Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Our triune God

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by 1Mind1Spirit View Post
    You presented nothing.
    So this is nothing?:
    "What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before?" (Jn.6:62).

    Before He was born of Mary He was in heaven as the Son of Man. And here we read practically the same thing:
    "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).

    What do you think the words "Son of Man" means in these two verses?

    He's never had two natures.
    So was Peter wrong when he called the Lord Jesus a man?
    "Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know" (Jn.2:22).

    Was Paul wrong when he referred to the Lord Jesus as being a man in both these verses?:
    "Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead" (Acts 17:31).
    "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim.2:5).
    Last edited by Jerry Shugart; June 20th, 2015, 11:01 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
      So this is nothing?:
      "What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before?" (Jn.6:62).

      Before He was born of Mary He was in heaven as the Son of Man. And here we read practically the same thing:
      "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).

      What do you think the words "Son of Man" means in these two verses?



      So was Peter wrong when he called the Lord Jesus a man?
      "Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know" (Jn.2:22).

      Was Paul wrong when he referred to the Lord Jesus as being a man in both these verses?:
      "Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead" (Acts 17:31).
      "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim.2:5).
      Jesus is tellin' Nicodemus things he has already seen.

      Not things that had already happened.

      God showed him some things ahead of time before he came.


      7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.


      8 The wind bloweth where it listeth , and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh , and whither it goeth : so is every one that is born of the Spirit.


      9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be ?


      10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?


      11 [B]Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know , and testify that we have seen ; and ye receive not our witness.[/B]


      12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe , if I tell you of heavenly things?


      Let that sink into yer ears.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Soror1 View Post
        Alas! You're now a Yank

        And that's fine by me. No Christian has to articulate the "how" to be a Christian.

        Well again, I don't know anyone who holds that view--it sounds like the very simple conception of a child who wouldn't be engaging in metaphysical analysis (which, again, is a very simple faith and fine with me (and Jesus).

        I mean "we'll get there" in the sense of analysis once the foundational concepts are analyzed and understood. But, PPS, there is a degree of mystery (Eph 5)--like in a married man and woman being one flesh and Christ and His church being one. Some of the edges will remain quite fuzzy... If Paul couldn't articulate exactly how these two things could be one thing in creation, moreso then in Christ and His church, and how much more in God. God isn't mastered...

        Thanks! But you deserve a hearing! That is the Protestant tradition--Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda [but always WITH] secundum verbum Dei! You're not likely to get a serious (maybe should say academic) hearing from the Orthodox. The RCC offers a little more latitude in theological speculation, though.

        Okay.

        I used atemporal (and infinite) to capture that since "eternity" is polysemous (as you go on to note below).

        "Atemporal" in this sense!

        I think you want to limit the notion merely to time and I understand what you're saying but "eternal" also has a certain quality about it (And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent) so we can't just say "everlasting life"--there's a component there about knowing.

        Yes, I know you keep saying this but it is clearly distinguished by doctrine in the various Christian confessions.

        I just did, PPS!

        I agree (and I didn't).

        Well first, I hope you agree that the uncreated, omnipotent, and omniscient God would not develop the creation that He did without having any means of communicating (and/or commune-icating) with it. The way its being presented is almost as if God creates by necessity and then somehow must figure a way to interact with creation--a rather hapless God indeed.

        That said, the "formatting" is the Logos. The ontological mediator, the economic mediator, the only mediator--Jesus Christ.

        And man has an inner "receiver" or "receptor" or "recognizer" which Scripture locates in his heart. This inner receiver, while fallen, is not extinguished and is illumined of and by the Logos. This is in part natural reason--by design. "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them."

        I gave you the how earlier--"He is pure be-ing in pure act--no unrealized potential in Him. He is holding every last particle of matter together and if He didn't we'd poof out of existence." (And you'd have to point specifically to "Aquinas' epic fail" because he says essentially the same thing you said "Yes" to above.)

        You keep repeating this but I know I am not the only one who understands and affirms the distinction and accounts for it.

        I think you think the only way this can be done is via multi-phenomenality and it just isn't so if you address how pure be-ing in act doesn't, we can dive down further.

        Point specifically to his epic failure. At bottom, his epic failure for you can only be that he argues and affirms 3 hypostases but not only does he do that, he argues how, summed up with the snip "God is said to be in all things by essence, not indeed by the essence of the things themselves, as if He were of their essence; but by His own essence; because His substance is present to all things as the cause of their being." which leads me to the below...

        ...where you said "okay". So if you'd like to discuss the essence portion and/or heaven as a consideration, I'm right here!

