He Was More than Just a Man - Page 12

pelathais · #**111** 03-25-2009, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nina

One more question:

Unless You believe that I am He...

Why do You believe the unbeliever of this Scripture will die in his sins?

Blessings,
Nina

Hi Nina, I'm not tbpew and cannot speak to everything that he can... but I think I follow his line of reasoning on this.

To answer this question (Unless You believe that I am He...) we should ask, "He Who?" I know the word "he" is italicized in the KJV and all, but still the grammar implies a pronoun, and even if it didn't we're still left to ask ourselves, "Who is the guy from Galilee saying that we have to believe that he is somebody or at least some thing?" "What is he?"

The context:

Joh 8:21 Then said Jesus again unto them, I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye cannot come.
Joh 8:22 Then said the Jews, Will he kill himself? because he saith, Whither I go, ye cannot come.
Joh 8:23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.
Joh 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.
Joh 8:25 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning.
Joh 8:26 I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him.
Joh 8:27 They understood not that he spake to them of the Father.

Who was "he"? He was the One Who was sent by the Father. That's all this passage is trying to tell us regarding the identity of this man from Galilee. He was sent by "the Father." That's Who He was.

The "unbeliever" will die in their sins because of verse 21. "Wither I go, ye cannot come."

pelathais · #**112** 03-25-2009, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I don't have a clue what your point was....you speak with sarcasm yet you quote scriptures to prove my point. But then you add the quip about "why is it so displeasing to your theology to understand that God really did father a Son born of a woman; God's word became flesh" as though anyone here expressed displeasure in acknowledging that fact, which actually nobody denied that fact.

He had the Divine nature, but He has a human nature. The Divine attributes were latent in Him so that he was functionally a human being

I am confused by my friend's (tbpew) post here as well.

tbpew · #**113** 03-25-2009, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Hmmm...Father's have sons that are of the same kind. In other words if a human father has a son, that son is human. If we take your analogy to it's literal conclusion then the Son must have been God also and since you have the Son being someone other than the Father and being procreated as a separate being, you have two Gods.

The seed of the father. So is God a human? Is the Son human? Just HOW is God the Father of the Son? You used a genetic argument but your argument is inconsistent.

Prax,
You are certainly free to say whatever you want. Two Gods; you cause me to laugh and wag my head at the same time.

I have no intention of pursuing any meaningful conversation with you.

The seed from the father of the Son of God was (and is) God's own word.

That is why Mary (of the lineage of David by her betrothal) had her first child born not after the will of the flesh, but rather, of the will of God.

God's word is his potency in creation. The potency of his word found agreement within the womb of his handmaiden and a child was conceived. The only begotten son of God was born of the will of the Spirit.

All of creation is NOT SPIRIT ---even though everything that was made was made by the Word of the God.

tbpew · #**114** 03-25-2009, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pelathais

I am confused by my friend's (tbpew) post here as well.

A nature will establish our response within any circumstance we experience.

Our nature predisposes the governance, the lens, through which we conduct our life.

There is no logic or witness for the Son of God having dual natures.

A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways.

If the last Adam came fortified as a FULLY divine nature being crowded in with his FULLY human nature, he was not a kinsman redeemer because the first Adam did not have a FULLY divine nature.

It's time to move on and quit inventing illogical and unsupportable conditions involving God's Christ.

pelathais · #**115** 03-25-2009, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbpew

A nature will establish our response within any circumstance we experience.

Our nature predisposes the governance, the lens, through which we conduct our life.

There is no logic or witness for the Son of God having dual natures.

A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways.

If the last Adam came fortified as a FULLY divine nature being crowded in with his FULLY human nature, he was not a kinsman redeemer because the first Adam did not have a FULLY divine nature.

It's time to move on and quit inventing illogical and unsupportable conditions involving God's Christ.

Would you describe yourself as an adoptionist?

Sorry, but I think I started a discussion about this before with someone - but I don't remeber it being you. My scorecards may be jumbled, so please forgive me if I'm dragging you through a discussion you may be tired of having.

tbpew · #**116** 03-26-2009, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pelathais

Would you describe yourself as an adoptionist?

Sorry, but I think I started a discussion about this before with someone - but I don't remeber it being you. My scorecards may be jumbled, so please forgive me if I'm dragging you through a discussion you may be tired of having.

You: Would you describe yourself as an adoptionist?
Me: No.

....but, please know:
I will not oppose any title or label you affix to me. I count it as part of the cost of participating in online discussion boards where human politic is certainly alive and well.

It appears that our intellect has a love affair with catagories and labels.

IMO, it lets a person conclude a matter without encumbering much (if any) bandwidth; specific statements or thoughts are rarely important. The 'hearer' is alert for key words that will enable him to pronounce the applicable category and then be content with their skill to properly shelve each and every speaker.

.....

So Pel, while you're here,
please share how you reconcile the words Jesus spoke concerning his relational position with his Father. This is why I jumped on the whole LATENT attribute (pertaining to the divine nature) that Prax presented.

