- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Well, I'd say we're getting away from the topic of dualism, but this is actually where dualism is most relevant, when consider Jesus, who is both God and man.
First I'd say that two natures don't mean two persons. This is what Nestorius said and what the Definition of Chalcedon rebuked. The great thing about history is that millions of people have thought up all these heresies before us so we can tell when we're agreeing with them and need to change.
I'm still trying to understand what you think Jesus is. It seems you don't believe that God fused with man in the physical birth of Jesus, but that Godlike qualities were given to a man who already existed? Well this isn't the definition of birth. A man begins to exist at birth, and it requires both the father and the mother to make him a man. So, if you agree that the man Jesus began to exist at birth, and that this existence was the result of **** copulating with Mary (I can't write it, the thought is so horrible), well then dualism reminds us that this is impossible, because it would require the Godhead to fuse with manhood and be changed, but the Godhead cannot be changed(!) It's not possible for it to mix with man and form a new substance. This should be evident from the Divine Name itself in Exodus 3:14, but it's explicit in Malachi 3:6.
The Bible clearly states that Jesus is a man and also Something much more than man (see my recent post in the Debates), God. The two natures are the declaration of the Bible, at which we can wonder and marvel, but we cannot deny.
Tim
Hi Tim2,
The theoretical world of theology drifts far from the basis of Scripture and assumptions add little to truth. Fusing of natures is a nonbiblical teaching. Jesus is a man and because of that we can relate to him and he to us and he could be our sacrifice.
His powers were not from his own being but from God at work within him from the Jordan.
From what we can know.
Jesus partook of our flesh nature.
Jesus, the normal man, was conceived in Mary.
Is the creation of a man offensive to your delicate senses?
So Mary provided an ovum and our creator God created and implanted a natural human sperm by His Spirit and so arose the body of Christ that Christ partook of. God is ever a creator and why should He change the rules for his son to become a man? Why is this work too hard or offensive for you or is that a convenient blind for your doctinal justifications?Hi Tim2,
You only needed to devise this dualism sticking plaster to cover the problem caused by the false doctrine of Jesus being our God. It is building with straw on a foundation of sand. Fire will test this fallacious work of men and it will burn.I'm still trying to understand what you think Jesus is.
******************
Sorry Tim, I didn't see your question here, let me see if I can answer it for you:
1. Jesus is the literal Son of God.
2. As a son, Jesus is a combination of both parents (God and Mary).
3. Jesus is a new individual (as the result of God and Mary combo).You believe that Jesus has a God nature and a man nature that exist “along side of” one another. Kind of like oil and water – they can be in the same beaker, but they are separate. In this way, you say that Jesus is both “fully” God and “fully” man. The thing is, this is not a conception (as the bible teaches), this is an incarnation (which the bible does not teach). If God wanted incarnation – going through a pregnancy was a huge sham.
Because of Jesus, we are predestined to be adopted (Ephesians). You adopt after your own “kind.” When we adopted, we did not adopt a horse to be a part of our family, we adopted a child. Likewise, God is *able* to adopt me and you because Jesus is one of us; he is also the only begotten of God. God “qualified” us to be adopted in Jesus. What a great plan! Praise God!
Quote Fusing of natures is a nonbiblical teaching. I agree, that's what I said. Not3in1 is the one who said Jesus is a mixed breed.
Quote Jesus is a man and because of that we can relate to him and he to us and he could be our sacrifice. I agree again.
Quote Jesus partook of our flesh nature I agree.
Quote Jesus, the normal man, was conceived in Mary. Jesus is by no means a “normal” man. Normal men sin.
Quote So Mary provided an ovum and our creator God created and implanted a natural human sperm by His Spirit and so arose the body of Christ that Christ partook of. No. This is not in the Bible. The Bible says “the Child in her having been begotten is from the Holy Spirit.” Matthew 1:20.
