The Son Is Gods Self 1 Hr. Video - Page 11

Esaias · #**101** 04-30-2021, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nicodemus1968

I guess some on here only believe that Jesus said this because he was quoting a Psalm.

Could it also be that the humanity was separated from the Spirit? The humanity speaking, why are you leaving me? You cannot kill a spirit, and the cross demanded a death, so therefore as the humanity died, the spirit departed.

If the Humanity was indeed God, then it would’ve never died! So, we cannot use the phrase God the son, however we can use the phrase, Son of God.

He would already have been dead and wouldn't have said anything.

The humanity, according to your previous post, isn't the Man, just the human nature.

I thing some people on this thread are too vague in explaining things in order to avoid dealing with uncomfortable questions maybe?

mfblume · #**102** 04-30-2021, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1 God

Then why do we teach "God's human nature" AKA, the man Christ Jesus?...

The Dual Nature of Christ - Institute for Biblical Studieshttps://onenesspentecostal.com › dualnature
JasonDulle@yahoo.com ... In the incarnation then, both the divine nature and human nature fused into one new nature. ... When God assumed a human existence, the deity and humanity of Christ became forever inseparable, joined in a ...

I don't believe Jason is using proper terminology. God refers to deity, man refers to humanity. God did not become a man.

Esaias · #**103** 04-30-2021, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

I don't believe Jason is using proper terminology. God refers to deity, man refers to humanity. God did not become a man.

That quote is Apollinarian, is it not? I forget which one, the idea the divine and human naturrs joined to create a new, single, unique nature. Might be Eutychianism..

EDIT: Sounds like a form of Monophysitism.

Which is weird since he spent so much time defending a Chalcedonian Christology in years gone past.

As for God becoming man, sure He did. Not that the divine nature changed into human nature, but that the Being Who is God assumed human nature and entered the world as a human. Nothing wrong with that.

Esaias · #**104** 04-30-2021, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nicodemus1968

Meaning the humanity, the natural or the physical was not deity.

I don't know anyone who claims that except Teklemarian's crowd?

Esaias · #**105** 04-30-2021, 07:03 PM

I think a major problem with these types of discussions is lack of standard terminology and definitions. Everybody debating what is essentially (see what I did there?) Aristotelian metaphysics. The trinitarians have been having that problem since Nicaea, and too many of us fall into the same trap (but often with even less awareness of the terms being bandied about).

Which is why I think we should stay within the box provided by Scripture, instead of playing in the trinitarian sandbox... It's full of quicksand...

1 God · #**106** 05-01-2021, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

I don't believe Jason is using proper terminology. God refers to deity, man refers to humanity. God did not become a man.

So your personal opinion is God did not become a man, meaning, the word(God) did not become flesh? Are you thinking only God's spoken word was made flesh, like I think?

coksiw · #**107** 05-01-2021, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esaias

I think a major problem with these types of discussions is lack of standard terminology and definitions. Everybody debating what is essentially (see what I did there?) Aristotelian metaphysics. The trinitarians have been having that problem since Nicaea, and too many of us fall into the same trap (but often with even less awareness of the terms being bandied about).

Which is why I think we should stay within the box provided by Scripture, instead of playing in the trinitarian sandbox... It's full of quicksand...

Preach brother

Scott Pitta · #**108** 05-01-2021, 11:34 AM

In my opinion, terminology has been the problem all along. Not just on this website but across the board and through the years.

mfblume · #**109** 05-01-2021, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1 God

So your personal opinion is God did not become a man, meaning, the word(God) did not become flesh? Are you thinking only God's spoken word was made flesh, like I think?

You do not stick to the terms God used. John particularly used the phrase that the WORD became flesh and did not say GOD became flesh. The WORD WAS GOD, but still, John did not write "God became flesh."

In fact..... and I told you this before... after we read the WORD became flesh, we read AND DWELT among us.

DWELT means TABERNACLED which explains how the word became flesh. That's John 1. And John 2 has JESUS using that very point and referring to his flesh body as the TEMPLE.

So, the WAY in which the word became flesh was by TABERNACLING in flesh. Was God turned into a temple when he dwelt in a temple?

Originalist · #**110** 05-01-2021, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

You do not stick to the terms God used. John particularly used the phrase that the WORD became flesh and did not say GOD became flesh. The WORD WAS GOD, but still, John did not write "God became flesh."

In fact..... and I told you this before... after we read the WORD became flesh, we read AND DWELT among us.

DWELT means TABERNACLED which explains how the word became flesh. That's John 1. And John 2 has JESUS using that very point and referring to his flesh body as the TEMPLE.

So, the WAY in which the word became flesh was by TABERNACLING in flesh. Was God turned into a temple when he dwelt in a temple?

Well said.