Experiment.

[MennoSota]

God by nature is spirit. Jesus was not Spirit He was flesh and blood.
Jesus took on the form of man. He added to the nature of God
This was the first time God took on flesh and shed that flesh on the cross.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I take it you are not Trinitarian.

 

[RichWh1]

I take it you are not Trinitarian.

Wrong. I am trinitarian. I was not saying the Son is not God ; what I was saying is that the person of Jesus did not exist before His birth in Bethlehem.
John 1:1 shows that the Word is God and God is eternal. No one said he is not.
When I said God is spirit I was talking about the Triune God, not just the Father.
When I said Jesus did not exist before his birth I was talking about the man, not the Christ.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MennoSota]

Wrong. I am trinitarian. I was not saying the Son is not God ; what I was saying is that the person of Jesus did not exist before His birth in Bethlehem.
John 1:1 shows that the Word is God and God is eternal. No one said he is not.
When I said God is spirit I was talking about the Triune God, not just the Father.
When I said Jesus did not exist before his birth I was talking about the man, not the Christ.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So, Jesus in the form of human flesh did not exist until conception? Okay. But the person of God the Son has always existed, just as the person's of God the Father and God the Holy Spirit have always existed...correct? Please clarify.

 

[RichWh1]

So, Jesus in the form of human flesh did not exist until conception? Okay. But the person of God the Son has always existed, just as the person's of God the Father and God the Holy Spirit have always existed...correct? Please clarify.

Correct. The Son always existed. The man Jesus did not. The Word took on flesh and dwelt among us



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MennoSota]

Correct. The Son always existed. The man Jesus did not. The Word took on flesh and dwelt among us



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for the clarification. I concur.

 

[Arsenios]

God by nature is spirit. Jesus was not Spirit He was flesh and blood.
Jesus took on the form of man. He added to the nature of God
This was the first time God took on flesh and shed that flesh on the cross.

By taking on human form He did not add to the Nature of God...

That view would be heresy...


Arsenios

 

[Josiah]

Wrong. I am trinitarian. I was not saying the Son is not God ; what I was saying is that the person of Jesus did not exist before His birth in Bethlehem.
John 1:1 shows that the Word is God and God is eternal. No one said he is not.
When I said God is spirit I was talking about the Triune God, not just the Father.
When I said Jesus did not exist before his birth I was talking about the man, not the Christ.

Um.....

The Son IS God (as is the Father and the Holy Spirit).

See John 8:58. See John 1:1-18 where the Bible says that the "Word" is God and was at Creation and then equates the Word with JESUS (not only the Son). Also see Jude 25 and 2 Timothy 1:9 et al

There is much mystery here.... stuff beyond and outside the normal concepts of physics. Yes, Jesus was incarnate at the Annunciation (celebrated on Monday) but JESUS (100% God and 100% man) ALWAYS existed as such; remember that the Divine Nature "communicates" (the theological word used) with the Human Nature.... the two natures being INSEPARABLE (although not blended)... so that the Bible is right: JESUS was present at Creation, long before March 25 of the year 4 BC. If you can't wrap your brain around this, join the club - NO ONE for 2000 years has been able to do so, which is why it's called "the MYSTERY of the Two Natures of Christ." IMO, best to just accept what God says as God says it - and shut up. God knows. God is correct. That's good enough.

This is fundamental orthodox ecumenical theology. Here's a Baptist speaking briefly on this, Dr. John Piper, https://www.desiringgod.org/message...the-word/excerpts/before-time-began-jesus-was





.




.

 

[Andrew]

Um.....

The Son IS God (as is the Father and the Holy Spirit).

See John 8:58. See John 1:1-18 where the Bible says that the "Word" is God and was at Creation and then equates the Word with JESUS (not only the Son). Also see Jude 25 and 2 Timothy 1:9 et al

There is much mystery here.... stuff beyond and outside the normal concepts of physics. Yes, Jesus was incarnate at the Annunciation (celebrated on Monday) but JESUS (100% God and 100% man) ALWAYS existed as such; remember that the Divine Nature "communicates" (the theological word used) with the Human Nature.... the two natures being INSEPARABLE (although not blended)... so that the Bible is right: JESUS was present at Creation, long before March 25 of the year 4 BC. If you can't wrap your brain around this, join the club - NO ONE for 2000 years has been able to do so, which is why it's called "the MYSTERY of the Two Natures of Christ." IMO, best to just accept what God says as God says it - and shut up. God knows. God is correct. That's good enough.