Not3in1, I enjoy talking with you, but I don't feel as though Nick is responding to what I'm saying, but he's just throwing insults at my post (“sticking plaster,” “false doctrine,” “building with straw,” “foundation of sand,” “fallacious work”) without engaging in polite discussion. I would very much like to discuss this with you, if you would please answer the questions in my previous post.
Thanks,
TimHi Tim2,
Jesus never used the term sticking plaster because they did not have them then but you may recognise the others.
Heb 4
“14Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.15For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
16Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.”
So he was just like us even experiencing temptation and the only difference is that he did not give in to them.
Hi Not3in1,
Thanks for responding to my question. It sounds as though you basically understand the Definition of Chalcedon -the two natures come together to form one person, but are not fused, and the characteristics of each nature are preserved. Of course I can't accept the oil and water as a perfect analogy because it's not perfect, but it does show the two substances being preserved, not mixing, and in a sense, forming one volume.
I don't know that the Bible teaches conception. The only place I see that is in Matthew 1:20, but according to Trenchard's dictionary of New Testament Greek, page 30, gennethen can mean “conceive,” but also “produce, cause.” I This doesn't say that Jesus is begotten of Mary and the Holy Spirit, together; it just says He is from the Holy Spirit. The next verse says that Mary will bear a son. I think this explains the physical birth of Jesus pretty clearly: first Jesus was begotten in Mary's womb by the Holy Spirit alone, and then Mary bore Him as a son. It does not say that ***** copulated with Mary to produce a son. And the Bible does describe an incarnation in John 1:14, “the Word became flesh,” egeneto, the same word as in Matthew 1:20.
I think there are logical problems raised by your doctrine that you have yet to explain. For Jesus to be a combination of God and man, but not have the nature of God preserved, it would mean that the nature of God was changed in the conception of Jesus. As I said in my last post, I think the Bible says this is impossible. And, of course, I just can't accept that **** copulated with Mary.
Tim
I would very much like to discuss this with you, if you would please answer the questions in my previous post.
***************Which question? Our posts might have over-lapped. I did answer a question, I'm not sure if it's what you are talking about or not, please see above.
Your 2nd post looks like a cut-and-paste job. I'm not sure who contributed all those quotes, none of them seemed to be mine? But, I understand you are trying to make a point of what you agree with and what you do not.
The bible does not talk about “fusing” of natures. The bible does talk about conception. During conception both parents contribute a set of chromosomes. These are then combined or fused to make the new individual. This is basic human developement 101. Please see the “Conception” thread for more stuff on this topic. I feel it is essential to know who and what Jesus is.
You may not realize it, but Nick is making you stronger. When people question you, even attack you, you must remain steadfast in your position (or be eaten alive)
Because of Nick you are probably quicker in your responses, and have a greater knowledge of what other's may ask of you and your beliefs. It may not be the ultimate in what you hope for in brotherly encouragement (ha), but you are being sharpened by this brother. Try to see the positive. Also, let me encourage you to look at other's views. Since you have just recently embraced the Nicene Creed, please also consider that others may have truth or insight that has snuck by you somehow.I don't know that the Bible teaches conception
***************
Mary became pregnant.I think there are logical problems raised by your doctrine that you have yet to explain. For Jesus to be a combination of God and man, but not have the nature of God preserved, it would mean that the nature of God was changed in the conception of Jesus. As I said in my last post, I think the Bible says this is impossible
********************************************************The nature of God was not changed. God is the Father of Jesus. When a father contributes a sperm to produce a child, the father does not change. The father still remains his own person. The son of the father becomes a *new* person because with the help of the egg and mother – the child is now a new person.
Tim, God did not have sex with Mary – this is ridiculous. He provided what was needed – he is the Source (parent of offspring; providing what is needed).
Hi Tim2,
Jesus was not God.
He is the image of God but men are made in that image too.
Forget ontological guesswork.
No problem.Hi Tim2,
from the conception thread.
You are not convinced of conception?
was John conceived in Elizabeth?Lk 1.31
“And behold you will conceive in your womb..”
Lk 2.21
“..his name was then called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb..”