        This I agree with (as can most)--it's essentially the ubiquitous philosophical realism "Christianized".

        Ah--an indirect realist as relates perception. I'm a direct realist so may get out Ockham's razor later to hack that "representation" off...

        Good to this point, too.

        You are way, waaaaaay closer, btw, to Aquinas than you know (or would care to admit)...

        And here's where I get off because...

        ...I say it is in existence. And hypostatically so--as real centers of action.

        I may need to argue direct realism here. I know why you need the noumenon or percept or representation but...you don't!

        Agreed!

        Okay, but let's focus on the two first.
        It's late, and I'll respond fully sometime tomorrow.

        I just want to clarify briefly that I'm not an indirect realist. I'm speaking of something else rather than human epistemological structures.
        Last edited by PneumaPsucheSoma; June 21st, 2015, 08:56 AM.
        Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
        β€œThe Church reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God.”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post

          What do you think the words "Son of Man" means in these two verses?
          The title "Son of Man" is directly implicative of Christ's humanity. However, that is not to say that the Scriptures, especially Dan. 7:13, don't strongly imply that the Son of Man has divine qualities. The title "Son of Man" (as attested in places like Ps.8:4) refers to "the representative man" (or Representative). Federal Theology (that is, covenantalism) is pregnant in the expression. It so happens that Christ is the Representative Man above all others, "Son of Man". He is Israel, reduced to a single person.

          See also Geerhardus Vos, The Self-Disclosure of Jesus (chaps. 10, 11), which provides good exegetical discussion. The title, "Son of Man" doesn't refer to the humanity of Christ per se. When it is used in connection with His humanity it is for the purpose of ascribing its origin to the "supernatural paternity of God."

          The title says nothing that supports the egregious notion of Our Lord's pre-existence as a man in heaven before being born of the virgin Mary.

          Tolle lege, Jerry.

          AMR
          Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



          Do you confess?
          Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
          AMR's Randomata Blog
          β€” Learn Reformed Doctrine
          I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
          Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
          Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
          The best TOL Social Group: here.
          If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
          Why?


          Comment


          • Originally posted by 1Mind1Spirit View Post
            Jesus is tellin' Nicodemus things he has already seen.
            The words of the Lord Jesus spoken to Nicodemus end at John 3:12. Then what follows are the words of the Apostle John.

            Or else we must believe that the Lord was speaking to Nicodemus on the earth and telling him that at that very moment He was in heaven.

            He's never had two natures.
            So was Peter wrong when he called the Lord Jesus a man?
            "Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know" (Jn.2:22).

            Was Paul wrong when he referred to the Lord Jesus as being a man in both these verses?:
            "Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead" (Acts 17:31).
            "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim.2:5).

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
              So this is nothing?:
              "What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before?" (Jn.6:62).

              Before He was born of Mary He was in heaven as the Son of Man. And here we read practically the same thing:
              "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man Who is in heaven" (Jn.3:13).

              What do you think the words "Son of Man" means in these two verses?
              "Son of Man" means Jesus incarnate...
              The God-man...
              WHO came down from heaven..
              And WHO became man...
              And while BEING man on earth,
              WHO is still in heaven...

              Son of Man refers to the WHO that Jesus simultaneously IS in Heaven and upon the earth...

              It does not refer to the WHAT Jesus IS as man or as God...

              It is simply telling you that the WHO is BOTH God and man...

              iow It is NOT saying that the Son of Man is existing in heaven...

              But the Person WHO Jesus, the Son of Man IS, is existing there...

              Arsenios
              Last edited by Arsenios; June 20th, 2015, 11:50 PM.
              Arsenios

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
                The title, "Son of Man" doesn't refer to the humanity of Christ per se. When it is used in connection with His humanity it is for the purpose of ascribing its origin to the "supernatural paternity of God."
                Which verses do we read where the term "Son of Man" refer to the "supernatural paternity of God"?

                Now let us look at this verse:
                "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever" (Heb.13:8).

                According to your ideas the Lord Jesus did change so he was not the same yesterday, and today, and for ever.

                According to you the Lord Jesus originally had only one nature and then he was changed when He acquired another nature.

                That idea is directly contradicted by what is said at Hebrews 13:8.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Arsenios View Post
                  "Son of Man" means Jesus incarnate...
                  The God-man...
                  WHO came down from heaven..
                  When did the incarnate Jesus Christ come down from heaven?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
                    The words of the Lord Jesus spoken to Nicodemus end at John 3:12. Then what follows are the words of the Apostle John.

                    Or else we must believe that the Lord was speaking to Nicodemus on the earth and telling him that at that very moment He was in heaven.

                    Yer outta yer mind.

