Donations for the month of December


We have received a total of "0" in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Forum Search
Member Spotlight
Meta4
Meta4
Canada
Posts: 82
Joined: May 2016
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics7,320
Posts53,340
Members964
Most Online523
Jan 14th, 2020
Top Posters
Pilgrim 14,069
Tom 4,075
chestnutmare 3,087
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,820
RJ_ 1,583
MarieP 1,579
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 24
Pilgrim 19
Meta4 4
John_C 2
Robin 1
Recent Posts
Spurgeon
by Pilgrim - Thu Dec 02, 2021 7:06 PM
Nero
by Meta4 - Thu Dec 02, 2021 12:18 PM
Gracious High Priest
by NetChaplain - Wed Dec 01, 2021 2:05 PM
A Discourse on the Cleansing Virtue of Christ's Blood
by Pilgrim - Wed Dec 01, 2021 6:44 AM
Renewed Strength
by chestnutmare - Tue Nov 30, 2021 5:56 PM
Faith-Trials (Jas 1:3)
by NetChaplain - Mon Nov 29, 2021 3:20 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
#50596 Mon Mar 24, 2014 8:50 PM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,087
Likes: 2
Annie Oakley
OP Offline
Annie Oakley
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,087
Likes: 2
O the deep, deep love of Jesus, vast, unmeasured, boundless, free!
Rolling as a mighty ocean in its fullness over me!
Underneath me, all around me, is the current of Thy love
Leading onward, leading homeward to Thy glorious rest above!

O the deep, deep love of Jesus, spread His praise from shore to shore!
How He loveth, ever loveth, changeth never, nevermore!
How He watches o'er His loved ones, died to call them all His own;
How for them He intercedeth, watcheth o'er them from the throne!

O the deep, deep love of Jesus, love of every love the best!
'Tis an ocean vast of blessing, 'tis a haven sweet of rest!
O the deep, deep love of Jesus, 'tis a heaven of heavens to me;
And it lifts me up to glory, for it lifts me up to Thee!~Samuel Trevor Francis

________________________________________________________

Ephesians 3:14-19 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father, 15 from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, 16 that he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, that ye may be strengthened with power through his Spirit in the inward man; 17 that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; to the end that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 may be strong to apprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, 19 and to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge, that ye may be filled unto all the fulness of God.

Romans 8:38, 39 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 36
Newbie
Offline
Newbie
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 36
Heb 2:6-9 What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? You made him a little lower than the angels; you crowned him with glory and honor and put everything under his feet." In putting everything under him, God left nothing that is not subject to him. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to him. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. NIV

I am an engineer and I like to get my hands around an issue to understand it. The depth of the love of Jesus may be able to be realized after one realizes how big the universe is that Jesus created. Brace yourself for some big numbers. Astronomers now believe there are probably somewhere between 1 sextillion (1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) and 1 septillion (1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) stars in the universe: The smaller number, (1 sextillion) is a number that is 10 times larger than the estimated number of grains of sand that exist on Earth. The depth of his love gets even deeper when you consider how small and area of the earth that he visited on his way to the cross.

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,070
Likes: 20
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,070
Likes: 20
Originally Posted by Wayne@purpose
The depth of the love of Jesus may be able to be realized after one realizes how big the universe is that Jesus created.
Important note: Jesus did not create the universe. The Son of God, the second person of the Trinity was involved in the creation of the universe (cf. Ps 102:25-27; Isa 44:24; Jh 1:1-3; Eph 3:9, Col 1:16,17; 2:9,10, Heb 1:2,10-12; 3:3-4; et al). "Jesus" was born of a woman, conceived by the Holy Spirit. This is the incarnation of the Son of God who is eternal. Jesus (the man) with the Son of God is the Christ (title). It is fundamentally important to distinguish between the two and not make the serious error of co-mingling the two natures. See The Chalcedon Creed.


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 36
Newbie
Offline
Newbie
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 36
Pilgrim,
1. I do not know why you your note is worded to be so conclusive. I have read this creed and it does not exclude Jesus from creating the universe.
· The creed established the orthodox view that Christ has two natures (human and divine) and that they are unified in one person. (that is “Jesus”)
· It acknowledges one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood,
· It acknowledges one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood;
· It says He is the one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.