This is fundamental orthodox ecumenical theology. Here's a Baptist speaking briefly on this, Dr. John Piper, https://www.desiringgod.org/message...the-word/excerpts/before-time-began-jesus-was





.




.

Rich is agreeing with you that the Son is God, he says "I am not saying that the Son is not God"

 

[RichWh1]

Thank you Andrew. It seems Josiah gets Jesus mixed up with the Christ
Jesus is a name. Christ is a title.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Josiah]

Thank you Andrew. It seems Josiah gets Jesus mixed up with the Christ
Jesus is a name. Christ is a title.

Nope.

I'm just affirming the Mystery of the Two Natures of Christ - which includes the pre-existence of Jesus. If all are in agreement (which frankly I'd expect), cool.

And I'm saying that the Son IS Jesus. Again, if all are in agreement, then cool.

I didn't say the post was wrong, I just commented.



.

 

[Pedrito]

==============================================================================================

[[ This was originally posted on 26th March (Sydney time). It displayed as Post #100 at the time. It has since disappeared. So I’m posting it again. This is the second Post of mine that I have discovered has disappeared. The other was in the ‘There simply is no proof!’ thread. I reposted that one already. ]]​

Post #99 (MennoSota), with respect to my Post #98:

Do you consider your self to be an individual "church group" with a membership of one?

What a strange question.

I have already said that I attend Bible studies (both physical and online via Skype) instead of “attending church”. That means I meet with believers of like mind – people seeking God’s truth from the Text Book (Reference Material) that God left with us for our learning and edification. (2 Timothy 3:15-17)

That is what the early gatherings of believers did – they studied what we call the “Old Testament” (the Inspired Hebrew Scriptures – they were the only Scriptures available to them at the time), plus any Apostolic teaching they had been exposed to. (That Apostolic teaching is now in written form for us).

So we of like mind are following in the footsteps of those believers, but armed with the complete set of relevant information.

Modern-day denominationalism has its roots in the 1 Corinthians 3:1-4 situation, which links denominationalism with carnality:
1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it , neither yet now are ye able.
3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

==============================================================================================

It seems you are conveniently twisting to avoid your own judgment upon your self.

I request some specific examples of my supposed “twisting”.

==============================================================================================

Moreso, God determines each person's eternal destiny, by justly judging our sin. His punishment, whatever it is, is also just. It is the foolish man who declares that God can't possibly condemn sinners for eternity. "Who are we to talk back to God?"

Totally correct.

But it is the even more foolish man that seeks to accuse God of actions and intents that are based on sources other than what He has clearly revealed in His Wonderful Inspired Word to us.

==============================================================================================
==============================================================================================

P.S. I wonder how MoreCoffee considers his “Experiment” is going.

==============================================================================================

 

[MoreCoffee]

==============================================================================================

P.S. I wonder how MoreCoffee considers his “Experiment” is going.[/color]

==============================================================================================

I am wondering what the current topic has to do with the topic raised in the first post in this thread.

 

[MennoSota]

==============================================================================================

[[ This was originally posted on 26th March (Sydney time). It displayed as Post #100 at the time. It has since disappeared. So I’m posting it again. This is the second Post of mine that I have discovered has disappeared. The other was in the ‘There simply is no proof!’ thread. I reposted that one already. ]]​

Post #99 (MennoSota), with respect to my Post #98:


What a strange question.

I have already said that I attend Bible studies (both physical and online via Skype) instead of “attending church”. That means I meet with believers of like mind – people seeking God’s truth from the Text Book (Reference Material) that God left with us for our learning and edification. (2 Timothy 3:15-17)

That is what the early gatherings of believers did – they studied what we call the “Old Testament” (the Inspired Hebrew Scriptures – they were the only Scriptures available to them at the time), plus any Apostolic teaching they had been exposed to. (That Apostolic teaching is now in written form for us).

