- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Tim2 @ May 12 2007,12:48) Quote (WhatIsTrue @ May 10 2007,09:36) Since the following post did not receive a response in the Trinity thread, given the subject matter, I thought that I would place it here for comment. Quote (WhatIsTrue @ April 25 2007,05:03) Is 1:18 wrote: Quote Hmmm….so are you saying it would be impossible for the omnipotent, eternal SUPREME being to divest Himself of the independant usage of the divine privileges/prerogatives/attributes and put on the cloak of humanity? If he can create a universe I can't see that stretching Him too much…. Even the way that you phrase your question demonstrates how inherently confusing and contradictory this plank of the Trinity doctrine is. What exactly does “put on the cloak of humanity” mean anyway? It sounds more like a (Gnostic) magic trick than an actual transformation of one being into a completely different kind of being.
Obviously, God cannot be a man because He would cease to be God in the process. (Yes, there are some things that are impossible for God, not the least of which would be dying on a cross or being tempted by Satan). Of course, as you well know, Trinitarians do not claim that God became a man, as that would imply that God replaced His God-nature with human nature. They assert instead that Jesus took on human nature in addition to his inherit God-nature. What exactly does that mean? As far as I can tell, it is an incoherent distinction without a logical difference, as it leads to the “elephant-grasshopper” conundrum that you did not address in my last post:
Quote An elephant divests himself of the privileges, prerogatives and attributes attendant with being a large warm blooded mammal and becomes a grasshopper, but he remains an elephant?!?! Now, I realize that I may not be thinking very lucidly, but how is this any different than what Trinitarians propose when they assert the “dual nature” of Jesus? Are they not asking us to believe that a single person can, in his very nature, exist as two completely different kinds of beings at the same time? Are they not asking us to believe the analogous equivalent that a large warm blooded elephant could exist as a small six-legged insect, at the same time, without contradiction?
Certainly, if my analogy is incorrect, show me how.
Is 1:18 wrote:
Quote Incidentally, what do you believe He “emptied” Himself of, WIT? And how do you interpret this verse? 2 Corinthians 8:9
For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, so that you through His poverty might become rich.In what sense, and when, was He rich?
In what sense, and when, did He become poor?Ironically, I agree with your original CEO analogy as the best way to understand Phillipians 2:6-9. To me, these verses speak of Yeshua's stature not his nature. As the Messiah, the Son of God, he was above all other men, but he humbled himself in service of men in order to do his Father's will, ultimately for the redemption of mankind. If you read the account of his wilderness temptation by Satan, you can see that Satan's primary objective was to get him to assert his the privileges of his stature in place of fulfilling his humble mission.
Hi WhatisTrue,It seems that your argument is that it's impossible for God to take on the nature of a man. Why do you think that? I'd be cautious about imposing limits on God beyond what He has revealed in Scripture, such as that He cannot lie. In any event, John 1 says the Word was God, and the Word became flesh.
Tim
Thanks for the warning, Tim2, but my post was entirely scriptural in its musings. Numbers 23:19 says:God is not a man, that He should lie,
Nor a son of man, that He should repent.
Has He said, and will He not do?
Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?Read this verse very carefully, as there is more depth to it than a casual reading might yield. It does not simply say that God can not lie. It emphasizes the fact that man is capable of certain things that are impossible for God – that being God is incompatible with human nature, which is subject to sin. One can not be God and sin, and one can not be human and not have the capacity to sin. So, one can be God or man, but not both.
That is what my post was about, and that is the issue that you, and others, have consistently failed to address. Falling back on the cliche that nothing is impossible for God is not only an inadequate response to my very specific question, it is also wrong, and scripture clearly shows that to be the case.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 15 2007,03:34) Quote I did not make a personal atack on you, but I will state again. Concerning your willingness to recieve truth when shown to you, your method of biblical interpretaion, and your adhearance to pagan practices instituted by constantine are wacked. Somebody please tell me what the definition of a “personal attack” is?
I ATTACKED YOUR BELIEFS NOT YOUR PERSON. GET OVER IT!!!Hi w,
You ask
“Do you have any degrees in Hebrew, Greek or Latin? What is your credentials?”Do these human credentials give you the Spirit?