“Lk 1.36
“..Elizabeth has also conceived a son in her old age..”There are a variety of words translated as “conceive”and the word used [4815 Sullambano ]has a variety of other meanings.
But in these verses above the same word is used.
It would seem then that the same biological process occurred in Elizabeth as occurred in Mary.
Who will say Elizabeth did not conceive?”
Quote Anyway, it's good that our differences are clear -dualists believe God is different than creation in every way, whereas Jehovah's Witnesses believe God is different most and many ways, but not in all ways. Would you say that's right? Well God is simply not different from his creation in “every way.” So, no I don't believe that.
A clear example is that he made man in his “image.” I take this to mean, that unlike the animals, we have been given some godlike characteristics–love, powers of reason, etc.
The most basic difference, the most obvious, the clearest to any person, child or adult, is that God is a “spirit” as the Bible says. He is a spirit “person.” The angels are also spirit beings. (I wasn't trying to say there invisibility was anything great or important, but just that it's obvious to anyone.)
We are not spirit's and thus have a fleshly physical nature.Yes, I somehow missed your second post.
Quote First I would say that there are many different ways of classifying things, but which is the most appropriate?
I would say the one the Bible mentions. I believe “divine nature” indicates a “godlike” nature.
1 JOHN 3:2
“Beloved ones, now we are children of God, but as yet yet it has not been made manifest what we shall be. We do know that whenever he is made manifest we shall be like him, because we shall see him just as he is.”
And I believe some will share in this divine nature.
RIGHT NOW, THEY DO NOT HAVE THIS DIVINE NATURE. They were humans, made of flesh. Then, a divine nature, an incorruptable unfading inheritance was bestowed upon them.Quote If, as you say, YHWH is completely unique, wouldn't the most basic classification for everything be, YHWH and not YHWH?
There's this paradox about the fact that everything that is non-black proves that all ravans are black. I'm sure this fits into here somewhere.
Anyway, I said: “He is completely unique, without comparison to anyone.” A painting can be completely unique. The mona lisa is unique, without equal, without comparison to others, the most famous, etc. Yet, it is made of the same stuff that other paintings are. Being completely unique simply means there are none others like it…IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IS IS DIFFERENT FROM EVERYTHING ELSE IN EVERY OTHER WAY.Quote I think this is where we should start. And given this distinction, Jesus is clearly YHWH, for all things are through and for YHWH (Romans 11:36), and all things are through Jesus (1 Corinthians 8:6), and for Jesus (Colossians 1:16). All things that are the Father's are the Son's (John 16:15). The Word of YHWH stands forever (Isaiah 40:8), as does the Word of Jesus (Mark 13:31). If you read Deutero-Isaiah (Isaiah 40-66), you will find many praises that are unique to YHWH that are ascribed to Jesus in the New Testament (Savior, Rock, First and Last, etc.) See the Trinity Verses thread.
Nothing you say here actually proves your conclusion, that “Jesus is clearly YHWH.” I mean, one could say that if someone has divine nature,they are God, because God has divine (godlike) nature. Yet, we know that because this is applied to other humans, this isn't the case. I could go through this list, but I have elsewhere and these things have all been discussed ad infinitum.Quote Next, I don't think it is right to establish a doctrine concerning God based on the classification of all things as either visible or invisible, for Paul distinguishes between these things and their Creator in Colossians 1:16, taking us back to the God and creation distinction that dualism proposes.
The invisible not visible wasn't really what I was going for. It was “divine nature” or spirits and fleshly humans, fleshly physical nature. I was just pointing out the obvious difference.
You say: for Paul distinguishes between these things (visible and invisible) and the Creator.
Yet, he doesn't really distinguish between these two and himself, for we know that “no man” has ever seen God, as the scripture says. Therefore, he is one of those two groups–invisible, or “a spirit.”Quote I also object to this type of distinction on logical grounds. It is true that everything is either visible or not visible, but this is no basis for understanding God. It's also true that all things are either a pencil or not a pencil, but this is useless for understanding God. The reason is that dualism proposes that God is not everything. Is He a pencil? No. Is He an angel? No. Is He a Spirit? Yes. But, as you agree, I think, He is not the same type of Spirit that the angels are.