So we of like mind are following in the footsteps of those believers, but armed with the complete set of relevant information.

Modern-day denominationalism has its roots in the 1 Corinthians 3:1-4 situation, which links denominationalism with carnality:
1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it , neither yet now are ye able.
3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

==============================================================================================



I request some specific examples of my supposed “twisting”.

==============================================================================================



Totally correct.

But it is the even more foolish man that seeks to accuse God of actions and intents that are based on sources other than what He has clearly revealed in His Wonderful Inspired Word to us.

==============================================================================================
==============================================================================================

P.S. I wonder how MoreCoffee considers his “Experiment” is going.

==============================================================================================

Pedro, that's called a cult.

 

[Arsenios]

Nope.

I'm just affirming the Mystery of the Two Natures of Christ - which includes the pre-existence of Jesus. If all are in agreement (which frankly I'd expect), cool.

And I'm saying that the Son IS Jesus. Again, if all are in agreement, then cool.

I didn't say the post was wrong, I just commented.
.

The EOC understands the person as hypostasis...

eg The person does not resolve into component parts...

I remember as an atheist in a psychology class where the text read: "Man is a product of his nature and his nurture..."

I balked at the term "product"...

Turns out Orthodoxy agrees with that assessment...


Arsenios

 

[MoreCoffee]

The EOC understands the person as hypostasis...

eg The person does not resolve into component parts...

I remember as an atheist in a psychology class where the text read: "Man is a product of his nature and his nurture..."

I balked at the term "product"...

Turns out Orthodoxy agrees with that assessment...


Arsenios

I imagine that the psychology text was discussing human psychology rather than ontology. If the Orthodox get worked up by psychologists saying that a person's physiology is determined by genetic as well as experiential factors then the Orthodox are weird.

:scared:

 

[Pedrito]

==============================================================================================

Post #113 (MennoSota):

Pedro, that's called a cult.

That statement was made in response to my Post #111, which was quoted in #113.

==============================================================================================

So, just what was being called a cult by MennoSota in Post #113?

Was it my attending Bible studies with people seeking God’s truth from the Text Book (Reference Material) that God left with us for our learning and edification? (2 Timothy 3:15-17)

Was it my pointing out yet again that modern-day denominationalism has its roots in the 1 Corinthians 3:1-4 situation? Didn’t the Apostle Paul label such budding denominationalism as carnal?

==============================================================================================

And why wasn’t my request for specific examples of my supposed “twisting” (“It seems you are conveniently twisting to avoid your own judgment upon your self.”), honoured? Could MennoSota’s statement be without foundation?

We remember his comment in Post #2 of the ‘Thoughts on the annihilationism Thread’ thread [emphasis added]: “Annihilationism is best known in Jehovah's Witness and Mormon beliefs. Like free-will, it is developed by misapplying a couple verses while ignoring the forest of verses that make it untenable.” Requests for “the forest of verses” to be tabled, have similarly been ignored. So that statement seems to be without foundation, as well.

So I hereby request again, both definitive examples of my supposed “twisting”, and the “forest of verses” claimed by MennoSota to exist..

As a practical alternative, MennoSota could elect to confess to a continued issuing of unfounded statements (could they even be labelled ‘dishonest’?), and publicly commit to the discontinuance of that practice – a practice which casts both doubt and disrepute upon the beliefs he has thereby been seeking to defend.

(In this case, I strongly suggest that silence is definitely not golden.)

==============================================================================================

 

[atpollard]

So, just what was being called a cult by MennoSota in Post #113?

Was it my attending Bible studies with people seeking God’s truth from the Text Book (Reference Material) that God left with us for our learning and edification? (2 Timothy 3:15-17)

While any attempt to explain the thoughts of another involves conjecture, I can offer a ‘guess’.

First, the definition of “cult” most applicable in this case: a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.

Evidence for you being part of a “relatively small group” come from your post ...

I have already said that I attend Bible studies (both physical and online via Skype) instead of “attending church”. That means I meet with believers of like mind – people seeking God’s truth from the Text Book (Reference Material) that God left with us for our learning and edification. (2 Timothy 3:15-17)

Modern-day denominationalism has its roots in the 1 Corinthians 3:1-4 situation, which links denominationalism with carnality:

Attending a “bible study” as opposed to any local congregation, plus the blanket rejection of all denominations (and thus the majority of Christians world wide) together suggest a small, isolated group.