2. Furthermore your own references show Jesus (the Word) creating the universe,
· (Heb 1:1-2) makes reference to Him being Heir and lawful Owner of all things, also by and through Whom He created the worlds and the reaches of space and the ages of time [He made, produced, built, operated, and arranged them in order]. AMP
· John 1:1-3, 14 says all things were made throught the Word and the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. (The Word is Jesus)
· Col 1:15-19 Says He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him,
· Heb 1:8-10 says this about the Son: "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy." He also says, "In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. NIV
· Heb 3:3-4 Jesus has been found worthy of greater honor than Moses, just as the builder of a house has greater honor than the house itself. For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything. NIV

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,070
Likes: 20
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,070
Likes: 20
Originally Posted by Wayne@purpose
Pilgrim,
2. Furthermore your own references show Jesus (the Word) creating the universe, ...
a. I included the Chalcedon Creed because it makes clear that Jesus, the incarnate Son of God is both divine and human, i.e., He possesses two distinct natures. But it goes on to warn of the errors which had already been introduced into the Church, which were to either intermix (confuse) the two natures or to make the two natures mutually exclusive (divide) the two natures. Your error is to 'confuse' the two natures and to deny the historicity of the incarnation; making Jesus eternal.

b. In the above quote, you demonstrate this error by equating the "Word" with Jesus. Although it is a common error, it is a very serious one and an error/heresy which the apostle John was inspired to write against in both his gospel and epistles. Yet, it is amazing to me how many people simply don't comprehend what John wrote.

Quote
John 1:1-3 (ASV) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made."
Thus, the 'logos', the 'Word' was GOD and made all things. Then moving on to verse 14 we read the inspired text:

Quote
John 1:14 (ASV) "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth."
Here John gives us the very essence of biblical Christianity; God condescended to appear on earth having taken upon Himself humanity, aka: incarnation. The purpose of writing these words was to dispel the error of the Gnostics who denied this very truth.

So, let's take your statement and see how it stands up to what John wrote. You believe that the "Word = Jesus" (1:1-3). Taking that proposition, the text would read, "In the beginning was the Word Jesus, and the Word Jesus was with God, and the Word Jesus was God. The same [Jesus] was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him [Jesus]; and without him [Jesus] was not anything made that hath been made."

Moving on down to verse 14 and continuing with your proposition, the text would read, "And the Word Jesus became flesh [Jesus], and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth."

Hopefully, the fallacy of your view is now very clear... "Jesus became Jesus"??? The main point that John is trying to make which evidently has escaped you is that GOD, GOD the SON, the second person of the Trinity took upon human flesh, a body in space and time, born of a woman and that person was Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus was born and came into existence not having existed beforehand. The SON of GOD, who took upon that human body is eternal. Jesus in his humanity did not create anything for he was part of God's creation in the 1st century B.C. GOD the Son created all things along with the Father and the Spirit. It is proper to speak of the CHRIST (title... not a name) created all things for it is referring to the divinity of the incarnate SON of GOD.

BTW, you would do well to trash the NIV and get a bible that isn't the product of dynamic equivalence, e.g., the KJV, ASV, NKJB, ESV. wink


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 36
Newbie
Offline
Newbie
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 36
1 Sam 15:29 He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his mind." NIV

Ps 110:4 The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind: "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek." NIV

Mal 3:6 "I the LORD do not change. So you, O descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed. NIV

Heb 7:21 but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him: "The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: 'You are a priest forever.'" NIV

Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. NIV

James 1:16-18 Don't be deceived, my dear brothers. Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. NIV

Your argument has the following weaknesses:

1. You are saying God fundamentally changed when Jesus was born. That is, he was not complete and needed to evolve to reach a final state. This is contrary to Mal 3:6 and James 1:16-18.
2. You are saying God changed his mind to include a human element. This is contrary to Mal 3:6, James 1:16-18, 1 Sam 15:29, Ps 110:4 and Heb 7:21.
3. You are saying Jesus Christ is not eternal. This is contrary to Heb 13:8
4. You have ignored (failed to address) my reference to Heb 1:1-2 which connects Jesus = “him that spoke to us” as the one “through whom also he created the worlds”
5. You have ignored (failed to address) my reference to Heb 3:3-4 which connects “Jesus” to “the builder of all things”
6. You have ignored (failed to address) my reference to Col 1:15-17 which connects “our Lord Jesus Christ” in verse 3 to “all things that were created”
7. You have ignored (failed to address) my reference to the creed which says “He is the one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division”.