                    When Jesus not John said we tell you what we have seen, he was talkin' about himself and the Holy Spirit.

                    I said let it sink into yer ears.

                    Why you think I underlined this?


                    12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe , if I tell you of heavenly things?



                    So was Peter wrong when he called the Lord Jesus a man?
                    "Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know" (Jn.2:22).

                    Was Paul wrong when he referred to the Lord Jesus as being a man in both these verses?:
                    "Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead" (Acts 17:31).
                    "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim.2:5).
                    Had a flesh and blood body didn't he?

                    Why would Peter or Paul be wrong?
                    Last edited by 1Mind1Spirit; June 20th, 2015, 11:53 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
                      When did the incarnate Jesus Christ come down from heaven?
                      Good question.

                      I would say right after he emptied himself.

                      Which raises a question in my mind.

                      Where did he empty himself to?

                      I see 2 possible answers.

                      Back into the Father or into the Holy Spirit?

                      I lean towards the latter.



                      Luke 1:35 KJV


                      35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
                        When did the incarnate Jesus Christ come down from heaven?
                        He didn't...

                        But He will...

                        The Person WHO IS the Son of God came down from heaven...

                        And incarnated into Human flesh and blood without change...

                        The Person Who God IS did not change...

                        Human Nature changed IN that Person...

                        Arsenios
                        Arsenios

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
                          That idea is directly contradicted by what is said at Hebrews 13:8.
                          I actually responded to your use of Hebrews 13:8 to support your view that our Lord existed as a man in heaven before being born of the virgin Mary here:

                          http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...61#post4353361

                          Given your view, do you think that when Jesus walked the earth, the Second Person of the Trinity was no longer omnipresent, but confined to only the places Jesus was at the time?

                          AMR
                          Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



                          Do you confess?
                          Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
                          AMR's Randomata Blog
                          β€” Learn Reformed Doctrine
                          I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
                          Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
                          Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
                          The best TOL Social Group: here.
                          If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
                          Why?


                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Arsenios View Post

                            Human Nature changed IN that Person...

                            Arsenios
                            Human nature, blah blah blah.


                            Romans 8:3 KJV


                            3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

                            Comment


                            • "I, I, I thought you meant..."

                              Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
                              I actually responded to your use of Hebrews 13:8 to support your view that our Lord existed as a man in heaven before being born of the virgin Mary here:

                              http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...61#post4353361

                              Given your view, do you think that when Jesus walked the earth, the Second Person of the Trinity was no longer omnipresent, but confined to only the places Jesus was at the time?

                              AMR
                              What I perceive is yours as being as much your own system's manner of reasoning through a thing, as his is, his.

                              What Hebrews 13:8 is talking about is; simply, the same sense as this here in Malachi 3 - The Lord's character:

                              6. For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

                              Throughout the OT, that is often the sense of those five words "For I am the LORD."

                              Romans 3:3 carries this same sense, not surprisingly, given it's speaking of Malachi's and Hebrews' same promise.

                              Romans 3:

                              1. What advantage then hath the Jew? Or what profit is there of circumcision?
                              2. Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
                              3. For what if some did not believe? Shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
                              4. God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

                              Hebrews 13:

                              7. Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.
                              8. Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

                              In other word; consider the end of that which you were called unto. For the fact is it was written - that the Son is faithful - always was, always is, and always will be - He will be coming back!

                              Romans 15 shows that in both the Father and the Son:

                              8. Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:
                              9. And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name.

                              Hebrews 7's:

                              21. [For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:]

                              That is Hebrews overall narrative - in their continuation of those just as sure as that equally "more word of prophecy" as to that also - these equally more sure words, here, in Romans 11:

                              25. For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
                              26. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
                              27. For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
                              28. As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father’s sakes.
                              29. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

                              This truth, lost way before the time of the Reformers, they continued in the reasoning that is their own system's "wisdom."

                              Where one applies reasoning to a thing through one's own system, in contrast to doing so from said thing's own, after having first, attempted to identify what that thing's own system is...

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by 1Mind1Spirit View Post
                                Had a flesh and blood body didn't he?

                                Why would Peter or Paul be wrong?
                                According to you the Lord Jesus only had one nature:

                                He's never had two natures.
                                And I quoted these verses to you to demonstrate that He was not only God but also Man:

                                So was Peter wrong when he called the Lord Jesus a man?
                                "Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know" (Jn.2:22).

                                Was Paul wrong when he referred to the Lord Jesus as being a man in both these verses?:
                                "Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead" (Acts 17:31).
                                "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim.2:5).

                                So you will now admit that the Lord Jesus has two natures, that of being Man and that of being God?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X