Search results

"Sovereign" doesn't seem to have either an "omnipotence" meaning (your first option) or a "knowledge" meaning (your third option), as far as I can tell. I agree that the Reformers used it to mean meticulous control, but I don't see how it means that in any biblical usage (though it isn't a...

Thanks for pointing that out. @Ps82, is that how you see that verse? I noticed you didn't address my assertion that Jesus tells us the passage refers to men as "gods" and God doing the speaking. Would you like to now? Yes, that seems disingenuous, doesn't it. That's a common problem around here.

The problem as I see it is that you are all over the place, so you are having a hard time focusing on the topic you say you are trying to address. But I think the reason you are all over the place is that you are shoe-horning all kinds of speculation into scripture where it doesn't fit--without...

That's an interesting idea, but I don't know if you could back it up with scripture, any more than I could refute it with scripture. Death was a result of sin, but Jesus still died, so I don't see how the corruption of the body is any different. I wasn't trying to say it was random or...

I think it is mainly saying that He could die, and His body could decay. He was resurrected before the decay happened. Here's another verse: 2 Peter 1:4 NKJV — by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature...

Seems like we need to discuss Ps 82 in depth, then. Let's start, counterintuitively, with vs 7: Psalm 82:7 NKJV — But you shall die like men, And fall like one of the princes.” This indeed makes it seem like someone other than mere men are being addressed. So move up to vs 6: Psalm 82:6 NKJV —...

I don't disagree with you that Jesus didn't see corruption, as David did. My point was that He was subject to (capable of experiencing) corruption and weak--because He became a human being. Those are human characteristics, not divine ones. Thus Jesus's godly qualities are at the very least...

I guess what you are suggesting is that Adam was "dead", so it excludes him already. I don't think Adam was dead yet. In terms of physical death, he's not dead. In terms if separation from God, he hadn't left the garden yet, God was right there. I just don't see why they would be called sons...

A distinction suggests the two are compatible, i.e., not contradictory. "Mortal" is contradictory to "immortal".

Agreed Agreed, but that cements my point, that He was at one time mortal, despite being immortal at the same time. Acts 13:34 KJV — And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David. Can...

Can you list the attributes of each nature and see if he had both? Divine: immortal Human: mortal Divine: all powerful Human: weak and subject to corruption Etc. Can a person be both at the same time?

Or Paul: 2 Thessalonians 1:11 KJV — Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power:

Christians have a new nature (spirit) and an old nature (flesh). We are assured that the old is passed away, and we are new creatures, yet something of the old remains to be dwelt with, as we all recognize. Our natures are in conflict, as Paul tells us in Rom 7, but Jesus's natures were not...

Good article, Clete. I have a question. Why do you feel that a glorified body is of more consequence than a mortal body? It seems His glorification was a partial changing back to what He was before His incarnation. In that sense, I feel like His incarnation to a mortal body was the bigger change...

Lack of reproduction by no means eliminates the possibility of a being being a sexual being (no typo there). Not just his kingdom, but his family, too: "you are of your FATHER, the devil." But that suggests that they were either born into his family, or that they became a part of his family...

As do I, about what you wrote here, at least in large part. My point from before was that mental (non-physical) fornication, including the homosexual kind, is a type of adultery where a spouse of yours or the other party's exists, and even when there's no adultery, is a way of not loving your...

Kids can learn from making their own mistakes, providing 1) that they face the appropriate consequences for their mistakes, and 2) that they live through the experience. Our society, most importantly for this conversation, and possibly for the purpose of assuring #2 (or even anything close to...

Mother of all the living makes as much sense to mean all of the living to come, especially in light of the other info in the text. Remember that a few verses earlier, she was called THE woman, and he was called THE man. So it seems there were no other humans in the garden. Even a baby is called...

Now you'll need to define "chastity", and explain how an inanimate, non-concrete thing can be offended. For instance, love (as an entity) cannot be offended (because it isn't an entity), but a person who loves can be. "Chastity" isn't an entity, and therefore cannot be offended, but a person who...

I have a hard time doing so without including sexual acts in the definition. That's why I asked. And if sexual acts are involved, then it's not celibacy. If sexual acts are not involved, then it's not homosexuality, imo. Who is Chastity, and why is she involved in this conversation?;) But...