A Form of godliness

[PinSeeker]

"God is spirit (John 4:24). Jesus is flesh (Luk 24:39). The two don't mix (John 3:6)."

Right, but they ~ God, who is spirit, and man, who is of the flesh ~ must be reconciled, and that cannot happen without a Mediator, Someone Who is fully both. Ergo, God's Christ, Jesus. :)

These are the verses I quoted. How does that ascribe sin to Jesus? And if it does, it's not me. God authored those verses.

That's not really what I was saying. I could have been more explicit, but didn't think it necessary. But I'll do it here... :) The simple fact is that by saying "Jesus is not God, but only man," you are ~ unintentionally, I think, but it is what it is ~ ascribing sinfulness to Jesus. And basically, in the words of Isaiah (5:20) ~ again, unintentionally, maybe, on your part, but still it is what it is ~ calling evil good and good evil, putting darkness for light and light for darkness, putting bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. And the New Testament parallel is found in what Jesus Himself says in Mark 3 (vv.28-30).

Does John 3:6 not say flesh and spirit are diametrically opposed?

Yes, but Jesus is telling Nicodemus of his ~ and everyone's ~ to be born again of the Spirit. He is talking about the human race, not Himself. Do you somehow believe that Jesus was at any point during His life in need of being born again of the Spirit? Because that cannot be. My humble opinion is that Jesus would have specifically said so when He was making this statement to Nicodemus, something like, "Even I, being a man, have be born again of the Spirit," or some such. But He never said, in John 3 or anywhere else, anything even resembling that; He actually said and demonstrated quite the opposite in word (with all His "I am" statements and by saying things like "I and the Father are one" in John 10 and "the Father is in Me and I in the Father" in John 14) and deed (commanding nature itself, forgiving sins, making the blind to see, raising people from the dead, etc.) all through His public ministry. Jesus was never not of the Spirit (or the Spirit not of Him) to any extent; They were (with the Father, of course) One, each in both of the others and both of the others in each, as I have said ~ as the Bible says ~ from all eternity, possessing the same glory with each other even before the world existed (John 17:5). Yet again, this is what Paul says in effect in Philippians 2, that though Jesus was in the form of God ~ fully of God ~ He humbled Himself and took the form of man for our sake. He did not discard or absolve Himself of His oneness with the Father, but resolved not to use His position as God for personal gain of any sort. If He was not God made flesh (again, John 1:14), He would not have been able to endure and conquer all temptation, and thus could not have remained sinless or fulfilled the Law as He indisputably did. He was tempted in every way that we are, as the writer of Hebrews says ~ and though completely without guilt even dying the death that we justly deserve, even death on a cross.

I guess we are going round and round. I keep thinking with each post that you will relent and believe everything I say...just kidding!

Well no, you're not kidding, Rich. :) But... right back atcha, my friend. :) But really, making another to understand the things of God is beyond the capability of any mere man. As I have said several times, only the Holy Spirit can do that (as all these things are spiritually discerned; 1 Corinthians 1:19, 1 Corinthians 2:14), and that only if it is the Father's will. God has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills (Romans 9:18).

It's because of this dilemma for the Christian they invented the Hypostatic union.

They believe Jesus had two natures. One as a man, Christ could represent man and die as a man; as God the death of Christ could have infinite value “sufficient to provide redemption for the sins of the world.” They also believe the eternal priesthood of Christ is based on the hypostatic union. “By incarnation He (God) became Man and hence could act as a human Priest. As God, His priesthood could be everlasting after the order of Melchizedek, and He properly could be a Mediator between God and man.”

This is your opinion. Not regarding the union itself, because it is what it is, but regarding what you say about "invention." The Oneness of the three Persons of the Godhead... well, is what it is. So, to your opinion, too (regarding invention), I would say the same as to Rich above, that making another to understand the things of God is beyond the capability of any mere man. As I have said (because the Bible says it) several times, only the Holy Spirit can do that (as all these things are spiritually discerned; 1 Corinthians 1:19, 1 Corinthians 2:14), and that only if it is the Father's will. But we can proclaim, to the ends of the earth, as Jesus commanded us to do in Matthew 28, and that's what I've been doing and will continue to do. What God does with that is, well, up to Him, as He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills (Romans 9:18).

If they only looked into Paul's writings on the nature of Christ they would see in every way he was condemned and existed in a body of death.

