Quote:....tempting, oh so tempting....
and this one I can answer without fear of contradiction
| 2007/1/3 13:41||Profile|
"The Father is God"
"The Son is God"
"The Holy Spirit is God"
"God is the Father"
"God is the Son"
"God is the Holy Spirit"
"The Father is not the Son"
"The Son is not the Father"
"The Father is not the Holy Spirit"
"The Holy Spirit is not the Father"
"The Son is not the Holy Spirit"
"The Holy Spirit is not the Son"
Where does that leave the Man Jesus. Our spirit, soul and body are separated in scripture and being so, when this body dies where does the soul and spirit go? Like Jesus when the Body was crucified and died where did the Soul and Spirit of God go? God breathed life into a breathing soul and gave life, Christ has been birthed in us and a quickening Spirit He is.
1Cr 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit.
The Spirit of Christ is God, All God. The Body was all Man. The Man Christ also was a living Soul as all men from Adam. The Spirit of Christ is eternal and the Spirit of God is. Jesus Said, "The Father and I are One, if you have seen me you have seen the Father. What part of Christ was the Father? Was it the Flesh? No, it was the Spirit of God which the trinity was and is. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
The Flesh is what God turned His back on, because that perfect body provided to Him by Mary contained the sin of the world in it. That was the cup He had in the garden, but He drank and became sin for us. That sacrifice was the only sacrifice God could accept for the sin of the World and that Cup of sin poured into Jesus is what God had to turn His back on.
Christ never ceased to be God in His Spirit and His resurrected Body is now the same Body we will have in the resurrection of the believers the "Body of Christ" the "Church", "His Church".
God is perfect in His plan, He has and had it all worked out so the Cross would do exactly what He programmed it to do. Christ would die, His body would be dead and the Blood which is the life of the Flesh would be shed for sinners lost. What did God turn His back on, it was the sin that was in the flesh of Christ by the cup He drank, The Life of the Flesh is in the Blood. It was that Blood that was shed that saves us.
Mark 14:33-36 And he taketh with him Peter and James and John, and began to be sore amazed, and to be very heavy; And saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death: tarry ye here, and watch. And he went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.
Jesus was not afraid to die, He new who He was and that He would never die, He and His Father were One. He was so heavy because of the cup, the sin of the world, even He was "sore amazed"
Then It became so bad, even an angle came to comfort Him, and He was so agitated by the sin He became for us, it became so bad, he sweat great drops of Blood.
Luke 22:42-44 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.
His agony here was much more than the Cross. This agony of becoming sin for the World was much more to Him, who was a perfect Man, having to take the sin of the world into Himself which He had never done, this was what God the Father had to turn His back on. God is One, But at this time this perfect human man Jesus was sin for us and God The Father could not even watch.
This was His suffering and obedience even unto death that is the death of the Cross being sin Himself. If this does not make even His "not my will by Yours" the most important tears of our life knowing what He did to purchase us, your heart is stone and dead.
This is, "Mar 15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
2 Corinthians 4:8-11 We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed; Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh.
In Christ: Phillip
| 2007/1/3 23:41||Profile|
I have wondered if the account of Adam and Eve is somewhat a picture of the Father and the Son.
I prefer Charles Wesley's interpretation in which he likens Adam to Christ and Eve to the Church. See there the quickening Cause of all
Who live the life of grace beneath!
God caused on Him the sleep to fall,
And lo, His eyes are closed in death!
He sleeps: and from His open side
The mingled blood and water flow;
They both give being to His bride,
And wash His church as white as snow.
True principles of life Divine,
Issues from these the second Eve,
Mother of all the faithful line,
Of all that by His passion live.
O what a miracle of love
Hath He, our heavenly Adam, showed!
Jesus forsook His throne above
That we might all be born of God.
'Twas not a useless rib He lost,
His heart's last drop of blood He gave;
His life, His precious life it cost
Our dearly ransomed souls to save.
