ECT Our triune God

[Lazy afternoon]

One encounter with Jesus is worth more than a thousand words in any language.LA

 

[Cross Reference]

Er, it was probably snarky lines like this that had me ignoring you as well as wondering about your orthodoxy.

I will continue to believe you are orthodox by your own self-profession. As far as God not being able to open the seal? I already said He was. Jesus was God. οὐδεὶς means 'no man' yes?

Indeed, that is exactly how it reads!! It also does NOT reveal the reason God could NOT open it, the assumption being from context only a man could and none were found!!! Why were they looking for a man???!! Any novice could recognize that as being the corrrect understanding by the context.

I said I was trinitarian and mostly othordox. Not being completely orthodox is no reason to claim someone is blaspheming God. You pretty much have that anyone who is not of Calvin is going to hell. Go figure.

Why don't you stop making excuses and answer the legitmate questions asked of you from another trinitarian except Calvin gets in the way??

You need to come out with it and either embrace or depart from the triune view. This thread is only meant for those who are triune. In-house debate? Absolutely. Can you explain your position in a few paragraphs here, please?

I have and you refuse to acknowledge you self-imposed religious snare to yourself that prevents you from having a Biblically "learned" understanding. All anyone gets from you is obfuscations.

An example: When did the man Jesus' legal position advance from being a "Glorified man" and a Son to being "Everlasting Father"? You own a Bible, read it for understanding.

 

[Cross Reference]

So you are saying simple people cannot know the truth..

LA

Simple people, hungering and thirsting after righteousness and life in the Father, are the only ones who do, who are able to receive it. I learned that by reading an English Bible.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

One encounter with Jesus is worth more than a thousand words in any language.LA

I see you didn't quote that from scripture. That's because the physical senses of man and his external experiences and encounters aren't the reliable foundation for faith and truth.

And since you deny the ontological divinity of Jesus Christ, your encounters are not to be trusted nor considered.

No, your encounters do not trump God's Word, nor do they even represent it in your several extremely false doctrines.

Jesus IS the Logos (Word).

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Simple people, hungering and thirsting after righteousness and life in the Father, are the only ones who do, who are able to receive it. I learned that by reading an English Bible.

But there's no simplicity (haplotes) in you, so this negates you and most others that arrognatly presume they're "simple".

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Indeed, that is exactly how it reads!! It also does NOT reveal the reason God could NOT open it, the assumption being from context only a man could and none were found!!! Why were they looking for a man???!! Any novice could recognize that as being the corrrect understanding by the context.

I said I was trinitarian and mostly othordox. Not being completely orthodox is no reason to claim someone is blaspheming God. You pretty much have that anyone who is not of Calvin is going to hell. Go figure.

Why don't you stop making excuses and answer the legitmate questions asked of you from another trinitarian except Calvin gets in the way??



I have and you refuse to acknowledge you self-imposed religious snare to yourself that prevents you from having a Biblically "learned" understanding. All anyone gets from you is obfuscations.

An example: When did the man Jesus' legal position advance from being a "Glorified man" and a Son to being "Everlasting Father"? You own a Bible, read it for understanding.

This is Modalism in some form. Eek. Thought so.

 

[patrick jane]

Sigh. No. But simplicity in English is not what haplotes means in Greek.

The Christian faith is ontological, epistemological, and methodological; not just the last of those.

Are you saying that "simple" people readily know all the depth, breadth, and height of all that God teaches by His Word and Spirit?

Since when do English words determine the meaning of Greek words? That's not the direction of translation.

A "simple" person could see the "simple" truth and fact that the Greek and English languages are structurally and semantically different in ways and by degree.

English speakers have no direct understanding of what Greek anarthrous nouns mean. A "simple" person could recognize that "simple" information, even if they did not know the scope of what it means.

"Simple" people could not and did not translate scripture into English. It was linguists and philologists. Would you want a "simple" non-linguist to translate scripture and trust the result?

There's a difference between basic understanding and explicit understanding.

It takes about 20 minutes of live teaching for someone to get "that look" on their face and say to me "I am already realizing I don't know what anything in scripture really means." Happens EVERY time. Then they unlearn and learn at the same time.

It happened to me. It's still happening to me.

