ECT Our triune God

[fzappa13]

I tried offering this thought in another thread and the silence was deafening. I thought at this juncture it might be worth another go. In trying to understand the opening stanzas of the Gospel of John and so much else offered concerning the relationship between Jesus and His Father I came to see that relationship as an expression of the relationship between the thinker and his thought once verbalized.

The thought exists prior to being verbalized and has an intimacy with the thinker that is partially lost when uttered (John 17:5). Nonetheless, the thought, having been verbalized, takes on a life of its own to accomplish the purpose of He who thought it and then spoke it. It is, and always will be, of the speaker in any meaningful way.

So, how about those who hear said Word?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Because CHANGE means FROM what is, TO what was not...

The dictionary defines change as "to make different in some particular" (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary).

According to your ideas the Lord Jesus was different when he took on a second nature than when He just had one nature but He was not changed.

You will admit that if He originally had just one nature and then at some point He acquired another nature then he was different than He was before?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

This whole disparity is because nobody understands multi-phenomenality.

Are you also one who says that the Lord Jesus went from one nature to two natures without experiencing a change?

Do you believe that the Lord Jesus with one nature is the same exact Jesus with two natures?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jerry... there is no need to repeat yourself and the same concept over and over just to fill your posts with content. So let me affirm that, yes, anyway you care to order the prepositions, the Word did not change when assuming human nature!

So according to you the Lord Jesus remained exactly the same when He went from having one nature to two! You still cannot see that is illogical.

And it is not simply "according to me" but according to Scripture and the orthodox church who scrutinized the Scripture and successfully defended an equal level of scrutiny by others in a respective collective of more lifetimes than either you or I will have.

Go ahead and put your faith in the orthodox church (Rome?) and I will reason out of the Scriptures. According to the Scriptures the Lord Jesus changes not so common sense dicates that if He originally had only one nature and then later acquired another one then He changed. But you say that He remained exactly the same.

Next, let us look at these verses which prove that the Lord Jesus existed as "Man" before being born of Mary:

"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 there can be no doubt that when the Lord Jesus came down from earth it was as Son of Man. And the following words of the Lord make it plain that He was in heaven as Son of Man before He came down to earth:

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

According to you when the Jews heard the term "Son of Man" they thought it was referring to Him being God. That makes no sense at all, especially when it is understood how the Jews used the term "son of..."

For example, let us look at Paul's words here:

"You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy, will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord?" (Acts 13:10).​

When describing Elyman as "the son of the devil" the Jews would understand his words as describing the man's character and nature. And the same meaning is used when the Lord Jesus called a Pharisee "son of hell."

So when the Jews heard the Lord Jesus speak of Himself as "son of man" they would understand Him as saying that He was Man.

And when the Jews heard Him describe Himself as being "Son of God" and that God was His Father they understood Him as claiming to be God:

"Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God" (Jn.5:18).​

So you are really confused when you say that when the Jews heard the Lord Jesus speak of Himself as Son of Man He was claiming to be God.

And that is the only way that you have attempted to address the words which demonstrate that the Lord Jesus was in heaven as MAN before He came to earth.

Again, as the following verse show, the Lord Jesus was Man before He was born of Mary:

"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).​

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

I do not think in your 11,000 some posts you have never come across an orthodox Christian in a discussion of the nature of Christ!

If so, that is a sad state of affairs indeed...

I have not seen how any of those in the so-called orthodox church answer my points about what is said at John 3:13 and John 6:62. Perhaps you will be kind enough to quote these wise men about this subject, especially what they say about these two verses.

Thanks!

 

[Soror1]

So according to you the Lord Jesus remained exactly the same when He went from having one nature to two! You still cannot see that is illogical.

lolol you just couldn't resist to say it once again...

Go ahead and put your faith in the orthodox church (Rome?)

Not "Rome"--Roman Christians were there, yes. (btw, I do not buy whatsoever the slight-of-hand that when the Church Fathers wrote of the "catholic church", it means the Roman Catholic Church as we know it.)

and I will reason out of the Scriptures.

