ECT Our triune God

[Jerry Shugart]

I'm not going to give up on you, Jerry...

(Well...yet )

At least we can have a civil discussion on this subject so "Thanks!"

 

[Arsenios]

At least we can have a civil discussion on this subject so "Thanks!"

:thumb:

A.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

And YOU need to understand contextual usage for definition. In this usage, which is pervasive, objective is referring to the object. Hence, objective.

No dude.

Yer tryin' to turn a verb into a noun again.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

No dude.

Yer tryin' to turn a verb into a noun again.

First of all, I never turn verbs into nouns or vice versa.

Objective is either a noun or adjective. It's not a verb, it's the object OF a verb.

Just... Wow. What has gotten into you in the last few months? You've been on the wrong end of everything lately.

Argue with Webster and Oxford, Bro.

Here's the dictionary entry...

ob·jec·tive
əbˈjektiv/
adjective
1.
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
"historians try to be objective and impartial"
synonyms: impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced, nonpartisan, disinterested, neutral, uninvolved, even-handed, equitable, fair, fair-minded, just, open-minded, dispassionate, detached, neutral
"I was hoping to get an objective and pragmatic report"
antonyms: biased, partial, prejudiced
not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.
"a matter of objective fact"
synonyms: factual, actual, real, empirical, evidence-based, verifiable
"eight objective measurements to track student performance"
2.
GRAMMAR
of, relating to, or denoting a case of nouns and pronouns used as the object of a transitive verb or a preposition.
noun
noun: objective; plural noun: objectives; noun: the objective; noun: objective lens; plural noun: objective lenses
1.
a thing aimed at or sought; a goal.
"the system has achieved its objective"
synonyms: aim, intention, purpose, target, goal, intent, object, end; More
2.
GRAMMAR
the objective case.
3.
the lens in a telescope or microscope nearest to the object observed.

Origin - early 17th century: from medieval Latin objectivus, from objectum (see object).

 

[Soror1]

Of course. When the Lord Jesus referred to Himself as "Son of Man" He was saying that He was Man. And Man means "a human being."

So when the Lord Jesus said this:

"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 can be interpreted in the following way:

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

Do you deny that the Lord Jesus is now in heaven as a Human?

He is in heaven with glorified flesh which He received from His human mother, Mary.

Would you please explain how that helps you in anyway? I see nothing there which even hints that when the Lord used the term "Son of Man" that He was referring to anything other than being a Human. You must be seeing something that I am not so please spell it out.

I did spell it out in post 3684. Your reply to that was essentially this:

"The High Priest knew that the Lord Jesus was claiming to be God when He acknowledged that He is the Son of the Blessed, meaning the Son of the Blessed God. That is why he was charged with blasphemy."​

And that's just not true. There was no blasphemy in claiming to be "the Christ, the son of the Blessed" because the Christ was expected to be a son of the Blessed in the manner of Psalm 2:7 as applied to David.

I will tell of the decree:
The Lord said to me, “You are my son;
today I have begotten you.​

Jesus knew that and so did they. So in order to qualify it and make it perfectly clear that He was claiming to be deity, He added Psalm 110 which He already addressed in Mark 12:37 and Daniel 7. Psalm 110 in and of itself wouldn't be enough

It was not His claiming to be Son of Man that upset them so much. Instead, it was His claim to be Son of God that angered them:

"The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God" (Jn.19:7).​

Let's stick to one trial as recorded by one author of a Gospel at a time as these are the official court proceedings and must be able to stand alone.

I still cannot see why you think that these things are teaching that the term Son of Man is referring to something other than being Human. You need to explain what you are thinking.

In Daniel 7, we have a divine being for many reasons because it is YHWH's prerogative to come on or with the clouds of heaven (e.g., Psalm 104; Isa 19) and Jesus appropriates this to Himself.

Daniel also speaks of "the Ancient of Days", "one like a son of man", and "the Most High" and in Daniel ch. 7 one like a son of man=Most High--another title for God.

All this to say that "the Son of Man" (with the article) refers to His deity as in Daniel and when He doesn't use the article as in John 5:27, that's the reference to His humanity.

