ECT Our triune God

[Ask Mr. Religion]

You are speaking of Him only after His resurrection.

Er, no.

However the Father of Jesus and Jesus are two persons from the birth of Gods son.

Huh? Explain.

AMR

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Er, no.

Huh? Explain.

AMR

The Bible is an account of how God has made this Jesus both Lord and Christ.

Act 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Jesus Christ:
1Pe 3:22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

LA

 

[fzappa13]

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 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).

The Chalcedonian Definition is one of the few statements that all of orthodox Christendom recognizes as a most faithful summary of the teachings of the Scriptures on the matter of the Incarnate Christ. The Chalcedonian Definition was the answer to the many heterodoxies identified above during the third century.

Two other useful discussions on the matter of the humanity assumed by Our Lord:

Anhypostasis: What Kind of Flesh Did Jesus Take?
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/anhypostasis-what-kind-of-flesh-did-jesus-take

Enhypostasis: What Kind of Flesh Did the Word Become?
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/enhypostasis-what-kind-of-flesh-did-the-word-become

AMR

Man, that's a lot of "isms". Have you considered "Nonismatism?"

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/private.php?do=showpm&pmid=239396

 

[fzappa13]

So you HAVE been kilt! Kiltzt, Kilted, Kiltzered....(trews or not?)

It looks like this ...

http://www.tartanregister.gov.uk/tartanDetails.aspx?ref=10757

... or, some say this ...

https://www.scotweb.co.uk/tartandesign/details/20178

... and yet others say this ...

http://www.scotcrest.com/clan_info.php?clan=Rogers&submitme=Find+Clan


Me? I've always been partial to the James Taylor version.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The Bible is an account of how God has made this Jesus both Lord and Christ.

Act 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Jesus Christ:
1Pe 3:22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

LA

I am still waiting for the punch line. :idunno:

Is this a Scripture quote fest? A text without a context is but a pretext. :AMR:

AMR

 

[Lazy afternoon]

I am still waiting for the punch line. :idunno:

Is this a Scripture quote fest? A text without a context is but a pretext. :AMR:

AMR

Jesus is not a spirit.

Luk 24:36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
Luk 24:37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
Luk 24:38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
Luk 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
Luk 24:40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
Luk 24:41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?
Luk 24:42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.
Luk 24:43 And he took it, and did eat before them.

LA

 

[Arsenios]

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 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).

The Chalcedonian Definition is one of the few statements that all of orthodox Christendom recognizes as a most faithful summary of the teachings of the Scriptures on the matter of the Incarnate Christ. The Chalcedonian Definition was the answer to the many heterodoxies identified above during the third century.

:thumb:

Two other useful discussions on the matter of the humanity assumed by Our Lord:

Anhypostasis: What Kind of Flesh Did Jesus Take?
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/anhypostasis-what-kind-of-flesh-did-jesus-take

Fallen human...

Enhypostasis: What Kind of Flesh Did the Word Become?
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/enhypostasis-what-kind-of-flesh-did-the-word-become

Fallen human flesh...

The following is nourishment for the soul:

http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/morningofferingvideo/an_angel_unawares

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Jesus is not a spirit.

Luk 24:36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
Luk 24:37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
Luk 24:38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
Luk 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
Luk 24:40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
Luk 24:41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?
Luk 24:42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.
Luk 24:43 And he took it, and did eat before them.

LA

In reply to your incisive response, may I merely cite the whole of the Byzantine Text of the Greek Bible?

When two holding this view of textualism disagree, all one sees is the Bible arguing against itself, back and forth, back and forth, and not one word from either party...

'Tis an amazin' t'ang, I say!

A.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

In reply to your incisive response, may I merely cite the whole of the Byzantine Text of the Greek Bible?

When two holding this view of textualism disagree, all one sees is the Bible arguing against itself, back and forth, back and forth, and not one word from either party...

'Tis an amazin' t'ang, I say!

A.

The Bible does not disagree with itself.

It disagrees with mans versions of what it plainly states.

If you have been trained to believe what men say it says then that clouds your ability to see what it actually says simply.

Another reason is that without actually meeting the Man , you do not really know who and what He is.

LA

 

[Arsenios]

The Bible does not disagree with itself.

That statement comes from a fallen man, and was not taken from the Bible, which in no place is it written that "The Bible does not disagree with itself." So that, if I agree or disagree with you, we are but men having opinions about a book called the Holy Bible...

It disagrees with mans versions of what it plainly states.

Which is another human opinion not stated in the Bible...

If you have been trained to believe what men say it says
then that clouds your ability to see
what it actually says simply.

The problem with this is that men wrote it, at God's behest. And your opinion is contradicted by the Bible here: Acts 8:30-31

Another reason is that without actually meeting the Man , you do not really know who and what He is.