Hurry up and unlearn all that :chuckle:

 

[Lon]

Indeed, that is exactly how it reads!! It also does NOT reveal the reason God could NOT open it, the assumption being from context only a man could and none were found!!! Why were they looking for a man???!! Any novice could recognize that as being the corrrect understanding by the context.

I said I was trinitarian and mostly othordox. Not being completely orthodox is no reason to claim someone is blaspheming God.

Excellent. For thread's sake, Jesus is God. :thumb:

You pretty much have that anyone who is not of Calvin is going to hell. Go figure.

:nono: Not true at all. I have no idea what Calvinist is telling you are going to hell, but I completely disagree that they could know that. You and I will stand, equally humble, before the bema seat. We live and die to our Master, not each other. I think we can tell one rejecting Christ they are 'headed the wrong way.' For me, that's the closest I think I can come.

Why don't you stop making excuses and answer the legitmate questions asked of you from another trinitarian except Calvin gets in the way??

Again, this is not the debate thread so these kinds of antics aren't welcomed here. I simply avoid them. Is it an excuse? :nono: I (and you) agreed we'd abide by the Exclusive rules when we asked to be allowed here. I took my vow VERY seriously. I will not be doing this with you. My word means something. If you want to tone down the rhetoric, I'd be more than pleased not to obfuscate. For now, my obfuscation is mandated.

I have and you refuse to acknowledge you self-imposed religious snare to yourself that prevents you from having a Biblically "learned" understanding. All anyone gets from you is obfuscations.

See, I "can't" have a conversation with you. I'm not really interested in a conversation of angst, even 'if' I might learn something from you. Most people I have on ignore are heretical and I don't wish to discuss it. I think, with you, it was simply to avoid an angry conversation. It just doesn't interest me CR.

An example: When did the man Jesus' legal position advance from being a "Glorified man" and a Son to being "Everlasting Father"? You own a Bible, read it for understanding.

Again, this call is against counterfactual. I do indeed read my bible. Read Isaiah 9:6. I agree that Christ in time poses theological difficulties for us. I agree that men have systematized ways of understanding the incarnate God. To assert yours is the only understanding? :nono: I am very much open to discussion. Open to a declaration of superiority? To king of the hill? :nono: On any essential doctrine, I do champion much as you do here BUT I think some of us don't know the difference between essential-salvific doctrine and what can be differentiated and remain orthodox. Christ's nature is very important so again: 1) discuss it in this section AND because I won't do so otherwise; in a manner that invites the discussion.
2) Try to get to the point more quickly instead of insisting on the professor role with leading questions. Post what you believe and leave it up for inspection. This section is also about that as well. Look how I actually do so in this thread. I present a truth and leave it for inspection. I don't 'teach' here, though I may respond with that tenor (somewhat like here). -Lon

 

[Cross Reference]

Excellent

You pretty much have that anyone who is not of Calvin is going to hell. Go figure.

Why don't you stop making excuses and answer the legitmate questions asked of you from another trinitarian except Calvin gets in the way??



I have and you refuse to acknowledge you self-imposed religious snare to yourself that prevents you from having a Biblically "learned" understanding. All anyone gets from you is obfuscations.

An example: When did the man Jesus' legal position advance from being a "Glorified man" and a Son to being "Everlasting Father"? You own a Bible, read it for understanding.

[/QUOTE]

Is all that supposed to be a reply? . . make sense?

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

I thinkin' maybe it all changed at that point.

Agreed.

Hasty blanket statements are not always expedient.

 

[Cross Reference]

This is Modalism in some form. Eek. Thought so.

Sorry, never met the gentleman and the only Greek I know owns a deli down the street.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

But there's no simplicity (haplotes) in you, so this negates you and most others that arrognatly presume they're "simple".

Hey,I resemble that.

 

[Cross Reference]

Excellent.

For thread's sake, Jesus is God. :thumb:

Them why is Jesus coming again as "son of man"?

:nono: Not true at all. I have no idea what Calvinist is telling you are going to hell, but I completely disagree that they could know that.

However, your opinion is that he is the gospel . . . therefore, what must one assume from that.

You and I will stand, equally humble, before the bema seat. We live and die to our Master, not each other. I think we can tell one rejecting Christ they are 'headed the wrong way.' For me, that's the closest I think I can come.

