09 Oct 23
@divegeester saidIt looks to me as though you might be over complicating the position; maybe even getting me confused with sonship; or even introducing your own interpretaion of the scriptures and somehow trying to apply it ot my way of thinking. I don't know.
“Pretty much”?
It is possible for a person to be born of god, rebirth, born again (whichever), saved by grace through faith… but to “pretty much” lose that salvation if they don’t do some good deeds, or some specific deeds, specific quantity or frequency of good deeds?
This isn't difficult.
If you are a Christian (there are seperate rules laid out for those that might not be and haven't had the chance to make a decision on the teachings of Christ), and are told to do something, then if you do it you should pass go.
If you are told to do something and don't then the outlook isn't so great e.g.
Mtthew 7:21-23 21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
Now that is not complicated.
09 Oct 23
2 edits
@ghost-of-a-duke saidGood Evening Mr Ghost.
But you now accept, for most Christians at least, God didn't die on the cross for the sins of mankind, and that it was Jesus as fully man who atoned for these sins in arguably the greatest expression of altruism in history? indeed, it was this selfless act that put things right between man and God.
(Not a rhetorical question).
The position that you have outlined is probably true if you are not a Trinitarian, or shall we say are a Unitarian, as God (YHWH to be clear) Jesus (Yeshua) and the Holy Spirit are seen as three distinct individuals with different functions.
In the case of Trinitarians (So Churh of England; Catholic; and a lot of the born again happy clappy denominations) God and Christ are viewed as the same, even though it is never stated as such in the bible. In fact the affore mentioned position relies on one mistranslation, in John 1 which is often rendered
[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [2] The same was in the beginning with God.
There is an inconsistency here, as the first occurence of God (Ho Theos) iodicates Almighty. God in the second instance is actually "logos" NOT Ho Theos, and broadly means devine or god like.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121461
09 Oct 23
@medullah saidIf you don’t want to answer my question, either ignore it or just say so.
It looks to me as though you might be over complicating the position; maybe even getting me confused with sonship; or even introducing your own interpretaion of the scriptures and somehow trying to apply it ot my way of thinking. I don't know.
This isn't difficult.
If you are a Christian (there are seperate rules laid out for those that might not be and haven't had t ...[text shortened]... hem, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
Now that is not complicated.
09 Oct 23
1 edit
@divegeester
I don’t understand it, so unless you want to simplify it you’re going to have to consider it ignored.
If you can’t simplify it then it would suggest that you don’t understand your own question, which I honestly don’t think that you do.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29783
09 Oct 23
@medullah saidDo you believe sir the 'divine nature' perished on the cross? Does any Christian believe that?
Good Evening Mr Ghost.
The position that you have outlined is probably true if you are not a Trinitarian, or shall we say are a Unitarian, as God (YHWH to be clear) Jesus (Yeshua) and the Holy Spirit are seen as three distinct individuals with different functions.
In the case of Trinitarians (So Churh of England; Catholic; and a lot of the born again happy clappy denom ...[text shortened]... . God in the second instance is actually "logos" NOT Ho Theos, and broadly means devine or god like.
Some clever chap wrote, 'death is something that is experienced only by the human nature, because the divine nature isn’t capable of experiencing death.'
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29783
09 Oct 23
@medullah saidI appreciate the time put into your reply. However, even if the evolutionary water is mudded, we still know enough about our origin to reject the biblical narrative. There can be no doubt about that.
This is not so sir as I will now adumbrate (great word).
So apologies if this is a bit long winded, these are my words and not me trying to do a Sonship (come back all is forgiven) on everybody
Evolutionary theory (not fact please note) is shaped. There are several evolutionary theories (The Red Queen being just one). We have this attempt to nicely package the develop ...[text shortened]... 00K years ago.
Evolutionary theory is far from the certainty that many like to make it out to be.
So again, with Adam off the table, how am I to understand the idea of Jesus as the last Adam?
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29783
09 Oct 23
1 edit
@divegeester saidFeel free to ignore this question (although I'm not giving you the FMF cop out of calling it rhetorical). How is your understanding of God/Jesus any less incoherent than the trinity?
If you don’t want to answer my question, either ignore it or just say so.
You have previously described Jesus as a kind of avatar of God. A human host for the divine spirit of God. (I'm not sure this works well as it presents the human Jesus as an empty vessel, which doesn't really fit the biblical narrative. For example, Jesus got hungry, was open to temptation by the devil etc). I'm speculating that you also don't think the spirit of God died on the cross, so left Jesus in order for him to be the atoning sacrifice. (The moment perhaps he cried out out about being forsaken). - The spirit of God then re-entered Jesus for the resurrection and ascension. - Is that about it?
