- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
25 Mar 14
1 edit
Originally posted by KingOnPointI hadn't thought of that. But it makes logical sense.
Sonship,
If christians are only in paradise, then there is no paradox for Christ ascending into heaven without Saints.
At the time Jesus spoke those words they must have been true.
Whether absolutely no human being is in heaven now, I do not know.
But the common thought of people dying and going "unclothed" to heaven cannot be true. For they would be "naked" as Paul says in Second Corinthians. God seems not to want any "naked" or "unclothed" souls to appear before Him there in that way.
Generally, the talk about "going to heaven" as an eternal destiny for believers is a kind of leaven of superstition added to the fine meal of the New Testament Gospel.
Christians really do not like often to touch the subject. For they have heard perhaps all their lives that they are going to heaven.
Reading Revelation 21 and 22 should make clear that what is symbolized as the city of God - New Jerusalem, comes down out of heaven from God.
Perhaps some could picture this as heaven and earth kind of fusing together into one. Actually, what is being depicted there is God and man becoming one. That is more consistent with the rest of the Bible.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
27 Mar 14
1 edit
Originally posted by KingOnPointI was taught that certain Biblical doctrines are "mysteries", but that didn't equate them to "paradoxes".
Js357,
To understand that Christ's "see-able" presence is on the right hand of God is not hard to understand.
It takes a certain amount of understanding, to conclude that something is paradoxical. It not only assumes that the principles of logic apply, it assumes that we are correct in analyzing the doctrine and in concluding that the requirements of logic are not met.
This degree of understanding is not required for a mystery, in fact a mystery defies analysis. So I am not seeking to understand this business about where Christ is and I don't see it as a stumbling block to faith.
I simply lack belief. Or at least I think I lack belief.🙂
28 Mar 14
Originally posted by KingOnPointA paradox doesn't need to be complicated. It can be really simple to understand. The Xenons paradox is a good example of this.
Wolfgang,
To me, the trinity is easy to understand in human terms. I am not saying that I know the definition in God's terms.
The trinity is God expressing Himself in 3 ways. Therefore, God is one God, expressing Himself in 3 ways to humans.
Is that complicated?
To resolve the paradox is the thing that may be complicated. Xenons paradox isn't really hard to resolve by some math we have now, but not the Greeks had. So it isn't really a paradox, is it.
And then we have the paradox of the christian Trinity. For christians it is easy to explain, but it is impossible to resolve. Why? Not even among christians themselves agree what trinity really is. And if there isn't a definition we can agree upon, then it will be extremely hard to show how to resolve it so everyone can understand.
So, of course, the concept of trinity is a unresolvable paradox.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
30 Mar 14
Originally posted by FabianFnas
So, of course, the concept of trinity is a unresolvable paradox.
But we can be one in the experience and enjoyment of the Trinity.
"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." ( 2 Cor. 13:14)
Notice that the apostle focuses on love, grace, fellowship from the Trinity much more than doctrinal argumentation.
31 Mar 14
Originally posted by KingOnPointAnd again I write: "A paradox doesn't need to be complicated. It can be really simple to understand."
Fabian,
How is One God expressing Himself in 3 ways a paradox?
So the trinity paradox is easy to write, but anyway enresolvable - hence a paradox.
Explain how I and my father can be the same person.
If you can do that you can certainly explain the trinity paradox:
How Jesus father was god and they anyway are the same?
If you fail, or avoid the paradox, then there is certainly a paradox involved.