BTW, love does not take into account a wrong suffered,

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,087
Likes: 2
Annie Oakley
OP Offline
Annie Oakley
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,087
Likes: 2
Wayne, the person of Jesus did not exist prior to the incarnation. The Second Person of the trinity, the Son of God existed in eternity and through the incarnation became the God-man Jesus.




The Chestnut Mare
All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by frost.
- - - -JRR Tolkien "Lord of the Rings"
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,070
Likes: 20
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,070
Likes: 20
Originally Posted by Wayne@purpose
Your argument has the following weaknesses:

1. You are saying God fundamentally changed when Jesus was born. That is, he was not complete and needed to evolve to reach a final state. This is contrary to Mal 3:6 and James 1:16-18.
I am NOT saying any such thing! God didn't "change" at the incarnation. The eternal Word, the second person of the Trinity took on human flesh, joining Himself with a human body to become the "God-man". The aseity of God was not compromised in any way, shape or manner whatsoever. Let's look at how Paul describes this historic event:

Quote
Philippians 2:5-9 (ASV) "Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient [even] unto death, yea, the death of the cross. Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every name;"

1 Timothy 3:16 (ASV) "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; He who was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the spirit, Seen of angels, Preached among the nations, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory."
In the Philippian passage we see that it was the Son of God who emptied himself by humbling himself by 'being made in the likeness of men', aka: the incarnation; God joined himself with a human body. Thus there existed in the Lord Christ two distinct natures; the divine and the human. As Chaceldon states, there is no confusion of the two natures, but rather, they are distinct. The Son of God did not 'change' nor was He 'incomplete' without the incarnation.

In the Timothy passage we see this same truth, that God was 'manifested', that is He appeared to mankind in the form of a human. The two natures were joined together but not 'confused'. God remained the eternal God, the creator of all things while the human nature, Jesus of Nazareth remained perfectly human. More on application of this fundamental truth below.

Originally Posted by Wayne@purpose
2. You are saying God changed his mind to include a human element. This is contrary to Mal 3:6, James 1:16-18, 1 Sam 15:29, Ps 110:4 and Heb 7:21.
I am NOT saying any such thing. It was God's eternal purpose and decree to redeem a remnant of fallen mankind by sending the Son to become man in the person of the Lord Christ. That purpose was sealed in the eternal "Covenant of Redemption", i.e., a covenant made between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

"Although the term “Covenant of Redemption” is not a biblical designation, the teaching that, from before the creation of the world, the persons of the Trinity entered into a solemn pact to accomplish the work of redemption, the Father promising to give a people to the Son as his inheritance, the Son undertaking to accomplish their redemption, and the Spirit covenanting to testify to Christ, and apply his redemption to his people's hearts, is most evidently biblical. Thus, according to the divine testimony, the Lamb was already considered as “slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13:8) so certainly was the agreement to accomplish redemption established before history.

Several biblical passages give clear testimony to the concept of the Covenant of Redemption. One of the primary is Psalm 2, which depicts Christ relating the terms of the Covenant that the Father had established with him. Isaiah 53:10-12 also speaks of the covenantal agreement between the Father and the Son in the accomplishing of redemption; and Ephesians 1:3-14 gives a trinitarian picture of the roles that each person of the godhead undertook from eternity to perform. However, the clearest and best passages depicting the Covenant of Redemption are to be found in the Gospel of John. There, Jesus repeatedly speaks of the work that the Father gave him to do, the glorious reward that he was promised, and the sending of the Spirit to apply the benefits of his redemption and bring about in fact the promised reward of a redeemed people, that was merited by the Son's unerring obedience to the Father (see John 5:17-31, 36-37, 43; 6:37-40, 57; 7:28-29, 38-39; 8:16-19, 26-29, 38, 42, 49-54; 9:4; 10:14-18, 25-30, 36-38; 12:23-28, 44-50; 13:3, 20, 31-32; 14:9-14, 16-20, 24-26; 15:8-15, 24-27; 16:7-16, 27-28; 17)."


