ECT Our triune God

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

What meaning to you put on the words "eternal begottenness" as you use them here:

You also said:

So far you have never proved that anything that I have ever said is heretical. When you were unable to answer what I said about the Lord Jesus being a " Man" before He came to earth you began to attempt to assassinate my character.

Of course you do not want to try to prove that I am wrong because you have already found out that you are unable to do that.

You seem to have mistaken me for someone who cares what you think or how you misinterpret my decision not to engage in the futility of conversing with you.

Please desist in addressing me. There are others who may be interested in conversing with you. Feel free to find them and address them.

Thanks.

 

[StanJ]

LOL....PPS = Preposterous Personal Slanderer. :cigar:

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

LOL....PPS = Preposterous Personal Slanderer. :cigar:

Oh, the irony. :kookoo::cigar:

Do you see what you did there? :idea::doh:

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Please desist in addressing me.

Of course you don't want to answer my question. That is nothing new.

And if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.

 

[Lon]

Keypurr, a unitarian, proves that Christ is God anyway

Keypurr, a unitarian, proves that Christ is God anyway

1Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Manifest: was made known, came [in the flesh].

'without controversy'

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Manifest: was made known, came [in the flesh].

'without controversy'

Yeppers, though I've seen some phantasmagorical apologetic callisthenics from Socinians to morph that verse into something amenably suited to their plausible deniability of the ontological deity of Christ.

 

[Arsenios]

Ummm... Here is verbatim lexicography from Zodhiates.

Hagios; holy, set apart, sanctified, consecrated. It has a common root, hag-, with hagnos; chaste, pure. Its fundamental ideas are separation, consecration, devotion to God, and sharing in God's purity and abstaining from earth's defilement. Contrast to hieros, hagios has moral significance while hieros has only ritual significance.

Thank-you -

the funny thing about this one is that I had never checked the roots, but simply ASSUMED that they were a- privative plus gios, earth, and that the roots made holy to mean un-earthly or un-worldly...

I tell ya, PPS, Aah'm about a gittin' ready for the psycho-epistemological fat-farm...

Hag is the root...

Shoot me dead'n'buried!

At least now you know why I do not trust the fallen human intellect to establish itself as the arbiter of truth...

Arsenios

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Thank-you -

the funny thing about this one is that I had never checked the roots, but simply ASSUMED that they were a- privative plus gios, earth, and that the roots made holy to mean un-earthly or un-worldly...

I tell ya, PPS, Aah'm about a gittin' ready for the psycho-epistemological fat-farm...

Hag is the root...

Shoot me dead'n'buried!

At least now you know why I do not trust the fallen human intellect to establish itself as the arbiter of truth...

Arsenios

Truly hilarious. :jump:

 

[Soror1]

What most people fail to realize is the fact that the Lord Jesus existed as "man" before He was born of Marÿ.

I can get on board with all Old Testament theophanies being those of Jesus.

Most people just assume that flesh and blood is essential to being a human.

I'd say that most people assume flesh and blood is essential to being a person. (That aside, I do think Scripture testifies to flesh as being essential to being a human.)

Thus, I can agree Jesus was a person before He assumed flesh and became man.

The Lord said:

"What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" (Jn.6:62).​

He ascended into heaven and therefore He was there as "Man" before that. That same idea is stated again by Him:

I don't think the emphasis was on Son of Man as man but rather a circumlocution for "Me".

"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven" (Jn.3:13).

Here the Lord Jesus explicitly used the terms "man" and "Son of man" to inform us that it was as Man that He came down from heaven.

Same as above--I think it was just a circumlocution for "Me". I notice not all manuscripts (or the best manuscripts) include "which is in heaven" and it isn't in, for example, the ESV.

Therefore, He id not begin to be a man at the birth of Mary but instead He has always been Man and God:

"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever" (Heb.13:8).​

With that verse in view it is impossible to entertain the thought that at one point He was not Man but later He became Man.

Orthodox Christology is that the person (or hypostasis, if you prefer) of the Word assumed flesh and became man. It can also account for Hebrews 13:8. Does the idea that Jesus was a "person" rather than a "man" before the Incarnation work for you?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I'd say that most people assume flesh and blood is essential to being a person. (That aside, I do think Scripture testifies to flesh as being essential to being a human.

We will enter into the heavenly sphere as humans, and flesh and blood cannot enter there (1 Cor.15:50). Therefore a flesh and blood body is not essential to being human.

I don't think the emphasis was on Son of Man as man but rather a circumlocution for "Me".