09 Oct 23
@ghost-of-a-duke saidThere are times when I won’t understand a question. If you aren’t happy with the answer give me another bite at the cherry.
Do you believe sir the 'divine nature' perished on the cross? Does any Christian believe that?
Some clever chap wrote, 'death is something that is experienced only by the human nature, because the divine nature isn’t capable of experiencing death.'
Jesus was human and was executed; we could debate what on but let’s for argument sake accept cross.
Did he have a divine nature yes, but he was still human. I think that’s the bit you are interested in?
I don’t know of any Christian sect/denomination that expresses his death as a divine nature being put to death on a cross.
I can’t comment on that last sentence. You get into areas such as can divine nature change and all sorts of stuff down rabbit holes. Certainly you could argue that a creature that had lost it’s divine nature could experience death, but I don’t think that’s what your after.
Does that do the job?
09 Oct 23
@ghost-of-a-duke saidI do not share you view on the bible account, but it shouldn’t prevent us still discussing your point.
I appreciate the time put into your reply. However, even if the evolutionary water is mudded, we still know enough about our origin to reject the biblical narrative. There can be no doubt about that.
So again, with Adam off the table, how am I to understand the idea of Jesus as the last Adam?
You can’t take Adam off if the table, otherwise the proposition of Jesus being the last Adam won’t make sense; you can’t say there is no Adam then discuss Jesus being the last of something that you decline to say has existed. So allow me to reposition the proposition.
According to bible theory it was Adam sinning that got us all into trouble (Adamic or inherited sin). Adam was a perfect man - that’s the important bit. From him (and I get that you don’t believe the Adam thing but I’m trying to explain the theory) we all descend and we all inherit sin, his imperfection which condemns us to ageing and dying.
So if you imagine a cake tin newly made it turns out perfect cakes. If you drop that tin and dent it then your cakes all come out with a dent in them. You cake tin is Adam. If there was a way of not dropping that cake tin, you solve the issue of the dented cakes.
So under the provision of the law, Adam was a perfect man that lost it all, but nobody could reclaim the situation other than a perfect man. The problem was you couldn’t get a perfect man as every make from Adams lineage was damaged goods. So the idea is that Jesus gives up a perfect life to reclaim those that from the line if Adam. This allows the “sin gene” for want if a better description to be directed.
Does the principal make sense - it’s a bit like swapping out a faulty part of a car?
09 Oct 23
@ghost-of-a-duke saidthat proposition doesn’t make sense. If that is running through DGs mind on his penultimate question to me it wouldn’t and didn’t make sense, as I’ve never entertained such concept/understanding.
Feel free to ignore this question (although I'm not giving you the FMF cop out of calling it rhetorical). How is your understanding of God/Jesus any less incoherent than the trinity?
You have previously described Jesus as a kind of avatar of God. A human host for the divine spirit of God. (I'm not sure this works well as it presents the human Jesus as an empty vess ...[text shortened]... ). - The spirit of God then re-entered Jesus for the resurrection and ascension. - Is that about it?
09 Oct 23
@divegeester saidJesus said he existed before that as the Son of God while he was in heaven.
Jesus was flesh and blood, which was grown in his mother’s womb. The body, the flesh and bone of Jesus, therefore came into existence through that process at that time, and didn’t exist beforehand. Can’t have.
Father! Give me glory in your presence now, the same glory I had with you before the world was made. (John 17:5 GNB)
John also said that Jesus carried out the creation. Jesus is the Word of God by which all things were made:
In the past God spoke to our ancestors many times and in many ways through the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us through his Son. He is the one through whom God created the universe, the one whom God has chosen to possess all things at the end. (Hebrews 1:1-2 GNB)
Enoch was said to have seen the Messiah when he was taken into heaven.
Jesus was there long before he was born of Mary.
09 Oct 23
@medullah saidA more interesting one that deals with lots of issues:
Also John 8:58 “Before Abraham was I am”
I want you to remember, my friends, what happened to our ancestors who followed Moses. They were all under the protection of the cloud, and all passed safely through the Red Sea. In the cloud and in the sea they were all baptized as followers of Moses. All ate the same spiritual bread and drank the same spiritual drink. They drank from the spiritual rock that went with them; and that rock was Christ himself. (1 Corinthians 10:1-4 GNB)
The Jews were baptised.
Jesus was with them in the wilderness
10 Oct 23
@ghost-of-a-duke saidThey were rhetorical questions.
Perhaps you are pretending they were rhetorical as an expression of altruism?
But to clarify, you asked two questions which you intended to be rhetorical and Dive ignored the last one because he knew somehow it was rhetorical? Is that your position?
Edit: It sounds a little convoluted.