Well, this is... half true. Paul is indisputably clear that He was condemned ~ only because He took on the sin of the world; He was made to be sin on our behalf ("For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" ~ 2 Corinthians 5:21). This is the Gospel.

Boy the reality when they learn their entire foundation is sand will be a sad day for many.

Ah, well, only Scripture itself can expose these kind of backwards statements for what they are:

"So then (we) are no longer strangers and aliens, but (we) are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone, in Whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In Him (we) also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit." (Ephesians 2:19-22; emphasis mine)​

Though, for sure, that will still go nowhere for those for whom God has hardened, who do not have the Holy Spirit. Far be it from me to pronounce this on you or anyone else, but it is what it is.

Playing the fool eh?

Nope. But I'm okay with you thinking that. :) Maybe you are okay with me thinking the same of you, because rest assured, I do. :)

A trinitarian scholar who may admit that not all the trinitarian claims are valid. See the difference?

So, let me ask you to make a clarification here. And Rich can speak to this also. I see two very different ways that the designation "trinitarian scholar" can be understood:

1. a person who is not a trinitarian, but who has merely done scholarly work regarding what trinitarians believe
2. a person who is a trinitarian and has, as a result of his/her scholarly work, refuted trinitarian beliefs

This is really just a point of order, so no answer is really necessary, although, certainly, you can do as you wish. But I think you're approaching it according to number 1 above, while I approached it according to number 2, and spoke in that light. Refuting trinitarian beliefs makes him/her, quite obviously, despite the scholarliness of his/her work, not a trinitarian. Both approaches are valid, but just different, so maybe we're just missing each other here. In the case of both 1 and 2 above, though, the mere fact that the person has done scholarly work does not make him or her right; it is still possible that he or she could have, even in his or her scholarliness, made grievous scholarly errors. In either case, though, we're talking about the things of God, and so to you also I say, making another to understand the things of God is beyond the capability of any mere man. As I have said (because the Bible says it) several times, only the Holy Spirit can do that (as all these things are spiritually discerned; 1 Corinthians 1:19, 1 Corinthians 2:14), and that only if it is the Father's will. But we can proclaim, to the ends of the earth, as Jesus commanded us to do in Matthew 28, and that's what I've been doing and will continue to do. What God does with that is, well, up to Him, as He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills (Romans 9:18).

How coy.

LOL! Not at all. Rest assured, though, that I think the very same thing of you.

Run
Running
Ran​

​

I'm... still here, and not going anywhere.

Are they really VERY different words denoting different things? Seems more like form variants are denoting THE VERY SAME THING in different tenses.

I know. :)

I guess it goes to show mystical dualists will sacrifice anything intellectually to support their dogma.

Guess again. It is what it is; God's Word endures forever.

Grace and peace to all.

 

[amigo de christo]

Maybe if you compare the following two verses, you will get a better understanding of who the origin is for God's godliness:
KJV 2 Timothy 3[5] Having a form of godliness, but denying the POWER thereof: from such turn away.
1 Corinthians 2[5] That your faith should not stand in [be supported by] the wisdom [scholarly learning] of men, but [rather] in the POWER of God.

The power of God:
John 1[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word WAS God.
[14] And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth [God's wisdom].

The origin of the wisdom/power of God, that was made flesh:
Proverbs 8:22-31.

Are you born again by the Spirit of God the Father and Jesus, His only begotten Son, who was "brought forth FROM Everlasting"?
Romans 8:9

For i am not ashamed of the gospel , for it is the POWER of GOD .
JESUS .
Yet i recognize a huge lovey all inclusive religoin that seems to have a form of godliness , yet DENIES the POWER of GOD .
IT DENIES JESUS as the ONLY WAY TO BE SAVED . ITS HERE NOW . and most folks are arlready under it to some degree .
Better make sure the Love YA think is LOVE , TRULY IS LOVE and that IT TRULY IS OF GOD .

 

[Wrangler]

I see two very different ways that the designation "trinitarian scholar" can be understood:

1. a person who is not a trinitarian, but who has merely done scholarly work regarding what trinitarians believe
2. a person who is a trinitarian and has, as a result of his/her scholarly work, refuted trinitarian beliefs

Neither. A trinitarian scholar is a trinitarian with enough academic training to realize some of the verses layman rely on to support the dogma are not valid for one reason or another.