Originally Posted by Wayne@purpose
3. You are saying Jesus Christ is not eternal. This is contrary to Heb 13:8
I am NOT saying that Jesus Christ is not eternal. What I am saying and have all along is that the divine nature, the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity is eternal. But, the human nature, that which was born of Mary is not eternal, having a beginning but no end. Again, one must guard against 'confusing' the two natures of Christ.

Although the term “Covenant of Redemption” is not a biblical designation, the teaching that, from before the creation of the world, the persons of the Trinity entered into a solemn pact to accomplish the work of redemption, the Father promising to give a people to the Son as his inheritance, the Son undertaking to accomplish their redemption, and the Spirit covenanting to testify to Christ, and apply his redemption to his people's hearts, is most evidently biblical. Thus, according to the divine testimony, the Lamb was already considered as “slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13:8) so certainly was the agreement to accomplish redemption established before history.

Originally Posted by Wayne@purpose
4. You have ignored (failed to address) my reference to Heb 1:1-2 which connects Jesus = “him that spoke to us” as the one “through whom also he created the worlds”
Again you are '[confusing] the two natures of Christ in your understanding of this passage. It nowhere states that the human Jesus created the worlds. To suggest such a thing would go against all logic. How could a man who was born into this world in space and time have created all things? The divine nature of Christ is the Creator, the human nature is decidedly not the Creator, which is not only illogical but irrational. It was God who created the body for the Son (Heb 10:5; Matt 1:20-23).

Originally Posted by Wayne@purpose
5. You have ignored (failed to address) my reference to Heb 3:3-4 which connects “Jesus” to “the builder of all things”
See above re: the 'confusing of the two natures of Christ'.

Originally Posted by Wayne@purpose
6. You have ignored (failed to address) my reference to Col 1:15-17 which connects “our Lord Jesus Christ” in verse 3 to “all things that were created”
Again, you 'confuse the two natures' of Christ. The whole point of the Colossian passage is to establish the divinity' of the Lord Christ, which divinity created all things and not the humanity.

Originally Posted by Wayne@purpose
7. You have ignored (failed to address) my reference to the creed which says “He is the one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division”.
Strange you would write such a thing since "I" was the one who referenced you to the Chalcedon Creed which states perspicuously that there are two natures in the one Jesus Christ which cannot be intermixed (confused) or divided. These two natures are inseparably joined yet distinct. Obviously, this is something you cannot grasp or refuse to grasp.

Now, some final remarks concerning your proposition which is contrary to Scripture and to the unanimous testimony of the true Christ.

1. To state that Jesus was the "Word" (Jh 1:1-3) vs. the Son of God was the "Word, is to deny the incarnation (Jh 1:14). For Jesus of Nazareth having been CONCEIVED by the Holy Spirit was BORN of the virgin Mary, and thus cannot be eternal. God spoke of this historical event in Isaiah 9:6, "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given:". Notice that a child is born (temporal) but a son is given, referring to the eternal Son of God, the second person of the Trinity. The 'child' referred to in this passage is prophesying the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, who never before existed.

2. To state that Jesus was the "Word" would mean that GOD died on the cross. The divine nature of Jesus Christ did not 'die', but rather the human nature died. The perfect man, the second Adam, was obedient unto death, crucified, buried and raised again on the third day, having been justified in the Spirit, He therefore is able to save all whom the Father gave Him. This is one of the fundamental truths of biblical and historic Christianity. Without the joining of the two natures; divine and human, there could be no salvation for anyone.

3. Lastly, why don't you interact with the passages I have pressed upon you in my previous reply? If nothing else, responding to the illogic of John 1:1-3,14 would be most appreciated. IF the "Word" = "Jesus", then verse 14 becomes sheer nonsense; "Jesus" became "Jesus" and dwelt among us... The alleged eternal Jesus became, came into existence??? scratch1


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 36
Newbie
Offline
Newbie
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 36
I will address your quesion on John 1 soon. I first need to know how you are defining Human nature and divine nature in your own mind. For example, I see human nature as part of the thinking process of a person. In the case of Jesus, he could think like a man and grow in wisdom, statue and favor with man and with God. Are you saying the thought process of Jesus was not a part of God or a part of God?