God, has a godlike (divine) nature. Other humans will be given “divine nature.” (2 Pet 1:4)
And I believe Jesus also has a divine (godlike) nature, as do the angels.Quote My point is that the only comparison you can make between God and anything in creation is that they both might not be something. God and Tim are not a pencil. God and the angels are not visible. And so forth with everything. This is useless because it tells us nothing about God.
Nothing that the Bible says is “useless.” (2 tim 3:16,17) The Bible says the “God is a spirit.” So knowing or saying that God is a spirit is not useless.
((I actually am no longer certain or at least don't remmeber what you're trying to say.))
I know that I was originally trying to explain why many translators have translated John 1:1 as saying that Jesus is “divine.” Because, clearly he is, as even other humans would be given “divine nature.” But this doesn't make them God. That's all I was saying.Quote Thus, I think we can say God is completely other, existing in a way incomparable with everything else.
He exists in the heavens. We do not.
The angels exist in the heavens. We do not.Similarly, God is a spirit living in the spirit realm.
As do the angels, and as will certain humans who are given “divine nature.”While God is unique, this in no way means he can't have some similarities with others. In fact, we are told to imitate him. (I realize, we're not told to imitate his nature.) Yet, some will. (2 Pet 1:4) (Again, this doesn't mean they'll be exactly like God, but simply that they'll have “divine nature,” godlike nature.
Quote Also, I would argue that God is invisible in a way far more fundamental than the angels, for no one has seen God, but people see angels throughout the Bible. No one stares at the sun. Yet, we do look at the stars. But of course, they have the same nature.
I believe that no “man” can see God in the same way that no man can shake hands with the sun. But that sun has the same nature as fire (not really, but for our illustration…). Make a fire and you can see it, be warmed by it. The sun can also warm you and it has the same general nature (not really) but it's magnified several billion billion times.david.
Again, I'm not saying that angels are like God in every respect–I'm saying they are in one respect–they're godlike, “gods” having “divine nature” they're spirits.
That's all I'm saying.I know we are straying a bit from “dualism” but because we are heading in this direction, I will share this post anyway. We can always chose to move to a different thread, if you'd like.
God wanted a son, and he provided what was needed.
Psalm 127: 4,5
Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are sons born in one's youth. Blessed is the man whose “quiver” is full of them…”Isaiah 49
Listen………….the LORD………in the shadow of his hand he hid me……..and concealed me in his “quiver.”A “quiver” is a case for arrows. Here, God likens it unto a case that men have to hold their unborn sons [see Psalm 127]. What could this mean? It is certainly lending itself to imply sperm and what is needed to produce sons. Because God is not a man, however he “hid” the annointed Servant in his “quiver” – we are left to wonder if it isn't completely possible that Jesus was God [John 1:1] only in the form of a plan, and in the form of his person .
Here is another example of a “person” being within a man as a not-yet-born son:
Hebrews 7: 9, 10
One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth through Abraham because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still *in the body* of his ancestor.Thoughts?
Hi David,
So the issue is whether or not God shares a common attribute with creation, which you call “godlike, having divine nature, spirit.” Agreed?
The relevant Scriptures are:
John 1:1 -“and Theos was the Word.” Some scholars believe that Theos, though a noun, is used here in a qualitative sense, as in, “The Word had the nature of God.”
Acts 17:29 -“We ought not to think that the Theion is like gold, silver, or stone.”
Romans 1:20 -“His eternal power and Theiotes have been understood …”
Colossians 2:9 -“In Him dwells all the fullness of the Theotetos bodily.”
2 Peter 1:3 -“His Theias power has granted to us …”
2 Peter 1:4 -“That through these you may become koinonoi Theias fuseos …”I believe these are all of the qualitative uses of Theos, Theios, and Theotes in the New Testament. Note that the angels are not described by these words in the New Testament, so your only connection to them is that they are spirits, which I'll discuss below.