They still believe in the trinity.

 

[Rich R]

John 1[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word WAS God.
[14] And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth [God's wisdom].

Sorry, but I just don't see the word "Jesus" in either John 1:1 or 1:14. All my Bibles say the "word" or more precisely, the Greek word "logos."

G3056 λόγος logos (lo'-ğos) n.

1. a word, something said (including the thought).
2. (by implication) a saying or expression.
3. (by extension) a discourse (on a topic).
4. (informally) a conversation (on a topic).
5. (thus) a matter.
6. (also) a reasoning (of the mental faculty).
7. (hence) a reason (i.e. a motive).
8. (negatively) a rationalization (i.e. application of plausible reasoning on a faulty premise).
9. (by further extension) a calculation, computation, or an account (as an accounting of).
10. (hence) a reckoning or an inventory (as called to account).​

Nothing about Jesus there. As you can see, it is not talking about anything at all concrete, such as a person. The logos is an abstract term. Abstract things can in no way literally become concrete. According to the rules of language, if something is said that can't be taken literally, it must be a figure of speech.

To say the logos became flesh is a figure of speech. Now a figure of speech is used to emphasize something. So what did God want to emphasize in John? He meant to show how closely Jesus followed the plan of redemption that was in His mind from the beginning. Jesus always did the Father's will, including his gruesome death on the cross. Three times Jesus asked God to take the cup of crucifixion away from him. God said, "Sorry but it's the only was my son." What did Jesus say? 'Not my will, but thine be done." How in the world can one and the same person have two diametrically opposed wills? Perhaps someone with a split personality (or whatever it's called these days), but I'd be loathe to suggest God suffered from such a malady!

Are you born again by the Spirit of God the Father and Jesus, His only begotten Son, who was "brought forth FROM Everlasting"?
Romans 8:9

You mentioned the Father and the son here. In what world can a son be his own father? Please don't quote the verse that says God's ways are above our ways. That verse has a specific context and is not meant to be used to justify that which is impossible.

 

[Rich R]

Well no, you're not kidding, Rich.

And you know that, how? In what other ways am I insincere?

 

[Earburner]

Sorry, but I just don't see the word "Jesus" in either John 1:1 or 1:14. All my Bibles say the "word" or more precisely, the Greek word "logos."

G3056 λόγος logos (lo'-ğos) n.

1. a word, something said (including the thought).
2. (by implication) a saying or expression.
3. (by extension) a discourse (on a topic).
4. (informally) a conversation (on a topic).
5. (thus) a matter.
6. (also) a reasoning (of the mental faculty).
7. (hence) a reason (i.e. a motive).
8. (negatively) a rationalization (i.e. application of plausible reasoning on a faulty premise).
9. (by further extension) a calculation, computation, or an account (as an accounting of).
10. (hence) a reckoning or an inventory (as called to account).​

Nothing about Jesus there. As you can see, it is not talking about anything at all concrete, such as a person. The logos is an abstract term. Abstract things can in no way literally become concrete. According to the rules of language, if something is said that can't be taken literally, it must be a figure of speech.

To say the logos became flesh is a figure of speech. Now a figure of speech is used to emphasize something. So what did God want to emphasize in John? He meant to show how closely Jesus followed the plan of redemption that was in His mind from the beginning. Jesus always did the Father's will, including his gruesome death on the cross. Three times Jesus asked God to take the cup of crucifixion away from him. God said, "Sorry but it's the only was my son." What did Jesus say? 'Not my will, but thine be done." How in the world can one and the same person have two diametrically opposed wills? Perhaps someone with a split personality (or whatever it's called these days), but I'd be loathe to suggest God suffered from such a malady!


You mentioned the Father and the son here. In what world can a son be his own father? Please don't quote the verse that says God's ways are above our ways. That verse has a specific context and is not meant to be used to justify that which is impossible.

A dog's thoughts are not our thoughts, nor are his ways our ways, is in likeness to what God is saying to us in Isaiah 55:8-9.

However, I who am human, should it be that I could spiritually enter into a dog, having my own mind with me, next to the dog's mind, there would be effective and effectual communication between me and the dog.

KJV Rev.3[20] Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

John.14[17] Even the Spirit of truth [I AM the Truth]; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

John.3[7] Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye MUST be born again.