Fishermen understood
By the SpiritHi w,
You say“As far as I know there has been no credible scholars or anyone with any authority in Greek, Hebrew or Latin here giving explanations for John 1:1.”
Surely godly authority is more relevant than any worldly one when it comes to speaking of the things of God.
Men mess us up.For worshippingjesus
I think previously I accidently posted this in the wrong thread. So here it is.You ask –
Do you have any degrees in Hebrew, Greek or Latin? What is your credentials?
Response – in fact I have a degree in theology and 35 years of study of the word. I can also read a reference work. Do you have any degrees?
Secondly – You better ignor all the apostles other then Paul because they had no degrees in Greek or Hebrew.You state –
This is a real problem here, that many attack the scriptures that we have and do so by quoting scattered antagonist and unbelievers who wrest the scriptures to their own destruction.Response –
I could not have said it better about those who promote the Trinity.You say –
You say many have come here giving very clear difinitions of Jn 1:1.As far as I know there has been no credible scholars or anyone with any authority in Greek, Hebrew or Latin here giving explanations for John 1:1.
Response –
And yet you constantly say that Logos in John means Jesus. Are you an authority in Greek, Hebrew or Latin? I have seen no scholars defending your take on Logos.You say –
So you throw accusations at me because I hold to the written word that we have, and accuse me of following constantine.Response –
The beginning of Trinitarian doctrine started with Constantine formulating the concept of Christ and God being of the “same substance” . This was followed by the Nicean Creed that began detailing the idea of the Trinity. So the root of the false doctrine lies with Constantine. If you follow the Trinity then the root of your doctrine was detailed by Constantine and the Nicene Council.You state –
But I trust in the scriptures that we have and there interpretations of John 1:1.Response –
Do you? Then why do you replace the term “word” with the name Jesus? You trust that logos means Jesus in a half dozen scriptures when it clearly means statement/speech/idea or plan in over 300 other places. Do you only trust in the scriptures that promote your doctrinal stand?You say –
If you dont believe the scriptures, what source do you have?Response –
I do. I believe that I cannot arbitrarily change the meaning of logos in 6 or 8 places when it is contrary to over 300 times it is used elsewhere
.
I cannot change the meaning to something that would not fit with the term as it was understood and used in common language of the time.I cannot change the meaning if it shows what would have to be a deception on John’s part to hide the definition. It makes no sence for John to use the word Logos if he meant Jesus. If he meant John 1 to mean Jesus why would he use a term that would give a different understanding to the Greek speaking world of the time. His purpose was to spread the gospel not hide it.
I cannot change the meaning to support my doctrine.
You say –
You seem to reject over 600 sholars and the many translations that they are responsible for.Response –
On the contrary. I accept their use of the term “word” with it’s meaning as defined by the other times it is used in scripture. I accept their primary definition of Logos as being a statement/speech/idea or plan.
You say you trust the scriptures yet you accept a meaning for Logos (in 6 or 8 scripture) that does not fit anywhere else in scripture, while I on the other hand use the definition as it is used over 300 times. I have taken my definition from the overall context of scripture. Where did you get yours?
What is hidden by you is your reason for accepting a meaning other then the primary one. What is hidden by you is why you or some scholars find a totally different meaning for Logos then the rest of scripture. Could it be preconceived ideas of doctrine (rather then scripture) that guides you and them to your conclusions?You state –
It seems to me my friend rather than making broad accusations concerning my beliefs being wacked, that you should present some “Evidence” that what I teach is false.Response –
Do I need to post the over 300 times Logos is used in scripture in which the meaning is statement/speech/idea or plan? Is that enough preponderance of evidence? I have already given proof from a functional standpoint. It makes no sence for God to inspire John to use a term that would be misunderstood by the Greek speaking world of the time.You state –
Or at least tell me why you follow the Arians and there rejection of John 1:1 and the Deity of Christ.Response –
I do not know if I am a follower of Arius or not. Neither does anyone else. All of Arius’ writings detailing his beliefs were destroyed by the church. The only record we have is that of his accusers. This is a totally biased source and therefore cannot be held as accurate. I reject your interpretation not based on Arius but by the definition of Logos in the scriptures themselves.You state –
Or show me by scriptures why you think the scholars are all liars.Response –
What scholars? You say you use scripture. That is exactly what I have used.
