more divine mystery

[cj]

It's nice to be needed :D but as far as what's heresy or not, you would need to determine what the earliest Christians believed. The earliest Christians were Jews. Jews were/are prohibited from believing that God could be a man, or could "come as a man", or however you want to put it. What you accept as "Christianity" is an evolved set of doctrines, made possible, and perhaps inevitable, by the influx of gentiles into the church, and their disdain for Jewish customs, theology, and Jews themselves.

"... the earliest Christians..... WERE..... Jews."

Great, but see if you can comprehend the reality of that statement.

"Were", past, meaning no more.

Upon being born-again a man is of God and not of man.

Therfeore, upon being born-again (which is the same as becoming a Christian) he who was a Jew was no longer a Jew.

Scripture says that we are to have the mind of Christ, not the mind of a Jew.

And before you go off on a tangent about Christ being a Jew,.... it is so only in His humanity, for Christ was long before Abraham crossed the river, and long before circumcision came into being, and long before Jacob had his twelve sons, and long before Moses received the law.


Your misunderstanding comes from not knowing where to look Brad.

Scriptures tell us that God took on human form, and not that God became a man.

Scriptures tell us that during this time of taking on human form God made a choice to be limited according to the limitations of this human form. Meaning, He was not limited because He became a man, He was limited because He chose to be limited.


Jesus Christ is God, and has been forever.

He is the Son, the third in the triune God of all creation.

For the Father He came to the earth and took on humanity, lived, died, raised Himself from death, ascended to the heavens and was seated on His throne, and has returned to earth as the Life-giving Spirit to live in the spirits of regenerated men.


Really Brad, everything you have argued can be easily refuted in all clarity through proper interpretation and presentation of the scriptures.


In love,
cj

 

[DivineNames]

For the Father He came to the earth and took on humanity, lived, died, raised Himself from death

"raised himself from death"? He can't really have been dead then.

 

[PHIL121]

For the Father He came to the earth and took on humanity, lived, died, raised Himself from death

"raised himself from death"? He can't really have been dead then.

Indeed, it was God the Father who raised Jesus with the power of The Holy Spirit.

As far as the Trinity goes, I have a rather unorthodox view. I see the three elements of the Godhead as separate entities, but NOT Exactly the same. The most mysterous part of the Trinity is the Holy Spirit, IMO. I believe ithas a personality, but a different sort of substance than both God or Jesus. It always is represented by some etherial form as well, as opposed to Abba Father or Jesus who always seem to be represented anthropomorphically.

 

[Gendou Ikari]

According to Trinitarian's, "God is one Being, existing eternally in three hypostases: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."
Hypostases means “essential nature of anything; a subject in which attributes are conceived to inhere, or a . . . mode of existence.â€Â

To clear this up Trinitarianism says that God is one being that exists eternally in three essentialities: The Father, The Son, and the Holy Ghost. In other words God has three modes: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost that he always and eternally exists in. (Not to be confused with modalism.) So, if these three are essentialities in which God subsists[continuees to exits] then each is not literally God but rather a mode of God.

"It would only be, wherever any of these are termed God, or spoken of as God, that we are to understand, by figure of association, God Himself."

Thus when people say that "Jesus is God" this is only meant figurativley. They should say that Jesus is an essential mode of God" since he isn't a person[being], rather he is an aspect of of being.


Words in Red are of James Coram.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

For the Father He came to the earth and took on humanity, lived, died, raised Himself from death

"raised himself from death"? He can't really have been dead then.

A brilliant observation, DN!! :angel:

Need I predict it's going to go right over their heads? :roll:

 

[Orthodox Christian]

For the Father He came to the earth and took on humanity, lived, died, raised Himself from death

"raised himself from death"? He can't really have been dead then.

A brilliant observation, DN!! :angel:

Need I predict it's going to go right over their heads? :roll:

But not over yours, O illuminated one?

Though dead physically, Christ did not die, just as He has promised us that we won't. Oh yes, our bodies will die, but we will not.

But He alone had the power to Resurrect His own physical body.

Any other questions?

 

[Orthodox Christian]

If Jesus takes the penalty "on himself", he has to stay dead, or he has to burn in hell for all eternity.

Of if the penalty is only to be dead for three days, why would we need Jesus? Couldn't we sinners just take the penalty of being dead for three days?