JW-NWT Rom. 8:9. However, you are in harmony, not with the flesh, but with the spirit, if God’s spirit truly dwells in you. But if anyone does not have Christ’s spirit, this person does not belong to him.

Even the JW-NWT agrees with what I am saying!
Why CAN'T you?

 

[Waiting on him]

John 17:4-5 KJV
4) I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
5) And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

John 18:20 KJV
[20] Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.

Here Jesus clearly identifies the world as being the Jews of that era. In Hebrews it states the worlds were created by him

 

[Rich R]

A dog's thoughts are not our thoughts, nor are his ways our ways, is in likeness to what God is saying to us in Isaiah 55:8-9.

Well, here's what I got out of Isaiah 55: God is willing to forgive even the most villainous of people. Most people are not like that.

Isa 55:7,

Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.​

Rev.3

[20] Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

John.14[17] Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

John.3[7] Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye MUST be born again.

All good verses. Of course everything Jesus said was pretty good! His Father also said a bunch of good things.

To really understand the scriptures it pays to know who is talking to who. For example, in John 17:3 Jesus was talking to God when he said, "that they might know thee the only true God," That makes perfect sense. But how weird it would be for God to say that.

 

[Earburner]

Sorry, but I just don't see the word "Jesus" in either John 1:1 or 1:14. All my Bibles say the "word" or more precisely, the Greek word "logos."

G3056 λόγος logos (lo'-ğos) n.

1. a word, something said (including the thought).
2. (by implication) a saying or expression.
3. (by extension) a discourse (on a topic).
4. (informally) a conversation (on a topic).
5. (thus) a matter.
6. (also) a reasoning (of the mental faculty).
7. (hence) a reason (i.e. a motive).
8. (negatively) a rationalization (i.e. application of plausible reasoning on a faulty premise).
9. (by further extension) a calculation, computation, or an account (as an accounting of).
10. (hence) a reckoning or an inventory (as called to account).​

Nothing about Jesus there. As you can see, it is not talking about anything at all concrete, such as a person. The logos is an abstract term. Abstract things can in no way literally become concrete. According to the rules of language, if something is said that can't be taken literally, it must be a figure of speech.

To say the logos became flesh is a figure of speech. Now a figure of speech is used to emphasize something. So what did God want to emphasize in John? He meant to show how closely Jesus followed the plan of redemption that was in His mind from the beginning. Jesus always did the Father's will, including his gruesome death on the cross. Three times Jesus asked God to take the cup of crucifixion away from him. God said, "Sorry but it's the only was my son." What did Jesus say? 'Not my will, but thine be done." How in the world can one and the same person have two diametrically opposed wills? Perhaps someone with a split personality (or whatever it's called these days), but I'd be loathe to suggest God suffered from such a malady!


You mentioned the Father and the son here. In what world can a son be his own father? Please don't quote the verse that says God's ways are above our ways. That verse has a specific context and is not meant to be used to justify that which is impossible.

When Jesus was born of the virgin, named Mary, who was his father?
1. Joseph, who was of the flesh of Adam.
2. God the Father, who is a Spirit.
3. A casual lover, being any man of flesh of Adam
4. An angel, the order of spirits created by God.

 

[PinSeeker]

Neither. A trinitarian scholar is a trinitarian with enough academic training to realize some of the verses layman rely on to support the dogma are not valid for one reason or another. They still believe in the trinity.

Ah, so these "trinitarian scholars" think that at least some Bible verses used to support belief in the triune Jehovah are themselves not valid. Interesting... yes, that is certainly a problem. Like I said, though, if they don't have the Spirit, they will never truly understand.

PinSeeker: Well no, you're not kidding, Rich.
​

And you know that, how?

What you say and how you say it speaks volumes, Rich. Thank you for not denying what I said.

Grace and peace to both of you.

 

[face2face]

This is your opinion. Not regarding the union itself, because it is what it is, but regarding what you say about "invention."

Correct, most denominations over the past 2000 years have formulated their own basis of fellowship, catechisms etc. Many of the main stream doctrines have been born out of the minds of philosophers in various councils, starting in Ad325 and even to this very day Catholicism is inventing doctrines as they see the need. One would truly be in ignorance if they didn't know the history of Christianity. For this conversation to be effective it requires honesty on your part, otherwise we are wasting our time!

