What if God was you

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I didn't ask if you found it coherent. I presented the atonement as the greatest expression of altruism in history, from a Christian's perspective.

And I am expressing my take on it ~ which is that it is incoherent ~ I am not expressing a Christian point of view. If you believe that Jesus allowing himself to be killed is actually the greatest expression of altruism in history, then so be it. But I don't think you do. If you're just trotting out some dogma that you don't believe in, then why?

@rajk999 said
Jesus said he existed before that as the Son of God while he was in heaven.
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:
[i]In the past God spoke to our ancestors many times and i ...[text shortened]... seen the Messiah when he was taken into heaven.

Jesus was there long before he was born of Mary.

Jesus’ flesh, blood and bone first existed in the womb of Mary.

@medullah said
Also John 8:58 “Before Abraham was I am”

Jesus’ flesh, blood and bone first existed in the womb of Mary.

@medullah said
@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.

You’re the one asserting that a born again person can lose their salvation, I’m asking you to explain how all that works, when, how does the person know, can they regain their salvation, what works would they have to do to regain it.

If these questions are to “complicated” for you to answer then I suggest your doctrine is wrong.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
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?

You’re conflating the complexity of my questions to Medulla about how and when and why a person may gain, lose and regain their salvation with questions around the structure and nature of the godhead.

The former should be, must be, completely simple because it is the outcome of the believer’s relationship with God. The later will always be mostly hidden as it pertains to the manifestation of spirit in flesh and an understanding of it is not essential for salvation.

@medullah said
There are times when I won’t understand a question. If you aren’t happy with the answer give me another bite at the cherry.

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/denom ...[text shortened]... ne nature could experience death, but I don’t think that’s what your after.

Does that do the job?

An admirable attempt sir. 🙂

@medullah said
I do not share you view on the bible account, but it shouldn’t prevent us still discussing your point.

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.
...[text shortened]... be directed.

Does the principal make sense - it’s a bit like swapping out a faulty part of a car?

The principal makes sense, but we are still left with the problem (certainly from my perspective) that science has discounted the biblical narrative of creation. It is therefore impossible for me to accept that Adam (as presented in the narrative) existed as an actual person. And if he didn't exist as an actual person the whole house of cards collapses. No Adam = No original sin = No need for a last Adam.

The Adam and Eve account (again from my perspective) was clearly intended as figurative. We evolved as a species, and far from falling, continue to progress.

@fmf said
And I am expressing my take on it ~ which is that it is incoherent ~ I am not expressing a Christian point of view. If you believe that Jesus allowing himself to be killed is actually the greatest expression of altruism in history, then so be it. But I don't think you do. If you're just trotting out some dogma that you don't believe in, then why?

Why are you pretending you didn't read that last 4 words of this sentence:

'I presented the atonement as the greatest expression of altruism in history, from a Christian's perspective.'

@divegeester said
an understanding of it is not essential for salvation.

That's lucky.

Do you agree your understanding of God is as convoluted as the Trinity? (FMF does, even if he only presents that to you rhetorically or at private soirées).

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Why are you pretending you didn't read that last 4 words of this sentence:

'I presented the atonement as the greatest expression of altruism in history, from a Christian's perspective.'

I am not pretending anything. Read my post again. I don't think you trotting out some dogma that you don't believe in is of any interest. Its convolution and incoherence are more interesting.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Do you agree your understanding of God is as convoluted as the Trinity?

Pretending that you haven't read any of divegeester's posts about atonement and "The Trinity" over the last 6-7 years is a very low-grade kind of discourse on your part.

@divegeester said
You’re the one asserting that a born again person can lose their salvation, I’m asking you to explain how all that works, when, how does the person know, can they regain their salvation, what works would they have to do to regain it.

If these questions are to “complicated” for you to answer then I suggest your doctrine is wrong.

The answer is simple, but you do not want to hear it. They have to stop living sinfully and await the judgment of God. The problem is that your church preaches to people this 'once saved always saved' nonsense doctrine, which is not in the bible and then ask these questions when faced with clear statements from Paul and other Apostles that there is no inheritance in the Kingdom of God if the born-again Christian reverts to a sinful lifestyle.

@fmf said
I am not pretending anything. Read my post again. I don't think you trotting out some dogma that you don't believe in is of any interest. Its convolution and incoherence are more interesting.

Perhaps you are simply unable to see something from someone's else's perspective.

@fmf said
Pretending that you haven't read any of divegeester's posts about atonement and "The Trinity" over the last 6-7 years is a very low-grade kind of discourse on your part.

You appear to have accidentally edited out this part of my post:

(FMF does, even if he only presents that to you rhetorically or at private soirées).

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Perhaps you are simply unable to see something from someone's else's perspective.

I am fully aware of the Christian perspective. But I don't see what's the benefit of you - of all people - regurgitating it here to Christians who already know what the Christian perspective is, especially when you don't subscribe to it.