LA

And this human opinion is contradicted here: John 20:29

The Bible, written by man at God's behest, REQUIRES man's interpretation that it be understood in the Spirit in which it was written, and this means that it can ONLY be so understood by the worshiping Community from which it was written, and that Community is the Ekklesia for Which Paul suffered, the Church of the Living God, the Ground and the Pillar of Truth, against which the Gates of Hades shall not prevail, Whose Head is our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ, now and ever, and unto the Ages of ages...

When atheists, and Hindistani, and Muslims and others who are not a part of this Community claim to understand the Bible, they fail, as they must... In the same way, and for the same reasons, Muslims must understand the Koran, and Hindi's their foundational texts, etc...

Hence when Christ tells us that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, AND that He will SEND to us HIS Spirit, which means that the Holy Spirit BELONGS to Christ and proceeds FROM Christ Who SENDS Him to us, then the two understandings stated so simply in the words of the Bible REQUIRE human interpretation IN ORDER THAT they even CAN be understood...

The Bible ALONE is just that - Alone... Paper and ink...

But when it is a part of a worshiping Community, it is a part of their Life in Christ... The Bible is not above the Ekklesia that wrote and gave it to us - Only Christ is, and indeed, this Ekklesia IS the Body of Christ, as the Bible also witnesses... God the Father GAVE Him to be the Head of His Body, the Church -

Nowhere does the Bible say that the Bible is the Head of the Church...

Nor does it say that the Bible is OVER the Church...

Arsenios

 

[Lazy afternoon]

That statement comes from a fallen man, and was not taken from the Bible, which in no place is it written that "The Bible does not disagree with itself." So that, if I agree or disagree with you, we are but men having opinions about a book called the Holy Bible...



Which is another human opinion not stated in the Bible...



The problem with this is that men wrote it, at God's behest. And your opinion is contradicted by the Bible here: Acts 8:30-31



And this human opinion is contradicted here: John 20:29

The Bible, written by man at God's behest, REQUIRES man's interpretation that it be understood in the Spirit in which it was written, and this means that it can ONLY be so understood by the worshiping Community from which it was written, and that Community is the Ekklesia for Which Paul suffered, the Church of the Living God, the Ground and the Pillar of Truth, against which the Gates of Hades shall not prevail, Whose Head is our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ, now and ever, and unto the Ages of ages...

When atheists, and Hindistani, and Muslims and others who are not a part of this Community claim to understand the Bible, they fail, as they must... In the same way, and for the same reasons, Muslims must understand the Koran, and Hindi's their foundational texts, etc...

Hence when Christ tells us that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, AND that He will SEND to us HIS Spirit, which means that the Holy Spirit BELONGS to Christ and proceeds FROM Christ Who SENDS Him to us, then the two understandings stated so simply in the words of the Bible REQUIRE human interpretation IN ORDER THAT they even CAN be understood...

The Bible ALONE is just that - Alone... Paper and ink...

But when it is a part of a worshiping Community, it is a part of their Life in Christ... The Bible is not above the Ekklesia that wrote and gave it to us - Only Christ is, and indeed, this Ekklesia IS the Body of Christ, as the Bible also witnesses... God the Father GAVE Him to be the Head of His Body, the Church -

Nowhere does the Bible say that the Bible is the Head of the Church...

Nor does it say that the Bible is OVER the Church...

Arsenios

Good grief!

Psa 1:1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
Psa 1:2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
Psa 1:3 And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.
Psa 1:4 The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.
Psa 1:5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.
Psa 1:6 For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.

 

[Arsenios]

Good grief!

Psa 1:1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
Psa 1:2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
Psa 1:3 And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.
Psa 1:4 The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.
Psa 1:5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.
Psa 1:6 For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.

We sing this Psalm every Sunday Liturgy...

Even our local version is a mistranslation of the first verb, an aorist, which makes the Psalm prophetic of our Lord, because He is the ONLY man who "Has not walked in the council of the un-Godly, nor has [He ever] stood in the way of sinners, nor hath [He ever] sat in the seat of the scornful..."

Indeed David is a Prophet, and the Psalms are prophetic of Christ, and they begin with the first verb in the first opening line of the very first Psalm, and the second and third line as well...

But I still see no response in Ps. 1 to whatever it was that I wrote that stuck in your craw and gurgled out a "Good grief!"

This Psalm, and all the Psalms, and the entire Bible, need to be ENFLESHED in us... True is the saying that you must be very careful in what you say and do, because you yourself may be the ONLY Gospel some people will ever read...

So that your very breath should breathe forth in its words what the Good News of the Gospel is, and not a mere parroting of text... And the enfleshment of the text comes with obedience to, remembrance of, and repetition in, and meditation with, the texts involved, until with Paul, you can say "Not I, but Christ in me..." and "We possess the Nous of Christ..." These are matters discipled in the Apostolic Churches...