I will put up a formulated teaching on the Hypostatic Union to show you what man made teaching reads like:-

"The two natures of Christ are inseparably united without mixture or loss of separate identity" Paul P. Enns

Now, I know you cannot substantiate a teaching like this from the Bible - this is fact and well accepted even by those who hold to this teaching. However, they accept it to be true because they have no other option - their starting point (doctrine) is false to begin with, as is yours.

I have the advantage because my understanding on the nature of Christ is based on the Apostles teaching and not Jerome's spiritual darkness!

Take the above phrase, nowhere in the Bible is such a thing taught, or even hinted at...so how did the early church fathers arrive at such a horrendous position?

Error is built upon error.

The Apostles taught that Christianity would become corrupt. The question for all of us here is this...did mainstream Christianity become the corruption, or the break away reformed churches much later on?

Be honest!

If Christianity was corrupted with false teaching is it more likely to be the the masses, or the minors? When did 2 Timothy 4:3 & 2 Peter 2:3 start happening to the Body / Gospel? And if Paul is already in Galatians 1:6 rebuking the church for moving away from the true Gospel, how long till these faithful guides of the body ceased would error come in?

Be honest!

With statements like these what chance do you think truth prevailed in AD325 with 318 men sitting in council making a decision on the godhead? And have you unwittingly followed in their teaching?

Be honest!!

Christianity reeks of man made philosophy and you cannot remove the stench or stain from one believing in two natures, impossible. But here is the problem in making Jesus God....error upon error results in more error.

Here is another:

"He remains forever the God-man, fully God and fully man, two distinct natures in one Person forever." Paul P. Enns

What this statement fails to do is acknowledge why Jesus was raised up in sin's flesh and why even to this day Jesus owes his existence to the line of David as per Revelation 22:16. Jesus will be forever a Son of David as much as he is the Son of God. One became the other through obedience and death.

So if the Apostle Paul believed Jesus was in every way fully man only what does that do to your Hypostasis? If Jesus is not God, where does that leave you doctrinally?

I will leave you with a question - lets see how willing you are to enter the Word of God and expound its truth in Scriptual language:

Hebrews 2:17 Therefore he (Jesus) had to be made like his brothers and sisters in every respect, so that he could become a merciful and faithful high priest in things relating to God, to make atonement for the sins of the people.

Clearly every respect removes the possibility of Hypostatis!

Why is the atonement connected with Jesus being made flesh and blood?

Place your answer here:-

 

[Jack]

What was the Word (logos) before it became flesh?

It?

John 1:1-4 (NKJV)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.

 

[Earburner]

Well, here's what I got out of Isaiah 55: God is willing to forgive even the most villainous of people. Most people are not like that.

Isa 55:7,

Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

I specifically referenced Isaiah 55:8-9. You side stepped it onto another topic.
Do you KNOW why?

All good verses. Of course everything Jesus said was pretty good! His Father also said a bunch of good things.

To really understand the scriptures it pays to know who is talking to who. For example, in John 17:3 Jesus was talking to God when he said, "that they might know thee the only true God," That makes perfect sense. But

I specifically referenced verses in John, that describe and support the requirement that one must be born again by God's Spirit, in order to enter into the KoG.
You side stepped those scriptures, and went off onto another topic.
Do you KNOW why?

Why are you avoiding all the scriptures that I referenced in my recent post?
Actually, you really DON'T know!
But I do know why.
2Tim.3[5] Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof:
from such turn away.

As for your implication of thinking "how weird it would be for God to say that."; you are unaware that God the Father Himself was in Jesus saying the words that Jesus spoke, and was also doing the works.
Jesus, who came to us from Everlasting, allowed himself to be an empty vessel, so that God the Father could be seen and known to us through the veil of Jesus' flesh, who is the express (exact) image of the Father.
KJV Hebrews 1:3, Hebrews 10:20.

God the Father needed the sacrifice of Jesus, just as much as we do, but for different reasons. John 1:18, Exodus 33:20,
Hebrews 10[5] Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body [of flesh and blood] hast thou prepared me:

 

[face2face]

Here the truth of the matter Enoch.
The true Gospel is seen preached by the Apostles in the book of the Acts right - its fullness is found there via all the speeches it holds and the works they declared.
All the creeds in all the councils thereafter have nothing to offer - discard them totally - shred their philosophies and you are left with the Acts of the Apostles and their true gospel.
You have made it clear to all in this forum you abandoned the Acts of the Apostles for the creeds of men starting with Nicaea and all those thereafter to this point in time.
F2F

@Enoch111
The silence sometimes is bliss!