If you truly believed that, there would be agreement.

Again, this is not the debate thread so these kinds of antics aren't welcomed here. I simply avoid them.

But you don't and you can't because your opinion on other issues hinge upon your core beliefs in this case being, Jesus was always God literally in human flesh. Glorified or not glorified is irrelevant to you in addition, irrespective of the fact the Word emptied Himself and left Jesus alone to sort out the issues with but His faith, allegiance to His Father and the written word to sustain Him. You don't want to see that it had to be that way in order to be THE fully human sacrifice and example for us to follow after receiving our new birth. God could not perform that for angels were watching. Their allegiance to Him hung in the balance.

Is it an excuse? :nono: I (and you) agreed we'd abide by the Exclusive rules when we asked to be allowed here. I took my vow VERY seriously. I will not be doing this with you. My word means something. If you want to tone down the rhetoric, I'd be more than pleased not to obfuscate. For now, my obfuscation is mandated.
` -Lon

I don't know what you mean by "rhetoric". You have me as being heretical. Why I ask if you base it upon nothing you wish to discuss? You simply make the claim and run away. Bring your scripture, with your understanding, to the table and I will bring mine with my understanding as well. Start another thread if you wish.

You have it that I must agree with you to the fulfulling of my obligation. Sorry, You're wrong. Your obfuscation is proof to me that you know and understand what I have posited is correct or, in the least, a possiblity of being an accurate assessment and the cost to you reevaluating your [academic] position is too high a price. For being the Christian you claim to be, I don't understand that. Where is the heresy in that?

Again, though I don't believe you will be any more forthcoming with answers to question posed you, I will hope against hope something will trigger your thought processes that some dots you have never connected, might be allowed to.. Funny how I know that.

My basic core belief in as few words as possible that can be readily opened up to very clearly understand are these written by John after he came into complete understanding who Jesus, the man,c truly was and remains as such:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. John 1:1-3 (KJV)

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John 1:14 (KJV)

 

[Lon]

Them why is Jesus coming again as "son of man"?

Son of God/Son of man

However, your opinion is that he is the gospel . . . therefore, what must one assume from that.

What He did and Who He is, is intricate with the gospel. To want saved is to want Him. It is a relationship and faith and dependence upon what He did. So, you raise a good question, but perhaps share the answer.

If you truly believed that, there would be agreement.

Modalists generally deny God's humanity, Unit-arians deny His deity, make Him a lesser deity. I can tell a person what saving faith looks like. I'm not a person's judge, but we can make loose assumptions. A man who has never called on the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ likely is lost. Is that my call? No, it is His. I'm glad there is agreement. This is what I truly believe, that I'm not a judge of another's servant.

But you don't and you can't because your opinion on other issues hinge upon your core beliefs in this case being, Jesus was always God literally in human flesh. Glorified or not glorified is irrelevant to you in addition, irrespective of the fact the Word emptied Himself and left Jesus alone to sort out the issues with but His faith, allegiance to His Father and the written word to sustain Him. You don't want to see that it had to be that way in order to be THE fully human sacrifice and example for us to follow after receiving our new birth. God could not perform that for angels were watching. Their allegiance to Him hung in the balance.

Kenosis is yet debated and some of those positions are considered heterodox and others heresy. I was taught pretty much what you believe. I, personally, see it as heterodox (other than) rather heresy (against) in most cases. I can't declare anything, just tell you what I see. I'd think I was saved when I believed much like you but I was also taught a few contradictory points so I had to wrestle with what had to be true and for me it had to be fully God/fully man. Kenosis wasn't imho, a restriction, but rather a decision.

I don't know what you mean by "rhetoric". You have me as being heretical. Why I ask if you base it upon nothing you wish to discuss? You simply make the claim and run away. Bring your scripture, with your understanding, to the table and I will bring mine with my understanding as well. Start another thread if you wish.

You aren't doing it in this post and are meeting me without angst (a bit of defensiveness, but that's okay). I do, in fact, this thread can serve a good and even weighty dialogue, even with disagreement. For what it is worth, if any, you are carrying the thread intent this post imho.