Again do I need to post the 300 times Logos is used not meaning Jesus?You state –
Why not go around with me again. Lets see your poof and evidence that the many translations we have are false in rendering John 1:1 as…Jn 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.Response –
I never said this was a false rendering of the verse. I say that when you read this verse you put a meaning on the term “word” that does not fit in the vast overwhelming usage throughout scripture.
When you read this verse your mind renders it like so –
Jn 1:1
In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was GodThe common meaning of the term in that period of history gives no reason to accept a rendering of that sort. The same can be said for the mass evidence in scriptural usage of the term. There is no evidence that the term “Word” means Jesus.
You state –
John confirms this toward the end of his Gospel by presenting Thomas bold acclamation that Jesus was his “Lord and God”, without rebuke or correction, and then emmediatly says this was a sign.How do you explain this?
This is unambiguous!
Response –
I will be happy to explain it though I doubt you will receive it. Your proof is that because Thomas called Jesus “my Lord and My God” that therefore Jesus is literally God.
First the term “Lord”. The meaning of this word does not indicate Deity. Kurious (Gr) means master or one in authority or do you reject that meaning too. It is not a name for God.
As to the use of the term “God”?
This was written by a Hebrew with a Hebrew mindset. The Hebrews wrote and thought in concrete terms. They wrote in aligory. That is why Jesus taught by way of parable. When A Hebrew saw a revealing of God they treated with and acted as if in the presence of God himself.
This is evident in Moses encounter with the burning bush. Not only did Moses call the bush God, the bush itself said it was God. According to your method of scriptural interpretation, this section of scripture clearly proves that God is literally a burning bush. In fact there is much more evidence that God is a burning bush then there is that Logos can be rendered Jesus. Moses said the bush was God. God spoke from the bush and said he was God. Do you believe that God is a burning bush? If your form of biblical interpretation holds true in John then it has to hold true in the story of Moses. Or does your interpretive process change bassed on what fits your doctrine?You use other verses in John to indicate that your concept of Logos is correct and yet again you ignor the vast majority that indicate something else.
Look at just the usage in John —-
In the beginning was the Word (logos), and the Word (log
os) was with God, and the Word (logos) was God.Joh 1:14 –
And the Word (logos) became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.In these verses and a few others you claim that the term “word” indicates or equals Jesus. Was John terribly confused in that for two verses he meant Logos to indicate Jesus and the other 32 times it is used to mean something completely different?
Joh 2:22 –
So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word (logos) which Jesus had spoken.Joh 4:37 –
“For in this case the saying (logos) is true, 'One sows and another reaps .'Joh 4:39 –
From that city many of the Samaritans believed in Him because of the word (logos) of the woman who testified, “He told me all the things thatI have done .”Joh 4:41 –
Many more believed because of His word; (logos)Joh 4:50 –
Jesus said to him, “Go; your son lives .” The man believed the word (logos) that Jesus spoke to him and started off.Joh 5:24 –
“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, (logos)and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.Joh 5:38 –
“You do not have His word (logos)abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent.Joh 6:60 –
Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, “This is a difficult statement; (logos) who can listen to it?”Joh 7:36 –
“What is this statement that He said, 'You will seek Me, and will not find Me; and whereI am, you cannot come '?”Joh 7:40 –
Some of the people therefore, when they heard these words, (logos) were saying, “This certainly is the Prophet .”Joh 8:31 –
So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, “If you continue in My word, (logos) then you are truly disciples of Mine;Joh 8:37 –
“I know that you are Abraham's descendants; yet you seek to kill Me, because My word (logos) has no place in you.Joh 8:43 –
“Why do you not understand whatI am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. (logos)Joh 8:51 –
“Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word (logos)he will never see death .”Joh 8:52 –
The Jews said to Him, “Now we know that You have a demon. Abraham died, and the prophets also; and You say, 'If anyone keeps My word (logos), he will never taste of death .'Joh 8:55 –
and you have not come to know Him, butI know Him; and ifI say thatI do not know Him,I will be a liar like you, butI do know Him and keep His word. (logos)Joh 10:19 –
A division occurred again among the Jews because of these words (logos).Joh 10:35 –
“If he called them gods, to whom the word (logos) of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken ),Joh 12:38 –
This was to fulfill the word (logos) of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke: “LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT? AND TO WHOM HAS THE ARM OF THE LORD BEEN REVEALED ?”Joh 12:48 –
“He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word (logos) I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.Joh 14:23 –
Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word (logos); and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him.Joh 14:24 –