 

[Wrangler]

Ah, so these "trinitarian scholars" think that at least some Bible verses used to support belief in the triune Jehovah are themselves not valid. Interesting... yes, that is certainly a problem. Like I said, though, if they don't have the Spirit, they will never truly understand.

In other thread, a poster said I was arrogant but this sentiment takes the cake. Nice Appeal to Ad Homenim. If you don't see it my way, you don't have God's Spirit! Wow.

 

[amigo de christo]

i have MANIFESTED THY NAME unto the men which me out of the world
Thine they were and thou gavest them me .
That was JESUS praying in the garden . I have MANIFESTED THY NAME .
And later he says , I have declared unto them YOUR NAME . NAME .
And now a reminder
The ONLY NAME given under heaven whereby YE may be saved .
EVER wonder why i so adamantely rebuke the all inclusive many path to GOD lie from hell .
FOR THERE IS ONLY ONE NAME whereby one may be saved . BELIEVE YE IN HIM .
Now for a reminder from john in his letter to the church .
IF any man has the SON HE has the FATHER , if any man has NOT the SON HE does not have the Father .
And also this
If we recieve the testimony of men the testimony of GOD is GREATER
FOR this is the WITNESS OF GOD HIMSELF which HE has TESTIFIED OF HIS SON
He that BELIEVES , BELIEVES , BELIEVES on the THE SON
of GOD has the WITNESS in himself .
BUT and this is a big ol butt too
He that believeth NOT GOD has made GOD a liar
because he believes NOT the TESTIMONY that GOD has given of His SON .
SO now ya know why i fight daily against this all inclusive LIE from hell .
The lie of a false love which says , OH buddists , athiests , muslims and all , Worship the same GOD we do
and so long as they do them some good works and have this lovey lovey they are fine .
OH NO THEY AINT . THEY DENY GOD , FOR THEY DENY CHRIST , the very testimony OF THE VERY GOD
they all claim to know YET DO NOT KNOW . ONLY ONE WAY to be saved . PEROID . BELIEVE YE IN JESUS CHRIST .

 

[PinSeeker]

Correct, most denominations over the past 2000 years have formulated their own basis of fellowship, catechisms etc. Many of the main stream doctrines have been born out of the minds of philosophers in various councils, starting in Ad325 and even to this very day Catholicism is inventing doctrines as they see the need. One would truly be in ignorance if they didn't know the history of Christianity. For this conversation to be effective it requires honesty on your part, otherwise we are wasting our time!

I will put up a formulated teaching on the Hypostatic Union to show you what man made teaching reads like:-

"The two natures of Christ are inseparably united without mixture or loss of separate identity" Paul P. Enns

Now, I know you cannot substantiate a teaching like this from the Bible - this is fact and well accepted even by those who hold to this teaching. However, they accept it to be true because they have no other option - their starting point (doctrine) is false to begin with, as is yours.

I have the advantage because my understanding on the nature of Christ is based on the Apostles teaching and not Jerome's spiritual darkness!

Take the above phrase, nowhere in the Bible is such a thing taught, or even hinted at...so how did the early church fathers arrive at such a horrendous position?

Error is built upon error.

The Apostles taught that Christianity would become corrupt. The question for all of us here is this...did mainstream Christianity become the corruption, or the break away reformed churches much later on?

Be honest!

If Christianity was corrupted with false teaching is it more likely to be the the masses, or the minors? When did 2 Timothy 4:3 & 2 Peter 2:3 start happening to the Body / Gospel? And if Paul is already in Galatians 1:6 rebuking the church for moving away from the true Gospel, how long till these faithful guides of the body ceased would error come in?

Be honest!

With statements like these what chance do you think truth prevailed in AD325 with 318 men sitting in council making a decision on the godhead? And have you unwittingly followed in their teaching?

Be honest!!

Christianity reeks of man made philosophy and you cannot remove the stench or stain from one believing in two natures, impossible. But here is the problem in making Jesus God....error upon error results in more error.

