking and speaking about by the subjective resulting rhema as the words. This is by language (dialektos, from lego).

Language conveys the subjective estimate of thought as expression in words (rhema). The thing thought and spoken about is the objective reality that is subjectively realized in words.

Objective rhema would be, for instance, an object with a hard cover and pages. The thought and expression would be the logos. The subjective rhema would be the word "book" in English. In the Greek language, the object(ive) would be expressed by that language with the word "biblios" as the subject(ive).

Let me first thank you for being so ready and willing to continue to elaborate on your views. It's much appreciated. Would you explain why you qualify the rhema with "objective" and/or "subjective" and what you mean by "subjectively realized in words"?

I have a book. It's an object. It exists independently of anyone thinking or talking about it. I walk into a room and, through a series of operations in my intellect (using logos), know it's a particular book. I meet up with my neighbor to describe what I've seen (using rhema). I wouldn't say I've "subjectively realized in words" the book, for "realized" to me almost implies I've created an instance of the book so I must be missing something you're saying. Granted, I would say my perception of the book is subjective (whereas God's, for example, would be completely objective).

If you could fill in the missing parts in my example, would appreciate it once again! :first:

This would be a good descriptor to start.

The terms “objectivity” and “subjectivity,” in their modern usage, generally relate to a perceiving subject (normally a person) and a perceived or unperceived object. The object is something that presumably exists independent of the subject’s perception of it. In other words, the object would be there, as it is, even if no subject perceived it. Hence, objectivity is typically associated with ideas such as reality, truth and reliability.

That's how I understand them. Do you reject that or are you just elaborating?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

What I am trying (and apparently failing miserably...) to do is to help you see other facets of His deity--including other admissions of deity--so you do not have such a one-dimensional Jesus that needs to bark out "I am the Son of God" to be believed that He is.

Are you not aware that is not the only way which He made it known that He is God? And no one would have ever imagined that when He referred to Himself as "Son of Man" that He was saying that He was God. But despite that you are trying to prove that when the Lord Jesus was referred to as "Son of Man" in these verses the term referred to Him being God:

"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven" (Jn.3:13).​

It was as Man that the Lord Jesus came down from heaven. That means that He was Man before He was born of Mary. And these words of the Lord Jesus teaches practically the same thing:

"What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" (Jn.6:62).​

If the Lord Jesus wanted to express the idea that it was as God that He ascended where He was before He certainly would not have used the term "Son of Man."

But that is exactly what you want us to believe.

What He is doing is tying together son of man as man, Son of Man as in Daniel, Lord, and Christ--as all coalescing in The Son of God.

I have already shown that when the term "Son of Man" is used at Daniel 7 the term is in regard to His humanity. And you did not even attempt to respond to what I said.

He is leading everyone to understand that the Messiah must be Deity.

What evidence can you give to support that idea. Here the LORD certainly expressed the idea that the Messiah who will sit upon the throne of David will be a man:

"The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne" (Ps.132:11).​

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

What kind of bodies do you think that those who are in heaven waiting for the resurrection have?

Surely they no longer in possession of their flesh and blood bodies. Or do you think that when they get to heaven they are given another flesh and blood body?

Frankly, I find that to be impossible, especially with what is said here in view:

"And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption" (1 Cor.15:49-50).​

Yes, and he called our earthly bodies "natural bodies." And he used the adjective "spiritual" bodies to describe the kind of body we will have when we are resurrected:

"It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body" (1 Cor.15:44).

The Greek word translated 'spiritual' "always connotes the ideas of invisibility and of power" (Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words).

That is the body which believing men will have in the eternal state, the heavenly kingdom. And the things in that realm cannot be seen because in our flesh and blood bodies were are not equipped to see these things:

"While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal" (2 Cor.4:18).​

The Lord Jesus is described this way:

"Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting. Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever" (1 Tim.1:16).​

The Lord Jesus is now in heaven with a spiritual, heavenly body. He is not now in heaven with either a flesh and blood body or a flesh and bones body. Despite this He remains Man.

Lotta hot air.

Answer the question.

Did those invisible angels and horses have bodies or not?

 

[Soror1]

Are you not aware that is not the only way which He made it known that He is God? And no one would have ever imagined that when He referred to Himself as "Son of Man" that He was saying that He was God. But despite that you are trying to prove that when the Lord Jesus was referred to as "Son of Man" in these verses the term referred to Him being God:

"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven" (Jn.3:13).​

It was as Man that the Lord Jesus came down from heaven. That means that He was Man before He was born of Mary. And these words of the Lord Jesus teaches practically the same thing:

"What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" (Jn.6:62).​

If the Lord Jesus wanted to express the idea that it was as God that He ascended where He was before He certainly would not have used the term "Son of Man."

But that is exactly what you want us to believe.

You would have us believe this!:

And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the human being which is in heaven"
​

I have already shown that when the term "Son of Man" is used at Daniel 7 the term is in regard to His humanity. And you did not even attempt to respond to what I said.