You have it that I must agree with you to the fulfulling of my obligation. Sorry, You're wrong. Your obfuscation is proof to me that you know and understand what I have posited is correct or, in the least, a possiblity of being an accurate assessment and the cost to you reevaluating your [academic] position is too high a price. For being the Christian you claim to be, I don't understand that. Where is the heresy in that?

No, but this is the second-guessing of some our other sections that isn't encouraged here. It is best simply to 'discuss' items here and ensure we are helping carry the thread OP. I think several of your points do carry that. Again, I appreciate your addressing the topic, and not me. Yes, it might be out of character for me, but I really do try to treat the ECT section differently and more congenially. I just feel that it demands a bit more of a professional and academic debate pattern with mutual respect demanded by TOL for discussion. I best way I understand this section is: Congenial respectful discussion, though disagreement is allowed.

Again, though I don't believe you will be any more forthcoming with answers to question posed you, I will hope against hope something will trigger your thought processes that some dots you have never connected, might be allowed to.. Funny how I know that.

That's fine. Guided? Not so much what this thread is about. I generally don't like guided questions BUT I think I understand why you feel you have to employ it. If I am correct, I actually think I had some semblance of the same view at one time.

My basic core belief in as few words as possible that can be readily opened up to very clearly understand are these written by John after he came into complete understanding who Jesus, the man,c truly was and remains as such:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. John 1:1-3 (KJV)

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John 1:14 (KJV)

Thanks. Would it also be true that one of your key passages is a good portion of Philippians 2?


Thanks for supporting the triune position, starting to express your view in clarity, and for the meaningful discussion with this post. -Lon

 

[Cross Reference]

Son of God/Son of man

No "/" in this. "son of man". MK 13:26 along with others in Matt,Luke John, Rev.

What He did and Who He is, is intricate with the gospel. To want saved is to want Him. It is a relationship and faith and dependence upon what He did. So, you raise a good question, but perhaps share the answer.

Modalists generally deny God's humanity, Unit-arians deny His deity, make Him a lesser deity. I can tell a person what saving faith looks like. I'm not a person's judge, but we can make loose assumptions. A man who has never called on the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ likely is lost. Is that my call? No, it is His. I'm glad there is agreement. This is what I truly believe, that I'm not a judge of another's servant.

And where do place the fact that the human flesh of Jesus pleased God so completely that it was in complete union with Him [God]?


Kenosis is yet debated and some of those positions are considered heterodox and others heresy. I was taught pretty much what you believe. I, personally, see it as heterodox (other than) rather heresy (against) in most cases. I can't declare anything, just tell you what I see. I'd think I was saved when I believed much like you but I was also taught a few contradictory points so I had to wrestle with what had to be true and for me it had to be fully God/fully man. Kenosis wasn't imho, a restriction, but rather a decision.

There was never a renunciation of the divine in Jesus but rather a willful emptying of it as the scripture says it was.

You aren't doing it in this post and are meeting me without angst (a bit of defensiveness, but that's okay). I do, in fact, this thread can serve a good and even weighty dialogue, even with disagreement. For what it is worth, if any, you are carrying the thread intent this post imho.

I never attempted to do otherwise. Either you never saw it or didn't want which I took to be the reason for your incessant obfuscations.

No, but this is the second-guessing of some our other sections that isn't encouraged here. It is best simply to 'discuss' items here and ensure we are helping carry the thread OP.

To my knowledge, that objective has never been dismissed in my replies except when arguing against Calvin.

I think several of your points do carry that.

You have never indicated thatin any of your replies.

Again, I appreciate your addressing the topic, and not me.

No one can defend himself against the scriptures. Your replies contained few.

Yes, it might be out of character for me, but I really do try to treat the ECT section differently and more congenially. I just feel that it demands a bit more of a professional and academic debate pattern with mutual respect demanded by TOL for discussion. I best way I understand this section is: Congenial respectful discussion, though disagreement is allowed.

I understand and have also endeavored to keep it that way even to the degree of re-wording for clarities sake, to no avail. The labels just kept coming.

That's fine. Guided? Not so much what this thread is about. I generally don't like guided questions BUT I think I understand why you feel you have to employ it. If I am correct, I actually think I had some semblance of the same view at one time.