Here is another:

"He remains forever the God-man, fully God and fully man, two distinct natures in one Person forever." Paul P. Enns

What this statement fails to do is acknowledge why Jesus was raised up in sin's flesh and why even to this day Jesus owes his existence to the line of David as per Revelation 22:16. Jesus will be forever a Son of David as much as he is the Son of God. One became the other through obedience and death.

So if the Apostle Paul believed Jesus was in every way fully man only what does that do to your Hypostasis? If Jesus is not God, where does that leave you doctrinally?

I will leave you with a question - lets see how willing you are to enter the Word of God and expound its truth in Scriptual language:

Hebrews 2:17 Therefore he (Jesus) had to be made like his brothers and sisters in every respect, so that he could become a merciful and faithful high priest in things relating to God, to make atonement for the sins of the people.

Clearly every respect removes the possibility of Hypostatis!

Why is the atonement connected with Jesus being made flesh and blood?

Place your answer here:-

So, my apologies, but arguing about the hypostatic union and its actual and/or supposed errors is going nowhere with me, F2F. Here is what I will say, and I think it speaks to at least some of your assertions:

How is Christ, after His ascension, localized in heaven and yet with His people no matter where we are (Matt. 28:18–20; Acts 1:6–11)? According to His humanity, Jesus is not on earth, but according to His deity, Jesus is never absent from us.

This issue gets to the heart of the person of Jesus, who is both truly human and truly divine. Human beings can be in only one place at a time. It is an intrinsic limitation, something that makes us human. If Jesus’ humanity possessed omnipresence, He would not be truly human, and He could not have borne God’s wrath in our place. Similarly, omnipresence is one of the attributes that makes God, well, God. If Jesus’ divine nature were not omnipresent, He would not be God. We can commune with Christ because His omnipresent divinity, perfectly united to His humanity, connects us to His whole person, including His localized humanity. Each nature, however, retains its unique properties.

We are taking care to distinguish, without separating, Jesus’ human nature from His divine nature because of their perfect union in the one person of Christ. Colossians 2:9 is a clear proof text. Paul tells us in this verse that “the whole fullness of deity” exists in Jesus; the union between the human and divine is so complete, so perfect, that the person of Jesus lacks nothing that is intrinsic to humanity or deity.

The perfection of this union means, as R.C. Sproul writes in Essential Truths of the Christian Faith, that “what is said of the divine nature or of the human nature may be affirmed of the person.” Still, we may not confuse Jesus’ divine nature and human nature. Sproul notes that we rightly say, “Christ, the God-man, died. This, however, is not to say that God perished on the cross” (p. 81). Similarly, “Jesus knew what was in man” (John 2:25), but His human nature was not omniscient.

This perfect union did not end with the resurrection. Jesus continues as “a high priest forever” (Heb. 6:20), and His priestly office depends on His “becoming like his brothers in every respect” (2:14–18).

Jesus is not a split personality. His two natures are united so perfectly that He can do things that only human beings do and things that only God does ~ without changing the character of His divine nature or His human nature. Ultimately, we cannot fully explain this mystery, as there is nothing else like the hypostatic union in creation. But we do know that believing in Christ as both fully God and fully man is the most reasonable thing we could ever do.

You disagree. And you're certainly not alone in that. So be it.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[PinSeeker]

If you don't see it my way, you don't have God's Spirit! Wow.

No, that's a silly way to put it, and not what I think at all. It has nothing to do with me. But, by all means, you're certainly welcome to whatever is going through that mind of yours; you're certainly your own person. :)

Grace and peace to you.

 

[face2face]

So, my apologies, but arguing about the hypostatic union and its actual and/or supposed errors is going nowhere with me, F2F. Here is what I will say, and I think it speaks to at least some of your assertions:

No need for apologies, an open mind is all that is required for truth to be received.

How is Christ, after His ascension, localized in heaven and yet with His people no matter where we are (Matt. 28:18–20; Acts 1:6–11)? According to His humanity, Jesus is not on earth, but according to His deity, Jesus is never absent from us.

This has nothing (at all) to do with duality of natures or the OP. Christ was born in the flesh; born of a woman and no different in nature to you or I - animal like - returning to dust as per the original decree! Jesus being rewarded with immortality and life, made divine and ascending to Heaven to sit at his Fathers side received power from Him and now presides over the angels none of which was his state prior to being born of a woman as per Galatians 4:4-5
.

This issue gets to the heart of the person of Jesus, who is both truly human and truly divine. Human beings can be in only one place at a time.