His humanity was dependent on flesh, bones and blood--"for the life of the flesh is in the blood". In heaven He is now absent blood having offered it as our High Priest and securing our redemption.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

He is in heaven with glorified flesh which He received from His human mother, Mary.

Let us look at this verse:

"It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual" (1 Cor.15:44-46).​

Here the subject concerns the resurrected body which those who are dead in Christ will put on at the rapture. And He uses the Lord Jesus as an example of the resurrected body the saints will have. And he describes Him as being a quickening "spirit."

The Greek word translated "spirit" is the same word 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).​

I did spell it out in post 3684. Your reply to that was essentially this:

"The High Priest knew that the Lord Jesus was claiming to be God when He acknowledged that He is the Son of the Blessed, meaning the Son of the Blessed God. That is why he was charged with blasphemy."​

And that's just not true. There was no blasphemy in claiming to be "the Christ, the son of the Blessed" because the Christ was expected to be a son of the Blessed in the manner of Psalm 2:7 as applied to David.

I never said that the charge of blasphemy was because the Lord said He Christ, but instead because He said He was the Son of the Blessed God. Here we can see a conversation between the Jews and the Lord Jesus:

"We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God" (Jn.10:33).​

And by the Lord's answer we can understand that the charge of blasphemy was because He used the term "Son of God":

"do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?" (Jn.10:36).​

From this we can know that when the Lord Jesus used the term "Son of God" that those hearing Him knew that He was claiming to be God.

But you say that when He used the term "Son of Man" He was claiming to be God!

. There was no blasphemy in claiming to be "the Christ, the son of the Blessed" because the Christ was expected to be a son of the Blessed in the manner of Psalm 2:7 as applied to David.

I will tell of the decree:
The Lord said to me, “You are my son;
today I have begotten you.
Jesus knew that and so did they.

That verse is not speaking of the Christ being expected to have a Son of the Most blessed God:

"God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee" (Acts 13:33).​

This verse is speaking about the Lord Jesus 'resurrection and not Him being born of the Father.

According to your view the Lord Jesus originally had only one nature and then at some point He acquired another nature but He did not change!

That ideas is as strange as your assertion that when the Jews heard the Lord Jesus use the term "Son of Man" He was claiming to be God!

In Daniel 7, we have a divine being for many reasons because it is YHWH's prerogative to come on or with the clouds of heaven (e.g., Psalm 104; Isa 19) and Jesus appropriates this to Himself.

Again, that verse is speaking about the Lord ruling from the throne of David as "Man," being a descendant of the man David:

"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).​

And that is exactly why the Lord Jesus uses the term "Son of Man" when He speaks of sitting on His throne when He will return to the earth:

"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory" (Mt.25:31).​

All this to say that "the Son of Man" (with the article) refers to His deity as in Daniel and when He doesn't use the article as in John 5:27, that's the reference to His humanity.

The words "Son of Man" at Matthew 25:31 are with the article but it is obvious that the reference there is not referring to His deity. You are once again grasping at straws.

This post is already long enough so later I will address the rest of your points.

 

[Soror1]

It was, though now neutralized by a decade elsewhere. Alas, I'm now boringly devoid of much of any accent.

Alas! You're now a Yank

First, the majority consider God to have been IN heaven as eternity, and from heaven He created the cosmos. Not much further consideration is given to any whats or hows.

And for those who do understand heaven as created, it's very much merely lip eservice with no attendant "how" whatsoever.

Many would initially or ultimately agree that heaven is created, but still cannot do anything but assert such with no accounting for how.

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

And this is part of the reason most don't truly consider heaven as created. First, creation is most often generally considered to be ONLY all physical materiality. And second, God isn't intrinsically amidst phenomenal creation.

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 know you think we will, but we actually won't. Classical Trinitarianism will run its course straight into a wall that demands unfounded and unsupported presumptive assertion at the precipice of either personal understanding, obfuscation, or declared mystery.

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...