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,070
Likes: 20
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,070
Likes: 20
Originally Posted by Wayne@purpose
I will address your quesion on John 1 soon. I first need to know how you are defining Human nature and divine nature in your own mind. For example, I see human nature as part of the thinking process of a person. In the case of Jesus, he could think like a man and grow in wisdom, statue and favor with man and with God. Are you saying the thought process of Jesus was not a part of God or a part of God?
Jesus in His human nature was complete, i.e., He possessed a material body and a rational soul. (cf. Matt. 26:26,28,38; Lk 23:46; 24:39 Jh 11:33; Heb 2:14)

Here is a succinct statement held by the Church concerning the Christ:

a. There is but one person in the Mediator, the unchangeable Logos. The Logos furnishes the basis for the personality of Christ. It would not be correct, however, to say that the person of the mediator is divine only. The incarnation constituted Him a complex person, constituted of two natures. He is the God-man.

b. The human nature of Christ as such does not constitute a human person. The Logos did not adopt a human person, so that we have two persons in the Mediator, but simply assumed a human nature.

c. At the same time it is not correct so speak of the human nature of Christ as impersonal. This is true only in the sense that this nature has no independent subsistence of its own. Strictly speaking, however, the human nature of Christ was not for a moment impersonal. The Logos assumed that nature into personal subsistence with Himself. The human nature has its personal existence in the person of the Logos. It is in-personal rather than impersonal.

d. For that very reason we are not warranted to speak of the human nature of Christ as imperfect or incomplete. His human nature is not lacking in any of the essential qualities belonging to that nature, and also has individuality, that is, personal subsistence, in the person of the Son of God.

e. This personal subsistence should not be confused with consciousness and free will. The fact that the human nature of Christ, in and by itself, has no personal subsistence, does not mean that it has no consciousness and will. The Church has taken the position that these belong to the nature rather than to the person.

f. The one divine person, who possess a divine nature from eternity, assumed a human nature, and now has both. This must be maintained over against those who, while admitting that the divine person assumed a human nature, jeopardize the integrity of the two natures by conceiving of them as having been fused or mixed in a tertium quid, a sort of divine-human nature.


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 36
Newbie
Offline
Newbie
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 36
Before I response to your substitutions in John 1:1-14, I need to respond to a few things that you said:

1. “In the Philippian passage we see that it was the Son of God who emptied himself
The context says the one who emptied Himself was made in the likeness of men. It appears clear to me that the only one in this passage who was “in the likeness of men” was “Jesus the man”.
2. “God remained the eternal God, the creator of all things while the human nature, Jesus of Nazareth remained perfectly human.”
When Jesus asked his disciple who do you say that I am. Peter, looking at Jesus the man said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. From here it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus the man was also the Son of God “at the same time”. In other words, being human did not stop him from being God. (More on this later.)
3. I do not have any reason to disagree with your explanation of the Covenant of Redemption.
4. “according to the divine testimony, the Lamb was already considered as “slain from the foundation of the world”.
Important point! If he was consider “slain before the foundation of the world” he should be consider to be “Jesus before the foundation of the world”.
5. “How could a man who was born into this world in space and time have created all things?” Being man and God at one time in history does not require he be in the form of a man at the beginning of time.
6. To state that Jesus was the "Word" (Jh 1:1-3) vs. the Son of God was the "Word, is to deny the incarnation (Jh 1:14). For Jesus of Nazareth having been CONCEIVED by the Holy Spirit was BORN of the virgin Mary, and thus cannot be eternal.
I do not believe the human body of Jesus was eternal or that the human body of Jesus was involved in creation. I do not see where anything I said denies the incarnation. See 4 above regarding your statement related to divine testimony. It supports my view.
7. “The divine nature of Jesus Christ did not 'die', but rather the human nature died.”
You need to define “nature” for me to understand what you are saying. I believe the Bible is clear regarding what died. The human body of Jesus died.


Now about those substitutions, in the gospel of John,
John 1:1-5 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. NASU
John uses “the Word” to emphasis the role of Jesus as “God’s communicator to man” and as “the one who spoke man into existence” (Gen 1:26). In general, I believe you need to understand that different names given to Jesus has more to do with his role at a particular time then it does with compartmentalizing His internal nature. When I start compartmentalizing his internal nature I begin to walk on thin ice and a branch that may or may not be connected to the vine. I also create new revelation that can be disagreed with which can cause division and leads to claims of heresy here, there and everywhere! Man has been complicating simple things since the fall. The first commandment was simple, “you shall not eat” but man (being man), decided to explore another option and life began to be complicated (Gem 2:16-17)...