You have affirmed Prax's view that Son of God was possessed by two natures; FULLY God and FULLY human.
It is always the FULLY God nature that has so many contradictions when we consider the witness of the Son of God's testimony.

I submit the following four scenes we read from scripture:

[The Son of God speaking to Mary at the tomb]
"Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God."

[The Lamb speaking in the Revelation of Jesus Christ]
"Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, [which is] new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and [I will write upon him] my new name." [Rev 3:12]

[The Son of God speaking privately with James, John and Peter at the mount of Olivet]
""But of that day and [that] hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." [Mk 13:32]

[The beloved Son of God sharing real intimacy after his meal, discussing the transition facing them]
"Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I." [John 14:12]

Pel, How do you harmonize these witnesses if your Christology has the Son being Fully established by the divine nature and Fully established by the human nature?

Pel, can anything in your logical, reasoning mind, reconcile any creature being possessed by two FULL natures and not be continually tossed about.

Pel, in the presence of a FULLY divine nature being in force, can we apply ANY SIGNIFICANCE to the role of a HUMAN nature?

FULLY one nature and FULLY another nature is FULLY SILLY.

Praxeas · #**117** 03-26-2009, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbpew

You have affirmed Prax's view that Son of God was possessed by two natures; FULLY God and FULLY human.
It is always the FULLY God nature that has so many contradictions when we consider the witness of the Son of God's testimony.

Do you understand what it means to be latent? There is no contradition since the Divine attributes were LATENT in him. In other words though in Person He is the I AM and though he possesses the Divine essence from where the Divine nature is derived, those attributes were LATENT in Him...in other words he was able to fully function through the Human nature only. That effectively enabled him to function as though he were a human being, like you and I, with a human mind and will distinct from the Divine.

That is why I posted after you posted all those verses, that you were making my case. Those verses don't prove the Deity was NOT latent in Him.

Praxeas · #**118** 03-26-2009, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbpew

Prax,
You are certainly free to say whatever you want. Two Gods; you cause me to laugh and wag my head at the same time.

I have no intention of pursuing any meaningful conversation with you.

That is quite obvious. So what are you interested in pursuing? Why even bother to continue posting after this statement?

Quote:

The seed from the father of the Son of God was (and is) God's own word.

You brought up the genetic argument. That is not a "seed", as in something that reproduces after one's own kind. The genetic argument you raised was of a human father giving birth to a son. IF taken to the logical conclusion then your "SON" would have to be a second God (of the same kind). I said that to point out that the genetic argument you made is a fallacy

Quote:

That is why Mary (of the lineage of David by her betrothal) had her first child born not after the will of the flesh, but rather, of the will of God.

AGain, genetic argument. You tried to argue about what a father has.... a son and tried to use that to refute the Son being the same God...but your genetic argument in fact leads to that very conclusion. But your genetic argument is based on human fathers having human sons. I point out that Jesus did not have a human father. Thus again your genetic argument is flawed

Quote:

God's word is his potency in creation. The potency of his word found agreement within the womb of his handmaiden and a child was conceived. The only begotten son of God was born of the will of the Spirit.

Right, but as I have tried to show, this is all beside the point. Your genetic argument is flawed

Quote:

All of creation is NOT SPIRIT ---even though everything that was made was made by the Word of the God.

Right, your genetic argument is flawed. That is the point you are not getting.

Praxeas · #**119** 03-26-2009, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbpew

A nature will establish our response within any circumstance we experience.

Our nature predisposes the governance, the lens, through which we conduct our life.

There is no logic or witness for the Son of God having dual natures.

A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways.

If the last Adam came fortified as a FULLY divine nature being crowded in with his FULLY human nature, he was not a kinsman redeemer because the first Adam did not have a FULLY divine nature.

It's time to move on and quit inventing illogical and unsupportable conditions involving God's Christ.

Being KINSMAN (a relative) is based on being human. Adam was human. Jesus was also Human. Being God or having also a Divine nature does not impact that

tbpew · #**120** 03-26-2009, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Do you understand what it means to be latent? There is no contradition since the Divine attributes were LATENT in him. In other words though in Person He is the I AM and though he possesses the Divine essence from where the Divine nature is derived, those attributes were LATENT in Him...in other words he was able to fully function through the Human nature only. That effectively enabled him to function as though he were a human being, like you and I, with a human mind and will distinct from the Divine.

That is why I posted after you posted all those verses, that you were making my case. Those verses don't prove the Deity was NOT latent in Him.

Your Christology needs a LATENT divine nature (almost as if his God-brain was turned off) to make the words of the Son of God reconcile with your view. Hey, if your theology needs a human philosophical invention, just invent one!

Of course I can not (and did not) provide those verses to prove that something was NOT LATENT...that is really just too crazy for me to even think about! I apologize for responding to some specific aspect of your post.

Good night Prax.

Note to self: when talking to Prax always.....

......oh well, just don't.