Trenchard's Dictionary of New Testament Greek gives these definitions:
Theos (noun) -“deity, god, goddess; God (of Christ); God (in Israelite and Christian contexts); god (of humans and of the belly); god (of the devil). Theos is used 1317 times in the New Testament.
Theotetos (noun) -divine character or nature, deity, divinity. Used once, in Colossians 2:9.
Theios (adjective) -divine; divine being, divinity. Used three times, which are above: Acts 17:29, 2 Peter 1:3-4.
Theiotes (noun) -divinity, divine nature, divineness. Used once in Romans 1:20.My first observation is that Theotetos and Theiotes, are used exclusively of God in the New Testament. According to http://www.antioch.com.sg/cgi-bin/bible/vines/get_defn.pl?num=1213#1 Theos is used exclusively of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, except for (1) the Israelite judges in John 10:34, (2) the pagan gods in Acts 14:11; Acts 19:26; Acts 28:6; 1 Cor 8:5; Gal 4:8, (3) the devil in 2 Corinthians 4:4, and (4) the belly in Philippians 3:19. Clearly cases 2, 3, and 4 refer not to these things actually being gods, but to them being the rulers or leaders of these people (who follow paganism, the devil, and their belly).
So, the angels are never called by these words in the New Testament, and one of the words, Theias, is used with reference to men once, in 2 Peter 1:4, where it said they will koinonoi Theias phuseos. Calvin, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom45.vii.ii.i.html notes that the “nature” here is not “essence”, ousia, but “quality,” phuseos. He explains, ” they only intended to say that when divested of all the vices of the flesh, we shall be partakers of divine and blessed immortality and glory, so as to be as it were one with God as far as our capacities will allow.” His editor explains, “Escaping the corruption of the world is “godliness,” is “virtue;” and partaking of the divine nature is “life,” is “glory.”
I think we already agreed that 2 Peter 1:4 (and 1 John 3:2) refers to believers receiving a spiritual body like Jesus received at the resurrection. But this has nothing to do with Him in the beginning being Theos. Likewise, I don't think you believe that the spiritual body Jesus received at the resurrection is the same as the Spirit that the Father is. The most you can show from 2 Peter 1:4 is that believers will receive bodies that are incorruptible, which again is falling into the “not” fallacy I showed in my second post. “God and X are not A. Therefore, God and X have something in common.” My point was that you can draw an infinite number of such comparisons between any two things; but you can make zero positive comparisons between God and anything. You can't say, “God and X are both B.”
But this is what you attempt to do by saying “God is a spirit” in John 4:24, and “Who makes His angels spirits” in Hebrews 1:7. But I thought you already agreed that the angels are not the same type of spirit that God is? I thought we already agreed that they are “not made of the same stuff.” I think the whole point of Hebrews 1 is to show that Jesus is something other than the angels, so surely you believe the Father is different as well? And to say God exists in the heavens, as the angels do, doesn't give glory to God, for heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain God (1 Kings 8:27), but they can certainly contain the angels.
Tim
Not3in1,
We should probably discuss this on the conception thread, but I think we've both said everything we have to say. You can't conceive of the incarnation, or of the pre-existence of Jesus; and I just can't conceive of **** having a sperm and it going into Mary. I'm sorry but I just can't accept that.
Tim
Hi Tim2,
Here is part of the apostles creed.
Do you not believe it?“
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,…”Tim, with all due respect – God created sex between a man and women for means of procreation (and I believe), for pleasure and the bonding of the two as one. God himself used the idea of conception (as in Mary conceiving) to show that his Son would be born in the normal way. The “normal way” to produce sons is through sex. While God provided what was needed (and did not need to have sex with Mary), he did use the example of conception to show us that is an OK way to look at the Son of God.
I think to some degree, you are being a bit naive? Don't let your pride stand in the way of viewing the Son of God exactly how the Father wanted us to! Otherwise, as I said before – Mary's conception was a total sham. Please consider the thoughts shared on the conception thread. OK, on to dualism……
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