Christian rationalization works this way DN...

His sacrifice was infinitely more valuable than any single human life because he was God.

Apparently your reading on the Atonement begins and ends with Anslem. Christ's life, death, and Life Atone because of His identification with us, not His difference with us. He is the only One fitting to be the prototype and the archetype of sonship.

You believe that the centrist Christian argument for atonement is the penitential sacrifice suggested by Anselm and most recently promulgated by one Mel Gibson, Hollywood actor. In this model, sin actions require an equal and opposite reaction, ie sacrifice.
But the sacrifice of Christ is not a 'covering of sin,' and is not like animal sacrifices by any means. Rather, the sacrifice of Christ is the swallowing up in Himself all that is lacking, puerile, hateful, and self-centered in man in one singular, perfect non-resistance. Yield, and overcome.

Yet even my brief and awkward comments only serve to paint a picture of Christ as a sufi, rather than a lamb. Truth is that those who sacrifice themselves for man cannot be rightly explained by carnal men such as myself- much less so, the very Son of God.

Alternately, he didn't die as God, he died as a man, because God can't die. They take a premise, that he was both God and man, and pick and choose the necessary characteristics of each to accomplish the desired equation, while ignoring the fact that these states of being preclude one another. (There should be a term for this sort of logical fallacy, but I don't know what it is)

The term you're looking for is Brad's artificial dichotomies.

If we simply switch the application of the God and man characteristics we see it doesn't work. If Jesus was God, his death is meaningless because God can't die, and if Jesus was a man, his death is not of infinite value. They see the cup as "half-full" and refuse to consider that it is also "half-empty".

So the test of truth is that it must be reversible like an LLBeaner vest?
Good Lord, Brad, I'm thinking that your Rubick's cube has had the stickers peeled up more than once in the act of 'solving.'

 

[Gendou Ikari]

Though dead physically, Christ did not die, just as He has promised us that we won't. Oh yes, our bodies will die, but we will not.

But He alone had the power to Resurrect His own physical body.

Any other questions?

Yes, I have a question. I don't want to get into a whole debate about the body, soul, and spirit here but I would like to know what scriptures you are getting this info from.

 

[DivineNames]

If Jesus takes the penalty "on himself", he has to stay dead, or he has to burn in hell for all eternity.

Of if the penalty is only to be dead for three days, why would we need Jesus? Couldn't we sinners just take the penalty of being dead for three days?

Christian rationalization works this way DN...

His sacrifice was infinitely more valuable than any single human life because he was God.

Apparently your reading on the Atonement begins and ends with Anslem. Christ's life, death, and Life Atone because of His identification with us, not His difference with us. He is the only One fitting to be the prototype and the archetype of sonship.

You believe that the centrist Christian argument for atonement is the penitential sacrifice suggested by Anselm and most recently promulgated by one Mel Gibson, Hollywood actor. In this model, sin actions require an equal and opposite reaction, ie sacrifice.

Part of that quote was mine, so I guess I should answer. I am well aware that there are various theories of the atonement, (presumably Brad is also aware of this, but that is for him to comment on). I was addressing the theory on the table.

 

[DivineNames]

According to Trinitarian's, "God is one Being, existing eternally in three hypostases: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."
Hypostases means “essential nature of anything; a subject in which attributes are conceived to inhere, or a . . . mode of existence.â€Â

To clear this up Trinitarianism says that God is one being that exists eternally in three essentialities: The Father, The Son, and the Holy Ghost. In other words God has three modes: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost that he always and eternally exists in. (Not to be confused with modalism.) So, if these three are essentialities in which God subsists[continuees to exits] then each is not literally God but rather a mode of God.

"It would only be, wherever any of these are termed God, or spoken of as God, that we are to understand, by figure of association, God Himself."

Thus when people say that "Jesus is God" this is only meant figurativley. They should say that Jesus is an essential mode of God" since he isn't a person[being], rather he is an aspect of of being.


Words in Red are of James Coram.

So what became incarnate is a rather abstract 'aspect' of one being/person? That 'aspect' is not anything like a 'person'?


John 17:22-24 (NIV)


(22) I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: (23) I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. (24) "Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.


If there is love between the 'persons', wouldn't that require that they be something like a person in the ordinary sense?

