BINGO!! :up:
Who died on the cross? - a Hall of Fame thread.
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Apologies to Seth for posting while tired.
It could have been a proclamation of their doom, not a call to redemption like Mormons teach.
Ecumenicist
New member
My .02$,
Through studying Karl Barth, I came to the conclusion that Christ came as a "fleshly projection"
of God into our reality.
Like a physical, human shadow. When the sun doesn't shine, the person who projects the
shadow doesn't disappear, but the shadow does. God's "fleshly projection" into human reality
is / was, in essence, God projecting God's self physically into our Universe. The death of the
man Jesus on the Cross was the end of that fleshly projection, the shadow of God was blotted out
on that day, but God was not.
The Trinity consists of 3 limited, subjective interpretations of God's Essence,
given to humanity as a mere glimpse into the nature of God in our limited, subjective viewpoints.
Through studying Karl Barth, I came to the conclusion that Christ came as a "fleshly projection"
of God into our reality.
Like a physical, human shadow. When the sun doesn't shine, the person who projects the
shadow doesn't disappear, but the shadow does. God's "fleshly projection" into human reality
is / was, in essence, God projecting God's self physically into our Universe. The death of the
man Jesus on the Cross was the end of that fleshly projection, the shadow of God was blotted out
on that day, but God was not.
The Trinity consists of 3 limited, subjective interpretations of God's Essence,
given to humanity as a mere glimpse into the nature of God in our limited, subjective viewpoints.
Nice straw man caricature of OT that underestimates God's glorious character and attributes freed from philosophical trappings of some of the classical view.
Despite perfect 'parenting', Israel sometimes disobeyed. When your children disobey, is that a mistake on your part or theirs? You underestimate God's omnicompetence to rule providentially despite creating others who could freely love or hate Him. Instead, you substitute an omnicausal model of sovereignty that diminishes His ability and glory (for those who think simple foreknowledge is necessary for providential control, you are also wrong since it offers no advantage over the Open view...).
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Glad to have you come out and deny the hypostatic union explicitly. Why didn't you just say so from the start of this thread?
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
godrulz, do you believe the hypostatic union is a false doctrine? No weasel wording, yes or no?
We can find verses that show that Jesus is God and verses that show He is man. He IS God manifest in the flesh, the God-Man, one person with two natures.
Is that really you, sozo?:noway:
Perhaps we should define it to be on the same page. I do believe Jesus is one person with two natures. I am not sure about the later conclusions about Him having two wills (I lean to one will).
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07610b.htm
I am also not sure about being limited and omnipresent at the same time (have not given much thought...I also have used Jn. 1:48 to support your view, but this could also refer to the Holy Spirit giving Him supernatural knowledge/vision as a man; Jesus did depend on the Spirit as we do; He did not generally use His preexisting omnipotence to do things; Lk.2:52).
No weasel reply: Yes, but....(one can hold it with differences in application/details).
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
One self-conscious personality works for me.
I don't think John 1:48 is figurative about Jesus seeing.
Nevertheless, do you believe that the Second Person of the Trinity was limited in His presence to the geographical location of the body of Jesus during the Incarnation?
Why can't you accept that God the Son became a man?
John1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us...
I used to believe -and still do- that He was omnipresent and finite/limited geographically, but this is hard to grasp. I am now open to more speculation since Scripture does not explicitly resolve how the divine and human natures relate in the God-Man. Do we emphasize essence or distinction? If the Word somehow totally changes when humanity is added, I would not perceive it to be a denial of the hypostatic union or His Deity/humanity.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Uh dude... you are the undisputed king of "weasel wording" so if I were you I wouldn't get too cocky.
Sozo
New member
- Status