Gen 1:26-27 Then God said, "Let Us make man in our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. NASU
John 20:28-29 Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!" Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed." NASU
[/color]What is it about me that is made in the image of God? Isn’t it my spirit? If my spirit is in me throughout my life here on earth could the spirit of the Son be in Jesus during his earthly ministry? Notice in John 20, Thomas is looking at the body of Jesus while calling him God. Isn’t he addressing the body and spirit of the Son here?








Mark 7:1-8 The Pharisees and some of the scribes gathered around Him when they had come from Jerusalem, and had seen that some of His disciples were eating their bread with impure hands, that is, unwashed. (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands, thus observing the traditions of the elders; and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they cleanse themselves; and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the washing of cups and pitchers and copper pots.) The Pharisees and the scribes asked Him, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands?" And He said to them, "Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME. BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME,TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.' Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men." NASU
Man seems to have a need to add definition and detail to things that God has said. Take for example the Jews at the time of Jesus. They added so much to God’s word that it got hard for them to see the simple things of God that was in the Word. Jesus called these additions the “traditions of the elders” in the passage above. These traditions were know historically as the Mishna which were sometimes called “repetition" or "to study and review". It was the first major written redaction of the Jewish oral traditions called the "Oral Torah". The original intent of the Mishnah was to cover all aspects of human living, serve as an example for future judgments, and, most important, demonstrate pragmatic exercise of the Biblical laws. The additional detail would act like a buffer zone around the Law preventing common people from coming close to violating the Law. At the time of Jesus, the Mishnah added over 2000 rules to the 613 commandments in the Mosaic Law! Jesus opposed the approach of adding to the commandments. He went in the opposite direction when he said all the Law and the Prophets hang on just two commandments. I need to be very careful when someone presents “additions to the Bible” as “something as important as the Bible”. What are your thoughts here?




Rom 13:8-10 owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For this, "YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET," and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF." Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. NASU
Col 3:14 Beyond all these things put on love, which is the perfect bond of unity. NASU

Clearly, Paul is agreeing with Jesus in the passage above regarding Mosaic Law when he said the commandment to love fulfilled the Mosaic Law. Here it is easy to see why love is better that a multitude of rules/commandments. It is better because it is the root cause of true obedience and brings about the perfect bond of unity (thanks goldenodie). It is the “more excellent way” (1 Cor 12:31)
What are your thoughts here?













Phil 2:5-11 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. NASU

In Phil 2, it is clear that the one who was in the form of God (i.e. the Son of God) emptied himself. The word emptied is the Greek word kenoo (ken-o'-o); which means to make empty, i.e. (figuratively) to abase, neutralize, falsify. It appears clear that the use of the word “kenoo” was chosen in Phil 2 by God to communicate a significant change related to the one who was in “the form of God” (i.e the Son of God). There is very little written describing this change. Therefore, I need to be careful in my acceptance of theories on the details of this change. One theory that makes sense to me is to understand the word “emptied” in Phil 2 to imply that the Son of God operated with severe restrictions during the early ministry of Jesus. This does not mean He was less Divine. It just means that when he came into the world, he subjected Himself to established authorities in the world without subjecting himself to the sin of the world. This would have allowed him to accomplish at least three missions on earth:
1. Properly fulfill the Law as a man
2. Properly execute His role as Savior
3. Properly execute his role as our primary example to follow.
What are your thoughts here?

BTY, The word “keno” is used in only four other places in the new testament. Note the consistent way it is used below:
Rom 4:14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: KJV
1 Cor 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.KJV
1 Cor 9:15 But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void. KJV
2 Cor 9:3 Yet have I sent the brethren, lest our boasting of you should be in vain in this behalf; that, as I said, ye may be ready: KJV



O the Deep, Deep Love of Jesus!
“He humbled Himself that I might be raised” (Matt 11:29 & 1 Cor 15:52))
“He died in my place that I might have saved” (1 Jn 5:12 & Jn 3:16)
“He emptied Himself that I might be filled” (Phil 2:7 & Mat 5:6))
O the Deep, Deep Love of Jesus!



Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,070
Likes: 20
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,070
Likes: 20
Originally Posted by Wayne@purpose
Originally Posted by Pilgrim
1. “In the Philippian passage we see that it was the Son of God who emptied himself

The context says the one who emptied Himself was made in the likeness of men. It appears clear to me that the only one in this passage who was “in the likeness of men” was “Jesus the man”.
"Is Paul speaking here in Phil 25-8 about the pre-incarnate or about the incarnate Christ?" It is not difficult to answer. The two must not be separated. The One who in his pre-incarnate state [Son of God] exists in a manner equal to God and is the same divine Person who in his incarnate state becomes obedient even to the extent of death,...Naturally, in order to show the greatness of our Lord's sacrifice, the apostle's starting-point is the Christ in his pre-incarnate state. Then follows of necessity Christ in his incarnate state. This strongly reminds one of 2Cor 8:9. 'Though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor.' One might compare this transition to what is found in the Gospel of John, Chapter 1: 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was face to face with God, and the Word was God. He himself was in the beginning face to face with God . . . And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us as in a tent, and we beheld his glory.'"

Again, one must carefully distinguish between the divine and the human natures of Christ and not confuse them which you are wanting to do. The divine nature, the Son of God is eternal but the human nature is temporal; i.e., it had a beginning but with no end.

Originally Posted by Wayne@purpose
Originally Posted by Pilgrim
2.“God remained the eternal God, the creator of all things while the human nature, Jesus of Nazareth remained perfectly human.”
When Jesus asked his disciple who do you say that I am. Peter, looking at Jesus the man said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. From here it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus the man was also the Son of God “at the same time”. In other words, being human did not stop him from being God. (More on this later.)
Yes, the LORD Christ was both divine and human. There is no dispute concerning this truth. The issue is whether Jesus in his incarnate state was eternal. I, along with the entire Church answers, "No!", but you answer, "Yes!". More on this later.

Originally Posted by Wayne@purpose
Originally Posted by Pilgrim
4. “according to the divine testimony, the Lamb was already considered as “slain from the foundation of the world”.
Important point! If he was consider “slain before the foundation of the world” he should be consider to be “Jesus before the foundation of the world”.
An illogical leap without warrant. ALL things were considered as done before the foundation of the world, but that does not mean all things existed before the foundation of the world. To do so, in the least, would negate prophecy; a foretelling of that which did not exist but would happen later in space and time.

Originally Posted by Wayne@purpose
Originally Posted by Pilgrim
5. “How could a man who was born into this world in space and time have created all things?”
Being man and God at one time in history does not require he be in the form of a man at the beginning of time.
Oh, but it certainly does, otherwise the incarnation was not real, which I have already pointed out to you. Two distinct natures were joined in the one person of Jesus Christ. And until that supernatural event occurred, the human nature did not exist. Again, I already pointed this out as well, e.g., "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given;..." Isa 9:6a. A 'child' [Jesus, son of Mary] was born, i.e., it came into existence for the very first time. A 'son' [God the Son] was given, i.e., one who already existed.

Originally Posted by Wayne@purpose
Originally Posted by Pilgrim
6. To state that Jesus was the "Word" (Jh 1:1-3) vs. the Son of God was the "Word, is to deny the incarnation (Jh 1:14). For Jesus of Nazareth having been CONCEIVED by the Holy Spirit was BORN of the virgin Mary, and thus cannot be eternal.
I do not believe the human body of Jesus was eternal or that the human body of Jesus was involved in creation. I do not see where anything I said denies the incarnation. See 4 above regarding your statement related to divine testimony. It supports my view.
I have already addressed this as well on several occasions. Jesus did not exist in eternity and thus could not have created all things. You can say you aren't denying the incarnation, but this is exactly what you are doing.

Originally Posted by Wayne@purpose
Originally Posted by Pilgrim
7. “The divine nature of Jesus Christ did not 'die', but rather the human nature died.”
You need to define “nature” for me to understand what you are saying. I believe the Bible is clear regarding what died. The human body of Jesus died.
No, it was not just the 'human body of Jesus' that died. This is yet another serious error. It was the human NATURE of Christ that died, i.e., that which constitutes a human died; both body and spirit. There are 2 natures co-existing in the one person of the Lord Jesus Christ; divine and human. The Son of God did not occupy just a fleshly shell. But rather two distinct natures were present. I've already covered this too.