Why change it especially when what comes back points up the need for better understanding? All i have ever received from the Calvin camp are labels of heresy after many attempts at clarifying. That is so disappointing.

Thanks. Would it also be true that one of your key passages is a good portion of Philippians 2?

Indeed, all of it and especially as a defense of my perspective that there was no renunciation divinity, but this:

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:. . . .

Why do you suppose the question should ever have been asked except all the Jews knew man was conceived in sin and here we have a man whose flesh is as pure as Adam's before Adam transgressed?

"But [made] himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:"[/I] Philippians 2:5-9 (KJV)

Can you give a reason why Jesus was given such high praise from God when Jesus, from time to time, spoke of being the "I AM" from Godhead?

Thanks for supporting the triune position, starting to express your view in clarity, and for the meaningful discussion with this post. -Lon

Good. Thank you. Now, lets come away from this false idea that I am angry or show angst. Frustration is a better word, more accurate an assessment and just as available for understanding a disposition especially when after many sincere attempts at clarity have gone by the wayside. If it is angst you 'read' from my words it is because you seem to have singled me out of the many to condemn as heretical and I believe I know the reason and have tried to point it out you on many occasions... Lets move on.

Thanks for this kind reply.

Lov'in Jesus,

CR

 

[Lazy afternoon]

I see you didn't quote that from scripture. That's because the physical senses of man and his external experiences and encounters aren't the reliable foundation for faith and truth.

And since you deny the ontological divinity of Jesus Christ, your encounters are not to be trusted nor considered.

No, your encounters do not trump God's Word, nor do they even represent it in your several extremely false doctrines.

Jesus IS the Logos (Word).

Ok so you have never had an encounter with Jesus.

I knew that.

Here is something which belongs in this thread--

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

That says nothing about Jesus. It speaks of Gods Word, Gods light , Gods Spirit.

There was a man sent from God whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

Ok now John was witnessing of the light in Gods son.

The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him.

Jesus was never the light which lighted everyone who came and comes into the world.

He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

Now the verses above speak of Jesus Christ after the event.

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Then the verse above speaks of Jesus as revealed to the world at and after His baptism by John.

(John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, “This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’ ”) Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ

.

As John had declared.

LA

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Ok so you have never had an encounter with Jesus.

I've had many enounters with Jesus. I just don't build false doctrine from them and ignore scripture.

I knew that.

Then you have no love abounding in knowledge, or you wouldn't have "known" a lie.

Here is something which belongs in this thread--

That says nothing about Jesus. It speaks of Gods Word, Gods light , Gods Spirit.

Sure it does, blasphemer; by the witness of the entirety of scripture. THIS is why Unitarians are yet in their sins. You don't believe the Word and Jesus are synonymous.

Ok now John was witnessing of the light in Gods son.

Jesus was never the light which lighted everyone who came and comes into the world.

Now the verses above speak of Jesus Christ after the event.

Then the verse above speaks of Jesus as revealed to the world at and after His baptism by John.

As John had declared.

LA

Yes, we all know this is reflective of the Unitarian position, which is not the authentic historical apostolic orthodox Christian faith.

 

[Lon]

No "/" in this. "son of man". MK 13:26 along with others in Matt,Luke John, Rev.

It has been awhile since discussing the Kenosis of Christ. On this, there is a fine walk between heresies. I'd think AMR and/or PPS would do likely better than I but I'll endeavor. I'd invite others to participate reading along, if they have any expertise or prowess. I've only about a year ago come away from your position understanding.

There was never a renunciation of the divine in Jesus but rather a willful emptying of it as the scripture says it was.

I used to hold to this form of theology as well. It is my corrected understanding that Jesus rather had access to all of His attributes.
This and the labels Son of Man/Son of God will come out in an ensuing post. I'm addressing a few preliminaries and hopefully, together, and acknowledging your frustration, we'll leave some of that behind, but it is important to acknowledge it here before proceeding.

I believe I put you on ignore, more for your expressions of frustration than any particular disagreement at the time. It is important for conversation because I've not read any of your posts for quite awhile so I'm not particularly a part of your frustration other than perhaps something carried from a few years ago. I'm not really addressing any of this, just acknowledging it.