One aspect of a being, loving a different aspect of himself... is that the love that exists in the Trinity?

 

[BradtheImpaler]

For the Father He came to the earth and took on humanity, lived, died, raised Himself from death

"raised himself from death"? He can't really have been dead then.

A brilliant observation, DN!! :angel:

Need I predict it's going to go right over their heads? :roll:

But not over yours, O illuminated one?

Though dead physically, Christ did not die, just as He has promised us that we won't. Oh yes, our bodies will die, but we will not.

But He alone had the power to Resurrect His own physical body.

Any other questions?

Well, I guess he wasn't really dead then? :wink:

 

[Orthodox Christian]

For the Father He came to the earth and took on humanity, lived, died, raised Himself from death

"raised himself from death"? He can't really have been dead then.

A brilliant observation, DN!! :angel:

Need I predict it's going to go right over their heads? :roll:

But not over yours, O illuminated one?

Though dead physically, Christ did not die, just as He has promised us that we won't. Oh yes, our bodies will die, but we will not.

But He alone had the power to Resurrect His own physical body.

Any other questions?

Well, I guess he wasn't really dead then? :wink:

death (dth)
n.

The end of life; the permanent cessation of vital bodily functions, as manifested in humans by the loss of heartbeat, the absence of spontaneous breathing, and brain death.

By this definition, He was indeed dead.

Of course, you have unique and spontaneous definitions for certain key words, Brad, so perhaps you'd like to argue this point.

 

[Gendou Ikari]

So what became incarnate is a rather abstract 'aspect' of one being/person? That 'aspect' is not anything like a 'person'?

Let's look at this logically. If The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost all have their own being (that's three beings) then how are they all the same God? If that is correct then God is not really a being rather He is an idea that these three beings create.

If there is love between the 'persons', wouldn't that require that they be something like a person in the ordinary sense?
One aspect of a being, loving a different aspect of himself... is that the love that exists in the Trinity?

I'm not saying that they are not beings. I don't believe in the Trinity. I believe:
But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. (I Corinthians 8:6)

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Though dead physically, Christ did not die, just as He has promised us that we won't. Oh yes, our bodies will die, but we will not.

But He alone had the power to Resurrect His own physical body.

Any other questions?

Yes, I have a question. I don't want to get into a whole debate about the body, soul, and spirit here but I would like to know what scriptures you are getting this info from.

Hi: no problem, glad to expound

John 11:26
And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

But of course, we know that people die physical death every day. So when He says "never die," He must be speaking either metaphorically, or literally about some aspect of us that does not die... ie, metaphor or tripartite anthropology.
as He had just prior to this quote said

he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

Yet they 'never die.'

Well, being as He was human, He was going to die, and did so violently. Now what happened between Friday afternoon and Sunday "very early?"
Peter tell us:

because also Christ once for sin did suffer -- righteous for unrighteous -- that he might lead us to God, having been put to death indeed, in the flesh, and having been made alive in the spirit, in which he also went and preached to the spirits in prison, those who disobeyed God long ago when God waited patiently while Noah was building his boat.

How could He, dead, preach to the spirits in prison? Having been made alive in the Spirit, by which He went...

and, as Paul notes in Epesians 4:9

In saying, 'he ascended,' what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower parts of the earth.

It is quite clear that the very early church believed that Christ was crucified, was buried, and descended into Hades. There He harrowed death and the grave, "made captivity captive," destroyed the dominion of death over man, and rose triumphantly from the Tomb.

Did He do this on the Sabbath? Well, in one sense, He clearly rested on the Sabbath- but as for the activities of Christ in the grave- well, He often did His greatest miracles ON THE SABBATH.
Who knows. Fact remains, there is good biblical and excellent historical ecclesiastical evidence for my statements here.
I would be happy to furnish the quotes of the early Church on the matter, but you asked for bible evidence.
James

 

[Gendou Ikari]

Let me quote more of the verse:

24Martha saith unto him, I know that he[her brother] shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.

25Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

26And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? (John 11:24-26)

In Verse 25 Jesus states that the believers are dead. But I don't think that He is talking about physically death here. That's one of the marvels of the Gospel. The other whom Jesus is talking to is always talking to Him on a carnal level, never getting the spiritual truth to His teachings. Well, it wasn't their fault; they didn't have the Holy Ghost.