Which is what they did.

According to the Scriptures the Lord Jesus changes not so common sense dicates that if He originally had only one nature and then later acquired another one then He changed. But you say that He remained exactly the same.

And again for good measure...

Next, let us look at these verses which prove that the Lord Jesus existed as "Man" before being born of Mary:

"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 there can be no doubt that when the Lord Jesus came down from earth it was as Son of Man.

The Son of Man--of Daniel.

And the following words of the Lord make it plain that He was in heaven as Son of Man before He came down to earth:

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

Where He was--as in Daniel. "One like a son of man."

According to you when the Jews heard the term "Son of Man" they thought it was referring to Him being God. That makes no sense at all, especially when it is understood how the Jews used the term "son of..."

For example, let us look at Paul's words here:

"You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy, will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord?" (Acts 13:10).​

When describing Elyman as "the son of the devil" the Jews would understand his words as describing the man's character and nature. And the same meaning is used when the Lord Jesus called a Pharisee "son of hell."

Agree with all of this (with the exception of "that makes no sense"...)

So when the Jews heard the Lord Jesus speak of Himself as "son of man" they would understand Him as saying that He was Man.

Many would and did. Many others--those with authority to do something about it--understood it as a claim to the pre-existent deity of Daniel.

And when the Jews heard Him describe Himself as being "Son of God" and that God was His Father they understood Him as claiming to be God:

"Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God" (Jn.5:18).

So you are really confused when you say that when the Jews heard the Lord Jesus speak of Himself as Son of Man He was claiming to be God.​

There is no "Son of God" in the pericope before John 5:18. That verse immediately follows upon "But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.”

But, yes, of course some of them understood the implication and that He was claiming Son-ship.

But, Jerry, consider Nathaniel:

“Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!”​

If Nathaniel really understood "Son of God" to mean God he would have shut his trap and fell on his face. Just like those in the presence of other OT theophanies. We would expect something along the lines of Isaiah, "Woe is me for I am undone"

Peter didn't even know what he was confessing when he said "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God", or he would have fell flat on his face in abject fear as well.

They were right, but not entirely right.

And that is the only way that you have attempted to address the words which demonstrate that the Lord Jesus was in heaven as MAN before He came to earth.

Again, as the following verse show, the Lord Jesus was Man before He was born of Mary:

"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).​

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

I have not seen how any of those in the so-called orthodox church answer my points about what is said at John 3:13 and John 6:62. Perhaps you will be kind enough to quote these wise men about this subject, especially what they say about these two verses.

Thanks!

I would be delighted! Here is one--Cyril of Alexandria writing to John of Antioch:

For when we say our Lord Jesus Christ descended from heaven, and from above, we do not so say this as if from above and from heaven was his Holy Flesh taken, but rather by way of following the divine Paul, who distinctly declares: the first man is of the earth, earthy; the Second Man is the Lord from heaven.

We remember too, the Saviour himself saying, And no man has ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man. Although he was born according to his flesh, as just said, of the holy Virgin, yet God the Word came down from above and from heaven. He made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was called the Son of Man, yet remaining what he was, that is to say God. For he is unchanging and unchangeable according to nature; considered already as one with his own Flesh, he is said to have come down from heaven.

He is also called the Man from heaven, being perfect in his Divinity and perfect in his Humanity, and considered as in one Person. For one is the Lord Jesus Christ, although the difference of his natures is not unknown, from which we say the ineffable union was made.​

 

[Soror1]

... or you could wait for an invitation from the future landlord but I hear that's going to be a pretty exclusive list.

I like to think (and think I will) be there...

 

[Soror1]

This whole disparity is because nobody understands multi-phenomenality.

Don't cry!

I think I do--it might need some fine-tuning.

But, you still need to address just what became incarnate.

 

[Soror1]

There is still a glaring hole in yer thoughts here.

