- This topic has 25,959 replies, 116 voices, and was last updated 1 month, 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
Hi KW,
If the soul of Jesus came in the flesh then such was the case for every man.
It is a nonsense idea.
The man Jesus was the amazing vessel for the big deal.
The Word was made flesh.
Phil 2:6
Who, being in very nature/form of God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
Phil 2:7 but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
Phil 2:8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!Yes T. Not many here believe this scripture as testified by the denial of what is written here and their strategy to get you to focus away from this scripture and accuse you of denying these other scriptures on account of believing this one.
It seems they are in conflict, yet accuse us of being so.
But we believe this scripture and they one’s the quote too. There is no conflict when all scripture is believed.
It all comes down to what your model of God is, the picture you have of God as he or she is in his or her own nature. The Bible presents a very anthropomorphic image of God, in which God has emotions and can change. The fathers used largely Hellenic standards of perfection, which enshrined the immune and the immutable. Hence, God was described, traditionally, as without body, parts, passions, compassion, wholly immutable. Quite a contrast with the biblical model. So we need to put on your thinking caps and consider just who or what we take God to be.
Hi Hogshead1,
Yes you can join the crowds talking about God
or you can get to know Him
and be known by Him.
Hogshead,
The Jews also teach God has no body so that teaching exists in Jewish culture as well as that of the Gentiles.
Anthropomorphism is used figuratively as are other symbolic representations.
Hello again, Ed,
The Bible does present that clearly identify Jesus with God, as per Jn. Then there are others which suggest otherwise. That’s why I said earlier that the Bible is not a book of metaphysics, that it presents snap shots of God which often conflict. As to the crucifixion being stated in Genesis, I do not think so. I find no biblical evidence that it was. I also have trouble with the notion of predestination, God planning it all out ahead of time, as I find predestination wipes out any real degree of human freedom, makes God a cosmic dictator, and also the author of evil.
Hello, Kerwin,
The notion of a wholly immaterial entity came from Hellenic philosophy, not Scripture. It is a dualistic way of seeing reality, whereby the temporal-material world is seen as inherently evil and a big illusion. In contrast, in the Bible, the material world is seen as something inherently good. Humans are not seen as souls stuck in the prison house of the body; we are viewed a psychophysical unities. Everything in Scripture has a physical dimension. This includes God, who is attributed just about every body part, not to mention emotions. Granted, Scripture is speaking metaphorically of God. Still, at a minimum, these metaphors must fit the actual reality of God, mean that God has something analogous to a body. If these metaphors do not at all fit the actual reality of God, then they are meaningless and useless. If teh Incarnation is to have any real meaning at all, then it has to reveal God’s general MO with creation. As such, it is a powerful revelation that God is incarnate throughout the entire universe. Consequently, I view the universe as the body of God. The taboo against making images of God does not mean God is disembodied. Given that we can see but limited parts of teh universe, then any picture we might draw of God’s body is bound to be in accurate.
Hogshead1,
The notion of a wholly immaterial entity came from Hellenic philosophy, not Scripture
It may be a Hellenistic teaching but it also is a Hebrew one based on Genesis 1:1. There was no space for a body to exist in prior to Genesis 1:1.
Helenes were polytheistic and the gods had bodies. Their philosophers may have borrowed the idea of a body-less God from the Vedics-Hindus, the Hebrews, or another people that believed in a body-less God. I doubt they originated it on their own
Hello, Kirwin,
I’m not sure where you came up with the idea that no space existed before creation, as Genesis says nothing about what existed before creation. It is ambiguous on the question of creation ex nihilo. The opening could mean there was absolutely nothing before or that there was some sort of preexistent chaos out of which the world was fashioned. In my metaphysic, God is eternally creative. Hence, before this universe, there was another, different one. So, yes. there was a space-time world before ours. I don’t believe that any immaterial beings exist. Given that extension is a fundamental characteristic of being material, I find extensionless beings to be nonsense. We never encounter anything that is not extended, has no dimensions. A wholly exctensionless entity is a non-existent entity, since it occupies no space and therefore must be said not to exist. A purely extensionless entity is a non-entity, absolute nonsense. Also, when I refer to Hellenic philosophy, I don’t have in mind Greek religions, just certain major schools of philosophy which demeaned the material order, or time and change,such as is found in Plato, also Parmenides and Zeno.
Hi,
The philosophers are happy chatting outside the gate of salvation.
Nothing has changed in that way over 2000 years
Hello, Nick,
Philosophy has always been a major dimension of Christendom. Without philosophy, the church would have sunk into anti-intellectualism and would never have survived. The trouble today is that there is to much what I call cowboy theology. You don’t need philosophy, God forbid you should study theology or church history. Just sit back and take a nice, easy intellectual approach. The result is that the most telling criticism of many churches is that they are downright boring. The sermons are all jellied-donut types. The Sunday-school classes are all a few prayers, coffee, and back on the street. Too many churches are failing to provide the necessary intellectual stimulation to inspire persons to deeper breadth and depth of experience. I view reality as dynamic, not static. You can’t put your foot in the same universe twice. Hence, everything, and I mean everything, has significantly change in the last 2000 years.
Hello again, Nick,
Many have trouble and had trouble with the notion that Jesus is God, because they hold with a static, world-negating mage of God. Following Hellenic conceptions of perfection, they view God as the complete and total antithesis of the spacio-temporal world. Hence, God and the world are like oil and water; they do not mix. What creatures have, God most definitely does not. Hence, God is seen as void of body, parts, passions, compassion, wholly immutable. The divine and the human are total opposites, God is the complete negation and annihilation of our humanness. But that is not the way the Bible sees God. As I explained the biblical God is a highly anthropomorphic God. Furthermore, I don’t know of too many persons who would want to become united to a God who would sweep away all our human characteristics. That certainly would be a depersonalizing, dehumanizing kind of experience. When we strip away all humanlike characteristics from God, we make God anything but transcendent. Indeed, a God without feeling is inferior to even an amoeba, who at least has some degree of feeling. Also, we end of with two circles which never intersect, one denotes the temporal-material world; the other, God. As such, it appears that both God and the world are part of a larger, all-inclusive whole which transcends any one of them. What to we call this whole, then? Meta-God?
Hi hoghead1,
The end of your faith is the salvation of your soul as Peter said.
Hot air does not take you there.
I believe that God is love. Now, when you love someone you do not seek to coerce them with threats of punishment. Hence, I believe God saves everyone, not just those who hold with certain doctrines. Too often, faith has been allowed to collapse into intellectual ascent to certain doctrines. it’s more important what you belie than how you live. I think it more important to God how you live. However, the deeper our faith, the more questions we have. Hence, theology, philosophy, biblical studies, all are important as well. So doctrines and teachings are not just all hot air. They all help enrich the salvation process for you.
Yes, that touches on some key points I made in my earlier posts. Many think God is the complete and total negation of creation. That means we can know only what God is not, not what God is. Acts is challenging that model of God. Also, bear in mind that Paul has trouble with the world of scholarship in his day. The Greeks were very prejudicial against Jews, very anti-Semitic. hence, he would feel deeply alienated from the academies.
Hi hoghead,
So having discarded scripture as a foundation you are now able to make pronouncements such as God saves everyone?
Too often, faith has been allowed to collapse into intellectual ascent to certain doctrines. it’s more important what you belie than how you live. I think it more important to God how you live. However, the deeper our faith, the more questions we have. Hence, theology, philosophy, biblical studies, all are important as well. So doctrines and teachings are not just all hot air. They all help enrich the salvation process for you.
Except the Trinity is not a biblical doctrine. A philosophical one perhaps.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