And you are in rare air to be openly attempting to do so, and more so with any level of understanding. Two millennia of uni-phenomenal perceptive reasoning always gets in the way as cognitive dissonance for most. You are incredibly resilient to that, which is one way I know of your renewed mind in Christ.

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.

Well... Only because we have different understandings of phenomenon and noumenon. God is noumenally omnipresent before He even instantiates phenomenal creation into existence.

All I'm indicating is the insufficiency of the term and its overall usage. Unltil there were "wheres", God was not physically omnipresent. There was no presence of creation (heaven of the cosmos) for His omni-.

Okay.

Yes, and more. Eternity is one key incommunicable attribute that you omitted, and is culpable as causing the great confusion to which I so often refer.

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

There is no eternity but God. It is incommunicable to His creation. And THAT is the distinction most lack; and it's the distinction omitted by the Patristics and later butchered by Aquinas.

There aren't two "kinds" of eternity, God and heaven. God alone is eternal, and He created the everlasting heaven (and cosmos, which "fell" to temporality).

Without getting into an argument over whether aidios and aionois are respectively depicting uncreated timelessness verses all created forms of time OR both being applied synonyms for created time... Eternity as God's incommunicable attribute is innate only to Him and His Self-Conscious Self-Existence.

Heaven is not eternity. Heaven is everlasting. The cosmos was everlasting. Spiritual death, sin, and physical death brought temporality to the physical creation.

These need to be carefully and explicitly delineated. The English term "eternity" is part of the problem. It either needs to be distinct from the term "everlasting", as a line is to a ray in geometry; or it needs to not be applied as the term of God's incommunicable timelessness.

Though not as egregious as the English term "person" for hypostasis, this is a huge issue for vital clarity. God's incommunicable attribute cannot be confused with any created attribute, property, functionality, etc.

Either God alone is eternity, or His incommunicable attribute of timelessness needs another term.

"Atemporal" in this sense!

And this applies to "eternal" life in the context of salvation. It either needs to rigrously be "everlasting" life, or "eternal" needs to never be applied to God as an incommunicable attribute.

It would be far better to utilize "eternal" exclusively for God and "everlasting" for all else, while contrasting temporality to BOTH.

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.

This is the issue between uni-phenomenality and multi-phenomenality. Uni- unites eternity and aeviternity (everlasting), with the disastrous consequences of not being able to distinguish God's incommunicable attribute from some portion of creation.

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

Yes. But you do not and cannot yet realize that God as uncreated phenomenon being compatible with created phenomenon is a huge thing to account for.

I just did, PPS!

One cannot simply say something like, "God bulit and occupied a house.", even while also asserting He was also outside the house while in the house. For the "house" as heaven and the cosmos is not the same phenomenon of existence as Him.

I agree (and I didn't).

There must be a "formatting" (the best descriptor I can employ at present) of God's uncreatedness for compatibility with createdness. THIS is the problem with ALL historical attempts for a Theology Proper formulaic, not just Classical Trinitarianism (which is NOT what most modern professing Trinitarians understand anyway).

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."

Stopping here... This gives lip service to the disinction between transcendence and immanent creation, but no "how". There's never been an appropriate "how", including Aquinas' epic fail.

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.)

Yes, though it's incredibly incomplete. AND... this type of definition is always directed toward material creation and ignoring intangible creation (heaven).

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

No. He tents in heaven as His everlasting abode, also remaining eternally transcendent to heavenly and cosmological creation.

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.

I know you think He did. Many think so. Sigh. He did not. He provided extensive and copious vagueries from a uni-phenomenal perspective ATTEMPTING to present multi-phenomenality. That's why I consider him the most epic failure of all besides Augustine and the plethora of modern theosophologians currently hybridizing the Faith with Esotericism, etc.

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...

Poorly stated, but okay. We'd have to discuss the essence portion, along with including heaven as a consideration in this or any description/definition.

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

There must be ontologically substantial objective reality for existence. There are two phenomena of existence: uncreated phenomenon and created phenomenon. They cannot be addressed as homogenous. They must be understood as multi-phenomenal considerations, not as a uni-phenomenal consideration. Creation has no innate objective reality of existence of its own. The Creator IS the true and only foundational underlying substantial objective reality of existence. And it is His Rhema that carried forth and perpetually upholds created objective reality as phenomena.