For you cannot reconcile it when compared to scripture.

You tried and epically failed when you said Paul was talking about translated believers.

For Paul is implying that there is nothing outside of God.

This is very true--in a certain respect.

So (for this discussion at least) I think it is best to focus on created v. uncreated.

 

[Soror1]

Yikes!

Do you think that when Our Lord was walking the earth the second Person of the Trinity was no longer omnipresent, instead being confined to the earthy realm for thirty-three years or so?

Do you take issue with the following:

Our Lord was fully God and fully man in an indissoluble union whereby the second person of the Trinity assumed a human nature that cannot be separated, divided, mixed, or confused.

One can best understand this mystical union (together united in one subsistence and in one single person) by examining what it is not, thus from the process of elimination determine what it must be.

The mystical union of the divine and the human natures is not:

1. a denial that our Lord was truly God (Ebionites, Elkasites, Arians);
2. a dissimilar or different substance (anomoios) with the Father (semi-Arianism);
3. a denial that our Lord had a genuine human soul (Apollinarians);
4. a denial of a distinct person in the Trinity (Dynamic Monarchianism);
5. God acting merely in the forms of the Son and Spirit (Modalistic Monarchianism/Sabellianism/United Pentecostal Church);
6. a mixture or change when the two natures were united (Eutychianism/Monophysitism);
7. two distinct persons (Nestorianism);
8. a denial of the true humanity of Christ (docetism);
9. a view that God the Son laid aside all or some of His divine attributes (kenoticism);
10. a view that there was a communication of the attributes between the divine and human natures (Lutheranism, with respect to the Lord's Supper); and
11. a view that our Lord existed independently as a human before God entered His body (Adoptionism).

AMR

Very nice!

I haven't checked yet but I assume Jerry has an argument having to do with the Son of Man from Heaven verses.

 

[Soror1]

Finally.

Finally what?

An application of ousia?

(P.S. Apologies to all for so many posts in a row. I'll try to read ahead in the future and combine some.)

 

[Soror1]

So Jer' -

Was Adam First Man?
Or was it Christ?

I always thought Christ was the SECOND Adam...
And Adam was First Man...

The first fell...
The Second did not...

Was Adam the Son of God?

Arsenios

Okay, last one for now--yes! Same point Cyril made.

And Jerry didn't answer (cuz I looked ahead this time).

So, Jerry, how do you read this?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Earlier, I said:

Let us look at these verses which prove that the Lord Jesus existed as "Man" before being born of Mary:

"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 there can be no doubt that when the Lord Jesus came down from earth it was as Son of Man.​

to this you said:

The Son of Man--of Daniel.

Yes, this refers to the Lord Jesus sitting on the throne of David:

"I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed" (Dan.7:13-14).​

According to Peter the Lord Jesus will rule as a "Man" on the throne of David:

"Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne" (Acts 2:29-30).​

This can only be referring to the Lord Jesus Christ sitting on the throne of David as "Man."

And these words of the LORD also confirm that fact:

"The Lord hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne" (Ps.132:11).​

So the words "Son of Man" as in "one like the Son of Man" in Daniel had nothing to do with the Lord Jesus' pre-existent deity, as you say here:

Many others--those with authority to do something about it--understood it as a claim to the pre-existent deity of Daniel

Peter and the LORD certainly understood that the Lord Jesus sitting on the throne of David mentioned in the seventh chapter of Daniel had nothing to do with anything except His humanity.

Many others--those with authority to do something about it--understood it as a claim to the pre-existent deity of Daniel.

There is nothing in Daniel that even hints that the Lord Jesus sitting upon the throne of David was "a claim to the pre-existent deity of Daniel."

With that understood, then there can be no doubt that the Lord Jesus was Man when He came down from heaven:

"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).​

And this verse teaches practically the same thing:

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

The Lord Jesus was previously in heaven as Man.

