He Was More than Just a Man

[Nina]

Originally Posted by pelathais

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."

I've always believed that the ' He' we must believe that He is, is the Father.
I've always believed that Jesus IS the name of the Father.

I've always believed a lot of things that I now doubt.

Now I just want to know what the essentials of Christianity are.
In other words, what must I do to be saved.

Nina

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by tbpew

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!

It's based on scriptures. To begin with the scriptures attest to His Deity. Do you want to go over those verses? I ask since I am sure you already know them. And the scriptures attest that He was a man as well, after the seed of David.

Yet Paul says this
Php 2:6 who though he existed in the form of God did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but emptied himself by taking on the form of a slave, by looking like other men, and by sharing in human nature.
Php 2:8 He humbled himself, by becoming obedient to the point of death — even death on a cross!

He existed in the Form of God. He emptied Himself. The greek word there is the root of the word Kenosis, where we get this idea of His Deity being latent in Him.

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.

You started off very sarcastic and then used the word Latent along with this verses as though they were supposed to disprove my point. But they did not disprove the Deity was latent, if anything they affirmed it.

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

Im just trying to dialog with you. I didn't call you names. I didn't try to insult you. I was not being sarcastic. What's your problem?

[tbpew]

Originally Posted by tbpew

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.

this bump is a second request for Pel:
I would appreciate you sharing how you understand and reconcile these scriptural witnesses.
thanks in advance.

tbpew