"What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" (Jn.6:62).​

He had a reason for using "Son of man" there. If He did not want to refer to His humanity there He would have used the term "Son of God."

Orthodox Christology is that the person (or hypostasis, if you prefer) of the Word assumed flesh and became man. It can also account for Hebrews 13:8. Does the idea that Jesus was a "person" rather than a "man" before the Incarnation work for you?

Yes, that works for me if it is understood that He was human before the Incarnation. But I cannot see how your ideas can possibly be reconciled to what is said at Hebrews 13:8. According to you the Lord assumed another nature at the Incarnation but yet His very nature did not change. That makes no sense to me.

I notice not all manuscripts (or the best manuscripts) include "which is in heaven" and it isn't in, for example, the ESV.

That changes nothing:

"No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man" (Jn.3:13; ESV).​

He descended from heaven as a human. So he didn't become human at the Incarnation.

On another note, Sir Robert Anderson wrote the following:

"The revelation of the Son of Man will lead the spiritual Christian, who has learned to note the hidden harmony of Scripture, to recall the language of the creation story: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.' 'The type,' as the biologist would phrase it, is not the creature of Eden, but He after whose likeness the creature was fashioned" (Anderson, The Lord From Heaven [Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1978], 31-32).​

 

[Soror1]

And let me say that in no way am I being adversarial or condescending. My style is often misinterpreted as such. I'm actually very touched by your obvious maturity and humility in conversation.

Thank you for your kind words! I, too, appreciate those like yourself who think deeply about these things.

Because you are placing such emphasis on noumenon and phenomenon in this post and the others as "the necessary core discussion for understanding", I'll hold off commenting until you locate/link to some definitions or provide them live.

No hurry--take your time. I see a conceptual and metaphysical muddle with your explanation of the Incarnation but those definitions might help to clarify. I'll come back to it and explain what I mean and address the rest of your points if I don't hear back in the next few days just to keep the discussion moving.

 

[Soror1]

The Son has always existed and the idea that He was somehow begotten makes no sense.

Well I think you have to deal with the Scripture verses that speak of it so how do you?

 

[Soror1]

So far you have never proved that anything that I have ever said is heretical. When you were unable to answer what I said about the Lord Jesus being a " Man" before He came to earth you began to attempt to assassinate my character.

fwiw (not much, I know), I don't think you're a "rank heretic" (LOL! The term makes me laugh as it's so stentorian). That is, unless you deny the ontological deity of Christ--as in homoousios--with God, the Father.

 

[Soror1]

We will enter into the heavenly sphere as humans, and flesh and blood cannot enter there (1 Cor.15:50). Therefore a flesh and blood body is not essential to being human.

Flesh and blood can't enter there but flesh and bones can:

See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”​

"What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" (Jn.6:62).​

He had a reason for using "Son of man" there. If He did not want to refer to His humanity there He would have used the term "Son of God."

Is it the case that when He uses "Son of Man" He exclusively refers to His humanity and that when He uses "Son of God" He exclusively refers to His deity?

I don't know--I'm asking as I haven't done a complete study of it (but I doubt it).

Yes, that works for me if it is understood that He was human before the Incarnation.

No, not human but a person.

But I cannot see how your ideas can possibly be reconciled to what is said at Hebrews 13:8. According to you the Lord assumed another nature at the Incarnation but yet His very nature did not change. That makes no sense to me.

Then we should start with the Confession of Chalcedon!

Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us One and the same Son, the Self-same Perfect in Godhead, the Self-same Perfect in Manhood; truly God and truly Man; the Self-same of a rational soul and body; co-essential with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same co-essential with us according to the Manhood; like us in all things, sin apart; before the ages begotten of the Father as to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to the Manhood; One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He were parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ; even as from the beginning the prophets have taught concerning Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself hath taught us, and as the Symbol of the Fathers hath handed down to us.​

That changes nothing:

"No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man" (Jn.3:13; ESV).​

He descended from heaven as a human. So he didn't become human at the Incarnation.

I understand that's how you're interpreting it but I see it as a reference simply to Himself. Perhaps your answer above will prompt me to examine your line of argument in more detail.

On another note, Sir Robert Anderson wrote the following:

"The revelation of the Son of Man will lead the spiritual Christian, who has learned to note the hidden harmony of Scripture, to recall the language of the creation story: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.' 'The type,' as the biologist would phrase it, is not the creature of Eden, but He after whose likeness the creature was fashioned" (Anderson, The Lord From Heaven [Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1978], 31-32).​

I agree with this--He after whose likeness the creature (man) was fashioned. You don't think Jesus was a creature, do you?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Well I think you have to deal with the Scripture verses that speak of it so how do you?