You cannot seem to understand that a flesh and blood body is not essential to humanity. But do not those believers who are in heaven now, without flesh and blood bodies, remain men? Of course it is the "inner man" who is in heaven even though the "outward man" has long since perished.

I would be delighted! Here is one--Cyril of Alexandria writing to John of Antioch:

There is nothing here that explains how what he said can be reconciled with what is said here:

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

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Okay, last one for now--yes! Same point Cyril made.

And Jerry didn't answer (cuz I looked ahead this time).

So, Jerry, how do you read this?

Paul used the Lord Jesus to illustrate the following two principles:

"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.15:44).​

"Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual" (1 Cor.15:46).​

So when Paul speaks of the first man Adam he is referring to the first man with a natural body. In fact, that is one of the meanings of the Greek word translated "man" in this verse:

"And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit" (1 Cor.15:45).

One of the meanings of the Greek word translated "man" in this verse is "with reference to two fold nature of man, body and soul" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

Keeping in the context which is about different bodies Paul then uses the Lord Jesus to illustrate to what He said here:

"Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual" (1 Cor.15:46).​

This is used to illustrate that principle:

"...the last Adam was made a quickening spirit" (1 Cor.14:5).​

The only reason that Adam is spoken of as being first was only for the reason to illustrate what Paul said here:

"Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual" (1 Cor.15:46).​

It is a mistake to take the order literally, or else we must believe that the Lord Jesus was the second man:

"The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven" (1 Cor.15:47).​

 

[Arsenios]

Truth is yer inverted reality has you in delusion.

Yer supposed partner has jumped off the top rail and plastered you to the mat.

:smack:

I always liked Mat...

A.

 

[Soror1]

And please tell me:

What does God ADD to His "experience" by becoming man whom He created?

Fallen man can know NOTHING about God's "experience"...

BECAUSE...

God does not suffer EXPERIENCES...

He is their Creator...

"Vanity, Vanity...
There is nothing New
Under the sun..."

Are you really suggesting that Christ experienced something NEW by His taking on of human flesh, blood and soul???

Arsenios

According to you the Lord Jesus originally had only one nature. And then when He took on another He did not experience any change.

I used the word "experience" as a verb and not as a noun, as you imagine. One of the meanings of that word as a verb is "undergo" (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary).

So what I said means:

According to you the Lord Jesus originally had only one nature. And then when He took on another He did not undergo any change.​

That idea defies common sense.

He experienced His creation from the human perspective...

Do you think He was experiencing something NEW to Him?

In a human way, He BECAME His Creation...

Do you think he experienced anything NEW to Him?

Because CHANGE means FROM what is, TO what was not...

And the first thing I would say to you is that you do not know schnartz about God's Divine experience. And may I hasten to add, neither do I... So that by saying God BECAME man, we are indeed affirming in human terms that God changed from being God to becoming God AND man...

If THAT is your point, you have it, and perhaps we can move on...

But IF you are going to insist on your humanistic interpretation of this event into terms of "GOD'S EXPERIENCES" or "GOD EXPERIENCING", of which you do not and can not know anything, then we have to part company...



Ear-religious of anything I may or may not be imagining, YOU do not know schnartz about God's experiencing anything...



You still cannot speak for God...



Aaaaaaahhhhhhh....

Common sense....

OK...

I get it now...

You NEED some common sense...

NOW I get it...

So here you are...

Common Sense 101

God, by His Divine Nature, created ALL natures...

He entered INTO one of them, the human...

So do YOU think He experienced any change?

And the answer is that the Person of God the Logos did not...

But the Nature of the Man Jesus Christ sure did...

And in this humanity, the Person of Christ did not change...

Instead, the Nature of Man changed in His Person...

Glad you asked...

It is a One Way Street, you see...

He entered creation to renew it, and not to "experience change", as you seem so wedded to insisting...

And another thing - "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever" states YESTERDAY, and does not state: "From eternity..." It is not a discussion of the eternal Nature of God... It is a statement of the permanence of what Christ did...