And will He not His purchase take,
Who died to make us all His own,
One spirit with Himself to make,
Flesh of HIs flesh, bone of his bone?
He will, our hearts reply He will:
He hath even here a token given,
And bids us meet Him on the hill,
And keep the marriage feast in heaven.
| 2007/1/4 3:01||Profile|
Quote:I used the term 'created' to link back to the Arian view, and another word might do. You have left me a little confused, and to explain why, I would like to play back some of your earlier language from two different quotes. I hope I have put them together properly in a way that expresses your own idea correctly: Quote:I am not, at all, saying that the Son was [b]created[/b] in any sense; either 'out of the Word' or otherwise. I saying, and I shall probably get into trouble for this too, that The Son is a mode of the Word. (Please note everyone this is not Modalism) The language which expresses this 'mode' of Son is the language of 'begotten' and not 'created'.
Arius held that the Son was created, while those of Alexanders camp, believed that He was eternal. Whereas Arius held that Jesus was in some way created, not pre-existing and therefore lesser than the Father. You are modifying his view by adding that the Word/Son/Christ was pre-existing and of the same substance as the Father, but the Son, as currently revealed to us in salvation history, was [b]created[/b] from the Word and by the actions of the Word and the Father.
In the beginning the Word already was and the Word was Godwards and the Word was God. He was in the 'form' of God and in preparation for incarnation he self-emptied himself and then himself took the 'form' of a bondslave. To me this self-emptying is the [b]'becoming the son'[/b] and as the son he submitted himself to the father. This is the measure of his love for our race.
Quote: 'Becoming a son' and 'being made in the likeness of a man' imply a process, which if you prefer a different term from 'created', certainly imply a formation by a process.
The passage then switches to something which he did not Do but which happened to him. [b]"He was made in the likeness of man"[/b]. He did not 'make himself in the likeness of man'; the Father did that and you can hear the excitement in another personal testimony of Christ's...
[color=003399]Therefore, when He came into the world, He said: Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, But a body You have prepared for Me.
(Heb 10:5 NKJV)[/color]
'Another' prepared his body but after He had voluntarily 'self emptied himself and had taken on the 'form of a bondslave'. His human body perfectly fitted his 'form as a bondslave'.
Perhaps to use a human example, I am a man, I am also a husband, and a father. I can switch instanteously between each of these modes (continuing to avoid any reference to modalism)depending upon whom I am interacting with: a stranger, my wife, or my children. However, I went through three processes to arrive at each of these: growing up, courtship and marriage, and... well never mind..., respectively. I have not always been a father, a husband, or grown up.
It would be helpful if you could clarify for me, if your view is that the Word went through a process to become the Son, or that the Son is co-eternal with the Father as both the Word and the Son and that no process was involved?
| 2007/1/4 10:59||Profile|
t would be helpful if you could clarify for me, if your view is that the Word went through a process to become the Son, or that the Son is co-eternal with the Father as both the Word and the Son and that no process was involved?
mmm? perhaps this is why most orthodox trinitarians are so fierce in the defence of 'eternal sonship'.
The scriptures gives us, I think, a very small window on eternity. God has revealed what is relevant to us in our present state. There will be much more 'truth' and revelation for us at a future time.
The problem with your analogy is that it is not reversible but just one way. I am not suggesting any change in the character, person or deity of the Word, but I am suggesting a change in relationship.
To me 'begetting' speaks of an 'event'. Perhaps if we recall the Colossian phrase...[color=0000ff]He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. (Col 1:15 NKJV)[/color]The NKJV here has opted for a preposition 'over' but this is an interpretation and not a translation. I suspect that it has been added to provide a defence against the JW's claim that this makes Christ part of the creation.
The KJV is more literal here...[color=0000ff]Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: (Col 1:15 KJVS)[/color]The phrase 'of every creature'is better translated 'of all creation'. a good translation might be 'all creation's firstborn one'. Our immediate reaction is to see 'firstborn' as a verb speaking of a becoming in the sense of generation, but this verse is not speaking of a biological firstborn. The 'firstborn' is a title which expresses relationship NOT pedigree. The 'role' of the 'firstborn' one in the OT sometimes passed from the biological firstborn to another member of the family. Jacob and Joseph are both examples of this. This term 'firstborn' expresses the relationship of Christ to the creation and is not speaking of physical connection.