Originally Posted by Wayne@purpose
Now about those substitutions, in the gospel of John,
John 1:1-5 "In the beginning was the Word,..." John uses “the Word” to emphasis the role of Jesus as “God’s communicator to man” and as “the one who spoke man into existence” (Gen 1:26).
You are assuming the very issue in dispute. The "Word" is the eternal Son of God; the second person of the divine Trinity and NOT as you are assuming, Jesus of Nazareth.
Originally Posted by Wayne@purpose
In general, I believe you need to understand that different names given to Jesus has more to do with his role at a particular time then it does with compartmentalizing His internal nature. When I start compartmentalizing his internal nature I begin to walk on thin ice and a branch that may or may not be connected to the vine. I also create new revelation that can be disagreed with which can cause division and leads to claims of heresy here, there and everywhere! Man has been complicating simple things since the fall. The first commandment was simple, “you shall not eat” but man (being man), decided to explore another option and life began to be complicated (Gem 2:16-17)...
I have deliberately included your entire statement in the above quote in order to show just how astray you have gone in your denial of what the entire Church has affirmed in the Chalcedon Creed. You cannot intermix the two natures but rather they must be acknowledged. The eternal Son of God is nowhere called "Jesus" UNTIL the incarnation, wherein the Son of God BECAME flesh; i.e., joined Himself with a human nature.

Originally Posted by Wayne@purpose
Gen 1:26-27... John 20:28-29What is it about me that is made in the image of God? Isn’t it my spirit? If my spirit is in me throughout my life here on earth could the spirit of the Son be in Jesus during his earthly ministry? Notice in John 20, Thomas is looking at the body of Jesus while calling him God. Isn’t he addressing the body and spirit of the Son here?
What? scratch1 Are you now asserting that the eternal Son of God, the second person of the Trinity has a "spirit"?

Originally Posted by Wayne@purpose
Mark 7:1-8... And He said to them, "Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME. BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME,TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.' Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men." NASU
Man seems to have a need to add definition and detail to things that God has said.

What are your thoughts here?
Those without the Spirit of God will always add or detract from the Word of God and make their man-made traditions on par or above the Word of God in authority. However, interpreting Scripture and codifying its teachings is hardly the same as unbiblical man-made tradition. It is God's intent for His people to not only read His inspired written Word but to interpret and then apply it. This is what the Church has done from the beginning. Jude calls it "the faith once delivered unto the saints." This phrase isn't simply referring to the Bible, but the teachings of the Bible which the Apostles gave during their earthly ministry. Even the apostle Paul humbled himself and submitted his teachings before the elders at Jerusalem in order that they might be scrutinized and either be found wanting or acceptable. Paul also counseled Timothy to hold fast to the doctrines he had been taught. The Church was given certain gifted individuals; pastor/teachers who were to instruct the people of God from Scripture. Throughout history, the Church has put into writing summaries of biblical truth found in its Confessions and Catechisms. There are good traditions and bad traditions, e.g., read John Murray's excellent article, Tradition: Romish and Protestant.

Do you own one or more systematic theology books? Have you ever read them? If so, which do you have? OR, do you believe you have no use for such works because you only need your Bible? Do you seriously believe that all that have gone before you have erred on this subject, e.g., Augustine, Tertullian, Luther, Calvin, Owen, Edwards, Hodge, Berkhof, etc., etc...? Are you of the opinion that the entire Church has failed to grasp the truth of this matter for 2000+ years but you have discovered the 'truth'? Personally, from my own studies and having compared them to myriad volumes I find that what I believe to be in 100% accord with what the Church has believed and taught. Can you say the same? Or, again is it that what others have believed and taught, set in writing as secondary authorities, are of no importance to you?


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]

Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 107 guests, and 8 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
atdcross, NetChaplain, winslowlady, Zach, Daverogk
964 Registered Users
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
December
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31
Today's Birthdays
There are no members with birthdays on this day.
Popular Topics(Views)
1,303,356 Gospel truth