This is hallerious and I thought you had a measure of common sense - this is going down the crazy path!

It is an intrinsic limitation, something that makes us human. If Jesus’ humanity possessed omnipresence, He would not be truly human, and He could not have borne God’s wrath in our place. Similarly, omnipresence is one of the attributes that makes God, well, God. If Jesus’ divine nature were not omnipresent, He would not be God. We can commune with Christ because His omnipresent divinity, perfectly united to His humanity, connects us to His whole person, including His localized humanity. Each nature, however, retains its unique properties.

Boy you ran away with that false idea! It appears you dont even know who the Christ was in the flesh! And trying to link his current state to what he was prior is ridiculous! In the flesh he was under condemnation and in anguish every day trying to crucify its lusts and passions Luke 12:50....you would be ignorant to think this Christ is the same as the glorified Christ? One is flesh - destined to die the other a life giving Spirit.

-
We are taking care to distinguish, without separating, Jesus’ human nature from His divine nature because of their perfect union in the one person of Christ. Colossians 2:9 is a clear proof text. Paul tells us in this verse that “the whole fullness of deity” exists in Jesus; the union between the human and divine is so complete, so perfect, that the person of Jesus lacks nothing that is intrinsic to humanity or deity.

No, no, no...firstly Colossians 2:9 is speaking to the glorified Christ not Christ in the flesh so dont you do the twist on that verse! Don't you know what Christ inherited? Read Romans 1 & Hebrews 1? Everything Christ is, is as a result of him being resurrected from the dead! Firstborn of those who sleep and firstborn of all creation...yes you read that correctly firstborn of all creation - Christ has a God, Creator and a Father.

So as you can see you dont have a verse to show Hypostatis, at all - you tried by going to Colossians 2:9 but you dont have the right context.

Take us to a verse where is clearly states Jesus in the flesh - Romans 8:1-3 or Hebrews 2:14-18 etc. Jesus being made sin (flesh) - go to verses which speak to his nature! Otherwise, you are wasting our time!

The perfection of this union means, as R.C. Sproul writes in Essential Truths of the Christian Faith, that “what is said of the divine nature or of the human nature may be affirmed of the person.” Still, we may not confuse Jesus’ divine nature and human nature. Sproul notes that we rightly say, “Christ, the God-man, died. This, however, is not to say that God perished on the cross” (p. 81). Similarly, “Jesus knew what was in man” (John 2:25), but His human nature was not omniscient.

This perfect union did not end with the resurrection. Jesus continues as “a high priest forever” (Heb. 6:20), and His priestly office depends on His “becoming like his brothers in every respect” (2:14–18).

Jesus is not a split personality. His two natures are united so perfectly that He can do things that only human beings do and things that only God does ~ without changing the character of His divine nature or His human nature. Ultimately, we cannot fully explain this mystery, as there is nothing else like the hypostatic union in creation. But we do know that believing in Christ as both fully God and fully man is the most reasonable thing we could ever do.

You disagree. And you're certainly not alone in that. So be it.

Grace and peace to you.

Okay, so all you did here is regurgitate error and entirely prove my first response to you was correct.

You totally misinterpreted John 2:25 which shows Jesus knew what was in man because he knew what was in himself! The latent desire to sin and transgress Gods commands.

How did Jesus know by experience what was in human nature?

Hebrews 4:15 For we do not have a high priest incapable of sympathizing with our weaknesses, but one who has been tempted in every way just as we are, yet without sin.

Christ could sympathise because of experience not because of some divine ability!
Christ had weakness just as you have weakness 2 Corinthians 13:4
Tempted in every way means he had sin's flesh!

Yeah, you have nothing to offer but misquoting a couple of verses and passing them off as you think they refer to Hypostasis.

I doubt you can even quote a verse relating to the Masters nature! Imagine that - you quoting a verse which relates to Jesus nature while trying to prove hypostatic union - now that would be a laugh to see! Go on please try! I need a hehe today!

I bet you will consistantly gravitate to the glorified Christ because you think dual nature is there, but sadly my original claims remain true. Your spiritual darkness is firmly intact.

F2F

 

[Jack]

Kingdom Hall / Hallway to Hell fire!

Matthew 25
41 Then He will also say to those on the left hand, 'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels:
Revelation 20
10 The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.