The Eternal became temporal, without changing the eternal...

Can you spell M-Y-S-T-E-R-I-O-N ??

Stay with us - You can recover!

Arsenios

The dictionary defines change as "to make different in some particular" (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary).

According to your ideas the Lord Jesus was different when he took on a second nature than when He just had one nature but He was not changed.

You will admit that if He originally had just one nature and then at some point He acquired another nature then he was different than He was before?

Following this strand of the thread through--

The right word is not change but mutability. Immutability "lite" being:

The Immutability of God is an attribute where “God is unchanging in his character, will, and covenant promises." [1]

The Westminster Shorter Catechism says, ’God is a spirit, whose being, wisdom power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth are infinite, eternal, and unchangeable.” Those things do not change. A number of Scriptures attest to this idea (e.g. Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29; Ps. 102:26; Mal. 3:6; 2 Tim. 2:13; Heb. 6:17–18; Jam. 1:17) [2]

God's immutability defines all his other attributes: he is immutably wise, he cannot but be merciful, good, and gracious. The same may be said about his knowledge: God does not need to gain knowledge; he knows all things, eternally and immutably so. Infiniteness and immutability in God are mutually supportive and imply each other. An infinite and changing God is inconceivable; indeed it is a contradiction in definition. [3]
​

So I think you, Jerry, would affirm that in the Word (God) becoming man, nothing changed regarding "His character, will, and covenant promises" simply with the addition of flesh. And so would most of us.

Then there is metaphysical immutability which is closer to "Infiniteness and immutability in God are mutually supportive and imply each other. An infinite and changing God is inconceivable; indeed it is a contradiction in definition" but saying more as a consequence of God's simplicity:

In Christian theism (to be accurate "Classical theism"), God is simple, not composite, not made up of thing upon thing. Thomas Morris notes that divine simplicity can mean any or all of three different claims:

God has no spatial parts (spatial simplicity).
God has no temporal parts (temporal simplicity).
God is without the sort of metaphysical complexity where God would have different parts which are distinct from himself (property simplicity).

In other words, property simplicity (or metaphysical simplicity) states that the characteristics of God are not parts of God that together make up God. Because God is simple, God is those characteristics; for example, God does not have goodness, but simply is goodness​

So (whether you agree or not), you are engaged in metaphysics. The nature of God, His identity, angels, souls, spirits, man, flesh, body, causation, etc., are all in the realm of metaphysics. No one can avoid metaphysics and metaphysical assumptions when speaking of God. The only question is whether one does it well (coherence--and in our case alignment with the Biblical data) or badly.

So what some of us are here saying is that the Word is divine (has the divine nature) and is immutable. Strictly speaking, and metaphysically, it was the Word who became flesh (not Jesus Christ per se though we can certainly say of the Word that He is Jesus Christ).

And rather than saying divinity or deity changed, we say creation changed--creation also being His flesh/humanity which wouldn't have existed but for Him. Creation entered into a new relationship with its Creator. Flesh pops into and out of existence all the time--and none of that changes the Creator to include His own flesh. So some of us argue even this stronger version of immutability.

Finally, and back to Arsenios' train of thought, even if one cannot accept that there was no metaphysical change, certainly (I hope) you would agree that there is no experience that God is unaware of. He didn't need to become man to experience what it is like to be man--He already knows and precisely. Not only, He knows what it is like precisely to be this or that man. He knows everything. And knowing that results in no change in Him. So an instantiation/actualization/realization of that knowledge in creation doesn't change Him either. It was done to show us something always and eternally true. And some of us argue this version of immutability as well (and I think you might too).

So we only disagree (at this point) on 1 of the 3 examples of immutability--the metaphysical one.

It helps to think of God as the stable point from which everything else revolves around. Everything is in relation to Him, and He is the same whether or not we (or the entirety of creation itself) exists.