Because as you know, Jesus did:

36 David himself, in the Holy Spirit, declared,

“‘The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit at my right hand,
until I put your enemies under your feet.”’
37 David himself calls him Lord. So how is he his son?” And the great throng heard him gladly.​

(By the way, notice here in Mark "the great throng" heard Him gladly but in Matthew 22:41-46, the Pharisees didn't. Which is what I said earlier about those in authority being in the position to do something about His claim as The Son of Man of Daniel.)

What evidence can you give to support that idea. Here the LORD certainly expressed the idea that the Messiah who will sit upon the throne of David will be a man:

"The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne" (Ps.132:11).​

See above.

Not just a man.

Again, as I laid out earlier for the trial, Jesus ties it all together here--David's Lord is Daniel's The Son of Man:

Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” 62 And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”​

A combination of Psalm 110 and Daniel 7.

I suppose we need to look at Daniel for you to see what the authorities did (deity) there?

 

[Arsenios]

That is ridiculous.

All mouth...

No reasoning...

After all, the believers who have died and are now in heaven with the Lord did not cease being "man" when they lost their flesh and blood bodies.

Was Adam flesh and blood?

THAT is HOW God made Man...

Perhaps you want to argue that they are in heaven now but they are no longer "men"?

They are human souls...

They are not men and women...

Arsenios

 

[patrick jane]

Ummm... The sequence in 2Peter is gnosis. Love abounds in epignosis.

"Knowing" the difference between gnosis and epignosis only demonstrates my point. Different knowledges.

And neither gnosis (knowledge) nor epignosis (knowledge) are oida (knowledge).

Ruh-roh...

i saw it early on - the one thing you lack - personally or otherwise is LOVE - no scripture or big foreign words necessary - cuz english don't cut it - it's an inferior language if one speaks Greek daily -

now make a post showing how much you love and how much you are loved PERSONALLY; on earth in human terms as a man -

In YOUR OWN WORDS - i.e. - not Bible references as to God's Love for ALL or how love is described in the Bible towards others -

 

[patrick jane]

Are you going to actually answer the question posed:

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

The passage is Hebrews 13:8 is not teaching anything related to the ontological nature of our Lord. Instead, the references to former "leaders" who had preached the word of God to the community (Hebrews 13:7), and the present leaders whose authority is to be respected (Hebrews 13:17), are complementary. Hebrews 13:7-9 hang together conceptually: the word of God proclaimed previously (in Hebrews 13:7) is crystallized in the confessional formulation of 13:8.

More...

Spoiler

The only way by which we can persevere in the right faith is to hold to the foundation, and not in the smallest degree to depart from it; for he who holds not to Christ knows nothing but mere vanity, though he may comprehend heaven and earth; for in Christ are included all the treasures of celestial wisdom.

Hebrews 13:8 then is a remarkable passage, from which we learn that there is no other way of being truly wise than by fixing all our thoughts on Christ alone. now as the writer of Hebrews is dealing with the Jews, he teaches them that Christ had ever possessed the same sovereignty which he holds at this day; The same, says the author, yesterday, and today, and forever.

By which words the writer of Hebrews intimates that Christ, who was then made known in the world, had reigned from the beginning of the world, and that it is not possible to advance farther when we come to him. Yesterday then comprehends the whole time of the Old Testament; and that no one might expect a sudden change after a short time, as the promulgation of the Gospel was then but recent, the writer of Hebrews declares that Christ had been lately revealed for this very end, that the knowledge of him might continue the same for ever.

It hence appears that the writer of Hebrews is not speaking of the eternal existence of Christ, but of that knowledge of him which was possessed by the godly in all ages, and was the perpetual foundation of the Church. It is indeed certain that Christ existed before he manifested his power; but the question is, what is the subject of the writer of Hebrews. He refers to quality, so to speak, and not to essence; for it is not the question, whether he was from eternity with the Father, but what was the knowledge which men had of him. But the manifestation of Christ as to its external form and appearance, was indeed different under the Law from what it is now; yet there is no reason why the Apostle could not say truly and properly that Christ, as regarded by the faithful, is always the same.

Blasphemy! Pardon me while I rent my shirt and throw dirt in the air. As things stand, you are well on your way towards full-blown Mormonism with statements like the above. I am praying for your immortal soul. I have asked you repeatedly to speak with your Pastor about your views on this matter. Have you done so? You need guidance so start with him.
atrol:
AMR

exactly - thank you AMR - -atrol:

 

[Arsenios]

i saw it early on - the one thing you lack - personally or otherwise is LOVE - no scripture or big foreign words necessary - cuz english don't cut it - it's an inferior language if one speaks Greek daily -

now make a post proving how much you love and how much you are loved PERSONALLY; on earth in human terms as a man -

In YOUR OWN WORDS - i.e. - not Bible references as to God's Love for ALL or how love is described in the Bible towards others -

This does have a kind of big head trip feel about it...

A.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

They are human souls...

They are not men and women...

Human, nonetheless. That proves that a flesh and blood body is not essential to humanity.

All mouth...

No reasoning...

You wouldn't know "reasoning" if it hit you right between the eyes.

According to your so-called reasoning the Lord Jesus originally had only one nature and then at some point He acquired another but yet He didn't change and remained the same.!

According to your so-called reasoning, the Lord Jesus with one nature is exactly the same Jesus with two natures.

All you prove is that you will say anything, no matter how ridiculous, in order to try to win an argument!