The term 'adoption' is a similar case. Some modern versions opt for 'Sonship' rather than adoption. 'huithesia' is literally the placing of a son, rather than the begetting of one. Roman custom was that a child was publically acknowledged as a man's heir. 'Adoption' biblically has nothing to do with the adoption of babies but is the kind of adoption that Julius Caesar did to Augustus. He publicaly acknowledged him as his heir. Physical 'sonship' was irrelevant; it was a public statement of inheritance.
The references to the day in which the Father 'begot' the son are similar. The term is used to describe the resurrection of Christ; Acts 13:33. While the two references in Hebrews refer to the accession/coronation of Christ; Heb 1:5; 5:5. Although we can tie these into events they are really expressions of the honour that the Father has given to the Son. The resurrection honour is seen in [color=0000ff]concerning his Son (come of Davids seed according to flesh, marked out Son of God in power, according to [the] Spirit of holiness, by resurrection of [the] dead) Jesus Christ our Lord; (Rom 1:3-4 DRBY) [/color]
So the Word's voluntary submission to the Father is again a metaphor of relationship and not a family tree. The imagery of 'only begotten' speaks of honour and heir-ship. Christ as the 'heir'is another familiar NT metaphor.
I am trying to steer very carefully between Scylla and Charybdis here. I am determined to hold the Word as co-equal and co-substantial in every sense with the Father and the Spirit. And, I am determined to hold the truth that the Word became fully man. For me, the Word proceeding 'out of the Father' does not do justice to this co-equality and co-substantiality. I know that the Word as the Son came 'out FROM the Father' but I cannot use the language of 'out of the Father'and, as I have said elsewhere, the phrase 'eternal generation' and 'eternally begotten' have no meaning that I can take hold of.
I have no doubt that the Word having become man, He will remain both man and God always. What will transpire when 'God is all in all' (1 Cor 15:28) I cannot even begin to imagine; it would be an impertinence to try.
Becoming a son' and 'being made in the likeness of a man' imply a process, which if you prefer a different term from 'created', certainly imply a formation by a process.
This would only be true if the becoming were to create a separate and different thing. A monarch might appoint me his heir, which is really what happens in the investiture of a Prince of Wales. (sorry you republicans, I will explain. From the moment of his birth Charles was the heir apparent, but when he was 21 he was 'created' Prince of Wales which 'designated' him as the monarch's heir.)From this point what was apparent becomes actual and the succession is fixed.
Was the investiture of the Prince of Wales a 'process' or an event. It was a public declaration of a monarch's decision. He was the same person as ever but now with a prescribed role. It seems to me that the Word voluntarily submitted to the 'Father' was 'designated' the Son. The Prince of Wales is a role. His family connections and relationship to the monarch remains unchanged but he will now behave differently in his new role. So the Word and the Father are unchanged in nature and remain co-equal and co-substantial but in His role as 'Son' he behaved differently in that he took on humanity.
| 2007/1/4 19:17||Profile|
I think I have question you enough on these ideas for the time being, and it has been illuminating and thrilling; I think we should all keep in mind the phrase you have used regularly "but there is more... much more ". I fear we get so caught up in the defence of our creeds of faith, we never let our minds explore whether they limit our understanding in their efforts to resist error. I wonder if the devil manages to get us so focused on the minutiae of the differences between trinitarians and unitarians and miss the 'much more'.