So the only remaining point of contention is are your beliefs or practices regarded as strange. Since MennoSota accused your post of describing a cult, he must have thought so. However, that is only speculation on my part since I do not have access to MenoSota’s inner thoughts.

For what little it might be worth, I find the practice of isolating oneself from a local congregation and substituting something else in place of the church to indeed be a “cult-like” practice. Whether their beliefs are heretical or not is a separate issue.

 

[Pedrito]

==============================================================================================

MoreCoffee makes another good point in Post #5:

Mystery can take you so far and paradox may take you to the same place as mystery but what do we do with the really nasty things like the genocide of Amalek and the joy one is to experience as the babies one one's enemies are dashed against the rocks? I can't see a good way to make those passages true and still have a good God who is loving and moral.

Plus in Post #12 [extract]:

…I want to understand and explain what the bible stories mean and at the same time love God and trust him and what is written in the holy scriptures. But what I want and what is possible may not be the same thing. Believing in God is not hard but believing in God and accepting that genocide is okay and that the tenth plague was okay or that the people killed in some way deserved it is not easy. Genocide is bad isn't it? Or is it really okay to do it?...

And from Post #17 [extract]:

...But there still remains the moral issues raised by atheists and present in holy scripture. Genocide is either okay or it is not. I believe it is not okay. No amount of explaining away can make genocide good and moral even if God is the one who did it. Just because a bible story says God committed genocide that does not make it good, or does it, in your opinion?

==============================================================================================

1. As an aside only, one could wonder if MoreCoffee is somehow doubting the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church – a church for which he has been such a strong advocate in times past (and probably still is).

2. Stated succinctly only (at this stage), mankind has rebelled against God both collectively and individually. Even babies carry the taint of what is termed “original sin”. Ever since the original rebellion, mankind as a whole has been living on borrowed time, in accordance with what could be termed God’s Master Plan. Mankind has no inherent right to life. None.

3. Something to ponder: which can be considered more detestable from a human point of view:
- Actions as described in the quotes above; OR
- Sentencing people who have never heard the Gospel message (or were not preselected for “salvation”), to spend an eternity in overwhelming, screaming agony?

==============================================================================================

 

[Pedrito]

==============================================================================================

Post #117:

...First, the definition of “cult” most applicable in this case: a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.

Evidence for you being part of a “relatively small group” come from your post ...

...Attending a “bible study” as opposed to any local congregation, plus the blanket rejection of all denominations (and thus the majority of Christians world wide) together suggest a small, isolated group...

...For what little it might be worth, I find the practice of isolating oneself from a local congregation and substituting something else [[I had mentioned group Bible Study - Pedrito]] in place of the church to indeed be a “cult-like” practice. Whether their beliefs are heretical or not is a separate issue.

Let’s see.

==============================================================================================

1. With respect to the following accusation levelled at me: ”the blanket rejection of all denominations (and thus the majority of Christians world wide)”:

Did I not say in Post #98 [emphasis added]: “I submit that any “Christian” organisation that, or any “Christian” individual who, teaches and/or believes other than what God revealed in His Holy Revelation to us, is mocking the God that they state they believe in, serve, are saved by, or however they express it.

That leads to the much-avoided question: "Which of the church groups within Christendom is the one, the only one if any, that is actually not mocking Him?"

I would make a beeline for that, could it be identified.”


So, so much for that unfounded accusation.


What other gems of “wisdom” can we find, I wonder?

==============================================================================================

 

[atpollard]

1. With respect to the following accusation levelled at me: ”the blanket rejection of all denominations (and thus the majority of Christians world wide)”:
[snip]
So, so much for that unfounded accusation.

Not unfounded, but from your own lips ...

Was it my pointing out yet again that modern-day denominationalism has its roots in the 1 Corinthians 3:1-4 situation? Didn’t the Apostle Paul label such budding denominationalism as carnal?

Do you, or do you not, reject denominationalism as ‘carnal’ and therefore reject all denominations?
That is all I accused you of ... what you yourself claimed.