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

To be conceived in the mind for representation (re-presentation). Noumenon is predicated upon objective reality.

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...

There would be no subjective creation given phenomenal existence if it weren't for God's uncreated Self-Phenomenon and Self-Noumenon. Our noumenon has no innate Self-Phenomenal existence, though we are created phenomenon.

Good to this point, too.

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

The noumenon has no objective reality. The objective reality is that of the object. For God, His Logos is both uncreated phenomenon AND noumenon.

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

Whatever He thinks and wills is accompanied by the ontology and power to accomplish it coming into existence.

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

Our noumenon is not Self-phenomenal or with such innate power.

Our logos may only subjectively re-present objective reality, OR the noumenon can only be a figment of the imagination.

Agreed.

Our noumenon is not phenomenon. Our logos is not the means of our noumenon being based on intrinsic Self-Phenomenon. Our logos can only re-present phenomenality in words. We cannot innately create.

So the word "book" is only the re-presentation of the object's objective reality as the subjective realization that is a word.

We're beginning to uncover that. It's the foundational distinction between multi- and uni- phenomenality.

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

Yes, simply for now. All created objective reality is still ultimately subjective to God, who is the ONLY TRUE objective reality. Better said, all created objective reality is subject to the one UNcreated objective reality... GOD.

Agreed!

We'll need to talk about the scabbard for the sword of the Spirit. The sword and its scabbard are one.

Okay, but let's focus on the two first.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Let us look at this verse:

"It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual" (1 Cor.15:44-46).​

Here the subject concerns the resurrected body which those who are dead in Christ will put on at the rapture. And He uses the Lord Jesus as an example of the resurrected body the saints will have. And he describes Him as being a quickening "spirit."

The Greek word translated "spirit" is the same word 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).​

I never said that the charge of blasphemy was because the Lord said He Christ, but instead because He said He was the Son of the Blessed God. Here we can see a conversation between the Jews and the Lord Jesus:

"We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God" (Jn.10:33).​

And by the Lord's answer we can understand that the charge of blasphemy was because He used the term "Son of God":

"do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?" (Jn.10:36).​

From this we can know that when the Lord Jesus used the term "Son of God" that those hearing Him knew that He was claiming to be God.

But you say that when He used the term "Son of Man" He was claiming to be God!



That verse is not speaking of the Christ being expected to have a Son of the Most blessed God:

"God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee" (Acts 13:33).​

This verse is speaking about the Lord Jesus 'resurrection and not Him being born of the Father.

According to your view the Lord Jesus originally had only one nature and then at some point He acquired another nature but He did not change!

That ideas is as strange as your assertion that when the Jews heard the Lord Jesus use the term "Son of Man" He was claiming to be God!



Again, that verse is speaking about the Lord ruling from the throne of David as "Man," being a descendant of the man David:

"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).​

And that is exactly why the Lord Jesus uses the term "Son of Man" when He speaks of sitting on His throne when He will return to the earth:

"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory" (Mt.25:31).​

The words "Son of Man" at Matthew 25:31 are with the article but it is obvious that the reference there is not referring to His deity. You are once again grasping at straws.

This post is already long enough so later I will address the rest of your points.

I can relate to what yer sayin' Jerry.

However the scriptures you try to use wont do the gymnastics you'd like for them to do.

The bottom line is Jesus only has one nature.

He took on a flesh and blood body.

His one divine nature could not be overcome by taking on flesh and blood while living in this world.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

First of all, I never turn verbs into nouns or vice versa.

Objective is either a noun or adjective. It's not a verb, it's the object OF a verb.

Just... Wow. What has gotten into you in the last few months? You've been on the wrong end of everything lately.

Argue with Webster and Oxford, Bro.