The relation is asymmetric (unsurprisingly). Our relationship to Him is an internal relation for us. His relation to us is an external relation for Him.

Okay, I'll shut up as I think I'm rambling now...

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Following this strand of the thread through--

The right word is not change but mutability. Immutability "lite" being:

The Immutability of God is an attribute where “God is unchanging in his character, will, and covenant promises." [1]

The Westminster Shorter Catechism says, ’God is a spirit, whose being, wisdom power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth are infinite, eternal, and unchangeable.” Those things do not change. A number of Scriptures attest to this idea (e.g. Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29; Ps. 102:26; Mal. 3:6; 2 Tim. 2:13; Heb. 6:17–18; Jam. 1:17) [2]

God's immutability defines all his other attributes: he is immutably wise, he cannot but be merciful, good, and gracious. The same may be said about his knowledge: God does not need to gain knowledge; he knows all things, eternally and immutably so. Infiniteness and immutability in God are mutually supportive and imply each other. An infinite and changing God is inconceivable; indeed it is a contradiction in definition. [3]
​

So I think you, Jerry, would affirm that in the Word (God) becoming man, nothing changed regarding "His character, will, and covenant promises" simply with the addition of flesh. And so would most of us.

Then there is metaphysical immutability which is closer to "Infiniteness and immutability in God are mutually supportive and imply each other. An infinite and changing God is inconceivable; indeed it is a contradiction in definition" but saying more as a consequence of God's simplicity:

In Christian theism (to be accurate "Classical theism"), God is simple, not composite, not made up of thing upon thing. Thomas Morris notes that divine simplicity can mean any or all of three different claims:

God has no spatial parts (spatial simplicity).
God has no temporal parts (temporal simplicity).
God is without the sort of metaphysical complexity where God would have different parts which are distinct from himself (property simplicity).

In other words, property simplicity (or metaphysical simplicity) states that the characteristics of God are not parts of God that together make up God. Because God is simple, God is those characteristics; for example, God does not have goodness, but simply is goodness​

So (whether you agree or not), you are engaged in metaphysics. The nature of God, His identity, angels, souls, spirits, man, flesh, body, causation, etc., are all in the realm of metaphysics. No one can avoid metaphysics and metaphysical assumptions when speaking of God. The only question is whether one does it well (coherence--and in our case alignment with the Biblical data) or badly.

So what some of us are here saying is that the Word is divine (has the divine nature) and is immutable. Strictly speaking, and metaphysically, it was the Word who became flesh (not Jesus Christ per se though we can certainly say of the Word that He is Jesus Christ).

And rather than saying divinity or deity changed, we say creation changed--creation also being His flesh/humanity which wouldn't have existed but for Him. Creation entered into a new relationship with its Creator. Flesh pops into and out of existence all the time--and none of that changes the Creator to include His own flesh. So some of us argue even this stronger version of immutability.

Finally, and back to Arsenios' train of thought, even if one cannot accept that there was no metaphysical change, certainly (I hope) you would agree that there is no experience that God is unaware of. He didn't need to become man to experience what it is like to be man--He already knows and precisely. Not only, He knows what it is like precisely to be this or that man. He knows everything. And knowing that results in no change in Him. So an instantiation/actualization/realization of that knowledge in creation doesn't change Him either. It was done to show us something always and eternally true. And some of us argue this version of immutability as well (and I think you might too).

So we only disagree (at this point) on 1 of the 3 examples of immutability--the metaphysical one.

It helps to think of God as the stable point from which everything else revolves around. Everything is in relation to Him, and He is the same whether or not we (or the entirety of creation itself) exists.

The relation is asymmetric (unsurprisingly). Our relationship to Him is an internal relation for us. His relation to us is an external relation for Him.

Okay, I'll shut up as I think I'm rambling now...

Yes, AND...

...also not forgetting His other attributes, like... Impassibility and Immateriality, etc.

If only anyone knew that all considerations of God's attributes coalesce into the absolute essential truth of His multi-phenomenality that has gone unadddressed throughout the history of the faith.