“He who does not love Me does not keep My words (logos); and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father's who sent Me.Joh 15:3 –
“You are already clean because of the word (logos) whichI have spoken to you.Joh 15:20 –
“Remember the word thatI said to you, 'A slave is not greater than his master .' If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word (logos), they will keep yours also.Joh 15:25 –
“But they have done this to fulfill the word (logos) that is written in their Law, 'THEY HATED ME WITHOUTA CAUSE .'Joh 17:6 –
“I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave Me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word (logos).Joh 17:14
“I have given them Your word (logos); and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, even asI am not of the world.Joh 17:17 –
“Sanctify them in the truth; Your word (logos) is truth.Joh 17:20 –
“I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word (logos);Joh 18:9 –
to fulfill the word (logos) which He spoke, “Of those whom You have given MeI lost not one .”Joh 18:32 –
to fulfill the word (logos) of Jesus which He spoke, signifying by what kind of death He was about to die.Joh 19:8 –
Therefore when Pilate heard this statement(logos), he was even more afraid;Joh 19:13 –
Therefore when Pilate heard these words (logos), he brought Jesus out, and sat down on the judgment seat at a place called The Pavement, but in Hebrew, Gabbatha.Joh 21:23 –
Therefore this saying (logos) went out among the brethren that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, “IfI want him to remain untilI come, what is that to you?”You ask for evidence, I give you the book of John. You have 4 times you claim Logos to mean Jesus and I have 32 times it means something else. This does not even include the other 300 times it is used in scripture in which all but a few clearly indicate something other then Jesus.
A few Questions for you –
Can you give me a reasonable explanation why John would use the term “Logos” when he could have been very clear by just using the name “Jesus”?
What furtherance of the Gospel does it promote?You claim that you only use proof from the word, then please answer this;
Can you tell me on what basis you judge the term logos to mean Christ in a few verses when hundreds of other verses say it means otherwise?
If, as you claim, you use the word as proof then what should be indicated by the over 300 times a word is clearly used to mean statement/speech/idea or plan as compared to 8 scriptures where it is claimed to mean Christ. Who is being unfair with the overwhelming majority of scripture?Finally I will use a method as has been taught to me. Any doctrine, regardless of alledged proof texts, must pass the simple test of function.
All dotrine, if true, must support, defend and promote the overall plan of God for man.
I give you certain truths.
God is a Spirit being. He cannot become a man.
Neither can God be fully man and full God because this causes a meaningless and absurb conclusion. You cannot have one being that is temptable and non temptable at the same time. You cannot have one being that is failable and non failable at the same time.Finally – If Jesus is in any part God, then we can never become like Him. Nothing he did or overcame can really apply to us. He cannot be our example in his miracles, his overcoming sin, his relationship with his father, or his resurrection. The concept of Christ being God makes the plan of God, to have Christ as our example, impossible to complete.
This “fully God and fully man (or dual nature as some call it) makes Jesus non human since we have only our single human nature. The nature of a being is the very core of what makes that creature what it is.
For God to judge us with a single human nature on the basis of a being that has an additional divine nature would be a miscarriage of justice. Will not the judge of all the Earth do what is right?Hi Martian,
You say
” I accept their primary definition of Logos as being a statement/speech/idea or plan. “3056
Transliteration:
logos {log'-os}
Word Origin:
from 3004
TDNT:
4:69,505
Part of Speech:
noun masculine
Usage in the KJV:
word 218, saying 50, account 8, speech 8, Word (Christ) 7, thing 5, not tr 2, misc 32Total: 330
Definition:
of speech
a word, uttered by a living voice, embodies a conception or idea
what someone has said
a word
the sayings of God
decree, mandate or order
of the moral precepts given by God
Old Testament prophecy given by the prophets
what is declared, a thought, declaration, aphorism, a weighty saying, a dictum, a maxim
discourse
the act of speaking, speech
the faculty of speech, skill and practice in speaking
a kind or style of speaking
a continuous speaking discourse – instruction
doctrine, teaching
anything reported in speech; a narration, narrative
matter under discussion, thing spoken of, affair, a matter in dispute, case, suit at law
the thing spoken of or talked about; event, deed
its use as respect to the MIND alone
reason, the mental faculty of thinking, meditating, reasoning, calculating
account, i.e. regard, consideration
account, i.e. reckoning, score
account, i.e. answer or explanation in reference to judgment
relation, i.e. with whom as judge we stand in relation
reason would
reason, cause, ground
In John, denotes the essential Word of God, Jesus Christ, the personal wisdom and power in union with God, his minister in creation and government of the universe, the cause of all the world's life both physical and ethical, which for the procurement of man's salvation put on human nature in the person of Jesus the Messiah, the second person in the Godhead, and shone forth conspicuously from His words and deeds.