To my knowledge, that objective has never been dismissed in my replies except when arguing against Calvin. Why change it especially when what comes back points up the need for better understanding? All i have ever received from the Calvin camp are labels of heresy after many attempts at clarifying. That is so disappointing.

Makes sense. I have a few anti-Calvinists on ignore, simply because I don't want to incessantly argue it.

Frustration is a better word...have tried to point it out you on many occasions... Lets move on.

It very well could be the reason I placed you on ignore. I even appreciate impassioned debate, but personally have a threshold. It 'looks' like we are a few blocks away from it and leaving it behind, so that's encouraging.

No one can defend himself against the scriptures. Your replies contained few.

I'm a global thinker and as such, have to grasp what the big picture is before bringing scriptures to bare. Guided questioning leaves me without response, let alone scripture. To me, it feels like jumping the gun. I think I see where you are coming from so can begin that in this thread and I think it does serve the intent of it (again, preliminaries, perhaps a filler post at that).

I understand and have also endeavored to keep it that way even to the degree of re-wording for clarities sake, to no avail. The labels just kept coming.

Well, we are off and running away from that here, and I'll endeavor to proceed that direction. I am not sure that resolve is to be the point of this particular discussion on Kenosis, but I do think it will adequately inform for others as well as allow us to clarify our own positions over the matter. I envision, not an agreement on all points, but a good many and a congenial parting over our differences. That is my aim.

Indeed, all of it and especially as a defense of my perspective that there was no renunciation divinity, but this:

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:. . . .

Why do you suppose the question should ever have been asked except all the Jews knew man was conceived in sin and here we have a man whose flesh is as pure as Adam's before Adam transgressed?

"But [made] himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:"[/I] Philippians 2:5-9 (KJV)

Can you give a reason why Jesus was given such high praise from God when Jesus, from time to time, spoke of being the "I AM" from Godhead?

So, a renunciation of divinity included only that He emptied Himself. Am I catching your meaning in clarity? (I'll ask this a lot, I'm just trying to understand you and where you are coming from, as I said, I'll try and up my game here shortly but also invite others to chime in if they have prowess on this particular doctrinal discussion, I'm just not trying to jump the gun, but understand).

Thanks for this kind reply.

Lov'in Jesus,

CR

I'll endeavor to up my game, using scriptures and etc. regarding what I understand and think needed for the kenosis discussion. If it needs redirection at any point, feel free to interject/redirect that it carries your intent to the best of my ability.
His blessings -Lon

 

[Cross Reference]

Great! Thank you. I appreciate that and will endeavor to reciprocate in a more Christlike manner.

Where to begin in is easy for me, however, You wrote what I believe needs be rectified:

I'm a global thinker and as such, have to grasp what the big picture is before bringing scriptures to bare.

Why not function from the reverse of that. IOW, insist that what you or I are taking into ourselves can stand the light of His Life upon it all? If of the divine that it be of the Son of God. If of his humanity then let it be of the son of man? In this I don't mean to imply Jesus had two different natures simply because the union between them acted in one accord as to make them indistinguishable. In this way, however, Jesus demonstrates all that we are purposed to be as ones born from above. In this will not God be our consuming fire?

In the sight of God was the unglorified state of the humanity of Jesus indistinguishable from His glorified state and had to be in order for him to have crossed over into Glory on the MT.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

I've had many enounters with Jesus. I just don't build false doctrine from them and ignore scripture.

I doubt that.

You would know who He is if you had.

You deny He is a resurrected man, the first of many brethren.

Then you have no love abounding in knowledge, or you wouldn't have "known" a lie.

Jesus is no lie.

Sure it does, blasphemer; by the witness of the entirety of scripture. THIS is why Unitarians are yet in their sins. You don't believe the Word and Jesus are synonymous.

You think the only words which God spoke, were about Jesus.

You defend your false position with charges of blasphemy, and being in sin. A sure sign of you being a modern day Pharisee or even worse a saducee who speak the same as you.

Jesus corrected their error but they as you, ignore it.

Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
Joh 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
Joh 5:41 I receive not honour from men.
Joh 5:42 But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.

Yes, we all know this is reflective of the Unitarian position, which is not the authentic historical apostolic orthodox Christian faith.

There you have spoken the proof that you are a man follower wishing to be a leader of men, but instead almost a complete failure.

LA