Arians, Semi-Arians, Sabellians, Semi-Sabellians, and the assorted host of all others were compensating from various perspectives for the omission of multi-phenomenality and the creation of heaven.

It still makes me...

 

[Arsenios]

It is a mistake to take the order literally, or else we must believe that the Lord Jesus was the second man:

OK - We dare not, according to you, believe that the second man was our Lord Jesus. I get that.

Then you quote the Bible where Paul writes in 1st Corinthians:

"The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven" (1 Cor.15:47).​

And the Bible clearly tells us that our Lord Jesus actually IS the second man, which YOU say we mistakenly believe.

So who is right?

Is it you?

Or Paul?

I mean, Adam was proto anthropos, first man, and Christ was deuteros anthropos, second man, the second Adam...

Are you seriously denying this?

Arsenios

 

[Jerry Shugart]

So I think you, Jerry, would affirm that in the Word (God) becoming man, nothing changed regarding "His character, will, and covenant promises" simply with the addition of flesh.

If the Lord Jesus became Man and He wasn't man before then it is ridiculous to argue that He did not undergo a change.

I notice that you were unable to quote even one verse that answers what I said about your idea that the Lord Jesus originally only had one nature and then at another point He acquired another nature but yet He was not changed.

So (whether you agree or not), you are engaged in metaphysics.

No, metaphysics relates to philosophy, and philosophy is based on speculation. Why would anyone employ that since we have right before us the sure word of God?

Strictly speaking, and metaphysically, it was the Word who became flesh (not Jesus Christ per se though we can certainly say of the Word that He is Jesus Christ).

That idea is based on nothing but speculation because the scriptures state that the Lord Jesus Himself was made like His brothers:

"For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people" (Heb.2:16-17).​

Metaphysics will get you nothing but error.

Here is what the Lord Jesus said:

"All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him" (Mt.11:27).​

It is a gross error to speculate about the things we do not know about the Lord Jesus. However, the Bible does reveal things about Him to us. And here is one of those things:

"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).​

It was as Man that the Lord Jesus came down from heaven. That means that He was Man before He was born of Mary.And this verse teaches practically the same thing:

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

The Lord Jesus was in heaven as Man before He came down to earth.

The Lord Jesus was previously in heaven as Man.

You cannot seem to understand that a flesh and blood body is not essential to humanity. But do not those believers who are in heaven now, without flesh and blood bodies, remain men? Of course it is the "inner man" who is in heaven even though the "outward man" has long since perished.

 

[Arsenios]

If only anyone knew that all considerations of God's attributes coalesce into the absolute essential truth of His multi-phenomenality that has gone unadddressed throughout the history of the faith.

It still makes me...

I am still trying to sink ordinary teeth into this not ordinary at all multi-phenomenality you keep pointing to in the middle of the living room that nobody else is able to see at all except you alone...

So help me here, PPS... Can you give me some examples of this multi-phenomenality in terms of ordinary human experience? I am really having a hard time following a trail I cannot see... And when it comes to most trails, I tend to be a Bloodhound... But this spoor is elusive...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

If the Lord Jesus became Man and He wasn't man before then it is ridiculous to argue that He did not undergo a change.

The problem you have with your proof is that YOU are a created man, and Jesus is God, so that if Jesus were NOT God, you would be right, but because He IS God, your argument utterly fails...

I notice that you were unable to quote even one verse that answers what I said about your idea that the Lord Jesus originally only had one nature and then at another point He acquired another nature but yet He was not changed.

Here is where you fail, because you falsely attribute to God ONLY ONE NATURE... As if there even CAN BE ANY OTHER natures which God MIGHT BE...

No, metaphysics relates to philosophy, and philosophy is based on speculation. Why would anyone employ that since we have right before us the sure word of God?

You are making a metaphysical argument from fallen human philosophy...

The sure word of God tells us Jesus was the second man...

Arsenios