A Greek philosopher named Heraclitus first used the term Logos around 600 B.C. to designate the divine reason or plan which coordinates a changing universe. This word was well suited to John's purpose in John 1.”Where is IDEA and PLAN except as EXPRESSED IN SPEECH?
You must be more accurate.WhatisTrue wrote:
Quote Numbers 23:19 says: God is not a man, that He should lie,
Nor a son of man, that He should repent.
Has He said, and will He not do?
Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?Read this verse very carefully, as there is more depth to it than a casual reading might yield. It does not simply say that God can not lie. It emphasizes the fact that man is capable of certain things that are impossible for God – that being God is incompatible with human nature, which is subject to sin. One can not be God and sin, and one can not be human and not have the capacity to sin. So, one can be God or man, but not both.
That is what my post was about, and that is the issue that you, and others, have consistently failed to address. Falling back on the cliche that nothing is impossible for God is not only an inadequate response to my very specific question, it is also wrong, and scripture clearly shows that to be the case.
Hey WhatisTrue,
Thanks for bringing that verse to my attention. You bring up an excellent point. I think you are right, that God cannot sin, and that one cannot be human and not have the capacity to sin. So this leads us to consider that if Jesus, before the resurrection, was both God and man, then He had the capacity to sin, yet it was impossible for Him to sin. I would say that this can still be true. Jesus, as a man under the law, would sin if He did certain actions. More than this, we know that Jesus was even tempted, yet God cannot be tempted. The answer to this, which I hope you will prayerfully consider, is, according the 6th Ecumenical Council, that Jesus has two wills -the will of God, and the will of man. Thus, the will of man is capable of being tempted and sinning, but the will of God cannot be tempted nor sin. I know you will be tempted to dismiss this as traditional/logical rubbish, but please consider the witness of Scripture to the Godhead and manhood of Christ. We agree on His manhood. Please also consider the witness to His Godhead.
Tim
Hi Tim2,
Actually in the garden two wills are shown.
One is Christ's and the the other is the Father's.
Lk 22
“42Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. “
One will of Christ's, not two.Quote (Tim2 @ May 15 2007,17:40) WhatisTrue wrote: Quote Numbers 23:19 says: God is not a man, that He should lie,
Nor a son of man, that He should repent.
Has He said, and will He not do?
Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?Read this verse very carefully, as there is more depth to it than a casual reading might yield. It does not simply say that God can not lie. It emphasizes the fact that man is capable of certain things that are impossible for God – that being God is incompatible with human nature, which is subject to sin. One can not be God and sin, and one can not be human and not have the capacity to sin. So, one can be God or man, but not both.
That is what my post was about, and that is the issue that you, and others, have consistently failed to address. Falling back on the cliche that nothing is impossible for God is not only an inadequate response to my very specific question, it is also wrong, and scripture clearly shows that to be the case.
Hey WhatisTrue,
Thanks for bringing that verse to my attention. You bring up an excellent point. I think you are right, that God cannot sin, and that one cannot be human and not have the capacity to sin. So this leads us to consider that if Jesus, before the resurrection, was both God and man, then He had the capacity to sin, yet it was impossible for Him to sin. I would say that this can still be true. Jesus, as a man under the law, would sin if He did certain actions. More than this, we know that Jesus was even tempted, yet God cannot be tempted. The answer to this, which I hope you will prayerfully consider, is, according the 6th Ecumenical Council, that Jesus has two wills -the will of God, and the will of man. Thus, the will of man is capable of being tempted and sinning, but the will of God cannot be tempted nor sin. I know you will be tempted to dismiss this as traditional/logical rubbish, but please consider the witness of Scripture to the Godhead and manhood of Christ. We agree on His manhood. Please also consider the witness to His Godhead.