It is interesting to think of what changes might come in eternity. We often glibly talk about heaven and hell without giving too much thought to them. I am not at all convinced that hell is the eternal destiny of the unsaved. From my elementary reading, hell seems to be temporary, the lake of fire (Gehenna or the valley of Hinnon) seems to be the eternal fate of such. But perhaps we talk about heaven as well without giving it enough thought. If there are ages to come (Eph 2:7; 3:5, 21; Col 1:26), not just a static heaven, then we could be in for a hum-dinger of a ride throughout eternity, full of exciting changes and variety. Perhaps that will be one aspect to the terror of those in the lake of fire, apart from everything else, they will be bored for eternity, only ever burning. I have always been taken by the verse in Song of Songs Ch2v8 "The voice of my beloved! behold, he cometh leaping upon the mountains, skipping upon the hills." A very differnet picture from the one we so often portray of the Lord. Perhaps eternity will be something like a day at Disneyland with no queues/lnes for any of the rides. Or am I being too frivolous????
Since we have talked about some of these ideas, based on some glimpses we see in the New Testament, perhaps they (in NT times) talked much more about them, than we ever do. Perhaps a fuller view of eternity than we have, was uppermost in Paul's mind when he wrote:
Quote:I know there are different views on CS Lewis and his writings, but perhaps he understood something, we are slow to see, when he wrote about Aslan after the stone table.
Rom 8:18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.
Quote:Not a million miles from the Song of Songs verse. But anyway I have drifted off and am no longer on topic. I will stop.
'Oh children,' said the Lion, 'I feel my strength coming back to me. Oh, children, catch me if can!' He stood for a second, his eyes very bright, his limbs guivering, lashing himself with his tail. Then he made a leap high over their heads and landed on the other side of the Table. Laughing, though she didn't know why, Lucy scrambled over it to reach him. Aslan leaped again. A mad chase began. Round and round the hill-top he lead them, now hopelessly out of their reach, now letting them almost catch his tail, now diving between them, now tossing them in the air with his huge and beautifully velveted paws and catching them again, and now stopping unexpectedly so that all three of them rolled over together in a happy laughing heap of fur and arms and legs. It was such a romp as no one has ever had except in Narnia; and whether it was more like playing with a thunderstorm or playing with a kitten Lucy could never make up her mind.
| 2007/1/5 7:53||Profile|
Romans 8:10-18 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.
The word "shall" is not the revealing of what Paul is speaking of. Shall should be; (through the idea of expectation); to intend, i.e. be about to be, do, "sufferings of this present time"; a primary particle of present time; "now"
What is revealed in us? It is the life of Christ revealed in us, now, which does not even come close to comparing of what we are going through now in our new creation race of Christ-ones, son's of God.
"Revealed in us" What is this? Colossians 1:24-28 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church: Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:
A new dispensation of of God, given to Paul. Paul never waivers in his theme, that is,"Christ in you the Hope of Glory". Paul uses this thought, "Christ in you" 146 times, look up how many times Paul makes this statement to be our life, our new life of God in Christ Jesus.
IN CHRIST, how many of us know what this means?
The most important revelation of all time, which was given to Paul By Jesus Christ Himself, and we all say, oh yes I know Christ is in us. Then why do we say in the Church, The presence of the Lord is in this place. Not, The presence of the Lord is in the People that are in this place, by the birthing of, "Christ in you the Hope of Glory", The presence of the Lord is in every believer, The Spirit of Christ, or we are none of His. Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His. No man has seen God, for God is Spirit, right? Paul is saying that we have this God now living in us. Think on this!
Our birth because we believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, makes us son's of God. All heaven's creatures, which are created beings, not birthed being as we are new creatures in Christ, which heavens created beings are waiting for the manifestation of a new creation race of God the Father's family of born again son's of God, birthed not created.
What are we missing here? It looks to me that we don't really understand the birthing of The Seed Christ in the new believer. Paul speaks loud and clear, but we just don't understand what he is saying, for we cannot see that we are what Paul calls a new creature in Christ Jesus.
How can this be? Do we go back into our mother's womb and become born again? Wow! That sounds familiar.
Paul says this fulfills the word of God? That is "Christ in you the Hope of Glory".
Christ in me and me in Christ: Phillip
| 2007/1/7 21:17||Profile|