I know of no verses which speak of "the Son's eternal begottenness."

Do you?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Flesh and blood can't enter there but flesh and bones can:

See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”​

The Lord Jesus was not in the heavenly sphere when He said those words. Instead, He was on the earth. Besides, Paul makes a distinction between our earthly body and our future heavenly body here:

"For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven" (2 Cor.5:1-2).​

Here is how Paul describes the resurrected bodies which Christians will possess when they enter the heavenly sphere:

"So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body" (1 Cor.15:42-44).​

So when we read that flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom of God we know that we will not have a flesh and blood body:

"Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption" (1 Cor.15:50).​

When we will enter the heavenly sphere we will possess a body which is from heaven, a spiritual body which is not a flesh and blood body. But we will remain human thereby proving that a flesh and blood body is not essential to humanity.

Earlier I said:

"But I cannot see how your ideas can possibly be reconciled to what is said at Hebrews 13:8. According to you the Lord assumed another nature at the Incarnation but yet His very nature did not change. That makes no sense to me."​

To this you quoted the Confession of Chalcedon, which did not even address anything about Hebrews 13:8. Could you please address what I said in your own words. It would be greatly appreciated.

Is it the case that when He uses "Son of Man" He exclusively refers to His humanity and that when He uses "Son of God" He exclusively refers to His deity?

I don't know--I'm asking as I haven't done a complete study of it (but I doubt it).

Yes, I believe that when the Lord Jesus uses the term Son of Man he is referring to His humanity. After all, why would He use the term "Son of Man" if He was saying something about His nature as God?

 

[Soror1]

I know of no verses which speak of "the Son's eternal begottenness."

Do you?

Well since you said "The Son has always existed [and the idea that He was somehow begotten makes no sense]" (I agree the Son has always existed) but Scripture also uses the term "begotten" of the Son then they would be the same verses you use to establish the eternity of the Son in addition to the verses that indicate He was begotten.

 

[Soror1]

The Lord Jesus was not in the heavenly sphere when He said those words. Instead, He was on the earth. Besides, Paul makes a distinction between our earthly body and our future heavenly body here:

"For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven" (2 Cor.5:1-2).​

Here is how Paul describes the resurrected bodies which Christians will possess when they enter the heavenly sphere:

"So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body" (1 Cor.15:42-44).​

So when we read that flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom of God we know that we will not have a flesh and blood body:

"Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption" (1 Cor.15:50).​

When we will enter the heavenly sphere we will possess a body which is from heaven, a spiritual body which is not a flesh and blood body. But we will remain human thereby proving that a flesh and blood body is not essential to humanity.

Earlier I said:

"But I cannot see how your ideas can possibly be reconciled to what is said at Hebrews 13:8. According to you the Lord assumed another nature at the Incarnation but yet His very nature did not change. That makes no sense to me."​

To this you quoted the Confession of Chalcedon, which did not even address anything about Hebrews 13:8. Could you please address what I said in your own words. It would be greatly appreciated.



Yes, I believe that when the Lord Jesus uses the term Son of Man he is referring to His humanity. After all, why would He use the term "Son of Man" if He was saying something about His nature as God?

Just a note that I will come back to this later, Jerry (assuming it's on topic and no one advises otherwise)--I'm working from home today and I should use the term "working" rather loosely given my time on the forum today.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Well since you said "The Son has always existed [and the idea that He was somehow begotten makes no sense]" (I agree the Son has always existed) but Scripture also uses the term "begotten" of the Son then they would be the same verses you use to establish the eternity of the Son in addition to the verses that indicate He was begotten.

No, the verses which speak of the Lord Jesus being begotten refers to His resurrection (Acts 13:33). But that happened in "time" so that is not in regard to an "eternal begottenness."

The term "eternally begotten" is found in the Nicine Creed. Those from the church at Rome address the term "eternally begotten" in the following way:

"We have to be careful to understand this term. It is often used as synonymous with "to be born" but it really means "to cause to be." Even though the Son is eternally existent, the Father "causes him to be." God is the cause of his own existence."​

If the Father causes the Lord Jesus to be then it appears that the Father has a superior position to that of the Lord Jesus.

Nothing about this makes any sense and the term "eternally begotten" is not found in the Bible. And for good reason.

 

[fzappa13]

the term "eternally begotten" is not found in the Bible. And for good reason.

Could you imagine eternal childbirth ... I'm a guy and I can't even imagine the regular variety.