Tim
Tim,
At least you admit the difficulty that arises from the concept of Jesus being temptable and non temptable at the same time. I am saddened that to resolve this issue you must rely on councils which from their onset with the Nicene council have been wrought with politics and paganism.
The Nicene council stated that Jesus was fully God in response to the Aryans who believed that Jesus was not God.The Apollianarians Did not believe that Jesus was fully human, therefore the council of Constantinople (381 U.S.) declared he was fully human.
The Nestorianism group denied that Mary could be called the mother of God. They believed that Mary was only the mother of the human part of Jesus. The resulting belief dictated that there exists two Christ's, one divine and one human. In response to this the council of Efesis (431) decreed That the two natures of Jesus are one and cannot be separated.
It seems that since the Council of Nicea various groups have tried to rationalize or explain a doctrine that cannot be stated in a meaningfull way. What I mean is this. Just as whatistru has said you cannot have one being that is temptable and non temptable without having a being that could not function. These councils have contradicted and waverd al over the map trying to explan something that cannot be explained in a rational manner.
Second
Even if you could resolve this by the fairy tale of two natures, you will then run into the problem of making Christ fundementally different then the rest of humanity. Jesus = dual natured God and Man (two natures/ two wills) man = one nature, one will, fully human.
This opens a totally different can of worms. Now you have a Christ that cannot be a perfect example for the rest of humanity because He is non human. He has an augmented humanity unlike any others. This effectively scraps all of the plan of God to raise up others unto himself that are like Christ. I will never grow into a dual natured being. Will you?Thridly – You must now go through every single act that Christ did and decide if He did it via His human ot his devine will/power. Furthermore you must do this without any clear evidenial facts to consider. There is no guide in scripture wherein Christ says I am now acting as a God or I am now acting as a man.
Forthly – If Christ has two natures as was decreed by the council of 431 and these cannot be seperated then God (at least in part) died on a cross. This means that an immortal God can be killed by man. Another logical impossibility.
Every time you go deeper into this doctrine it twists around into another scriptural or logical contradiction.
It is usually about this time that some trinitarians come up with a statement like. “Brother it is just a mystery we must accept by faith”.
God does not promote or teach blind faith. Furthermore if a person's doctrine is admitted to being a mystery, then they do not know what they believe because their faith has no substance.Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 15 2007,13:35) A Greek philosopher named Heraclitus first used the term Logos around 600 B.C. to designate the divine reason or plan which coordinates a changing universe. This word was well suited to John's purpose in John 1.” Where is IDEA and PLAN except as EXPRESSED IN SPEECH?
You must be more accurate.
You copied it yourself. The original word as coined by Heraclitus included the coordination of divine reason or plan. It does not mention through speech. This was the original meaning.Secondly this definitin fits God's word in a much better way then that proposed by trinitatians.
In the beginning was the plan.
God had a plan. It was that which he formulated in his reason and set out to accomplish through his creation.And the plan was with God.
This plan came directly from GodAnd the plan was God
From a hebrew perspective this makes perfect sence. the plan was an expression of God's intentions and motives in His creation. In that sence Jesus is the fullfillment of God's plan and purpose. Jesus is the complete and perfect expression of God's heart, will, motive, intention, and desire for all mankind. the perfect example.Hi Martian,
We do not follow Heraditus or the man who wrote the note without any relation to the words above.
Where is plan and idea in scripture shown without expression as Word?Tim2 wrote:
Quote Hey WhatisTrue, Thanks for bringing that verse to my attention. You bring up an excellent point. I think you are right, that God cannot sin, and that one cannot be human and not have the capacity to sin. So this leads us to consider that if Jesus, before the resurrection, was both God and man, then He had the capacity to sin, yet it was impossible for Him to sin. I would say that this can still be true. Jesus, as a man under the law, would sin if He did certain actions. More than this, we know that Jesus was even tempted, yet God cannot be tempted. The answer to this, which I hope you will prayerfully consider, is, according [to] the 6th Ecumenical Council, that Jesus has two wills -the will of God, and the will of man. Thus, the will of man is capable of being tempted and sinning, but the will of God cannot be tempted nor sin. I know you will be tempted to dismiss this as traditional/logical rubbish, but please consider the witness of Scripture to the Godhead and manhood of Christ. We agree on His manhood. Please also consider the witness to His Godhead.