Here's the dictionary entry...

ob·jec·tive
əbˈjektiv/
adjective
1.
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
"historians try to be objective and impartial"
synonyms: impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced, nonpartisan, disinterested, neutral, uninvolved, even-handed, equitable, fair, fair-minded, just, open-minded, dispassionate, detached, neutral
"I was hoping to get an objective and pragmatic report"
antonyms: biased, partial, prejudiced
not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.
"a matter of objective fact"
synonyms: factual, actual, real, empirical, evidence-based, verifiable
"eight objective measurements to track student performance"
2.
GRAMMAR
of, relating to, or denoting a case of nouns and pronouns used as the object of a transitive verb or a preposition.
noun
noun: objective; plural noun: objectives; noun: the objective; noun: objective lens; plural noun: objective lenses
1.
a thing aimed at or sought; a goal.
"the system has achieved its objective"
synonyms: aim, intention, purpose, target, goal, intent, object, end; More
2.
GRAMMAR
the objective case.
3.
the lens in a telescope or microscope nearest to the object observed.

Origin - early 17th century: from medieval Latin objectivus, from objectum (see object).

You remind me of that game on the price is right.

You can flip or you can flop or you can flip-flop. :chuckle:

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The bottom line is Jesus only has one nature.

He took on a flesh and blood body.

His one divine nature could not be overcome by taking on flesh and blood living in this world.

The Lord Jesus was Man before He took on a flesh and blood body. Here are His own words:

"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).​

It was as Man that the Lord Jesus came down to earth. He was Man before He was born of Mary.

You just assume that a flesh and blood body is essential to being human. But it is not.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Full Definition of PHENOMENAL
: relating to or being a phenomenon: as
a : known through the senses rather than through thought or intuition
b : concerned with phenomena rather than with hypotheses
c : extraordinary, remarkable
— phe·nom·e·nal·ly
\-nəl-ē\ adverb



Hebrews 5:14 KJV

14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

The Lord Jesus was Man before He took on a flesh and blood body. Here are His own words:

"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).​

It was as Man that the Lord Jesus came down to earth. He was Man before He was born of Mary.

You just assume that a flesh and blood body is essential to being human. But it is not.

Earth to Jerry, come in Jerry.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Earth to Jerry, come in Jerry.

Is that all you can say after I presented you the evidence that the Lord Jesus existed as Man before He was born of Mary?

The bottom line is Jesus only has one nature.

Earth to 1Mind1Spirit, come in 1Mind1Spirit!

Stephen saw a vision of the Lord Jesus in heaven and what He saw was the "Son of Man":

"And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God" (Acts 7:56).​

Do you not believe that the Lord Jesus, at the present time, has two natures, being both God and Man?

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Is that all you can say after I presented you the evidence that the Lord Jesus existed as Man before He was born of Mary?

You presented nothing.

The reason it behoved Jesus to be made like his flesh and blood brethren was to bring them into sonship.

Jesus was the Son of God and it was God's purpose from the beginning for His son to do just that.

Earth to 1Mind1Spirit, come in 1Mind1Spirit!

Stephen saw a vision of the Lord Jesus in heaven and what He saw was the "Son of Man":

"And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God" (Acts 7:56).​

Do you not believe that the Lord Jesus, at the present time, has two natures, being both God and Man?

He's never had two natures.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Daniel also speaks of "the Ancient of Days", "one like a son of man", and "the Most High" and in Daniel ch. 7 one like a son of man=Most High--another title for God.

Again, in Daniel 7 the Lord is spoken of as the Son of Man:

"I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed" (Dan.7:13-14).​

The reason why the term "the Son of Man" is used is because the Lord Jesus will rule as Man on David's throne:

"Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne" (Acts 2:30).​

The words "the fruit of his loins" must be referring to the humanity of the Lord Jesus. So there is nothing that even hints that when the words "Son of Man" are used at Daniel 7:13 that the reference is to God.

His humanity was dependent on flesh, bones and blood--"for the life of the flesh is in the blood". In heaven He is now absent blood having offered it as our High Priest and securing our redemption.

Let us look at this verse again:

"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.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

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).​

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

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.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

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.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

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

 

[Jerry Shugart]

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).​