Arsenios

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

We sing this Psalm every Sunday Liturgy...

Even our local version is a mistranslation of the first verb, an aorist, which makes the Psalm prophetic of our Lord, because He is the ONLY man who "Has not walked in the council of the un-Godly, nor has [He ever] stood in the way of sinners, nor hath [He ever] sat in the seat of the scornful..."

Indeed David is a Prophet, and the Psalms are prophetic of Christ, and they begin with the first verb in the first opening line of the very first Psalm, and the second and third line as well...

But I still see no response in Ps. 1 to whatever it was that I wrote that stuck in your craw and gurgled out a "Good grief!"

This Psalm, and all the Psalms, and the entire Bible, need to be ENFLESHED in us... True is the saying that you must be very careful in what you say and do, because you yourself may be the ONLY Gospel some people will ever read...

So that your very breath should breathe forth in its words what the Good News of the Gospel is, and not a mere parroting of text... And the enfleshment of the text comes with obedience to, remembrance of, and repetition in, and meditation with, the texts involved, until with Paul, you can say "Not I, but Christ in me..." and "We possess the Nous of Christ..." These are matters discipled in the Apostolic Churches...

Arsenios

What a hoot.

That's the problem in a nutshell, Arse.

You and yer religion think you can ascend into heaven to bring Christ down.

Got some news for yuh.......

None of yer perverted emulations of my faith will get it done.

 

[Arsenios]

You and yer religion think you can ascend into heaven to bring Christ down...

"And behold, I am with you always..."

No need to bring Christ down (to earth)...

He is always here now with us...

Arse...

In the flesh He took your spittings too...

Without a word...

I am too sinful to emulate Him...

Forgive me...

Are you still praying for me?

Arsenios

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

"And behold, I am with you always..."

No need to bring Christ down (to earth)...

He is always here now with us...



In the flesh He took your spittings too...

Without a word...

I am too sinful to emulate Him...

Forgive me...

Are you still praying for me?

Arsenios

No, I haven't been praying for you specifically.

I'm just about ready to shake my raiment and leave you to your foolishness. :think:

 

[SabathMoon]

I noticed he practiced mass on Sunday. I thought the Eastern Orthodox practiced their services on Saturday.

 

[Arsenios]

I noticed he practiced mass on Sunday. I thought the Eastern Orthodox practiced their services on Saturday.

We celebrate the Divine Liturgy every day, but local Churches do it on Sundays and major Feast Days... Our Church does 2 a day services every day of the week, except Mondays, when we only do one at 3AM, the Orthros Service...

Routine for all is Great Vespers on Sat. night [tonight] and Orthros and the Divine Liturgy Sunday mornings [tomorrow]...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

No, I haven't been praying for you specifically.

Please pray for me specifically...

I'm just about ready to shake my raiment
and leave you to your foolishness. :think:

Please pray for me, my brother...

Arsenios

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Jesus is not a spirit.

Luk 24:36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
Luk 24:37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
Luk 24:38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
Luk 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
Luk 24:40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
Luk 24:41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?
Luk 24:42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.
Luk 24:43 And he took it, and did eat before them.

LA

The man Jesus certainly is not a spirit. The Second Person of the Trinity that assumed a human nature is, always has, and always will be a spirit. Do you think the Divine Logos that assumed a human nature was then confined to that human nature and no longer omnipresent while our Lord walked the earth?

Your view is rank heresy. Posting some Scripture and declaring you have met the burden of answering a question is not exegesis of the Scripture, nor considering the full counsel of all Scripture.

Read, study, pray for understanding:

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/anhypostasis-what-kind-of-flesh-did-jesus-take

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/enhypostasis-what-kind-of-flesh-did-the-word-become

Afterwards, post some questions about the readings if you need clarification.

AMR

 

[Lazy afternoon]

The man Jesus certainly is not a spirit. The Second Person of the Trinity that assumed a human nature is, always has, and always will be a spirit. Do you think the Divine Logos that assumed a human nature was then confined to that human nature and no longer omnipresent while our Lord walked the earth?

Your view is rank heresy. Posting some Scripture and declaring you have met the burden of answering a question is not exegesis of the Scripture, nor considering the full counsel of all Scripture.

Read, study, pray for understanding:

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/anhypostasis-what-kind-of-flesh-did-jesus-take

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/enhypostasis-what-kind-of-flesh-did-the-word-become

Afterwards, post some questions about the readings if you need clarification.

AMR

You poor man.

You need all of those big words to try and explain someone you have never known.


You do not know the man Jesus born from the human race.

Your jesus is a god with a human nature which could not die neither effect any atonement.

LA