Tim
Tim,
I appreciate your sincere efforts to show me Truth. However, unless you have scripture to back up the statement “Jesus has two wills”, I will not consider it anything more than the necessary revision of an unworkable doctrine devised by scripturally ungrounded men.
Hi Tim2,
you said
” The answer to this, which I hope you will prayerfully consider, is, according [to] the 6th Ecumenical Council, “Would you really expect the teachings of your dead catholic tradition to be accepted alongside scripture here?
Get real.Martian and WhatisTrue,
Thanks for discussing this with me. I think it's very interesting, and I'm learning more from it each day. I hope you are too.
First, to WhatisTrue, I believe we see evidence of two wills of Jesus in His journey to the cross. The will of his human nature is seen in Luke 22:42, “Not My will, but Yours be done.” I believe the will of His Godhead is seen in John 12:27, “Now My soul has become troubled; and what shall I say, 'Father, save Me from this hour?' But for this purpose I came to this hour.” I think in John 12:27 we can even see Jesus pointing to His two wills, referring to the troubling of His soul, but also to His divine will, “For this purpose I came.” This is the only example that's occurred to me so far, but perhaps it is the most important one, since it concerns His most important work, the cross.
Next, to Martian, I would encourage you not to dismiss the Definition of Chalcedon without lots of prayer and consideration, and consultation with Christians. This has been the common belief of millions of Christians for 1600 years. We have good reasons for adhering to it.
First, I would say, it cannot be the case that Jesus is only a man, just like you and me. For He is before all things. Colossians 1:17. I don't see how most of what Paul says concerning Him in Colossians 1:15-20 can be describing a mere man. Clearly Jesus is something more than a man.
But we know that He is a man. 1 Timothy 2:5. John 1:14. Romans 1:3. Hebrews 2.
So how do we reconcile, that Jesus is actually a man, just like us, but He is also before all things, the firstborn of all creation, the first and the last, our Lord and our God, the Prince of life, the Lord of glory, that He existed in the form of God, that He laid the foundation of the earth, that it was impossible for Him to be held by death, that He sanctifies Himself, that the Holy Spirit takes of His, etc? The Bible is abundantly clear that Jesus is man and also something more than man. We don't have a choice in this matter, we have to accept it.
Given this Scriptural witness, I don't see why we cannot just accept that Jesus is man like us, but also Something greater than us, which we will never achieve. This might be hard to accept as logical, but it is Scriptural, so maybe our assumptions need to be changed?
And this does, as you say, create difficulties in understanding whether Christ acted as God or as man in some cases. But I would say that certain actions of Him before He became man are clearly the work of Him as God, such as creating all things; and even His continued work of holding all things together, that cannot be the work of man. But I would add, that because His natures cannot be divided, that everything He did as man and does as man, His Godhead does as well.
Finally, the biggest thing of all is, as you say, that God died on the cross! I believe the 5th Ecumenical Council confirmed this. Now we agree that God cannot die. But if Jesus is man as well as God, and man can die, and the natures cannot be divided, then God also died. But it is precisely because of this that He had to rise from the dead. Peter says it was impossible for Jesus to be held by death. How can this be true of anyone other than God? Concerning whether or not men could kill God, Jesus said, “No one takes My life from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative … and I have authority to take it up again.” John 10:18.
Tim
Hi Tim2,
To what in the life of Christ do you attribute the anointing of God's Holy Spirit? Anything at all?Quote (Tim2 @ May 16 2007,18:20) Martian and WhatisTrue, Thanks for discussing this with me. I think it's very interesting, and I'm learning more from it each day. I hope you are too.