Did Jesus say, "You silly woman. Your brother will not be raised at the ressurection because He is in heaven with me." No!

And does the Scriptures say that their can be a metaphorical death? Yes!

And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; (Ephesians 2:1)

Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) (Ephesians 2:5)

There I have too witnesses to back up my statement. And just how does the believer never die? Well, he never dies in the sense that He is alive in Christ Jesus. The man/woman does physically die. He goes to Sheol or Hell as the King James Version translates it 31 times. But yes, the believe will go down to the Grave or the Imperciptible.

I wanted to answer the rest of your questions but I am out of time.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Let me quote more of the verse:

24Martha saith unto him, I know that he[her brother] shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.

25Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

26And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? (John 11:24-26)

In Verse 25 Jesus states that the believers are dead. But I don't think that He is talking about physically death here. That's one of the marvels of the Gospel. The other whom Jesus is talking to is always talking to Him on a carnal level, never getting the spiritual truth to His teachings. Well, it wasn't their fault; they didn't have the Holy Ghost.

Did Jesus say, "You silly woman. Your brother will not be raised at the ressurection because He is in heaven with me." No!

No, He doesn't have to. He laready stated in verse 25 the obvious- people die. She already believed that people would be resurrected in the last day. But He said "they who believe in me shall NOT die- then went on to speak of Himself as present tense Resurrection life- not only in the Last Days.

And, as I made room for, one can allegorize His comments on this matter, so that He says, in effect, "there really is no death, for you who believe in me are alive in me, even as you die." This still places Resurrection in the future, and begs the question why His insistence on speaking of Himself as resurrection Life, present tense.

And does the Scriptures say that their can be a metaphorical death? Yes!

And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; (Ephesians 2:1)

Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) (Ephesians 2:5)

You say this is metaphor. I say that the truth of the matter is found in the challenge of Satan: "You will surely not die." But we know that the scriptures teach us that not only did Adam die in his transgression, but we all died in him. Is this metaphor, or yet to be manifested reality?

There I have too witnesses to back up my statement. And just how does the believer never die? Well, he never dies in the sense that He is alive in Christ Jesus. The man/woman does physically die. He goes to Sheol or Hell as the King James Version translates it 31 times. But yes, the believe will go down to the Grave or the Imperciptible.

I wanted to answer the rest of your questions but I am out of time.

You said that you did not want to debate the spirit/soul/body issue, but that is in fact the subject of your rebuttal. Your rebuttal requires us to allegorize Jesus' statement, and to ignore the scripture I quoted from 1 Peter. The center and ground of my argument was not as much to enter a debate on soul sleep as much as it was to point out that Christ was dead physically, yet alive and active, as scripture testifies.

In truth, I tirequickly of debating soul sleep heresy. Please keep the topic on what it was that we were discussing, and that is the state of Jesus in 'death.'
Thanks
James

 

[DivineNames]

Let's look at this logically. If The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost all have their own being (that's three beings) then how are they all the same God?

I think you would have three Gods in that circumstance.

If the persons are not something like a, "centre of consciousness and will", how can they be said to love?

(As you believe in an unorthodox version of Christianity, this may not be an issue for you.)

 

[DivineNames]

death (dth)
n.

The end of life; the permanent cessation of vital bodily functions, as manifested in humans by the loss of heartbeat, the absence of spontaneous breathing, and brain death.

By this definition, He was indeed dead.

What we would say is death for an ordinary person, can that necessarily be transferred over to someone who is two natures in union, where one of those natures simply can't die?

 

[Orthodox Christian]

death (dth)
n.

The end of life; the permanent cessation of vital bodily functions, as manifested in humans by the loss of heartbeat, the absence of spontaneous breathing, and brain death.

By this definition, He was indeed dead.

What we would say is death for an ordinary person, can that necessarily be transferred over to someone who is two natures in union, where one of those natures simply can't die?

Speaking as one who fits that description, yes. Of course, my human nature is somewhat at odds with my spiritual nature, unlike Christ, but my response is still, unequivocally 'yes.'

 

[DivineNames]

Lets assume that you have a human body and soul. (I imagine this is what you are talking about with regard to your spiritual nature) So did Jesus. This is different to the hypostatic union claimed for the Son of God. Do you have that?


It seems to me that Christians want God to die on the cross, but not really...