First, to WhatisTrue, I believe we see evidence of two wills of Jesus in His journey to the cross. The will of his human nature is seen in Luke 22:42, “Not My will, but Yours be done.” I believe the will of His Godhead is seen in John 12:27, “Now My soul has become troubled; and what shall I say, 'Father, save Me from this hour?' But for this purpose I came to this hour.” I think in John 12:27 we can even see Jesus pointing to His two wills, referring to the troubling of His soul, but also to His divine will, “For this purpose I came.” This is the only example that's occurred to me so far, but perhaps it is the most important one, since it concerns His most important work, the cross.
Next, to Martian, I would encourage you not to dismiss the Definition of Chalcedon without lots of prayer and consideration, and consultation with Christians. This has been the common belief of millions of Christians for 1600 years. We have good reasons for adhering to it.
First, I would say, it cannot be the case that Jesus is only a man, just like you and me. For He is before all things. Colossians 1:17. I don't see how most of what Paul says concerning Him in Colossians 1:15-20 can be describing a mere man. Clearly Jesus is something more than a man.
But we know that He is a man. 1 Timothy 2:5. John 1:14. Romans 1:3. Hebrews 2.
So how do we reconcile, that Jesus is actually a man, just like us, but He is also before all things, the firstborn of all creation, the first and the last, our Lord and our God, the Prince of life, the Lord of glory, that He existed in the form of God, that He laid the foundation of the earth, that it was impossible for Him to be held by death, that He sanctifies Himself, that the Holy Spirit takes of His, etc? The Bible is abundantly clear that Jesus is man and also something more than man. We don't have a choice in this matter, we have to accept it.
Given this Scriptural witness, I don't see why we cannot just accept that Jesus is man like us, but also Something greater than us, which we will never achieve. This might be hard to accept as logical, but it is Scriptural, so maybe our assumptions need to be changed?
And this does, as you say, create difficulties in understanding whether Christ acted as God or as man in some cases. But I would say that certain actions of Him before He became man are clearly the work of Him as God, such as creating all things; and even His continued work of holding all things together, that cannot be the work of man. But I would add, that because His natures cannot be divided, that everything He did as man and does as man, His Godhead does as well.
Finally, the biggest thing of all is, as you say, that God died on the cross! I believe the 5th Ecumenical Council confirmed this. Now we agree that God cannot die. But if Jesus is man as well as God, and man can die, and the natures cannot be divided, then God also died. But it is precisely because of this that He had to rise from the dead. Peter says it was impossible for Jesus to be held by death. How can this be true of anyone other than God? Concerning whether or not men could kill God, Jesus said, “No one takes My life from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative … and I have authority to take it up again.” John 10:18.
Tim
I dont see a “DUAL NATURE” in this..John 5:19—Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.”
John 6:38—”For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.”
John 8:28, 29—So Jesus said, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me. And He who sent Me is with Me; He has not left Me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to Him.”
John 14:31—”…but so that the world may know that I love the Father, I do exactly as the Father commanded Me.”
Tim2 wrote:
Quote First, to WhatisTrue, I believe we see evidence of two wills of Jesus in His journey to the cross. The will of his human nature is seen in Luke 22:42, “Not My will, but Yours be done.” I believe the will of His Godhead is seen in John 12:27, “Now My soul has become troubled; and what shall I say, 'Father, save Me from this hour?' But for this purpose I came to this hour.” I think in John 12:27 we can even see Jesus pointing to His two wills, referring to the troubling of His soul, but also to His divine will, “For this purpose I came.” This is the only example that's occurred to me so far, but perhaps it is the most important one, since it concerns His most important work, the cross. Again, I appreciate your sincere effort, but I think that what you suggest here is a bit of a stretch. Normal human beings can have mixed emotions about an event, but that does not even begin to suggest that they have two independent wills operating within them.
So far, the evidence you have shown for the 6th Ecumenical Council's doctrine requires a huge leap from scripture to their conclusions. It is far more likely that they simply drew up this doctrine to explain away the scriptural conundrum that the Trinity doctrine creates. (e.g. God can not be tempted but Christ was, etc..)
Tim2 wrote:
But if Jesus is man as well as God, and man can die, and the natures cannot be divided, then God also died
**************Tim, I am shocked that you would concede to such a testimony! Are you willing to deny scripture to keep your creed? I'm not sure what to say, you have me speechless. Except to remind you of three things: God is not a man. God cannot die. God does not change his mind. This is scripture. What you have testified to is falsehood.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
